Equity Issues for Today's Educational Leaders: Meeting the Challenge of Creating Equitable Schools for All

Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders Meeting the Challenge of Creating Equitable Schools for All

Edited by Patrick M. Jenlink

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD EDUCATION A division of ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.

Lanham • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Rowman & Littlefield Education A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.rowmaneducation.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 by Patrick M. Jenlink All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Equity issues for today’s educational leaders : meeting the challenge of creating equitable schools for all / edited by Patrick M. Jenlink. p. cm. ISBN 978-1-60709-139-4 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60709-140-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60709-141-7 (electronic) 1. Educational equalization—United States. 2. Children with social disabilities— Education—United States. 3. Public schools—United States. 4. Educational leadership—United States. I. Jenlink, Patrick M. LC213.2.E685 2009 379.2’60973—dc22 2009016051 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

⬁ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

This work is dedicated to the memory of Sandra Lowrey A friend, colleague, and champion of equity, who met the challenges of leadership and offered us an example by which to guide our lives as leaders and human beings.

Contents

Preface

vii

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction: Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders Patrick M. Jenlink

1

Part I Introduction: Creating Equitable Schools for All

9

1

2

The Meaning of Equity in Creating and Leading Equitable Schools: Revitalizing a Democratic Principle Patrick M. Jenlink

13

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders: An Equity-Based Approach Patrick M. Jenlink

33

Part II Introduction: Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders 3

4

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education Diane Trautman and Sandra Stewart Educational Equity and School Choice: The Effect of Voucher Programs on Access to an Equitable Education and the Role of the School Leader J. Craig Coleman v

53 57

73

vi

Contents

5

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides Lee Stewart

6

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student Dalane Bouillion

7

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for EnglishLanguage Learners: Using Reflection and Criticality Julia Ballenger and Sharon Ninness

117

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education Betty J. Alford

135

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Educational Leaders Janet Tareilo

151

Coda: The Equity Problem and the Work of Educational Leaders Patrick M. Jenlink

171

8

9

10

About the Contributors

87 103

175

Preface

The question of equity for all students pervades schools today, and the answer is not forthcoming without committed educators taking the lead in acknowledging that schools are not now places where all students experience equity. Quite the contrary, schools are hallmarked with inequities that filter into the lives of students and teachers. Crystal M. England, in Divided We Fail: Issues of Equity in American Schools, published in 2005, discussed the inequities endemic in schools today, denoting the spectrum of issues essential to serving the needs of all students in our schools: inequity within diversity, inequity within assessment, inequity within standards, and inequity in curriculum. The telling point for educational leaders today is that inequity in American schools does not discriminate. That is, it is present in all schools regardless of whether the school is rural, suburban, or urban. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social class, or origin, inequity is prevalent in all schools. Whether schools are rich or poor in fiscal resources. Whether the demographic profile is predominantly white versus nonwhite. Inequity is endemic in all school settings, and principals, teachers, students, parents—all stakeholders—are confronted with the responsibility of addressing issues of equity and working to eliminate inequity daily. Central to the conversations that are a part of the day-to-day work of educational leaders in contemporary schools is a concern for how to ensure equity against the backdrop of a demographically diverse society and its educational system, and in consideration of the external forces pressing on schools and those who work within the walls and classrooms. External forces such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, legislation at the state and federal levels for standards and accountability, the ever-growing consideration for vouchers, the embedded and problematic nature of ideological and political vii

viii

Preface

dominance, and a myriad of other forces felt by school leaders and parents daily. The ever-present economic challenges and fiscal constraints felt by schools are overshadowed by the history of a society that has yet to address racism, classism, genderism, sexism, and all the other “isms” that rage against our schools, our children, and the very ideals of a democratic society. To be successful in today’s complex and ever challenging climate of schools and society, school leaders need to understand issues of equity and what differentiates equity from recent reform efforts focused on excellence and quality. As well, there is a concern for the recent divergence away from the earlier, historically significant efforts in America to address inequity and injustice, efforts such as Brown v. Board of Education, Lau v. Nichols, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Women’s Educational Equity Act passed in 1975, which set a tone in America that was to lead to new considerations of equal access to educational opportunity and begin the work of bringing equity to our educational systems and schools. At a time when America’s schools face many of the most difficult challenges ever, the contributing authors of Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders: Meeting the Challenges of Creating Equitable Schools for All return the reader to an agenda for addressing equity in schools, emphasizing the need to reexamine past reform efforts and the work ahead for educational leaders in reshaping schools and schooling, and in concert attending to the social responsibility of furthering the ideals of a democratic society. The authors present an important discussion of equity issues necessary to fostering a clear understanding of equity as a social and moral agenda and of educational leaders’ responsibility in ensuring equity for all. The underlying purpose of Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders is to present a collection of chapters that will illuminate and critique, as well as draw to the foreground both historical and contemporary factors that have contributed to issues of equity in schools. Most important, the purpose is to provide a survey of the issues as well as provide content and pedagogical tools for students and practitioners of leadership to study and understand their work in dealing with equity issues against a backdrop of a changing America and the demands placed on contemporary schools. Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders is organized into two parts: “Creating Equitable Schools for All” and “Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders,” respectively. In part 1, contributing authors focus on the meaning of equity in creating and leading equitable schools and on the preparation of educational leaders. In part 2, contributing authors focus on issues of gender, funding (vouchers), achievement, special needs students, English-language learners, cultural diversity, and access to postsecondary education. Each issue is situated within the many challenges faced by leaders in today’s schools. The set of issues addressed by the authors provides impor-

Preface

ix

tant insight as to the complex and dynamic nature of multiple equity issues confronted daily in the school. Equity has been—historically—and continues to be a critical and problematic concern in all aspects of America’s educational systems, schools, and the day-to-day activities that take place therein. Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders provides a pragmatic and critical examination of equity on multiple levels and from multiple perspectives. The authors remind us that we, as educational leaders and social agents of a democratic society, have a moral and social responsibility to ensure that equity issues are addressed in schools. The authors also remind us that addressing issues of equity through the day-to-day practices and decisions that shape and guide the lives of teachers and students is not an option. Educational leaders who embrace equity as a mantra of leadership work to shape the present and future of all students and others in the school, influencing the formation of a future citizenry for a democratic society—a citizenry charged with carrying forth the work of fighting inequities wherever and whenever they emerge.

Acknowledgments

This book began as a conversation among principal preparation faculty, individuals who themselves had served in the role of principal not too long ago and had concerns about issues of equity they had faced during their respective experiences in the practical world of public schools. Like me, these faculty members share a concern for the direction that schools have taken in recent years and the need to ensure that the basic ideals of democratic schools, such as equity and justice and diversity, are realized in the face of external forces that work against a democratic society. As well, the faculty members share a concern for principal preparation that is instructed by an understanding of and need for equity as a social and moral center for educational leadership. At first, the focus was on social justice and the questions that pervade the workings of society and schools. Over time, the focus narrowed to issues of equity and a consideration for some basic questions: What is equity? Who is responsible for ensuring equity in schools? What are the pressing issues that educational leaders must consider? As the conversation evolved, so did the scope and purpose of the book. After nearly two years the conversation translated into the chapters and the rich perspectives presented, along with pragmatic renderings of equity accompanied by a detailed set of learning activities and pedagogical strategies to guide future generations of educational leaders as they prepare for their first principalship. Addressing the topic of equity is no small undertaking and addressing equity required much work and concerted effort on the part of many individuals. First, I wish to thank the authors for not only believing in the idea but also committing to the realization of a volume with diverse perspectives and voices about equity, informed from personal practical experience in xi

xii

Acknowledgments

schools. Each draft and revision brought refinement and clarity to the chapters. Your patience is appreciated and your contribution valued. Second, I would like to thank Rowman & Littlefield Education, Tom Koerner, and the editorial staff for their vision in seeing the value of such a work. Working with a quality publisher and the folks that do the work to translate a manuscript into a finished book is a marvelous experience. Third, I would like to express my appreciation to Becky Fredrickson, who, as a doctoral research assistant, invested many hours copyediting the words of the contributing authors, refining the technical quality of the work, and at times drawing attention to substantive issues through her questioning. Becky became not only a second set of eyes, but equally important a voice in my head that kept me focused and on task. I would also like to acknowledge the many students in our principal preparation program who contributed to the conversation along the way, providing a practical perspective as a sounding board. Finally, I wish to recognize my institution, Stephen F. Austin State University, for supporting this project and enabling the contributing authors to realize a work that we believe will further an important and much needed discourse on equity issues for educational leaders, and the challenge of creating equitable schools for all students.

Introduction: Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders Patrick M. Jenlink

Crystal M. England, in Divided We Fail: Issues of Equity in American Schools (2005), discussed the inequities endemic in schools and classrooms across America. In particular, England denotes, with pragmatic examples, the spectrum of issues that are essential to serving the needs of all students in our schools: inequity within diversity, inequity within assessment, inequity within standards, and inequity in curriculum. The pursuit of equity for students in schools is an ongoing struggle, a struggle against the inequities of society mirrored in our educational institutions and schools. As a society that has claimed public schools are the great equalizers, when we look within we find that schools all too often further exacerbate rather than transcend the social, racial, and ethnic divides of our communities and our society. Larson and Ovando (2001) explain: “Of the many challenges facing public schools today, none is more formidable than eliminating racial, ethnic, and economic inequities in educational opportunity and student achievement” (p. 1). A compounding factor in the struggle for equity, Darling-Hammond (1997) suggests, “is the disparity in the availability and distribution of well-qualified teachers” (p. 273). The inequities that mark our schools result in “inequitable outcomes” for some students, characterized as “patterned polarization” of student achievement and access to educational opportunity and economic resources (Pounder, Reitzug, & Young, 2002, p. 270). The telling point for educational leaders today is that inequity in American schools does not discriminate. That is, it is present in all schools regardless of whether the school is rural, suburban, or urban. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or social class, inequity pervades schools and the teaching and learning within. Whether schools are rich or 1

2

Introduction

poor in fiscal resources or whether the demographic profile is predominantly white versus nonwhite. Inequity is endemic in all school settings, and principals, teachers, students, parents, and other cultural workers are confronted with the responsibility of addressing issues of equity and countering inequity daily. Equity is not easy; it requires examination of emotional and value-laden issues such as privilege, marginalization, affirmative action, discrimination, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class among the more important. Equity is also not easy because it requires action beyond rhetoric; it requires individuals to step forward and engage in a socially and morally responsible way, to take an equity stance. Equity requires embracing differences and the conflict that often arises across and within. And, as important, equity requires that those committed to achieving equity must embrace new ways of learning, as hooks (1994) explains: “Confronting one another across differences means that we must change ideas about how we learn; rather than fearing conflict we have to find ways to use it as a catalyst for new thinking, for growth” (p. 113).

CENTERING EQUITY IN LEADERSHIP PREPARATION AND PRACTICE All educational leadership preparation is a form of ideology. Each preparation program is related to the educational ideology held by a particular faculty member or parent institution, even though the relationship may not be made explicit. There is no such thing as value-free leadership preparation just as there is no such thing as a value-free education for children. People are infused with the ideologies and biases of their society. Faculty in leadership preparation programs and educators who enter these programs are members of the society. They do not stand objectively outside of it as observers of its social problems. The ideologies and biases of society infuse in the subjectivities of the individual, and when faculty and students engage in a teaching and learning relationship, they enter a relationship where biases and subjectivities are exchanged and experienced, often resulting in conflicts. Centering Equity—Creating Pedagogical Space The critical factor in preparing educational leaders is to create a space in which faculty and students alike examine, critically, the fact that biases and perceptions are not neutral. We all carry ideological imprints from society, in lesser or greater degrees, which influence biases and subjectivities about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and class. As educational-

Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders

3

leadership-preparation faculty and students enter the struggle for equity, they are necessarily situated within conflicts arising across and within differences, and they are confronted with the tensions created by circuits of power and privilege related to gender, race, and class. The intractability of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class as factors in preparing educational leaders is paralleled by intractability of equity as a factor in practicing educational leadership toward the purpose of creating equitable schools for all children. In the argument for centering equity in leadership preparation and practice, Poplin Gosetti and Rusch (1995) are instructive when they note that the texts, conversations, writings and professional learning activities that construct our knowing and understanding of leadership come from an embedded privileged perspective which largely ignores issues of status, gender, and race and insidiously perpetuates a view of leadership that discourages diversity and equity. (p. 12)

How does this interpret with respect to centering equity? Educators are often not aware of the biased constructions that frame their perceptions of and interactions with others. Therefore, one of the greatest obstacles to establishing more trusting and equitable relationships with the multiple communities we serve is accepting that our perceptions of others are susceptible to misperception and bias. Selecting wisely the curriculum and pedagogical strategies integrated into leadership preparation should be guided by criteria that ensure equity is at the center of the teaching and learning relationship. Centering Equity—Mediation and Sense-Making William Foster (1986), in his Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational Administration, offers insight in the case of centering equity when he points out that leadership derives from context and ideas of individuals who influence each other and that language is the key mediating tool of social influence. As Foster challenges, this requires that professors and students engage in sense-making: “Leadership’s goal is reaching a standard of rational discourse in which all arguments can be heard without regard to the class or status of the respondent” (p. 186). Mediation across and within difference, as a pedagogical tool in leadership preparation, offers an avenue of discourse and learning that centers equity as a guiding principle in the learning relationship and at the same time hallmarks equity as an intended equity outcome preparation and practice, for preparation faculty and students alike. Mediation across difference as a factor in centering equity will require of those individuals undertaking the quest for equity that they be aware of and

4

Introduction

sensitive to the understanding that difference and equity are learned and that they are a critical step in efforts to change a culture marked by inequities and the underlying ideologies and politics that reify that culture over time, whether that culture is the one in which leadership preparation is cast or the one of the public school where the leader carries out his or her practice. It is also important to understand the importance of critically examining the logics of inequity that are held in communities and schools across our nation (Larson & Ovando, 2001). If we wish to engage in authentic processes of mediation and sense-making, leadership-preparation faculty and students alike will “have to confront the difficult realities that make intentional and unintentional systems if inequity in schools and communities appear rational” (p. 4). This will require making a priority understanding the “challenges that our society’s lingering constructions of race, ethnicity, and class bring to any process of multiracial and multiethnic sense-making” (p. 5). Centering Equity—The Need for Self-Critical Examination Centering equity in educational leadership and practice draws into focus the importance of self-critical examination of one’s beliefs and biases. One of the greatest obstacles to establishing more trusting and equitable relationships within the communities we serve as faculty in preparation programs or practitioners in schools is accepting that “our perceptions of others are susceptible to misperception and bias. Such acceptance is especially difficult because educators generally believe that they are wholly objective and fully capable of interpreting situations and treating individuals in entirely neutral ways” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 64). Educational leaders for equity in schools will necessarily need to examine their own self-identities and the ideological imprints and biases present, ever mindful that, as Delpit (1995) notes the best solutions will arise from the acceptance that alternative worldviews exist—that there are valid alternative means to any end, as well as valid alternative ends in themselves. We all interpret behaviors, information, and situations through our own cultural lenses; these lenses operate involuntarily, below the level of conscious awareness, making it seem that our own view is simply “the way it is.” Learning to interpret across cultures demands reflecting on our own experiences, analyzing our own culture, examining and comparing varying perspectives. We must consciously and voluntarily make our cultural lenses apparent. (p. 151)

Identifying and naming particular cultural and ideological perspectives through which one’s experiences and perceptions are filtered is essential to centering equity; embracing equity as a leadership stance requires first self-critically examining one’s own ideological imprints and their particular

Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders

5

origins—bracketing oneself so as to understand the origins of one’s subjectivities and the influences they have in one’s decisions and social practices. Centering Equity—A Culture of Careful Listening Centering equity in educational leadership preparation and practice is a form of discourse situated in larger historical and political and privileged discourses that pervade the university preparation program and the public school as contexts where the discourse originates and is kept alive. This is the ideological inheritance of preparation programs as well as public schools, cultural biases and perspectives are passed on, generation to generation. Centering equity requires first that equity becomes a priority for critically examining existing programmatic structures and underlying beliefs. As well, a critical examination in schools is required of existing structures and beliefs if inequities are to be identified and addressed. Centering equity will require a culture of listening, hearing the biases and perspectives shared by others. Shields, Larocque, and Oberg (2002), in their essay “A Dialogue about Race and Ethnicity in Education: Struggling to Understand Issues in Cross-Cultural Leadership,” are instructive with respect to a culture of listening: As we struggle to understand how issues of race and ethnicity affect the educational experiences of all students, we must work to overcome our prejudices by listening carefully to those whose backgrounds, perspectives, and understandings differ from our own. We must examine popular assumptions as well as the politically correct stereotypes that educators often use to explain what is happening in today’s multicultural society and its increasingly ethnically heterogeneous schools. (p. 134)

Centering equity will require us to create a culture of listening, listening for the origins of inequities across and within differences. Such listening must be fostered as a cultural practice in leadership preparation and carried forward into leadership practice. The work of creating a culture of listening will require that professors of leadership-preparation programs and their students maintain an “open conversation, to examine and reexamine [one’s] perceptions and those of others, constantly looking beneath the surface and seeking alternative explanations and ways of understanding” (Shields, Larocque, & Oberg, 2002, p. 134).

OVERVIEW OF CONTENTS In the chapters that follow, the reader will join with the contributing authors in a series of explorations of equity issues that attempt to illuminate

6

Introduction

the meaning and nature of equity as it relates to creating equitable schools for all children in America. The authors draw on their own practical experience as principal and engage the reader, through a critical pragmatic lens, in examining specific equity issues. The authors, respectively, delineate equity issues and discuss the educational leader’s role and responsibility with respect to addressing the equity issue and ensuring that inequities associated with the issue are dealt with accordingly. As important, the authors explore many of the historical and often problematic issues of society mirrored in schools today. Equity Issues for Educational Leaders: Creating Equitable Schools for All is organized into two parts. In part 1—“Creating Equitable Schools for All”—chapter 1 presents an examination of equity, drawing a distinction between equity and equality. The author examines historical events that have helped shape equity as an educational agenda against a backdrop of race and class struggles in America. The author also draws attention to the work of leadership-preparation programs and faculty in moving equity to the foreground of learning to lead and the need to cultivate a leadership stance for equity. Chapter 2 presents an argument for an equity-based pedagogy. The author examines schools as contested political sites and the importance of understanding both “politics of difference” and “politics of engagement” in relation to preparing leaders for creating and sustaining equitable schools. Several perspectives are introduced for consideration in reconceptualizing pedagogy as equity-based, as well as for consideration in rethinking preparation programs for preparing leaders for equitable schools. Part 2—“Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders”—(chapters 3–9), presents a collection of perspectives, based on practical experience, focused on equity issues that educational leaders will face in schools today. In each chapter a different issue is drawn into specific relief, examined in relation to the world and work of educational leaders at the school level. Here the authors examine such issues as gender, vouchers, special needs students, diversity, achievement gap, access to postsecondary education, and Englishlanguage learners. Central to each chapter is the concern for mediating the struggle for equity that continues to plague America’s schools. The underlying intent for each chapter is to illuminate equity as a leadership responsibility; a moral and social obligation to all children. Each author complements the examination of equity issues with a set of classroom learning activities and pedagogical strategies to be used in leadership-preparation courses and professional development experiences. The closing chapter offers the reader considerations for taking up the struggle for equity as a hallmark of our democratic society. Bringing equity to the center is argued as a quintessential priority in the preparation and practice of educational leaders.

Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders

7

CLOSING THOUGHTS Larson and Ovando (2001) are correct in arguing that as educational leaders “we do not stand outside of our society as objective observers of its social problem; we are all infused with its biases” (p. 3). When we consider the fact that “our educational institutions mirror our societies” (p. 3), we are confronted with a challenge of creating equitable schools for all children amid the historical and contemporary trappings of inequities that hallmark our society. These inequities are mirrored in our schools and affect our students daily, making victims of some students while simultaneously privileging others. There is a certain fiction that is cast across society by inequities, a fiction in which we find ourselves as educators and as citizens. Learning to discern fact from fiction regarding equity entails learning to recognize inequities that exist, naming them, and situating them within relevant institutionalized patterns. This is neither easy work nor popular work, but it is work that must be done if our society is to realize its democratic potential. At the same time, we must be able to imagine possibilities for students, teachers, and other cultural workers to work toward equity. This is, in large part, the responsibility of the educator who accepts the position of leader, of principal, and enters the school. Equity in this sense is not optional; rather it is part of the obligation accepted when the individual takes on the mantle of educational leader. The work of the educational leader, then, is the work of ensuring equity for all, it is the work of examining existing cultural patterns, ideological imprints, and institutional structures in order to understand the inequities endemic in the school and community, and to understand that people have created these inequities. The work of equity will require, through our everyday actions, that “we re-create institutional structures, and have the capability to disrupt them. In that respect, we can make changes where needed” (Grant & Sleeter, 2007, p. 65). In the end, the educational leader necessarily takes a stance on equity that defines his or her identity and practice, and at the same time speaks to the moral character and social and political standards that guide his or her actions each day in the struggle for equity

REFERENCES Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. England, C. M. (2005). Divided we fail: Issues of equity in American schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

8

Introduction

Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2007). Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity. New York: Routledge. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as a practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Larson, C. L., & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Poplin Gosetti, P., & Rusch, E. (1995). Re-examining educational leadership: Challenging assumptions. In D. Dunlap & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 11–35). Albany: State University of New York Press. Pounder, D., Reitzug, V., & Young, M. (2002). Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice, and community. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 261–88). 101st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE). Shields, C., Larocque, L., & Oberg, S. (2002). A dialogue about race and ethnicity in education: Struggling to understand issues in cross-cultural leadership. Journal of School Leadership 12(2), 116–37.

I INTRODUCTION: CREATING EQUITABLE SCHOOLS FOR ALL

Wise educational leaders will learn to create . . . spaces of genuine exploration of difference; they will initiate conversations where problems and challenges may be identified and discussed; and they will create a climate in which staff and students feel safe in clarifying their assumptions to deal with cultural dissonance. Shields, Larocque, and Oberg, 2002, p. 130

At first glance, creating equitable schools for all students appears a foregone conclusion in a democratic society. However, education reform efforts in the past three decades have taken a path toward concerted efforts that are governed largely by a concern for excellence at the expense of maintaining a vigilance of equity set forth in Brown v. Board of Education of 1954 and furthered by subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Lau v. Nichols in 1974, and strengthened by federal policy, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as hallmarks of action to protect the rights of all students. These decisions strengthened the role of the federal government in ensuring equal protection of all citizens and thus denied local educators, parents, and politicians their “rights” to segregate and discriminate, originally against black children and subsequently with respect to color, race, or ethnicity. However, with the passing of the last two decades and the legislation of educational reform that has deemphasized equity and focused increasingly on excellence and quality, we have reached a critical crossroads in our history as a democratic society and as an educational system purported to serve that democratic society. We can continue along the current political path that focuses on “excellence only” reforms, most of which have limited 9

10

Part I: Introduction

merits and outcomes for both the children and the educational system that serves them. Or we can step back and reevaluate our current vector of educational reform and refresh our commitment to equitable schools for all children. Patricia A. Schmuck (1993), in her essay “Invisible and Silent along the Blue Highways,” is instructive in understanding the necessity of taking a position on equity: If we deeply believe that schools are the democratic sphere of our society, that in them and through them we will continually build toward greater democracy, a greater sharing of privilege, we need to move to the margins. We need to make visible the invisible, and we need to hear the silenced voices of students in our schools. (p. 18)

Equitable schools for all interprets as schools where the equity gap is narrowing rather than widening, they are schools where voices are not silenced and students made invisible by the endemic inequities that cross one generation of students to the next. They are schools where race, ethnicity, gender, class, and sexual orientation are recognized and valued as difference, rather than as a path to discrimination. Equitable schools are those schools where privilege is replaced by social responsibility. Creating equitable schools for all children will require effort, as Carl A. Grant and Christine E. Sleeter (2007) explain in their Doing Multicultural Education for Achievement and Equity: Learning to discern fact from fantasy regarding equity entails learning to recognize inequities that exist, situating them within relevant institutionalized patterns, and at the same time seeing possibilities for students, teachers, and other adults to work toward equity. Institutional structures have a good deal of power, but people have created them. Through our everyday actions, we recreate institutional structures, and have the capability to disrupt them. In that respect, we can make changes where needed. (p. 65)

What is evident today in an America where equity should be a defining feature of our educational system is that over fifty years after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954, 63 percent of all white students go to schools that are 90–100 percent white. This stands in stark contrast to the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. More important, “Black students in the South are only half as likely to attend intensely segregated schools as those who live in the Northeast” (England, 2005, p. 71). While the contemporary belief is that segregation has been addressed, today the “most intense school segregation happens in large northern metropolitan areas surrounded by white suburbs. Students of color in rural areas and small towns are more likely to attend integrated schools than those who live in large cities” (England, p. 2005, 71).

Creating Equitable Schools for All

11

Today, the idea of creating equitable schools for all children is juxtaposed with the reality of a de facto segregation in terms of race and class. This de facto segregation amplifies the other inequities in America’s educational system, inequities such as those demarcated by issues concerning achievement, gender, sexual orientation, special needs populations, vouchers, English-language learners (ELL), access to postsecondary education, and distribution of resources such as public funds, qualified teachers, and educational facilities to name those most pressing for educational leaders. The questions before us, as educational leaders who are concerned with the inequities in our educational system and schools, and as educational leaders concerned with creating equitable schools as safe spaces where all children may experience equity in learning, are: Who do we wish our students to be? Based on what principles of equity do we wish to create our schools? What work will be required to create equitable schools? In the process, we must focus on the principles of equity, as the issues of equity that endure most frequently emanate from tensions left unaddressed, from questions difficult to answer, or from problems left unresolved.

REFERENCES Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352 (July 2, 1964). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, P.L 89-10 (1965). England, C. M. (2005). Divided we fail: Issues of equity in American schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2007). Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity. New York: Routledge. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Shields, C., Larocque, L., & Oberg, S. (2002). A dialogue about race and ethnicity in education: Struggling to understand issues in cross-cultural leadership. Journal of School Leadership 12(2), 116–37. Schmuck, P. A. (1993, October). Invisible and silent along the blue highways. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Annual Rural and Small Schools Conference, Manhattan, Kansas.

1 The Meaning of Equity in Creating and Leading Equitable Schools: Revitalizing a Democratic Principle Patrick M. Jenlink

In America’s schools today, children from diverse backgrounds of social class, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation enter the doorway hoping to find the ideals of a promised democracy. All too often, these children are met by educators that have limited understanding of or experience with addressing the problems of equity. What is critical in the quest for creating equitable schools is understanding that how we define ourselves as leaders and educators—the goals and standards we set, the meanings we construct, and the stances we take—is a significant factor in creating and leading equitable schools. At the heart of creating equitable schools exists a clear and present understanding of what we mean by equity. Historically, the blurring of lines between the meaning of equality and equity has proven problematic. Those who see equality in uniformity—a prevalent characteristic of schools—do not fully acknowledge that, in America, children of different social classes and races and ethnic origins are rarely provided with the same quality of schools, the same levels of expenditure per pupil, the same levels of expectations for achievement. These individuals disregard the fact that children enter schools with very unequal societal conditions influencing their performance. They ignore the fact that programs that work well for all children are not provided to all children, and services that counteract disadvantages are often times least available to the disadvantaged. Charles Silberman (1970), writing in Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education, is instructive in understanding the complex nature of the equity problems in education. He observed: The public schools are failing dismally in what has always been regarded as one of their primary tasks . . . to be “the great equalizer of the condition of 13

14

Chapter 1

men” (sic), facilitating the movement of the poor and disadvantaged into the mainstream of American economic and social life. Far from being “the great equalizer,” the schools help perpetuate the differences in condition, or at the very least, do little to reduce them. (p. 57)

Nearly four decades later, the equity problems in America’s educational system persist, amplified by changing demographics and increasing diversity. Paradoxically, in a society that claims itself as democratic, educational inequity is a pervasive and endemic problem in America’s schools. Pounder, Reitzug, and Young (2002) note that the equity issue is receiving increasing attention as a result of growing achievement gaps and the extraordinary economic gaps among Americans. There are “inequitable outcomes” characterized by “patterned polarization” of school achievement and economic opportunity and welfare (p. 270). Contributing to the discussion on the educational equity issue is Ladson-Billings (2004), who argues that we have inherited an “education debt” as the cumulative impact of centuries of educational inequities related to funding, curricula, resources, teachers, segregation, and so forth. This education debt is composed of historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral components and requires a more holistic, historic, and comprehensive analysis of schooling than that implied by the focus on achievement gaps. Pounder, Reitzug, and Young (2002) further the discussion, observing that as a result of the educational equity problem in America today, Literally millions of students, every year, are not served well by our schools. Schools across our nation in districts large and small with different resources and different student populations are failing to educate, failing to nurture, failing to develop, failing to protect, and failing to include all students . . . the students who are affected most are typically from marginalized groups (e.g., students of color, students with disabilities, low-income students, girls, and gay/lesbian students). (p. 271)

Equity is complex in its meaning and in its realization in schools. Clearly understood it is a principle of democracy that enables educators to provide whatever level of support is needed to whichever students require it. In the classroom, this means providing each and every student with what each individual needs to learn and succeed. However, there is confusion between equity and equality that pervades our educational systems, a confusion that often results in reification of inequities in schools and classrooms.

CREATING EQUITABLE SCHOOLS— EQUITY, EQUALITY, AND THE DIFFERENCE While equity has been the focus of discourses in education for decades, it continues to evade many classrooms in schools across America today.

The Meaning of Equity

15

Within these discourses, all too often what is meant by equality is treated as synonymous with what is meant by equity, and having equal resources for schools means that the schools are equitable, fair, and equal. However, these terms are not synonymous and, while there is a relationship, it is important to discern one from the other. The notion of creating an equitable school must be intimately connected with a clear understanding of the terms “equity” and “equality” and their relationship. Historically, discussions of educational equity as a goal framed it as providing every student with equality of educational opportunity regardless of his or her race, national origin, color, gender, or socioeconomic status. Data indicate that student achievement is frequently related to these demographic variables. The goal of educational equity is to reduce and eventually eliminate these correlations (National Institute of Education, 1980). Contrary to this understanding of equity, more recent discussions question the merit of educational interventions, which only promote access and/or participation without facilitating a process to support effectively the academic performance of the participants. The less than clear lines of demarcation between equity and equality have a historical basis. Distinguishing Equality from Equity Perhaps the most often cited case of distinguishing equality from equity is Brown v. Board of Education (1954), as discerned by its ruling and its implications. Recognizing the deep inequities of the segregated schooling system, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion of the court, asserting that racially segregated education was not equal. He argued that even if the physical facilities of schools and other “tangible” factors of education in white and black schools were equal, which they were not, “the separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) “had no place in the field of public education” (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren stated the court’s interpretation of “the importance of education to our democratic society.” After noting that education is “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments,” the court concluded: “It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.” Accordingly, the court held that each state, in providing the opportunity for education, must make it available “to all on equal terms,” drawing to the foreground the need for equity of access for all students, regardless of difference (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). The court ruled for an end to segregation, thus beginning the process of addressing inequities that had hallmarked America’s schools for decades. While the court ordered that equality in education should be achieved through desegregation of schools, thus improving the quality of education for all students, it also reasserted the distinction between equity and equality (Meyers & Nidiry, 2004; Smiley, 2004).

16

Chapter 1

Rectifying the Inequities of Education As a liberal democratic society, we claim that our systems are blind to issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity. The hope that material equality could be achieved and that it would rectify the inequities of educational and other societal structures has not proven to be the case. The equality sought by the court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was in opposition to notions of white supremacy and did not advance individual white interests. Race and racism continue to be a factor in educational inequities. The confusion between equality and equity continues to be a focus of educational discourses. In the contemporary school, much like that of the Brown era, the question of race in relation to equity and equality continues to dominate. As DeCuir and Dixson (2004) explain: In seeking equality rather than equity, the processes, structures, and ideologies that justify inequity are not addressed and dismantled. Remedies based on equality assume that citizens have the same opportunities and experiences. Race, and experiences based on race, are not equal. Thus, the experiences that people of color have with respect to race and racism create an unequal situation. Equity, however, recognizes that the playing field is unequal and attempts to address the inequality. (p. 29)

Many educators tend to “agree that equality requires sameness, but equity requires that treatments be appropriate and sufficient to the needs of those treated. In the pursuit of a just and equitable society, our nation has tended to hold equal treatment as its criterion” (Gordon, 1999, p. xiv). However, where equity is distinguished from equality is that in educational equity to be served to all individuals, “treatment must be specific to one’s functional characteristics and sufficient to the realities of one’s conditions” (Gordon, 1999, p. xiv). To address the problems—aligned with educational equity—of appropriateness and sufficiency, we seek to go beyond the status labels and marginalized identities that apply to individuals and groups and examine their functional characteristics, which, in concert with their status or identity, may facilitate or interfere with the success of their education; the experiences that define and redefine schooling as equitable (or not) for all students in schools and classrooms (Gordon, 1999). In sorting out equity from equality, it is important to understand that equity is not a guarantee that all students will succeed. Rather, in creating an equitable learning environment for students, equity “assures that all students will have the opportunity and support to succeed” (Singleton & Linton, 2006, p. 47). In an equitable school, the barriers that inhibit student success and that work to marginalize some groups while benefiting others are removed. Students of diversity—whether race, ethnicity, gender, social class, sexual orientation, or other status or identity—are assured that

The Meaning of Equity

17

the school will meet their needs with equity of access, participation, and outcome. The important difference between equity and equality is that “equity does not mean that every student receives an equal level of resources and support toward his or her educational goals. Rather, equity means that the students of greatest need receive the greatest level of support to guarantee academic success” (Singleton & Linton, 2006, p. 47). Distinguishing equity and equality and understanding the relationship that exists between the two terms in relation to education is important. However, it is equally important to understand the relationship of equity and education in the process and practice of creating and leading equitable schools, respectively.

EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AS A DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE—A HEURISTIC FOR EQUITABLE SCHOOLS Dewey (1916), in his Democracy and Education, acknowledged the importance of equity as a democratic principle when he argued that “only diversity makes change and progress” (p. 90). He went on to state that “in the degree in which society has become democratic, such social organization means utilization of the specific and variable qualities of individuals” (pp. 90–91). Connecting democracy and education, Dewey argued that the “conception of education as a social process and function has no definite meaning until we define the kind of society we have in mind” (1916, p. 97). In that we define democratic society, in part, by the principle of equity, conception of education as social process is directed to recognizing the racial and cultural diversity of society and the potential for that diversity to enable change and process. Educational equity in a democratic society is a complex and dynamic concept. To some, equity as an educational goal represents an idealized vision of the way things should be in schools that are a function of a democratic society. To others, equity as an educational goal represents a standard of social justice in society and, by extension, in the educational system. Educational equity as a democratic principle for equitable schools is made easier to understand by differentiating equity in education by examining the goals of equity, the standards of equity, the meaning of equity, and the stance of equity that work in concert to create and lead the school. Table 1.1 presents a three-dimensional heuristic to use in guiding the process of creating equitable schools. The three dimensions of equity of access, equity of participation, and equity of outcomes provide a beginning point for translating equity into equitable practices and decisions. These three dimensions are further delineated by goals, standards, meanings, and stances that serve to address the complex and dynamic nature of equity

Equity of Outcomes Outcomes goal: Diminish gaps in achievement based on difference, including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity, and eliminate barriers to success for all individuals.

Outcomes standard: Requires that educational outcomes not be correlated with gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic circumstances. Intended educational outcomes for minority students are equal ) to those of their majority counterparts.

Equity of Participation Participation goal: Ensure that curriculum and pedagogy examines what all individuals need to know, understand, and be able to do and how those things are created and conditioned in organizational, curricular, and pedagogical terms regardless of difference, including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity. Participation standard: Requires programs and pedagogy that promote and guarantee equal participation to all. Programs are intended for individuals with different abilities, interests, and educational needs.

Equity of Access

Access goal: Eliminate physical, organizational, cultural, ideological, curricular, and pedagogical barriers that restrict access for all individuals regardless of difference, including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity.

Access standard: Requires access to educational facilities, resources, and programs and services by all individuals regardless of difference, including race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

Dimensions of Equity

Goal—Creating equitable schools

Standard—Ensuring social accountability for equitable schools

Table 1.1. Dimensions of Educational Equity—A Heuristic for Creating and Leading Equitable Schools

Educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers take a stance of moral equivalence. Educators must make, as a guiding principle for creating equitable schools, the thinking and acting upon “differences that make a difference” in education. Taking a moral equivalence stance focuses on moral equality while assuring fair and equal treatment of all individuals.

Stance—Leading equitable schools

Equity of outcomes: Means the results of educational processes—for example, group differences in school achievement, dropout rates, college attendance, or employment. Equity is achieved by obtaining positive outcomes for all groups. This dimension is concerned with fairness and is connected to equality in educational achievement.

Educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers take a relational attainment stance. Educators must make, as the guiding principle for creating equitable schools, educational practices that demand reorganizing institutional practices and redistributing power in ways that redefine “educational outcomes” by implicating the entire society in the process.

Equity of participation: Means the relationship of the school to students, and the design of educational programs including curriculum (both formal and hidden) that is inclusive and culturally aligned and pedagogy that is inclusive and culturally responsive. Requires attention to student differences, teacher-student interactions, and instructional materials. This dimension is connected to equality and equal educational opportunity. Educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers take a stance of substantive inclusion. Educators must make, as a guiding principle for creating equitable schools, the responsibility of developing young people’s cultural knowledge as one key factor contributing to student’s capacities to participate actively and authentically in their education as well as in society at large.

Note: The dimensions of educational equity and the differentiating elements are drawn from the works of Abu El-Haj (2006); Brayboy, Castagno, and Maughan (2007); Brookover and Lezotte (1981); Cobb and Hodge (2002); Davies (1992); Harvey and Klein (1989); Nevárez-La Torre and Sandford-De Shields, (1999); and Valli, Cooper, and Franks (1997).

Equity of access: Means the opportunity to gain entry to what is viewed as desirable— for example, the development of individualized educational plans, structurally accessible buildings, and programs for all individuals. The need to provide appropriate routes of access that allow all individuals to avail themselves of existing educational treatments and benefits. This dimension is connected to equality and equal educational opportunity.

Meaning—Understanding equitable schools

20

Chapter 1

and to assist in shaping the discourses and processes necessary to creating an equitable school. The sections that follow table 1.1 further elaborate the dimensions identified in the heuristic. The Goals of Equity in Education As an idealized vision or a goal, there are dimensions of educational equity that must be considered. Brookover and Lezotte (1981), writing in an essay titled “Educational Equity: A Democratic Principle at a Crossroads,” are instructive in their analysis that “while few would deny the societal goal of educational equity, there is considerable disagreement as to the appropriate ways and means of advancing this principle” (p. 65). The goal of equity in a democratic society and its educational system, in particular in relation to how we realize the promise of Brown v. Board of Education may be differentiated into access, participation, and outcome (Brookover & Lezotte, 1981). Equity then is differentiated in terms of equity in access, how we assure equity of participation of all individuals regardless of difference of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or ethnicity, and how we assure equity of outcomes for all, again regardless of difference. While the goal of equity is foundational to a democratic society, when applied to creating equitable schools the goal is not unidimensional in nature. Rather, the goal of equity as it relates to education is examined, it presents three dimensions, interrelated and yet distinct in purpose and intent. Equity of Access Goal The access goal, predicated, in part, by Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent federal legislation, and in part on the oppression of a history of inequities, is to eliminate physical, organizational, cultural, ideological, curricular, and pedagogical barriers that restrict access for all individuals regardless of difference including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity. When considering the historical implications of Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent policy and court decisions, access translates as the unobstructed entrance into, involvement of, and full participation of learners in schools, programs, and activities within those schools. Creating equitable schools also requires access to funding, staffing, and other resources for equity-based schools that are manifested in the existence of equitably assigned, highly qualified staff, adequate and appropriate facilities, other environmental learning spaces, instructional hardware and software, instructional materials and equipment, and all other instructional supports. As important, equity of access means that each aspect of access, including facilities, resources, and programs, are distributed in an equitable

The Meaning of Equity

21

and fair manner such that the notion that all diverse learners must achieve high academic standards and other school outcomes become possible. Equity of Participation Goal The participation goal, which draws into specific relief the importance of inclusion, is to ensure that curriculum and pedagogy examines what all individuals need to know, understand, and be able to do and how those things are created and conditioned in organizational, curricular, and pedagogical terms, regardless of difference including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity. Equity as delineated in and through participation reflects an equitable learning opportunity. Therein, equity of participation translates into the creation of learning opportunities so that every child, regardless of status, characteristics, or identified needs, is presented with the challenge to reach high standards and attain his or her fullest potential, and is given the requisite pedagogical, social, emotional, and psychological supports to achieve the high standards of an equitable school that are established. Equity of participation also means that within an equitable school, patterns of interaction between individuals and within an environment are characterized by acceptance, valuing, respect, support, safety, and security—specifically, such that students feel challenged to become invested in the pursuits of learning and excellence without fear of threat, humiliation, danger, or disregard. Equity of Outcomes Goal The outcomes goal, which denotes achievement and/or attainment is to diminish gaps in achievement based on difference including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ethnicity, and eliminate barriers to success for all individuals. Equity, when considering outcomes, reflects both accountability and achievement, that is, in an equitable school every student is able to attain his or her fullest potential in relation to the differences that define identity and position. There is an equity-based accountability system that assures that all educators, cultural workers, and other stakeholders in the equitable school accept social responsibility and hold themselves and each other responsible for providing full access to a quality education, qualified teachers, challenging curriculum, and a full opportunity to learn with appropriate, sufficient support for every learner so s/he can achieve at the highest levels in academic and other student outcomes. Equity of outcomes also means that as data on academic achievement and other student outcomes are disaggregated and analyzed, one sees high comparable performance for all identifiable groups of learners, and achievement

22

Chapter 1

and performance gaps are virtually nonexistent. Equally important in the equity of outcomes goal is the understanding that difference, whether it is race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, or other characteristic, is relational and that the outcomes goal requires that all participants work toward creating an equitable school that views the needs of each individual student in relation to equitable outcomes that reflect the complexity that diversity brings to defining equitable outcomes for all students. The Standards of Equity in Education The standards within an equity-based educational system, as intended by equity as both a principle of democracy and as a foundation of equitable schools, illuminate the scope and complexity of the work before educational leaders who undertake to create equitable schools for all children. Returning to Brookover and Lezotte (1981), they further note that toward the attainment of an educational equity goal, three standards “have been and or are now being used” with respect to advancing the principle: “The three standards are: equity of access, equity of participation, and equity of outcomes” (p. 65). These three standards serve as a foundation for an equity-based accountability system for creating an equitable school for all students. Equity of Access Standard The standard for access in an equitable school requires the educational system, and therein the schools, will assure access to educational facilities, resources, and programs and services by all individuals, regardless of difference, including race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. This standard of equity translates into barriers to educational access being removed and all students having access to all resources they need, and that all students are able to matriculate through the educational system, with fair, just, and equal participation. Equity of Participation Standard The standard for participation in an equitable school requires the educational system, and therein the schools, will assure that programs and pedagogy promote and guarantee equal participation to all. Difference is recognized as a defining factor of what is equitable in terms of process and participation, in particular with respect to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Equity of Outcomes Standard The standard for outcomes in an equitable school requires the educational system, and therein the schools, will assure that educational out-

The Meaning of Equity

23

comes not be correlated with gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic circumstances. Intended educational outcomes for minority students are equal to those of their majority counterparts. Eliminating barriers that construct achievement gaps is a defining factor of what is equitable. Educators and other cultural workers understand the relational nature of student achievement within and across individual and group differences. Educators also understand that student achievement is a limited measure of outcomes and that a narrow defining of performance indicators contributes to the inequities found in schools today. The Meanings of Equity in Education Patricia Graham (1993) further delineates the complexity of educational equity in her essay titled “What America Has Expected of Its Schools over the Past Century,” affirming Brookover and Lezotte’s (1981) differentiation of a tridimensional frame of educational equity. Graham also discusses the meaning of equity, constructing a tridimensional frame inclusive of access, participation, and outcomes. In her discussion of educational equity, Graham juxtaposes equity with an examination of America’s expectations for schools over the course of the twentieth century. In this juxtaposition, Graham (1993) argues that context is an essential and powerful factor in terms of creating equitable schools. Context, whether economic, social, cultural, or political, shapes the educational opportunities of students through the advantage of and access to programs and experiences; the educational opportunities are enriched for some students whose parents and homes and communities afford them more opportunities outside as well as inside the school. In contrast, those students who do not share in the enriched opportunities outside or inside the schools are disadvantaged by the conditions their counterparts are afforded. There are increasing numbers of students who are disadvantaged and marginalized due to their status and identification with minority groups. Exploring educational policy during the twentieth century, Graham (1993) explains that laws and policies in the first half of the century were devised for the purpose of increasing school attendance. Keeping more children in school for longer periods of time was a way to strengthen democracy. The second half of the century brought a shift in social policy to the goal of increased access. Merely keeping students in school longer was not enough. In a post-Brown era of the civil rights movement, the question of who had access to what kinds of educational opportunities became a central concern. Increased access provided opportunities for students to enroll in institutions previously unavailable to them either because they could not afford them, they were the wrong race, ethnicity, religion or gender for them, or they were too old or too physically impaired for them. (Graham, 1993, p. 86)

24

Chapter 1

More strikingly in the second half of the century, and following the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the concept of equal educational opportunity started to be used in federal educational policy to argue that “children from poor families needed more from the schools than did the children of the rich” (p. 94). While increased attendance and access continue to be widely discussed in policy arenas, current expectations for American schools include increased academic achievement for all students as set forth in the standards and accountability movement, and in particular the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Although once content to let most children slide through an academically weak vocational or general curriculum, toward the end of the twentieth century “Americans are coming to recognize that our future depends on educating everybody well” (Graham, 1993, p. 94). Equity is not a static or unidimensional construct. Three changing dimensions are discussed in the literature: access, process or participation, and outcomes. Equity of Access Equity of access refers to opportunities to gain entry to what is viewed as desirable. Rorrer (2001) explains that institutionalized inequities remain in language, structures, policies, and practices, although a different reality is emerging. Creating equitable access requires more than just opening doors or removing physical barriers. Equity means that every student has access to all the resources that they need in light of persisting historical inequities and inequalities (Blanchett, 2006; McDermott, Goldman, & Varenne, 2006). It requires also identifying and removing political and ideological barriers that have historically limited access and are embedded within the very structures, and language, policies, and practices of schooling. While differentiated routes of access (based on individualized needs) or supports (e.g., individualized educational plans, response to intervention programs, ESL and ELL programs, handicapped access, differentiated curriculum or materials) can be justified on the basis of need, merit, or past discrimination, the work of disembedding institutionalized inequities is at the heart of creating equity of access. Graham (1993) makes clear the difference between equal and equitable access by using the metaphor of a swim meet in which swimmers and nonswimmers alike are thrown into a pool without life support and told to make their way to the other end. Equal access means everyone is thrown in. Equity in access means that everyone has the skills and preparation to participate. The nonswimmers personify those individuals in schools today that are disadvantaged by status in society, marginalized because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or ethnicity. Like the nonswimmers, disadvantaged individuals and groups are often lost to the social undercur-

The Meaning of Equity

25

rents of a society and an educational system hallmarked by racism and discrimination and plagued by educational inequities. Equity of Participation Equity of participation refers to the structures and processes that define everyday life and learning in schools. Equity is defined, in part, by the nature of curriculum and pedagogy and how difference is recognized and valued through the curriculum and pedagogy. With respect to curriculum, participation is defined by the unwritten and hidden curriculum, as well as the overt or formal curriculum. Within the formal curriculum of the school, equity requires attention to student differences, teacher-student interactions, and instructional materials; the connection between process and content as factors in educational equity. Equity of participation means creating schools and classrooms for learning where “difference-blind institutionalism” does not exist and where “discomfort with social, racial, ethnic, and economic differences” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 67) is replaced with understanding and acceptance of difference. In an equitable school, curriculum content is interrogated for what and whose knowledge is legitimated and whose interests are served; illuminating the ideological and cultural-historical patterns embedded within that perpetuate inequities in schools and classrooms. Pedagogy would likewise be critically examined to determine where inequities are embedded in practices that reflect political and ideological biases and where the learning experiences of some students are negatively impacted while those of others are not. Equity of participation means that teachers and students alike must be party to understanding and addressing social arrangements that produce both inequity and inequality. In this respect, the concept of equity is more inclusive than the older notion of equal educational opportunities, which focused primarily on quantitative differences among groups. Equity is concerned with the qualities of fairness and justice as exemplified in access and participation. By implication, equity also applies to the various ways in which educators’ roles and relationships are defined. Equity of Outcomes Equity of outcomes or achievement equity translates as the result of educational processes: the equitable distribution of the benefits of schooling. In schools today, dominated by an outcome-based accountability educational system (Mintrop, 2004), such as that prescribed by NCLB, equity should mean that all students are successful, which requires that the system of accountability be equitable. This is not always the case with legislated systems such as those intended by NCLB. Making equitable outcomes of schooling

26

Chapter 1

a priority decreases, if not eliminates, group differences in school achievement, attitudes, dropout rates, college attendance, and employment. However, in an equity system of accountability, achieving more equitable social and economic outcomes will likely require unequal schooling outcomes. Equity of outcome also means that all groups attain positive outcomes; difference consciousness works to advantage all students rather than the disadvantage of some status groups while others are advantaged (Larson & Ovando, 2001). Equity goals for students are differentiated based on the identified needs of students, taking into consideration that some students’ parents and schools and communities are able to afford opportunities that other students may not have access to. Outcome or achievement goals are developed based on individual needs and differences of students, assuring equity in outcomes of the educational process. It is important to know that equity of outcomes means achievement gaps based on inequitable performance indicators are identified and eliminated, thus ensuring that all students are successful. As well, equity requires that narrow performance indicators are broadened by addressing the needs of students based on difference and by accepting that standardized tests are limited measures of achievement and all too often introduce bias into the system; inequities arise from unfair and narrowly conceived measures of performance (Harris & Herrington, 2006; Hilliard, 2003; Neill & Medina, 1988). Equity of outcomes acknowledges that substantial disparities exist in the educational attainment of students across race, gender, class, ethnicity, and geographic location (urban versus suburban and/or rural) of their schools. The Stances of Equity in Education Within education, and more specifically within schools, all too often there are hierarchies of participation ingrained, ideologically dominated forms of social control that dictate to individuals how and whether they are to participate in what constitutes learning and other activities in the educational setting. The educational inequities that exist in schools today are practical examples of how embedded ideologies shape the access, participation, and outcomes of students. In creating an equitable school, the educational leader’s work, in part, is to illuminate and interrogate inequities—such as those created by hierarchies of participation and forms of social control. A stance for equity in education is, in part, a dispositional aim that educational leaders and teachers and other cultural workers have cultivated in and through their practice and is necessary to the work of creating equitable schools. A stance for equity is also a position of moral and social responsibility that a leader takes in response to educational inequities in schools.

The Meaning of Equity

27

It is through this stance of equity in education that the educational leader reflects on his/her own actions and those presented by others and by which the leader guides his/her moral and social responsibilities. In working to creating an equitable school, rather than passively accepting information or embracing a false consciousness instructed by dominant ideologies, the leader takes a more active role in leading, learning, and reflecting on his/her relationship with practice and the social context in which the practice is situated. A stance of equity in education is translated, through the discourses and practices of the educational leader and other cultural workers, into realizing the goal of creating an equitable school. Taking a stance of equity in creating an equitable school requires that the educational leader interrogate social structures and cultural practices that contribute to injustice, bringing democratic practices to bear so as to mediate cultural dominance, political ideologies, and asymmetries of power that work to reproduce cultures and social structures that foster injustices and inequities in educational settings. Toward the goals of educational equity, and in aligning with equity of access, equity of participation, and equity of outcomes, a tridimensional frame for stance of equity in education is required. Abu El-Haj (2006), in Elusive Justice: Wrestling with Difference and Educational Equity in Everyday Practice, is instructive in understanding the meaning of educational equity and the nature of the stances a leader or teacher or other cultural worker must embrace, which include a stance on moral equivalency, a stance on substantive inclusion, and a relational stance. Moral Equivalency Stance Educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers take a stance of moral equivalence. Educators must make, as a guiding principle for creating equitable schools, the thinking and acting on “differences that make a difference” in education. Taking a moral equivalence stance focuses on moral equality while assuring fair and equal treatment of all individuals. Carini (2001) is helpful in understanding moral equivalence when she writes of “humaneness and the valuing of humaneness as a starting point for education” (p. 1). This stance suggests that decisions, practices, and discourses aimed at effecting educational equity must be founded on a commitment to the moral equivalence of all individuals, but must not confuse equity with equality or equality with sameness (Abu El-Haj, 2006). Educators must address the disparities in the quality of education within and across different communities and communities of difference, disparities that reflect and reproduce structural inequalities of race or ethnicity, language, socioeconomic class, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. A moral equivalence stance, in this sense, is a critical stance that seeks to assure that educational practices and discourses are equitable through a

28

Chapter 1

critical praxis that seeks to examine the hidden and otherwise ideologically embedded patterns of discrimination that contribute to inequities. An equitable school begins with the premise that a universal equivalence of all individuals requires an education that fosters each child’s passion, creativity, and interests and develops the knowledge, skills, and competencies for that child’s full participation in society (Abu El-Haj, 2006). In taking a moral equivalence stance, educators must make as a guiding principle for equitable schools the moral and social responsibility of addressing policy and practice and discourse that limits access to educational opportunity, whether it is a condition of access to facilities, resources, or programs and services. It is important to note that a stance on moral equivalence recognizes that equal treatment may prove to further distort the intent of equality and at the same time creates more inequities for certain individuals and groups, advantaging some while disadvantaging others based on difference.

Substantive Inclusion Stance Educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers take a stance of substantive inclusion, that is, a stance to interrogate and illuminate practices that limit full and authentic participation, in particular with respect to curriculum and pedagogy. In this sense, a substantive inclusion stance is a critical stance that works in and through curriculum and pedagogy to challenge existing attitudes and practices, mediating inequities while creating equitable learning experiences for all students. A stance on substantive inclusion recognizes that there are substantial and persistent patterns of inequity internal to schools, that is, embedded within the many assumptions, beliefs, practices, procedures, and policies of schools that bind curriculum and pedagogy in dominant ideologies. Accordingly, educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers must work to make visible what lies hidden in the cultural patterns of the school, then work to create new patterns that foster equitable learning conditions for all students. Educators, in taking a substantive inclusion stance, must make, as a guiding principle for creating equitable schools, the responsibility of developing young people’s cultural knowledge a key factor contributing to each student’s capacities to participate actively and authentically in their education as well as in society at large. Educators cannot take the notion of equal opportunity at face value; rather, they need to attend to the ways that all curriculum, pedagogy, and educational practices—all opportunities—reflect the norms, values, assumptions, knowledge, and experiences of particular groups and, as such, may exclude full participation of other groups (Abu El-Haj, 2006).

The Meaning of Equity

29

Relational Attainment Stance Educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers take a relational attainment stance, which works to mediate and change social practices and structural elements that diminish the right and responsibility of every teacher and student to develop to his or her fullest potential. In this sense, stance connotes a critical orientation that works within inequitable conditions in schools to mediate inequity while creating counter-conditions that foster equitable attainment for all students. This stance recognizes that substantial disparities exist in the educational attainment of students across race, gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and geographic location of their schools (Fry, 2003; Klein, Bugarin, Beltranena, & McAuther, 2004; NCES, 2006). The relational attainment stance also recognizes that inequitable outcomes often result from systemic organizational practices and policies (McNeil, 2000; Poland & Carlson, 1993; Sewell, DuCeter, & Shapiro, 1998) endemic to schools and school leader and administrator practice (Marshall & Oliva, 2006). Addressing inequities that impact negatively on student attainment in the educational setting—the inequitable outcomes—serve as a focal point for the educational leader taking a relational stance. The work of leaders, in part, lies along the path of challenging and changing existing practices and policies that perpetuate inequities from one generation of students to the next. Taking a relational attainment stance, educators must cultivate, as the guiding principle for creating equitable schools, educational practices and discourses that demand reorganizing institutional processes and redistributing power in ways that redefine “educational outcomes” by implicating the entire society in the process. A relational attainment stance focuses on individual achievement in relation to difference and in particular is concerned with each student’s performance and outcomes, whether the student is a member of a minority or majority group. The relational attainment stance also eliminates the emphasis on “deficits” or “differences” that often define one’s identity and position in society and in school. Rather than focusing on the differences, educators focus on the relationships of difference created by the arrangements of societal institutions and through a stance of equitable attainment for all students in the hope of creating a more equitable environment in the school. Taking a relational attainment stance creates a framework within which it is possible for everyone to be a part of the solution to educational inequity. Shifting to a view of factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability as markers of relationships between groups—relationships that are created within a particular social order—then those relationships must be scrutinized and changed in the quest for equity.

30

Chapter 1

CLOSING REFLECTIONS Ironically, the past decade has witnessed federal and state governments making policies, such as No Child Left Behind, that have endorsed the principle of educational equity by holding schools and students accountable to common academic standards through high-stakes testing, yet in the past decade governments have done very little to address the inequitable conditions under which children learn. Unquestionably, creating equitable schools across lines of difference is challenging, difficult, and problematic at best and—given the existing structural inequalities of society—not likely to be fully realized without dramatic changes in the social, political, ideological, and cultural spheres. Creating equitable schools will require educational leaders and teachers and other cultural workers who are willing to make schools the site of social activism—social spaces where ideas of equity and difference exist as cornerstones of a democratic foundation for society and at the same time defining features of equitable schools. Realizing equitable schools for all students will require that not only educational leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers make a commitment to equity, but also, and equally important, that parents and community members and others who have a vested interest in the future of our schools and our society take a stance against inequity. It will require that each individual concerned for the future of our schools recognizes that inequity is pervasive and endemic in society and in our educational system, and it will require that each individual concerned with creating equitable schools recognize that inequity has already been institutionalized in our educational system and its schools. When inequity becomes institutionalized, those who work within the schools “no longer have to be biased to continue biased practices; we merely have to do our jobs and maintain the normal practices of the systems we have inherited” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 3). This is where the work begins: to counter inequity we first have to acknowledge the inheritance of an inequitable system of education, and then we have to make a commitment to change the system. Creating an equitable system will require that we focus inward, that we search our own beliefs, values, and assumptions. We will have to re-create our own practices in concert with creating equitable schools, such that our practices reflect equity as a principle of democracy and as a guiding focus for all students.

REFERENCES Abu El-Haj, T. R. (2006). Elusive justice: Wrestling with difference and educational equity in everyday practice. New York: Routledge.

The Meaning of Equity

31

Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28. Brayboy, B. M. J., Castagno, A. E., & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and justice for all? Examining race in education scholarship. In L. Parker (Ed.), Review of research in education (vol. 31, pp. 159–94). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. (1981). Educational equity: A democratic principle at a crossroads. The Urban Review, 13(2), 65–71. Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Carini, P. F. (2001). Starting strong: A different look at children, schools, and standards. New York: Teachers College Press. Cobb, P., & Hodge, L. L. (2002). A relational perspective on issues of cultural diversity and equity as they play out in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2), 249–84. Davies, B. (1992). Social class, school effectiveness and cultural diversity. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools (vol. 3, pp. 131–47). New York: Greenwood Press. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004, June/July). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center Gordon, E. W. (1999). Education and justice: A view from the back of the bus. New York: Teachers College Press. Graham, P. (1993). What America has expected of its schools over the past century. American Journal of Education, 101(2), 83–98. Harris, D., & Herrington, C. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons learned from the past half century. American Journal of Education, 112, 209–38. Harvey, G., & Klein, S. (1985). Understanding and measuring equity in education: A conceptual model. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 5(2), 145–68. Hilliard, A. (2003, April). Assessment equity in a multicultural society. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Chicago. Klein, S., Bugarin, R., Beltranena, R., & McAuther, E. (2004). Language minorities and their educational and labor market indicators: Recent trends. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 3–13. Larson, C. L., & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2006). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Boston: Pearson Education. McDermot, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of learning disabilities. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 12–17.

32

Chapter 1

McNeil, L. M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 728–34. Meyers, M., & Nidiry, J. P. (2004). Kenneth Bancroft Clark: The uppity Negro integrationist. Antioch Review, 62(2), 265–74. Mintrop, H. (2004). High-stakes accountability, state oversight, and educational equity. Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2128–45. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2006). The condition of education, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Institute of Education. (1980). Teaching and learning research grants announcement: Fiscal years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Neill, M., & Medina, N. (1988). Fallout from the testing explosion. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair & Open Testing. Nevárez-La Torre, A. A., & Sandford-De Shields, J. S. (1999). Strides toward equity in an urban center: Temple University’s professional development schools partnership. Urban Review, 31(3), 243–62. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Poland P., & Carlson, L. (1993). Program reform in educational administration. UCEA Review, 32(1), 4–7, 12. Pounder, D., Reitzug, U., & Young, M. (2002). Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice, and community. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 261–88). Chicago: The National Society for The Study of Education. Rorrer, A. K. (2001). Educational leadership and institutional capacity for equity. UCEA Review, 43(3), 1–5. Rorrer, A. K. (2006). Eroding inequity: Straddling the margin of tolerance. Educational Policy, 20(1), 225–48. Sewell, T. E., DuCeter, J. P., & Shapiro, J. P. (1998). Educational assessment and diversity. In N. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 311–38). Washington, DC: APA Publications. Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom: The remaking of American education. New York: Random House. Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Smiley, T. (2004). Brown v. Board of Education: An unfinished agenda. In J. Anderson & D. N. Byrne (Eds.), The unfinished agenda of Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 1–6). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Valli, L., Cooper, D., & Frankes, L. (1997). Professional development schools and equity: A critical analysis of rhetoric and research. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (vol. 22, pp. 251–304). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

2 Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders: An Equity-Based Approach Patrick M. Jenlink

In an era of increasing diversity, educational inequities have moved to the foreground as a major challenge that educational leaders must embrace upon entering the school and accepting the social and moral responsibilities of leading the educational enterprise. These inequities are not new to schools, nor are they new in terms of their political and problematic nature. The subject of educational equity is not new to educational administration and leadership-preparation programs and professors; a theme for several decades, equity continues as an important subject for consideration in preparing educational leaders. However, as Pounder, Reitzug, and Young (2002) note, there is evidence that far too few “programs or professors working with present and future school leaders have taken the steps necessary to ensure that all leaders are prepared” to address educational inequities or engage in the work of creating and sustaining equitable schools (p. 271). Larson and Ovando (2001) offer an important point for reflection by professors in consideration of equity as a theme in leadership preparation when they note that “as educators, we do not stand outside of our society as objective observers of its social problem; we are all infused with its biases” (p. 3). When translated into a lens for examining current preparation programs, and the curriculum and pedagogy that is woven through the courses and learning experiences of future educational leaders, one is made aware of just how dynamic the ideological underpinnings of individual professors are in asserting particular beliefs, values, and assumptions as dominant forces in preparing leaders. Giroux (1994), writing on a crisis of leadership in schools and society, is instructive in understanding how preparation programs fall victim to a 33

34

Chapter 2

“neoconservative discourse that abstracts schools from some of society’s most pressing problems” (p. 32). A major challenge, then, for professors of preparation programs, and the individuals that exit these programs to take leadership roles at the school and district levels, is to come to terms with society’s contradicting ideas of equity and justice and democracy. Lees (1995) explains: “On one hand, society claims an ideology for emancipation; on the other hand, society’s flawed structure builds dependencies on a dominating power that further binds any human potential or growth” (p. 223). Concomitantly, there is a need for leadership preparation programs to reorient their focus on “schools as contested political sites,” to adopt equitybased approaches to leadership preparation and, equally important, to embrace a critical stance for creating equitable schools that is informed by an understanding of a “politics of difference” and a “politics of engagement” concerned with the creating equitable schools; realizing the principle of equity and its place in American democracy and the need for equitable schools as agencies of equity for that democracy. In the sections that follow, consideration is given to leadership preparation and to reformulating programs and adopting an equity-based pedagogy.

SCHOOLS AS CONTESTED POLITICAL SITES— CONSIDERATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP PREPARATION Creating equitable schools as the work of educational leaders requires that colleges and schools of education rethink leadership-preparation programs such that educational leaders are prepared to cultivate and sustain equity in their institutions, and at the same time address the inequities that plague America’s schools. As Pounder, Reitzug, and Young (2002) argue, “We must understand that leaders cannot fix the problems of society by leading better, nor can leaders alone transform the lives of the children in their schools, particularly if larger societal and institutional issues of oppression and inequity are not addressed” (p. 271). However, the work of preparing educational leaders for schools, coupled with the equity-based practice these leaders bring to the schools, will foster, in the long term, more equitable schools for all children. Underlying this idea is the understanding that leadership and education are fundamentally political activities. That is, there is no way to educate a child or to lead a school that is not value-laden. Part of leadership that is concerned with creating and sustaining equitable schools, then, is understanding that one is not just a leader, but also a social activist for children, “an activist who is committed to supporting educational equity and excel-

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

35

lence for all children” (Pounder, Reitzug, & Young, 2002, p. 272). Riehl (2000) is instructive when she states: When wedded to a relentless commitment to equity, voice, and social justice, administrators’ efforts in the tasks of sensemaking, promoting inclusive cultures and practices in schools, and building positive relationships outside of the school may indeed foster a new form of practice. (p. 71)

Leadership preparation that is equity-based—concerned with preparing leaders who embrace, practice, and live equity as a principle of democracy— requires that both professors of leadership and students of leadership understand that schools are not neutral grounds but contested political sites. Programs must ensure that future leaders understand that: The structural inequities embedded in the social, organizational, and financial arrangements of schools and schooling help to perpetuate dominance for dominant groups and oppression for oppressed groups. Power, privilege, and economic advantage and/or disadvantage play major roles in the school and home lives of students, whether they are part of language, cultural, or gender majority groups or minority groups in our society. The history of racism and sexism in America and the ways “race” and “gender” have been constructed in schools and society are central, whether consciously or not, in the ways students, families, and communities make meaning of school phenomena as well as how they interact with school designates. Curriculum and instruction are neither neutral nor natural. The academic organization of information and inquiry reflects contested views about what knowledge is of most value; part of the curriculum is what is present or absent as well as whose perspectives are central or marginalized, and whose interests are served or undermined. (Cochran-Smith, 1999, p. 117)

As Cochran-Smith rightly argues, equity is not limited in concerns for issues of diversity; rather, it addresses a broad array of factors that either support or constrain equity of access, equity of participation, and equity of outcomes for all students; equality is undermined and educational opportunity narrowed. The implication of educational equity for school and district leaders, then, is that they must recognize the schooling process as political and value-laden and commit themselves to contributing to creating equitable schools and, in turn, to realizing the ideals of a democratic society and the educational system of all students. Here it is important to understand that the first step in preparation of educational leaders lies in making a commitment to work for equity and justice; both professors and students of educational leadership must develop a clear understanding of how schools and schooling can both support and undermine equity and justice and therein erode democracy. Such an understanding begins with examining the political nature of difference

36

Chapter 2

and equity, beginning with the “politics of difference” and the “politics of engagement.” The preparation of educational leaders—school and district levels—that is concerned with equity “must tightly connect knowledge, interpretive frameworks, and experiences that promote a complex understanding of teaching, learning, leadership, professional development, organizations, and management, among other knowledge areas, with a commitment to social justice” (Pounder, Reitzug, & Young, 2002, p. 274). A “Politics of Difference” A “politics of difference” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 72) speaks to the fact that in schools today, teaching and learning are very political experiences, not only for the teacher and the student, but also, and perhaps more important, for those individuals and groups that represent marginalized and oppressed populations in our schools and communities. The nature of the politics, in part, resides in the biases and prejudices that educators and other cultural workers bring to the school and classroom. As Larson and Ovando (2001) argue: Educators are often not aware of the biased constructions that frame their perceptions of and interactions with others. Therefore, one of the greatest obstacles to establishing more trusting and equitable relationships with the multiple communities we serve is accepting that our perceptions of others are susceptible to misperception and bias. Such acceptance is especially difficult because educators generally believe that they are wholly objective and fully capable of interpreting situations and treating individuals in entirely neutral ways. (p. 72)

Deeply embedded in a politics of universalism, this logic is underpinned by a pervasive acceptance of difference blindness. Larson and Ovando (2001) importantly explain, “Difference-blind institutionalism . . . often masks teachers’ and administrators’ strong discomfort with social, racial, ethnic, [sexual orientation,] and economic differences” (p. 67). By examining the intents as well as the outcomes of a logic of universalism in schools, it is easy to see how this unifying logic contributes to pervasive problems of trust and issues of inequity within schools. The inequities found in schools are a consequence of how a “politics of difference,” institutionalized through a logic of universalism, is enacted through the curriculum and pedagogy, which defines and shapes learning experiences in the classroom. Racial, ethnic, gender, and class minorities have a specific need to transgress and ameliorate inequities in their schools and the society at large. However, as Larson and Ovando (2001) note, “because struggling against

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

37

prejudice and discrimination is not an experience that most White people working in schools have had, issues specific to the needs of nondominant populations can easily get silenced or overlooked by a prevailing differenceblind logic” (p. 72). Educational leaders, working to create equitable schools for all students, must understand that “racial, ethnic, gender, and class differences do not magically disappear in a society characterized by these inequities” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 72). Leaders who fight against educational inequities must “recognize how we differ as individuals and groups if [they] are to understand why the prevailing normative assumptions in institutions are problematic” (p. 72). Within schools, when leaders, teachers, and other cultural works recognize that certain minority children are disproportionately placed in alternative educational settings, suspended, or expelled from schools across America, this is an important step toward understanding the “politics of difference” that works against equitable outcomes for all students. What is emblematic of a “politics of difference” is the realization that many educators, when they recognize that marginalized and oppressed students “leave schools at a rate that triples that of their non-minority peers,” they too often “dismiss these disparities using a logic of universalism” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 72). Simply stated, many educators contribute to a “politics of difference” when they perpetuate the belief, through inaction or silence, “that our systems are inherently fair, neutral, and difference-blind, [they] dismiss these inequities as problems unique to these children and their families” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 73). Shields, Larocque, and Oberg (2002) assert that, in the preparation of educational leaders, it is important to foster the language, skills, and knowledge necessary to engage in substantive conversations concerning the dynamics of difference and the politics that constrain schools: Wise educational leaders will learn to create psychological spaces for genuine exploration of difference; they will initiate conversations where problems and challenges may be identified and discussed; and they will create a climate in which staff and students feel safe in clarifying their assumptions to deal with cultural dissonance. (p. 130)

When educational leaders and other cultural workers in our schools deny that racial, ethnic, class, gender, or sexual orientations make a difference in the day-to-day decisions of teaching and learning, without any serious examination of how actions and the consequences of those actions impact the political tensions around difference and translate into inequities, “we fail to take seriously our responsibility to educate all children” (Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 73).

38

Chapter 2

A “Politics of Engagement” The term “politics of engagement” is adapted from the work of Giroux and McLaren (1986), who argue the idea that preparation programs should focus on educating practitioners—teachers, leaders, and other cultural workers—as critical intellectuals, which carries with it “the political and ethical imperative to judge, critique, and reject those approaches to authority that reinforce a technical and social division of labor that silences and disempowers” (pp. 225–26). Further developing this notion of a “politics of engagement,” Giroux (1994) emphasized the importance of preparing a democratic educational leadership, redefining the “language of leadership in ways that commit administrators, teachers, and students to a discerning conception of democratic community” (p. 35), and which addresses “the social, political, and economic conditions that undermine both the possibilities of democratic forms of schooling and a democratic society” (p. 36). By extension, the argument for a democratic educational leadership— which is an argument of an equity-based praxis—presupposes a “politics of engagement” as one instructed by a critical pragmatic concern with the revitalization of democratic ideals that acknowledges the integral role of the principle of equity in creating democratic schools that afford equitable learning for all students. The need for a “politics of engagement,” in relation to creating equitable schools, is made visible as educators in schools across the nation are confronted with making a choice between “consumer accountability mediated by a relationship with an educational market, or a democratic accountability mediated by a relationship with the whole community of citizens” (Grace, 1997, p. 314). How to conceive educational leadership, and therein how to design leadership preparation programs, is made increasingly problematic as school- and district-level leaders face conflicting pressures, at one level, to privilege some groups over others and, on another level, to ensure that disadvantaged groups have a voice in educational decision-making. The “politics of engagement” advances a means to face the challenges to professors of preparing leaders who must translate the world of schools into the curricular and pedagogical considerations needed to prepare leaders to work in schools where educational inequities are deeply embedded, culturally and politically. Dewey (1888/1993) is instructive along the lines of fostering a commitment to equity as a guiding ideal in leadership preparation and practice. In the “Ethics of Democracy,” he notes that democracy was first a social, and only subsequently a political, phenomenon. Dewey espoused democracy as an ethical conception and responsibility, and “upon its ethical significance is based its significance as governmental. Democracy is a form of government only because it is a form of moral and spiritual association” (p. 59). In this

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

39

sense, educational leadership that is concerned with addressing educational inequities—“politics of engagement”—in schools must embrace leadership practices as a form of moral agency, focused on what equity means and how it is translated into equitable, democratic schools—and what the role of educational leadership is within a democratic society and its schools. Toward the goal of a democratic society, Dewey (1937a) writes: The foundation of democracy is faith in the capacities of human nature; faith in human intelligence, and in the power of pooled and cooperative experience. It is not belief that these things are complete but that if given a show they will grow and be able to generate progressively the knowledge and wisdom needed to guide collective action. (p. 219)

Education that is equitable, as a foundation of an equitable society, must necessarily inculcate the ideals of democracy and, therein, the need for leadership preparation that centers on equity as a democratic ideal. Important to the work of preparing leaders is an understanding that the “politics of difference” demonstrates our incompleteness as a democratic society, and, in turn, it is what makes creating equitable schools and fostering a democratic way of life, by nature, problematic. The importance in preparing educational leaders to embrace a “politics of engagement” is recognized when considering the district leader’s work in creating and sustaining equitable schools for all students, and in realizing that bringing the ideals of a democracy, such as equity, means being engaged politically. Starratt (2003) is helpful in understanding the need for a “politics of engagement” to address the “politics of difference” in schools when he asserts, “Beyond disadvantaging poor children, schools also disadvantage—no matter what their class—females, special needs children, racial and ethnic “minority” children, second language learners, and children of recent immigrant parents” (p. 101). This happens, he argues, Through placing these students in dead-end programs that limit their opportunity to engage a more rigorous curriculum with students of various abilities and backgrounds; through placing them with teachers whose expectations of their abilities are very low, who unwittingly teach them in ways that demoralize, miseducate and alienate them, and who lack the empathy to motivate and relate to children who come from different backgrounds than themselves; through placing them in learning environments with a decontextualized, abstract curriculum with no scaffolding to their own cultural experiences; and through engaging a curriculum whose implicit cultural, political, class, and male assumptions are translated into connotative language and imagery that subtly and quite explicitly cast people who are different from the mainstream in a less favorable light. (pp. 101–2)

40

Chapter 2

The reality of a “politics of difference” becomes all too evident in schools when educational leaders are not prepared to read the cultural and political landscape, and when they are not prepared to take a “politics of engagement” stance against the inequities that define not only the school and what happens within but also those inequities that shape the identities and destinies of students who are the disadvantaged, marginalized, and oppressed.

ADVANCING AN EQUITY-BASED PEDAGOGY— ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP PREPARATION Growing tensions attributed to social, racial, and moral disagreements and resulting in increasing inequities in schools are not easily addressed or resolved through traditional leadership-preparation programs. Therefore, leadership preparation for equity and justice requires an equity-based pedagogy and curriculum. It also requires of both professors and candidates in preparation programs a “fusion of horizons” (Taylor, 1994, p. 67). Translated, an equity-based pedagogy means crossing or blurring boundaries, which means that we must learn to move to a broader horizon, within which what we have formerly taken for granted as the background to valuation can be situated as one possibility alongside the different background of the formerly unfamiliar culture. The “fusion of horizons” operates through our developing new vocabularies of comparison, by means of which we can articulate these contrasts. So that if and when we ultimately find substantive support of our initial presumption, it is on the basis of an understanding of what constitutes worth that we couldn’t possibly have had at the beginning. We have reached the judgment partly through transforming our standards. (p. 67)

Working across and within standards, as well as across social, cultural, political, and ideological boundaries, is difficult and often problematic— and working within and across communities unlike our own means encountering ways of being and ways of seeing that we do not recognize or readily understand (Larson & Ovando, 2001). Such diversity requires educational leaders who are capable of participating openly in ongoing engagement and deliberation necessary to creating more equitable schools and democratic communities. An equity-based pedagogy is concerned with developing the dispositions, skills, knowledge, and practices of educational leaders that embrace, as their moral and social responsibility, the work of creating and sustaining equitable schools. Brown (2004), writing on leadership preparation and

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

41

the need to rethink programs that focus on preparing leaders for equity and justice, takes an unwavering position when she states: Effective leaders take responsibility for their learning, share a vision for what can be, assess their own assumptions and beliefs, and understand the structural and organic nature of schools, preparation programs need to carefully craft authentic experiences aimed at developing such skills. By exposing candidates to information and ideas that they may resist and by assisting them to stretch beyond their comfort zones, a critique and transformation of hegemonic structures and ideologies can occur. (p. 78)

Therein lies the central responsibility of professors of leadership engaging in pedagogical practices that will result in sorting out the social issues that reflect inequities in our educational system and schools. And in sorting out these issues of inequity, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that curriculum and courses in concert with pedagogical practices create a learning environment for educational leaders that fosters an equity-based practice toward the goal of creating equitable schools for all children. There are no theoretical or pedagogical perspectives or frameworks that offer a singular approach to leadership preparation, in particular that focus on equity and justice in pursuit of democratic leaders for schools. Rather, professors will need to examine alternative perspectives and draw from across the more relevant literature and research on leadership preparation to derive a set of programmatic considerations. In the sections that follow, several research-based perspectives that align with an equity-based pedagogy are introduced. Critical Theory Perspective Writing in Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational Administration, William Foster (1986) offers insight to theoretical underpinnings for an equity-based pedagogy for leadership preparation, focusing on the application of moral, transformative, and socially just and equitable leadership conceptualizations and practices. Foster’s perspective, informed and underpinned by critical theory, extends a view of leadership for schools that interrogates both the uses and the abuses of power in social, economic, and political structures. According to Foster, “Leadership must be critically educative; it can not only look at the conditions in which we live, but it also must decide how to change them” (p. 185). Thus, Foster’s work illuminates one of the premises of critical theory; that is, social institutions such as schools regularly generate and reproduce power inequities through asymmetrical power relationships. Beyer (2001) further illuminates the importance of a critical theory perspective, noting that “it is precisely in understanding the normative dimensions

42

Chapter 2

of education and how they are intertwined with social, structural, and ideological processes and realities that critical theory plays a key role” (p. 154). The discussion is framed by a critical stance and outlines clearly the need for professors to reconceptualize their teaching and courses to address issues of power and privilege—to weave social justice into the fabric of educational leadership curriculum, pedagogy, programs, and policies. A critical stance for preparation recognizes and advocates for the social change role and responsibility of educational leaders. Through a critical theory–based lens, a concern with power inequities is viewed as integral to understanding “a politics of difference” and a “politics of engagement” as elements necessary to preparing leaders for the work of creating and sustaining equitable schools. Foster (1986) draws attention to the school as contested political site and the need for preparation programs to weave critical theory into the curriculum and pedagogy. Such that students of leadership are introduced to readings and theoretical perspectives that they resist and interrogate, and that cultivate a critical leader disposition; a “politics of engagement” stance becomes a defining feature of both preparation and practice. Understanding Context(s) Perspective Restine (1997), in her considerations of learning and development that takes place in the contexts of leadership preparation, provides a framework that asks: What conceptual, technical, and human skills are needed to build democratic and collaborative professional communities? What democratic ideals are important to preparation and practice for educational leaders? The argument extended here is that if educational leaders are to be adequately prepared to influence and shape the core technology of schools— teaching and learning—they and other educators must first understand the backgrounds, cultures, needs, and conditions of the population served by public schools. The argument extended brings into specific relief the issues of inequities that shape schools today, often marginalizing minorities, disadvantaging some individuals and groups while advantaging others. It also brings into specific relief the need for preparation programs to focus on not only the theme of equity but perhaps more important the contexts within which educational inequities are experienced and where they figure largely in the lives of school leaders. Restine’s (1997) framework raises important pedagogical considerations with respect to the types of understandings that must be emphasized in leadership preparation programs to enhance educational leaders’ capacity to create and sustain equitable schools and foster democratic communities. Pounder, Reitzug, and Young (2002), in acknowledging the challenges of

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

43

preparing leaders for equity and justice, ask the question: “How can we better prepare administrators to build democratic and collaborative professional communities in schools?” (p. 277). Taking their lead from Restine (1997), Pounder and colleagues (2002) articulate an illustrative set of understandings for consideration: 1. Understanding the multiple needs of school children and their families, especially those from disadvantaged socioeconomic and diverse backgrounds; 2. Understanding the roles, responsibilities, and cultures of other professionals working with school children and their families; 3. Understanding the organizational supports, work structures, and interpersonal processes associated with effective collaborative professional communities; 4. Understanding how to assess the effectiveness of a collaborative school community in terms of educational effectiveness, equity, and efficiency, and how to enhance the benefits of professional community while minimizing the costs and inefficiencies that can be associated with increased collaboration. (pp. 277–78) Jackson (2001) and Young, Peterson, and Short (2001) further support Restine’s position, indicating the need for changes in the way educational leaders are prepared and socialized. Preparation programs must be concerned with the contexts within the program and the contexts within which the candidates of these programs will practice. Also supportive is the work of Skrla, Scheurich, Johnson, and Koschoreck (2001), who argue, “What is critically needed is real-life, context-specific, tactical, anti-racist work in our schools” (p. 239). Anti-oppressive Perspective Kumashiro (2000), writing in “Toward a Theory of Anti-oppressive Education,” extends an argument for a framework for education that is intended to bring about socially equitable change in schools. Kumashiro uses the term “other” to refer to those groups that are traditionally marginalized in society, i.e., that are other than the norm, such as students of color, students from under- or unemployed families, students who are female, or male, but not stereotypically “masculine,” and students who are, or are perceived to be, queer. (p. 26)

Kumashiro’s anti-oppressive framework includes: (1) education of the other (focus on improving the experiences of students who are othered); (2) education about the other (focus on what all students—privileged and

44

Chapter 2

marginalized—know and should know about the other); (3) education that is critical of privileging and othering (focus on examining not only how some groups and identities are othered but also how some groups are favored); and (4) education that changes students in society (focus on how oppression begins in discourses that frame how people think, feel, and interact). Kumashiro’s framework translates well into a set of pedagogical considerations for leadership preparation that focus on equity and justice and bring to the foreground the necessary work of professors of educational administration and leadership in translating the framework. The changes required to translate the framework into the curricular and pedagogical considerations for preparation programs include changes in individual professor beliefs, values, and assumptions about equity, as well as in the deeply embedded ideological nature of programs and institutional patterns of logic—universalism—and practices related to inequities. These considerations will need to be taken into consideration in the development of a framework for equity and social justice. Rational Discourse Perspective Shields, Larocque, and Oberg (2002), in their work with dialogue and issues in cross-cultural leadership, focus attention on engaging in rational discourse. Involving commitment to extended and repeated conversations, rational discourse focuses on understanding how conversations over time evolve into a culture of careful listening and cautious openness to new perspectives, not shared understanding in the sense of consensus but rather deeper and richer understandings of our own biases as well as where our colleagues are coming from on particular issues and how each of us constructs, differently, those issues. Participation in extended and repeated discourse about equity and justice can provide unique opportunities for learner growth and empowerment. As we struggle to understand how issues of race and ethnicity affect the educational experiences for all students, we must work to overcome our prejudices by listening carefully to those whose backgrounds, perspectives, and understandings differ from our own. We must examine popular assumptions as well as the politically correct stereotypes that educators often use to explain what is happening in today’s multicultural society and its increasingly ethnically heterogeneous schools. Engaging in socially just leadership requires us to maintain an open conversation, to examine and reexamine our perceptions and those of others, constantly looking beneath the surface and seeking alternative explanations and ways of understanding. (Shields, Larocque, & Oberg, 2002, p. 134)

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

45

As a pedagogical consideration, rational discourse introduces the candidates of leadership preparation to how such discourse validates meaning by assessing reasons and valuing different perspectives. Equally important, rational discourse as a pedagogical strategy enables the professor and candidate to join together in examining alternative ways of seeing and understanding the social contexts within which they work, live, and carry out their leadership responsibilities toward creating equitable schools.

Transformative Leadership Perspective In her article “Leadership for Social Justice and Equity: Weaving a Transformative Framework and Pedagogy,” Brown (2004) argues that the main goal of educational leadership-preparation programs should be to develop “critically reflective” administrators who will have the capacities “for both critical inquiry and self-reflection” (p. 91). Brown defines these two main capacities in this way: Critical inquiry involves the conscious consideration of the moral and ethical implications and consequences of schooling practices on students. Self-reflection adds the dimension of deep examination of personal assumptions, values, and beliefs. Critical reflection merges the two terms and involves the examination of personal and professional belief systems, as well as the deliberate consideration of the ethical implications and effect[s] of such practices. (p. 91)

In her theorization of how educational leadership-preparation programs can engage students in critically reflective experiences as part of their course work, Brown proposes “a practical, process-oriented model” (p. 77) based on an “alternative pedagogy” (p. 82) that involves students in a variety of critically reflective strategies. The specific strategies that Brown discusses include: (1) writing cultural autobiographies, (2) conducting life histories of older adults’ educational experiences, (3) participating in prejudice reduction workshops, (4) keeping reflective analysis journals, (5) doing crosscultural interviews, (6) taking educational plunges (by visiting an “educational setting” that is unlike any a student has experienced before), (7) participating on diversity panels, and (8) designing activist action plans. Brown (2004), in arguing the need for a transformative framework for leadership preparation, explains that there is a need for a “fundamental rethinking of content, delivery, and assessment” (p. 88). Toward that goal, her framework offers pedagogical strategies that have the potential, collectively, to bring about transformative learning in students of leadership through “a process of critical self-reflection” that can stimulate students to challenge their “basic assumptions of the world” (p. 88).

46

Chapter 2

Accountability of Equity Perspective Preparing educational leaders for the work of discerning inequities in schools is not easy work, but is critical to creating equitable schools. While Parker and Shapiro (1992) argue that principals should be taught how to be advocates for those less powerful and how to articulate problems with standardized measures of traditional achievement and discipline measures that work against students of color and difference, Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, and Nolly (2006) argue the importance of preparing leaders with skills in conducting equity audits. In agreeing with Parker and Shapiro, Rapp (2002) proposes that principals require the skills to repel, resist, and challenge inequity and injustice. Equity audits afford one avenue for challenging educational inequities. Leadership-preparation programs concerned with equity and justice must look to pedagogical considerations that prepare candidates, through experiencebased activities, to engage in assessment of equity-inequity in their schools. Leaders, teachers, and other cultural workers “may be aware of inequities in various aspects of their schools, but they rarely have systematically examined these areas and then devised ways to eliminate the inequities” (Skrla et al., 2006, p. 258). Larson and Ovando (2001) offer insight as to the deep-seated and problematic nature of seeing inequities within one’s own school: Educators are often not aware of the biased constructions that frame their perceptions of and interactions with others. Therefore, one of the greatest obstacles to establishing more trusting and equitable relationships with the multiple communities we serve is accepting that our perceptions of others are susceptible to misperception and bias. Such acceptance is especially difficult because educators generally believe that they are wholly objective and fully capable of interpreting situations and treating individuals in entirely neutral ways. This belief is deeply nested in a politics of universalism. (p. 64)

Skrla and colleagues (2006) add that “it is also commonplace that when these educators are queried about why children of color and children from low income homes do not do well in their schools, they cite factors external to schooling as the cause, often blaming children’s parents, their home lives, their communities, and even their genetics” (p. 258). The research (Larson & Ovando, 2001; McKenzie, 2001; Skrla et al., 2006; Valencia, 1997) presents an argument for the need to introduce equity audits as a pedagogical consideration in leadership-preparation programs. As well, the perspectives advanced by Larson and Ovando (2001) and Skrla and colleagues (2006) provide a general understanding of the context within which educational leaders will work as well as an understanding of the responsibility leaders have in assuring that their own biases and misperceptions do not filter into the school through their practice.

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

47

Equity audits, note Skrla and colleagues (2006), provide the basis for candidates in leadership preparation programs to have a more productive orientation, one that is not deficit based or focused on issues external to schools, they need to be assisted in recognizing that there are substantial and persistent patterns of inequity internal to schools; that is, embedded within the many assumptions, beliefs, practices, procedures, and policies of schools themselves. (p. 258, emphasis in original)

Equity audits are multidimensional. Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, and Nolly (2006) delineate the importance of auditing equity in teacher quality, equity in programs, and equity in achievement. These three dimensions are the center of the equity audit. Integral to the equity audit is examining the logic and belief systems of educators, therefore assessing inequities introduced through curriculum and pedagogy. Also a critical aspect of the audit is a focus “on compliance with federal civil rights acts [that] have tended to be exhaustive, typically producing voluminous reports on a single district” (Skrla et al., 2006, p. 256). Engaging candidates in leadership preparation programs in conducting equity audits as a pedagogical strategy provides rich experience in understanding how to assess inequities in schools. Action Research Perspective Leading equitable schools—and, in relation, preparing leaders for the responsibility—is perhaps best understood as inquiry-based praxis. Lather (1991) is instructive in understanding inquiry-based praxis when she explains that “the requirements of praxis are theory both relevant to the world and nurtured by actions in it, and an action component in its own theorizing process that grows out of practical political grounding” (pp. 11–12). This inquiry-based praxis translates into an equity-based pedagogy concerned with preparing educational leaders that engage with and explore content, theory, and the problems of practice, as well as interrogate and illuminate inequities and, in the process, reconstruct and expand the theory, knowledge, and perspectives that work create more equitable learning environments for all students. This means that one’s praxis, whether leader or teacher or other cultural worker, is guided by inquiry focused through a critical lens. Preparing educational leaders for creating and leading equitable schools requires learning experiences that develop the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed to enter the school and engage in the work of identifying inequities and challenging those inequities, with the vision of an equitable school for all students. As Allsup (2003) reminds us, “Engagement is both action-based (composing, performing) and epistemological (perceiving,

48

Chapter 2

recognizing, linking)” (p. 6). However, Woodford (2005) cautions: “The danger of deconstructive attacks on the status quo is that, in the absence of progressive and clearly thought-out alternatives that have been reached by democratic consensus, and without an understanding of what equality means, we might end up with something much worse” (p. 54). Action research presents an alternative pedagogical consideration for leadership preparation. Action research is a distinct genre by virtue of who the researchers are (leader and teacher practitioners), what they do (inquire into their own practice in disciplined ways), and where the research takes place (inside classrooms and schools). It is markedly distinct from other forms of educational research, in that leading, teaching, and researching are actively intertwined. The results of the action-research process, “which mirror current developments in qualitative and social science research, is often more personally reflective, context-specific, and open-ended than are the findings typically found in controlled experimental deign or strictly quantitative studies” (Caro-Bruce & Klehr, 2007, p. 13). A pedagogy concerned with equity and justice necessarily considers the needs of educational leaders who will enter schools and engage, in response to the inequities and injustices experienced by practitioners and students, in identifying the factors contributing to educational inequities, in particular as related to classroom and school practices. The dilemma for the educational leader is often the tension between immediate action and thoughtful consideration. Action research designed to enable creating an equitable school is research that suggests and supports observable consequences. When the leader’s lens is focused on equity and justice, research must be devoted not only to observing but also to defining the actions and examining the conditions that do, in fact, lead to changes in the status quo of social practice and the underlying beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives. Integral to an equity-based action-research approach is a recognition that professors and candidates must embrace a self-awareness of how power rules or controls contextually and politically. Equally important is a selfawareness of how power, in different contradictory ways, transcends social, cultural, political, ideological, and moral boundaries, and how the principles of carrying through action research for equity and justice are bound in two concepts, “moments of normalization” and “moments of equity” (Berge, 2001, p. 281). These two concepts demonstrate the contradictory process of exertion of power and what could be defined as social equity; asymmetrical power relationships contribute to educational inequities, generally realized in oppression, marginalization, and disadvantaging of minority and other nondominant status groups. An equity-based pedagogy that articulates action research into the preparation of educational leaders recognizes that learning through experience—

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

49

engaging in action research in the program and by extension in practice— affords the educator, leader, and cultural worker a skill and knowledge base from which to lead the school community in interrogating, illuminating, and taking action on social practices that contribute to educational inequities. Learning through action research enriches not only the skill and knowledge of the leader, but creates a level of self-critical awareness of the work involved in making visible the deeply embedded ideological and political and cultural patterns that enable inequities to be perpetuated.

FINAL REFLECTIONS Preparing educational leaders who fully understand the complex and problematic nature of creating equitable schools will require taking a critical pragmatic turn, that is, a change in preparation programs. Such change should provide both the professor and student of leadership—animated by an equity-based pedagogy—with the critical terminology and conceptual apparatus that will allow them not only to critically analyze the ideological and political trappings of inequities schools, but it will also enable leaders to develop the knowledge and skills that will advance the possibilities for generating curricula, classroom social practices, and organizational arrangements based on cultivating a deep respect for an equitable and democratically based community. In effect, the relationship of leadership-preparation programs to public schooling must be self-consciously guided by political and moral considerations for a more equitable and democratic society. Developing educational leaders as social activists for equitable schools requires a deep-seated commitment on the part of preparation programs and the faculty within the program. Curriculum and courses must be fashioned and infused, as Brown (2004) argues, “with critically reflective curricula and methodologies which stimulate students to think beyond current behavioral and conceptual boundaries in order to study, research, and implement leadership practices that will fundamentally and holistically change schools in ways and in manners which are consistent with an equitable, inclusive vision” (p. 88). An equity-based pedagogy must look to new theoretical perspectives and pedagogical strategies, taking direction from researched-based literature on leadership preparation that focuses on equity and justice as principles of democracy. This means that professors in leadership-preparation programs will necessarily need to question their own practices, and challenge their own perspectives. And in the course of assessing where they stand on equity as well as the stance that future leaders need to take on equity, professors will need to design new programs, enlivened with equity-based learning activities that will more readily engage candidates, connecting the curriculum

50

Chapter 2

to the real-world issues that students and teachers face in schools today. In the process they need to take responsibility, morally and socially, for the challenge of creating equitable schools for all children while fostering more democratic, politically engaged communities for everyone.

REFERENCES Allsup, R. E. (2003). Praxis and the possible: Thoughts on the writings of Maxine Greene and Paulo Freire. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 11(2), 157–69. Berge, B.-M. (2001). Action research for gender equity in a late modern society. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 281–92. Beyer, L. E. (2001). The value of critical perspectives in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 151–63. Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108. Caro-Bruce, C., & Klehr, M. (2007). Classroom action research with a focus on equity. In C. Caro-Bruce, R. Flessner, M. Klehr, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Creating equitable classrooms through action research (pp. 12–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (1999). Learning to teach for social justice. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers (pp. 114–44). 98th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Dewey, J. (1888/1993). The ethics of democracy. In D. Morris & I. Shapiro (Eds.), John Dewey: The political writings (pp. 59–65). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Dewey, J. (1937a). Democracy and educational administration. School and Society, 45(162), 457–62. Dewey, J. (1937b). Democracy is radical. Common Sense, 6, 10–11. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Educational leadership and school administration: Rethinking the meaning of democratic public cultures. T. A. Mulkeen, N. H. CambronMcCabe, & B. J. Anderson (Eds.), Democratic leadership: The changing context of administrative preparation (pp. 31–47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 213–38. Grace, G. (1997). Politics, markets, and democratic schools: On the transformation of school leadership. In A. Halsey, J. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 311–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, B. (2001). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Paper commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, WI. Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53. Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2003). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134–61). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Preparing Democratic Educational Leaders

51

Larson, C., & Ovando, C. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in multicultural school communities. Atlanta: Wadsworth. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge. Lees, K. A. (1995). Advancing democratic leadership through critical theory. Journal of School Leadership, 5(3), 220–30. McKenzie, K. B. (2001). White teachers’ perspectives about their students of color and themselves as white educators. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Parker, L., & Shapiro, J. P. (1992). Where 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. Pounder, D., Reitzug, U., & Young, M. (2002). Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice, and community. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 261–88). Chicago: The National Society for The Study of Education. Rapp, D. (2002). Social justice and the importance of rebellious imaginations. Journal of School Leadership, 12(3), 226–45. Restine, L. N. (1997). Learning and development in the context(s) of leadership preparation. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 117–30. Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Education Research, 70(1), 55–81. Shields, C., Larocque, L., & Oberg, S. (2002). A dialogue about race and ethnicity in education: Struggling to understand issues in cross-cultural leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 116–37. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2006). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 251–77). Boston: Pearson Education. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Johnson, J., & Koschoreck, J. (2001). Accountability for equity: Can state policy leverage social justice? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 237–60. Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering educational administration: Cultivating meaning, community, responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25–73). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking. London: Falmer. Woodford, P. G. (2005) Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Young, M., Peterson, G., & Short, P. (2001). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Paper commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, WI.

II INTRODUCTION: EQUITY ISSUES FOR TODAY’S EDUCATIONAL LEADERS

The more critically conscious educational leaders become, the more attentive they become to redressing social injustices and developing enduring educational practices embodying equity. Brown, 2004, p. 333

The inequities that have, historically, marked America’s educational system present significant challenges for the preparation and practice of educational leaders in our schools today. Increasingly, educational leaders are confronted with the contemporary manifestations of educational inequities, which give rise to contemplation for those preparing educational leaders, taking the form of questions that must be answered, such as: What are the origins of the equity issues—historical, political, ideological? What is the responsibility of those preparing educational leaders when it comes to fostering a leadership stance on equity? What is most problematic in preparing leaders for schools that are mirror images of a society conflicted by inequity? In turn, for those who enter the role of educational leader, those same deeply rooted educational inequities give rise to questions such as: What is it I need to understand about equity issues? Which equity issues are more important? What will I need to do in order to address inequities? What if I don’t? These and many other questions concerning equity issues in today’s schools give rise to an almost overwhelming responsibility on the part of the educational leader, a sense of social and moral responsibility to students, teachers, parents, and society.

53

54

Part II: Introduction

John Dewey (1938), writing in Experience and Education, spoke to the need to examine the origin or cause of issues in order that those issues might be understood: The nature of the issues cannot be understood save as we know they came about. The institutions and customs that exist in the present and that gave rise to present social ills and dislocations did not arise overnight. They have a long history behind them. Attempts to deal with them simply on the basis of what is obvious in the present are bound to result in adoption of superficial measures which in the end will only render existing problems more acute and more difficult to solve. (p. 77)

A leadership stance on equity is an ethical, moral, and political positiontaking (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) within a larger dynamic complexity of social, political, and historical contexts. Such position-taking on the part of the educational leader is concerned with Dewey’s (1916) argument that “the conception of education as a social process and function has no definite meaning until we define the kind of society we have in mind” (p. 97). If what we want is a democratic society, we must work to define that society, in part through the education system and schools, through the social practices that animate the educational system and schools on a daily basis. If what we want is an educational system and schools that are equitable, then we must necessarily focus on the inequities that have deep roots in our society, understand how they came about, and work to address the inequities while simultaneously focusing on conceptualizing the type of society we want for children. Eliminating inequities will be neither popular nor easy. Those who benefit from inequities in society, those who have benefited across America’s history, will resist the efforts of those who undertake the work of fighting inequity and redistributing social resources, working to make visible ideological and political agendas that have enabled inequities. Such work on the part of educational leaders—the work of eliminating inequities—will require extraordinary commitment and inner strength, and it will require of individuals a moral and political reckoning of self and with others that will draw down on the human capacity to endure the resistance of those who would continue inequities for their own purposes. The challenge in preparing educational leaders, and that of practicing educational leadership that is defined, in large part, by a stance on equity, lies in first identifying those equity issues most prominent in our schools and society. Second, it requires that the pedagogy of leadership preparation focus not only on the historical and contemporary nature of inequities but also focus on understanding the moral and political and social responsibilities required of educational leaders who are committed to practices that shape and define schools as just and democratic places for teaching and learning.

Equity Issues for Today’s Educational Leaders

55

REFERENCES Brown, K. M. (2004). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 332–42. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). The purpose of reflexive sociology (the Chicago Workshop). In P. Bourdieu & L. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. New York: Collier Books.

3 Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education Diane Trautman and Sandra Stewart

INTRODUCTION Historically, in America the educational system has been a microcosm of the community and society of which it is a part. Though some would argue that this system lags behind social changes within society, it nevertheless is a representation of the people’s beliefs and ideologies in which it serves (Brown & Mistry, 2005). In addition, the cultural beliefs and norms of students’ families and the community directly impact, even if in a subversive manner, expectations for student success and delivery of instruction in the classroom (Hill et al., 2004). How then has gender equity in American society influenced the educational system in regard to curriculum, instructional materials, methods of instruction, instructional delivery, and expectations for success between males and females? Take for example the case of Maria and Juan, twins who were raised in the same family environment and educated in the same system. Maria and Juan were born to a second-generation Hispanic family and had two older siblings. Though their paternal grandparents’ spoke only Spanish, Maria and Juan’s parents spoke only English in the home. Their mother was abandoned when born in the United States and adopted by an Anglo family. Since both parents worked full-time, Maria and Juan spent much of their time with their Spanish-speaking grandmother. On entrance into elementary school, both children were assessed in Spanish and English to determine proficiency in both languages. Both children were fluent English speakers and limited Spanish speakers. Through these assessment measures, the teacher determined that Maria had a stronger understanding of vocabulary and was academically and socially 57

58

Chapter 3

more advanced than Juan. Throughout their elementary years, Maria scored higher on all local, state, and national assessments in all content areas. However, by high school Juan was excelling academically at a higher level than Maria. Juan was in the top 10 percent of their graduating class, in line for a football scholarship, and in three school clubs. He participated on the UIL robotics team and scored higher on his SAT in science. He received several athletic and academic scholarships and was accepted into the engineering school in a state four-year university. Maria was in the top 25 percent of her graduating class, was on the dance team, and the historian of the student council. She was nominated for homecoming queen and popular among students and faculty. Maria was an average student in science and slightly above-average in mathematics. However, she excelled in reading, English literature, and foreign language. Maria did not receive scholarships; however, she was accepted into a nearby two-year college and was on their dance team. Maria was leaning toward a career in education, but was still an undetermined major on her college application. This case illustrates the socially acceptable and academic expectations of males and females as they move through today’s educational system. At what point did Juan begin to surpass Maria’s educational abilities, especially in the area of science? Did cultural beliefs and biases within the home, community, or school predetermine this outcome? The question of gender bias in education has been studied, confirming this phenomenon. What is the responsibility of educational leaders in identifying issues of gender equity, teacher expectations and perceptions of student ability, and ensuring a gender-balanced curriculum? The purpose of this chapter is to explore equity issues related to gender in American schools. Defining gender bias and equity in education, examining the role of gender education through a historical lens, understanding how societal and cultural expectations impact gender roles in schools, identifying the responsibility of educational leaders in promoting gender equity, understanding teacher perceptions, and investigating the effects on classroom instruction for males and females will be the focus of this chapter.

WHAT IS GENDER BIAS? Gender is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “classification of sex.” According to this same source, bias is defined as “preference or inclination that inhibits impartiality; prejudice” (1986). Thus, gender bias is separation of gender in a way that prefers one sex over the other. Pang (2005) defines gender bias as sexism, a form of social discrimination grant-

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

59

ing one gender more opportunity over another. Gender bias in education then refers to preference for or favoring of one sex over the other in the classroom setting. Gender bias in education can impact the education and preparation of students, teachers, and principals. Biased curricula, instructional materials, and instructional methods are all ways in which teachers give preference to one sex over another. This is especially true in particular subjects such as mathematics and science. Males are more likely to pursue fields related to science and mathematics than are females (Berube & Glanz, 2008). However, bias against females in education is not new. Historically, females have not been the focus of education in America. Interestingly, though this is not related to civil rights, that movement paved the way for many inequity issues in education, including gender bias. New laws have been enacted to “ensure” equity for all in the school setting.

GENDER BIAS AND THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION Though education was a priority in America from the earliest colonial days, the conception of public school education and the opportunities for girls has been limited from the beginning. Societal beliefs shaped schools after the American Revolution. Some wanted girls educated while others argued that their inferior minds would undermine the educational institution for boys. Even though women and many men wanted girls “schooled,” it was for the primary purpose of making them better wives and mothers (Pang, 2005). Women during this time could not vote and rarely worked outside of the home. As society changed, so did the educational system. Female roles guided the direction of public education throughout American history, much as it does today. Women have progressed in American society and gained some forms of equality, at least in legal terms. It was the civil rights movement that shed light on the inequities of not only minorities in public education, but females as well. In 1972, the U.S. Department of Education passed Title IX, a set of amendments aimed at reforming gender inequality in schools. The amendment stated that “no person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal aid” (Title IX, 1972, p. 1681). This amendment was applied heavily to education as official legislation to ensure equality for girls and boys in schools. The most well known result and thus misconceived sole purpose of Title IX was the encouragement and support of many girls’ sports teams in public schools, though it also applied

60

Chapter 3

to other areas as well. However, thirty years later, few problems have been solved (Zittleman & Sadker, 2005). Women still remain underrepresented in critical areas such as math and science, and there is an unchanged presence of male-sport favoritism. Since its inception, great strides have been made; however, Title IX has yet to be fully recognized in the classroom by teachers and the current state of education still does not approach gender equality promised by this law (Zittleman & Sadker, 2005). Though the spotlight on gender bias tends to focus on improving educational issues for females, some now argue that this focus has the opposite effect on males. This backlash has become a polarizing political ideology that blames the academic problems of boys on efforts to ensure equal educational opportunities for girls (AAUW, 1998). Boys do lag behind females in reading and writing, account for two-thirds of all students served in special education, have a higher dropout rate, are less likely to attend college, and received lower report card grades (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, 2002). Yet these backlash arguments create a false opposition between girls and boys, suggesting that helping one must come at the expense of the other. The need to confront gender stereotypes is as important to a boy who dreams of becoming an elementary teacher as it is for a girl who wants to be an engineer (Zittleman & Sadker, 2005). Equity for female students is not intended to raise one gender over another; the purpose is equity for all. Knowledge alone is not enough for administrators to improve gender equity in their schools. Leaders must ensure that all staff members are aware of these issues and their impact in the classroom. Once expectations for equity have been established in curriculum, instruction, and sports, principals must monitor teacher-student interactions, course offerings, and the laws guiding gender equity. Awareness of gender issues within the school walls is vital, however, as an understanding of the community and cultures of the families served on campus have an impact on parent and student perceptions of the purpose of education for males and females.

SOCIETAL AND CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS FOR MALES AND FEMALES IN EDUCATION How do societal and cultural beliefs affect the educational outcomes of males and females? Since the public school is a reflection of the community, how does the community influence gender bias in the schoolhouse? In past studies, parental involvement and expectations were found to be the single most important factor in determining student achievement at school (Rumberger, 1995). In addition, parental expectation for student success

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

61

depended on their educational background, economics, family structure, and cultural influences (Bartholomew & Schnorr 2000). Bartholomew and Schnorr (2000) found that though women are more visible in the workplace, girls are still gravitating toward female-dominant occupations. As girls enter secondary education, they begin losing confidence and self-assurance in areas that lead to occupational fields historically dominated by males, such as science and mathematics (Berube & Glanz, 2008). Since it has already been determined that girls and boys are at the same level or higher in nationally standardized tests throughout elementary school, factors other than ability play a role in this phenomenon. Rumberger (1995) found that family beliefs and ideologies about differences between their sons and daughters directly impact this movement away from these fields. Studies have also found that parents are more involved with their children’s education in elementary school and have less direct contact with the system as they move into secondary school (Seyfried & Chung, 2002). Parents then are more involved when research has indicated that girls are at or above level in achievement in all content areas and are confident in their abilities in these areas. Therefore, teachers and principals have more of an opportunity to change the perceptions of parents in regard to gender roles and expectations in the future. If the role of family structure and expectations has a powerful influence on the academic success of their children, then schools have the responsibility of educating parents about gender issues prior to their children’s entrance in middle school and high school. Principals must take the leadership role and responsibility for ensuring that not only teachers and staff but also parents are armed with this knowledge.

GENDER EQUITY AND THE ROLE OF THE EDUCATIONAL LEADER Breaking the cycle of gender bias in public education begins with a strong instructional leader who can identify gender bias in curriculum, teaching strategies, and pupil-teacher interaction. This all begins in the university leadership program that prepares teachers to become principals and educational leaders. Inclusion of gender inequity, gender bias, and inclusive leadership theory in today’s training programs is essential for improving the educational setting for students, teachers, and administrators. Since breaking the cycle begins in leader-preparation classes, it is important to analyze the training received in these courses, including the type of curriculum and leadership theories taught. A recent qualitative

62

Chapter 3

study of students in the middle of their university principalship program revealed that almost half of the participants did not know the definition of gender bias or how it could affect curriculum, teaching strategies, or leadership development (Trautman, 2007). This lack of understanding only perpetuates gender inequities and stereotypes of educators in schools across America. A gender-inclusive leadership theory can be defined as a leadership model that takes into consideration the female perspective and experience yet can be applied to both males and females. It includes a leadership and management style that reflects the current leadership paradigm of site-based decision-making, collaborative arrangement, empowerment of employees, and strong interpersonal skills that promote a shared vision (Brown & Irby, 1994). Although feminine leadership characteristics have appeared in literature, there has been no leadership theory to accommodate them until the development of a concept of synergistic leadership. Premised on the theory of synergistic leadership, this perspective was developed and advanced by female researchers, utilizing a female sample, and included the feminine perspective (Irby et al., 2002). Once educational leadership programs focus theories related to feminism and gender bias, these future leaders must embrace practices that lead to equitable learning environments for all students. Ensuring an equitable learning environment is not only having an understanding of the impact of gender bias on girls and their futures but is also a fundamental equity issue for the community and society in which educational leaders serve. Schools are charged with educating students to become productive and democratic citizens (Kyle & Jenks, 2002). Providing equitable opportunities for all is vital to this charge. If principals, teachers, and staff perpetuate gender inequities, they, by default, fail to promote democratic principles. Educational leaders not only have the responsibility to understand issues of gender bias, they also must be able to identify these inequities on their campuses. Effective leaders provide staff development to all faculty members on understanding gender bias, recognizing gender bias in curriculum and classroom materials, understanding the effects on student learning, and creating learning environments that support equity for all students (Sadker & Zittleman, 2005). Until teachers can identify their own biases, they cannot be aware of how these biases are demonstrated in their teaching practices. Through walkthroughs and evaluations, principals can ensure that teachers are utilizing this knowledge through teaching strategies and questioning skills that do not prefer one sex over another.

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

63

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN THE CLASSROOM According to many researchers, classroom teachers continue to focus more attention on male than on female students (AAUW, 1992; Goetz, 1996). The school system itself plays a significant role in creating and maintaining gender differences. For example, textbooks often represent the gender bias present in society’s views of technical fields. In addition, teaching styles and instructional strategies also perpetuate the gender difference. A study conducted by the American Association of University Women (1992) revealed that teachers tend to focus more attention on boys, directing more encouragement to them and disciplining them more often, while girls are often overlooked in class. Sadker & Zittleman (2005) found that teachers call on boys more often than girls and provide more wait time for boys to answer questions. In addition, they provided more specific feedback to boys. In light of these results, teachers are apparently unaware of their biased actions. Traditional-teacher training tends to cater to boys’ interests and behaviors as a means of keeping classroom order. Boys generally act out their frustrations in a manner disruptive to the classroom. In contrast, girls predominantly repress their frustrations by withdrawing. Teachers’ methods of controlling boys included making them contribute often. Thus, teachers have inadvertently favored boys to girls in the traditional classroom setting (GREAT, 1998). As a result of cultural bias, adults’ expectations vary with respect to boys and girls. Teachers often see a difference in potential between boys and girls especially in technical areas. In problem situations where students appear stumped, adults tend to rescue girls by giving them either easy clues or by blatantly revealing the answer. With boys, the general practice is to force them to figure it out for themselves (Berube & Glanz, 2008). This kind of “help” undermines girls’ confidence in their abilities. Because of different self-esteem levels, boys and girls come to very different conclusions about themselves, even when the data on which they base their decisions are the same. Studies have demonstrated that boys accept success and take credit for their accomplishments more readily than girls. Moreover, girls are more likely to share successes with others. They tend to be more group-oriented. The combination of cultural biases, differentiated treatment of girls, and the fact that girls are provided less opportunity to independently solve problems has serious effects on the self-confidence of girls (GREAT, 1998). Once teachers become aware of gender-bias issues, what can they do to eliminate these bias practices in the classroom? Teachers can begin by monitoring the amount of attention that is paid to all students in the classroom.

64

Chapter 3

If girls tend to be less independently responsive to answering questions or becoming involved in classroom discussions, teachers can preplan specific questions for individual students in the classroom. They could also ensure that the questions asked to girls are at the same problem-solving level as boys, remembering to provide the same amount of wait time for answering those questions. Providing equal time for all students to present activities and projects to the class is another strategy to increase female participation in the classroom. If boys tend to grow more confident in sharing ideas and projects with peers, teachers must consciously predetermine equal opportunities for girls to increase in their academic level of confidence in presenting their learning outcomes. Just as important as improving questioning skills and opportunities for building confidence in the learning environment, teachers need to provide materials that support gender equality in all content areas, especially in science, mathematics, and technology. This can be accomplished by providing reading materials, pictures, and learning materials that illustrate women role models in these areas. They can also encourage classroom discussions that focus on equality and opportunity for women to compete in these content areas. As teachers become aware of these gender biases in the classroom, the impetus then becomes not only to improve classroom delivery and classroom instruction but also to free the classroom of texts and materials that are gender-biased.

GENDER BIAS AND CURRICULUM Once teachers become self-aware of their biases, they must then begin implementing classroom practices that demonstrate student equity in learning. The development of a curriculum that is free of gender bias is the first step. Research indicates that many curriculums are biased in favor of male students. Curriculum materials that use male-biased language, content, and illustrations continue to reinforce math and science as male domains. Older texts, such as Mary Budd Rowe’s Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry (1978), asserted that just being female was “a special handicap” in science. The text informed readers that girls “know less, do less, explore less, and are prone to be more superstitious than boys” (Zittleman & Sadker, 2002, p. 68). Today’s science and math methods texts avoid such overt and harmful stereotypes, but they are far from bias-free (Zittleman & Sadker, 2002). Biased and stereotyped messages are embedded in books, in textual presentation, misrepresentation, or simply lack of presentation at all levels, from picture books to professional studies.

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

65

While teacher-education textbooks offer few specific resources to promote gender fairness, there are steps that teachers and teacher educators can take to create more equitable and effective learning. In curriculum, for example, teaching students to recognize common forms of bias can pay rich learning dividends (Zittleman & Sadker, 2002). Since these forms of bias exist from picture books to college texts and apply not only to gender bias but also biases toward other groups as well, involving students in the process of identifying gender and other biases in the classroom is a way of teaching and promoting equity. Suggestions of strategies that teachers can implement in the classroom for decreasing the effects of gender bias include involving students in reviewing textbooks and other classroom materials, engaging in dialogue on solutions for overcoming all forms of bias in the school setting, and infusing issues of equity in school projects and presentations. These strategies offer only one approach to countering the gender bias still prevalent in teacher-education texts. Until publishers and authors discuss relevant gender issues and the strategies needed to eliminate gender bias, it will be up to the creativity and commitment of teachers and their principals to fill in the missing pages. Additionally, Burger, Abbott, Tobias, Koch, Vogt, and Sosa (2007) determined that female students need for curricula to be more engaging and directly related to their lives. They also pointed out that for curricula to be meaningful to female students more texts need to point out female contributions. Gender bias in curriculum can also cause a gender gap in certain content areas. A gender gap exists between males and females in the use of technology. In a 1994 study, it was found that in a group of fourth through sixth graders who were defined as heavy computer users, the ratio of girls to boys using computers was 1:4 (Sakamoto, 1994). This is only the beginning of a trend that reveals a gap between boys and girls that continues through high school, college, and beyond: Girls’ participation rates (in math and science) in elementary and secondary school have increased, but drop as women advance in higher education. Although girls’ achievement is approaching that of boys, a gender gap persists which increases with the grade level (National Coalition of Women and Girls in Education, 1997). Since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 holds schools accountable for test scores, particularly in reading and math, the omission of gender in these method texts can be particularly costly. While significant research exists concerning gender bias in basal readers and children’s literature, one would not learn it from some methods texts. In an analysis of basal readers, male characters outnumber females two to one (Witt, 1996), and Caldecott books tell more male-centered stories (61 percent) than female (39 percent) (Davis & McDaniel, 1999).

66

Chapter 3

Many times, these books and texts send subtle messages to girls and boys about expectations for their behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and other aspects in their lives. This is not necessarily intentional. Many parents, educators, and manufacturers are sensitive to the issues of gender. They are making great strides to create equity in all areas for males and females. On the other hand, there are those parents, educators, and manufacturers who are shocked and surprised to realize that they are unintentionally sending separate signals about expectations for girls and boys. Differential treatment by educators diverts girls from science and technology (AAUW, 1998). In the same way, other influential adults in girls’ lives influence the paths girls follow and the perception of girls concerning their own futures and those of others.

CONCLUSION Gender bias in schools has a profound impact on society as a whole. The lack of female representation in particular fields of study, stereotypes of females in the workplace, and sexual harassment in schools and the workplace directly impact the future of America. Equally as important is the lack of representation of males in certain fields and the acceptance of a maledominant upper-management mentality. If society and communities are accepting of these gender biases, then the cycle is perpetuated in the next generation of students that enter school doors. If schools are the microcosm of society, then educational leaders and teachers have the opportunity through this advent to reverse gender bias and create democratic schools that support equity for all students. Principals are charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing a shared school vision. In order to implement a shared vision free from gender bias, leaders must be aware of gender bias, be able to identify the characteristics of gender bias in the school, educate parents and the community in which it serves, and provide needed staff development that will eliminate bias and support equality. The case study in the beginning of this chapter illustrated a subversive but ever present gender bias in the school setting. Though it is commendable that Juan was successful, not only in school but also in other areas that will help him to be a leader in society, the acceptance of Maria’s position is many times overlooked. Though one could argue that she was successful academically and socially, educational outcomes indicate a diminishing of academic success as she moved through the system and an acceptance of uncertainty. Could Maria’s situation be due to gender bias on the part of some teachers or maybe an outgrowth of a cultural belief system within the family?

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

67

Or maybe she just became more socially involved and less academically involved as she moved from elementary to secondary school. Though there are many factors that could have impacted her future decisions, Maria’s story is not unique. In high school, boys dominate the sciences in AP courses. According to Berube and Glanz (2008), only 25 to 30 percent of females are enrolled in AP physics courses and less in AP computer science courses. In addition, if Maria decides to pursue a future in education, how will her own experiences affect her teaching practices? Schools were designed to teach the fundamentals of democracy and societal responsibility. Additionally, schools instill these values and beliefs in students, not only through dialogue but more importantly through actions. Educational leaders and teachers must model beliefs of equity and opportunity for all students. If America is to progress in business, politics, and education, it is vital that schools lead the way in providing safe and equitable learning environments for all.

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities 1. Plan an in-service or staff development day on how you would teach and monitor implementation of Title IX requirements on your campus. Include what you would put in your campus teacher handbook. 2. In a group, discuss how you would conduct a curriculum audit for gender bias of English class required-reading lists on your campus. Answer the following questions. How would you identify gender bias in these materials? Who would be on your curriculum audit team? Once identified, how would you correct the curriculum to ensure that it is bias free? 3. In a group, develop a survey for teachers on your campus that would help to identify teacher perceptions of gender bias in the classroom. Pilot the survey with the other groups in the class. Action Research Questions 1. Staff development is designed to offer opportunities for educators to learn and grow professionally in order to ensure student success in the classroom. What types of staff development focus on gender bias and how do educational leaders evaluate its effectiveness? 2. Teachers’ beliefs directly impact their expectations for student success. How do teachers’ beliefs about gender differences impact teaching strategies and expectations for student success?

68

Chapter 3

3. Principals are responsible for ensuring that the curriculum, instructional materials, and teaching methods are free from gender bias. What, if any, training do principals receive in their university preparation programs in defining gender bias and identifying gender bias in curriculum and instructional methods? Pro/Con Debate Preparing Gender-Aware Administrators Gender bias affects everyone in public education including teachers, staff, parents, and, most of all, our students. Bias on the basis of a student’s gender can ultimately interfere with how that child learns and succeeds academically. As a result, university and principal preparation programs must include information about gender bias in their curriculum and also explain how an administrator would go about teaching his or her staff about this issue that is still very much a part of our public school campuses. Our future leaders also need to know how to monitor their staff on full implementation of policies against gender bias as well as current laws. Question: Is the principal’s knowledge of gender bias enough to prevent campus occurrences of gender bias? (See table 3.1.) Websites for Additional Information American Association of University Women (AAUW) www.aauw.org AWSEM Advocates for Women in Science Engineering & Math www.awsem.com Society of Women Engineers www.swe.org Association for Women in Mathematics www.awm-math.org Tomorrow’s Women in Science and Technology www.twistinc.org Association for Women in Science AWIS www.awis.org Equity Online www.edc.org/Womens Equity Tap Junior (Encouraging Girls and Teens in Science and Technology) www.cs.yale.edu Gender Equity in Careers www.genderequity.org Gender Equity in Sports www.bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

69

Table 3.1. PRO

CON

1. Public schools must educate staff and students about gender bias in curriculum, textbooks, and teacher/ student interactions

1. Gender bias is no longer a problem in public schools due to the enactment of Title IX. Public schools should stick to teaching the basics and leave the rest to parents.

2. More attention should be spent on gender bias toward boys in our public schools. Female students are excelling at the expense of our male students.

2. Equity for girls means equity for everyone. Female students are just now catching up with years of lagging behind males academically.

3. Single sex schools would be the answer to ending gender bias for male and female students.

3. Single sex schools do not address the issue of educating both genders about respect for the other.

4. Boys should be encouraged to enter traditionally female occupations like elementary teaching, social work, and nursing, and girls should be recruited to fields where they are underrepresented, like engineering, military, and police work.

4. Students should be given many options for career paths, but not on the basis of underrepresentation by gender. Both boys and girls should be presented with all career options.

5. Title IX needs enlightened implementation. Too many times the campus Title IX coordinator is someone who already has many other duties and who may know nothing about it.

5. Title IX has been successfully implemented now for many years. There is no need to go to the expense of hiring yet another campus administrator.

REFERENCES American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools short-change girls. Washington, DC: AAUW. American Association of University Women. (1998). Technology gender gap develops while gaps in math and science narrow, AAUW foundation report shows. Washington, DC: AAUW. American Heritage Dictionary. (1986). New York: Dell Publishing Co. Bartholomew, C. G., & Schnorr, D. L. (2000). Gender equity: Suggestions for broadening career options of female students. School Counselor, 41(4), 244–55. Berube C., & Glanz, J. (2008). Equal opportunity: Reframing gender difference in science and math. Principal Leadership, 9, 28–33. Brown, G., & Irby, B. J. (1994). Needed: A theory including women executives in the rural culture. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Conference proceedings of rural partnerships: Working together (pp. 19–24). Austin, TX: American Council on Rural Special Education. ACRES.

70

Chapter 3

Brown, A., & Mistry, T. (2005). Group work with “mixed membership” groups: Issues of race and gender. Social Work with Groups, 28(3/4), 133–48. Burger, C., Abbott, G., Tobias, S., Koch, J., Vogt, C., & Sosa, T. (2007). Gender equity in science, engineering, and technology. In S. Klein (Ed.,) Handbook for achieving gender equity through education, second ed. (pp. 255–79). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, A., & McDaniel, T. (1999). You’ve come a long way, baby—or have you? Research evaluating gender portrayal in recent Caldecott-winning books. Reading Teacher, 52(5), 532–36. Goetz, J. (1996). Education expert: Classroom gender bias persists. Cornell Chronicle, 27(31), 1. GREAT. (1998). Why are gender issues important in education? Gender Inequalities in Education, 1(1), 1–2. Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 1491–1509. Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Duffy, J., & Trautman, D. (2002). The synergistic leadership theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 304–22. National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (1997). Title IV at 25: Report card on gender equity: Executive summary. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Retreived March 15, 2009, from www.ncwge.org/pubs-reports. html. Kyle, K., & Jenks, C. (2002). The theoretical and historical case for democratic education in the United States. Educational Studies, 33(2), 150–69. Pang, V. O. (2005). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. New York: McGraw Hill. Rowe, M. B. (1978). Teaching science as continuous inquiry, second ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Touchstone Press. Sadker, D., & Zittleman K. R. (2005). Gender bias lives, for both sexes. Education Digest, 70(8), 27–30. Sakamoto, A. (1994).Video game use and the development of socio-cognitive abilities in children: Three Surveys of elementary school students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 21–42. Seyfried, S. F., & Chung, I. (2002). Parent expectations predicting later achievement among African-American and European American middle school age students. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 11(1/2), 109–31. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 20 U.S.C.1681–1688. Trautman, D. (2000). A validation of the synergistic leadership theory: A genderinclusive leadership theory. Doctoral dissertation at Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.

Meeting the Challenge of Ending Gender Bias in Public Education

71

Trautman, D. (2007). Stopping the cycle of gender bias: It starts at the top. Paper presented at the Research on Women in Education Conference in San Antonio, TX. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (1999). Elementary and secondary school compliance reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2001. Washington, DC: Office of Educational research and Improvement. Witt, S. (1996). Traditional or androgynous: An analysis to determine gender role orientation of basal readers. Child Study Journal, 26, 303–18. Zittleman, K. R., & Sadker, D. (2002). Teacher education textbooks: The unfinished gender revolution. Educational leadership, 60(4), 59–64. Zittleman, K. R., & Sadker, D. (2005, April). Title IX and gender issues: A study of the knowledge and perceptions of middle school teachers and students. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

4 Educational Equity and School Choice: The Effect of Voucher Programs on Access to an Equitable Education and the Role of the School Leader J. Craig Coleman In America, for over two decades school reform has been at the forefront of the nation’s agenda. Publications such as A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) have made the claim that schools are not properly preparing our nation’s students to compete in a global marketplace. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, a bipartisan bill, otherwise known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), has been promoted as the law that will finally improve a failing public education system by holding school districts accountable and assessing student progress in schools through a rigorous testing program. NCLB will also issue sanctions against schools that do not make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and offer choice to parents who are attending these “failing” schools. Accordingly, public education is in need of serious reform to make sure that our nation’s students are prepared to become active participants in tomorrow’s world and our schools are providing students the opportunity for success. In recent history nearly all political candidates have placed education at the forefront of their political platforms and have introduced their recommendations for policy changes they believe will remedy the problem (Costa, Elseginy, Lusco, & Pinney, 2003). One of the recommendations that has been voiced by many and aimed at creating the reforms needed for school improvement is the creation of school voucher systems. In a nutshell, school vouchers are like coupons for parents to use as they choose for the purposes of their child’s school funding. The parent is then able to take the amount of the coupon and apply these funds toward any school they choose (according to the legislative plan that governs the voucher system) whether that school be public, private, parochial, or charter. 73

74

Chapter 4

According to Peterson (2003), the voucher is like a coupon to a toy store used for birthday presents. Because the child has been given a coupon to the toy store, they can then purchase what they wish instead of receiving a present that they may or may not want. Peterson further stated of vouchers: A voucher is a coupon for the purchase of a particular good or service. Unlike a ten dollar bill, it cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever. Its use is limited to the terms designated by the voucher. But like a ten dollar bill, vouchers typically offer recipients a choice. (p. 5)

Vouchers are usually used by parents when the school their child is attending is labeled as failing (Ediger, 2003). The parent is then able to utilize the voucher to send their child to a school that the parent feels will better meet the needs of their child. The amount of money that would have been used by the failing school to educate the child follows that student to the school that is chosen. Therefore, the argument in support of school voucher programs concludes that the voucher is a means to offering parents school choice (Peterson, 2003) while forcing public schools to improve their efficiency in order to compete for the revenues of the students who reside in their districts (Friedman as cited in Hadderman, 2002). What we need to determine is what impact vouchers can and will have upon students in our schools since they are ultimately the ones that are to benefit from the education provided them. We must also determine the effect that such programs will have on the public educational system, private and charter schools, and the economy (since theorists claim that vouchers will create a competitive market place for the rights of educating students). So, if the push from many is for vouchers and I am in the public-schooling business, should I feel threatened by vouchers? And, if vouchers do occur, how do I compete with them? In order to answer these questions, we will begin by analyzing the debate surrounding school vouchers. We will then review the history of voucher programs, look at the current state of vouchers, analyze the impact of vouchers on students, and see what researchers have to say about the future of voucher programs.

THE SCHOOL VOUCHER DEBATE One has to look long and hard to find a topic or issue that is as polarizing as the debate surrounding school vouchers. You can find those that are in favor of school vouchers or those who oppose school vouchers, but there does not seem to be any in-between or common ground on which both sides can come to agreement.

Educational Equity and School Choice

75

On one side are those who are proponents of the school voucher program. These advocates argue that vouchers provide the competition that will lead to school efficiency and productivity, leading to better schooling and a more effective use of public tax dollars. Opponents note that vouchers will take money away from the public-schooling experience to enable private education entities to market their schools in order to generate profits. They also claim that vouchers will take away from the common experiences that all citizens should have in order to prepare them for living in a democratic society (Levine, 2002). So, the question remains: “How can parents have a choice in providing an education that is ‘tailor-made’ to their own family values and lifestyles while still providing the equal opportunities and fairness needed in a democratic society?” It seems that these two desires are mutually exclusive. On the one hand is the differentiated schooling for individual needs, and on the other hand is the need to provide a common educational experience for all. Parents, business leaders, politicians, and educators must somehow come to a common ground on which to build the schools that will be able to provide the skills and dispositions needed for the world into which our children will be thrust. We can no longer stand for schools that do not fulfill the needs of our most disadvantaged youths who often fall behind due to various reasons, including a lack of background experiences. We also cannot allow ourselves to perpetuate a system that does not meet the needs of all students. Nor can we afford to create a system that allows for a greater rift between our most advantaged and our most nonadvantaged youth. According to Reed and Overton (2003), “The very wealthy have always had school choice. For them, the price of admission to a good public school may be merely the cost of a moving van and a nice big house” (p. 50). These authors further noted that the wealthy can also afford to pay twice for schooling if they so choose. They can pay once for private-school tuition and once in the school taxes for the public schools that they reject. There are a number of poor and disadvantaged families that choose the alternative route to education as well. For them, however, this choice only comes at an enormous sacrifice in other areas. Still there are other families who have no choice but to leave their children in schools that are not providing the education needed for their children to be successful: “Sadly for millions of low-income Americans, education for their children means being stuck with failing and dangerous public schools that spend too much to achieve too little” (Reed & Overton, 2003, p. 50). In order to better understand the debate surrounding school vouchers, we need to look at the history of school voucher programs. By gaining a better understanding of the reasons for the school voucher push, we may

76

Chapter 4

be able to better understand why many are calling for vouchers to become a viable option for American families.

HISTORY OF SCHOOL VOUCHERS The debate surrounding the use of school vouchers is not a new one. School choice, in the form of voucher programs, has been an issue for many years. In fact, vouchers have actually been around for more than three hundred years (Costa et al., 2003), being issued when there was not a public school for children to attend. In these cases a voucher was issued for students to attend a private or parochial school: “These types of vouchers are still used today in several states including Vermont and Maine” (Costa et al., 2003, p. 4). One of the founding fathers of our nation, Thomas Paine, advocated for school choice (Gorman, 2003; Levine, 2002), while school vouchers were also debated by notable authors such as Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, 1859). These authors argued for allowing parents a choice in schooling by offering government supported programs (Carlos, 1993). Although the ideas of school choice and voucher programs were debated as far back as the 1700s, it was not until 1955 that the modern notion of vouchers was established by economist Milton Friedman (Gorman, 2003). Friedman’s theory of vouchers called for an end to the government monopoly on education and offered choice to parents. He also argued that a free market of competitors in education would lead to public benefits such as providing students with the necessary values and behaviors for living in a democracy (Levine, 2002). Jack Coons and Steven Sugarman, two Berkeley law professors, began to consider school choice as a means of delivering educational equity. Their writings in the 1970s called for school choice to be targeted for disadvantaged populations. With choice for these disadvantaged families, social justice and equal opportunities could be provided for all (Bolick, 2003; Sweetland, 2002). In their book, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, John Chubb and Terry Moe (1990) advocated for school choice to remedy the lack of parental control and voice over the education of their children (Costa et al., 2003). Chubb and Moe believed that the schooling system that is currently in place only increases the bureaucracy and inefficiency of schooling. The first modern voucher program in the United States was instituted in Alum Rock, California, in 1969. Unfortunately for the project, parents preferred their local, neighborhood schools and the parents or schools did not behave the way that was predicted by theorists (i.e., competitive free market causing increased efficiency) (Carlos, 1993). However, researchers

Educational Equity and School Choice

77

noted that the controls put on the private schools (e.g., hiring certified teachers and paying teachers public school wages) led to their choosing not to participate in the program, and, therefore, Alum Rock was not a good example of free market competition. Milwaukee established a school voucher program in 1990, and Cleveland, Ohio, began its program in 1996 (Peterson, 2003). Both of these programs were challenged in court. Levine (2002) stated: “Both programs were challenged in the courts for violating state and federal laws prohibiting public funds for religious instruction” (p. 160). Florida also began a publicly funded voucher program in 1999 (Sweetland, 2002). Along with these states, there were also voucher experimental programs that were being funded by private enterprises. All of these programs added to the push for school choice and vouchers, but the Supreme Court would provide the largest push for these programs when they removed one of the largest barriers keeping states and other entities out of the school voucher business.

THE CURRENT STATE OF VOUCHERS In 2002, the Supreme Court ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris made clear the constitutionality of Cleveland’s school voucher program and, with this ruling, rejuvenated the school voucher push. The court, in handing down this ruling, basically “affirmed that it hardly constitutes a government establishment of religion if religious schools are among the choices parents can freely make” (Reed & Overton, 2003, p. 49). Before this ruling, many state legislatures were wary to adopt school voucher programs in public schools for fear that they would be found to be unconstitutional (Peterson, 2003), but after the Court’s ruling, several states began to adopt voucher programs, including New York, Dayton, Ohio, and Washington, D.C. (Howell & Peterson, as cited in Levine, 2002). Colorado’s governor signed a bill in 2002 that would create a publicly funded voucher program after the Zelman verdict. Plans are also in the works for several other states to push for voucher legislation (Richard, 2003; Walsh, 2002). Another rather recent phenomenon in the school choice saga is the emergence of enterprises that are offering school choice when state legislatures do not. These examples of private providers of school choice are increasing with private voucher providers, private contractors, and for-profit competitors (Carlos, 1993). These enterprises offer school choice by either providing vouchers meant to challenge public schools, by providing services that are contracted with the public schools, or providing for-profit schools that will ultimately compete with public schools.

78

Chapter 4

The Children’s Scholarship Fund (CSF), created by Theodore J. Forstmann and John Walton, was designed to help children from low-income families attend private or parochial schools (Education Commission of the States [ECS], 1999). According to ECS, Forstmann and Walton “together pledged $100 million . . . Their initial donation drew $70 million in matching funds from other private sources” (p. 6). Another privately funded program, Children’s Educational Opportunity America Foundation (CEO America), was “founded to provide vouchers to low-income children” and “is affiliated with about 40 privately funded voucher programs across the country” (ECS, 1999, p. 6). But what impact, if any, have these voucher programs had on student achievement? Have these programs aided in the education of our students most in need of a good education, particularly children of poverty and students with special needs? The Impact of Vouchers on Student Achievement The debate over the positive or negative impact of voucher programs on student achievement rages on today. Every researcher that advances the positive notion of voucher programs for students finds another researcher advancing a negative side of the voucher issue. Often, we find the same issue on both sides. The proponents of vouchers use the issue as a positive aspect while the detractors use the same issue as a negative. The real problem we find is that there is a lack of conclusive empirical data on either side. Of course, researchers may argue on this point, but the fact is that there is not a conclusive study that shows one way or the other whether voucher programs provide the needed reforms to schools to claim that vouchers are the way to go. The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program In analyzing the results of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, voucher program, titled the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), one has a difficult time coming to any real conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. Like so much in this debate over the effectiveness of voucher programs there are two sides of the issue, and each side claims their own “victories” when analyzing the data. As the nation’s oldest program that allows low-income families a choice in enrolling their children in a nonreligious private school, the Milwaukee program has been upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court twice and has grown in participation since its inception in 1990 (Costa et al., 2003). Costa and contributors (2003) stated that the program began with 341 students in seven schools during the 1990–1991 school year and expanded to more than 10,000 students in 106 schools during the 2001–2002 school year.

Educational Equity and School Choice

79

The program has been evaluated by the state of Wisconsin and further analyzed by researchers from Harvard and Princeton. The state found “that there were no substantial gains over the life of the program between choice and Milwaukee public school students over a five-year period. However, contrary to the norm for inner-city students, average scores do not decline as the students enter higher grades” (Costa et al., 2003, p. 14). Princeton researchers found significant differences in gains for students participating in the choice program in the area of math while Harvard researchers found statistically significant gains in both math and reading (American Education Reform Council, as cited in Costa et al., 2003). The Cleveland Scholarship Program According to Viadero (as cited in Hadderman, 2002), the Cleveland Scholarship program has caused contention among researchers. The American Federation of Teachers (ATF) has rigorously disputed the findings of a study by Peterson, Howell, and and Greene, (1999) that claimed that students in grades K–3 and participating in specially created private schools made gains of five percentile points in reading and fifteen percentage points in math. Another study, conducted by Kim Metcalf and commissioned by the state, “showed that 94 third-grade voucher recipients did no better academically than 449 third-graders of similar background who attend Cleveland Public Schools” (Walsh, as cited in Hadderman, 2002, p. 8). Another study, conducted in 2001 by Metcalf, “found a slight edge for Cleveland voucher students after three years of school” (Hadderman, 2002, p. 8), and these students performed higher in reading, math, and language at the first grade. Also, parents of these students were more satisfied with their schools than those parents who had children attending public schools (American Education Reform Council, as cited in Costa et al., 2003). However, public school students in this program had closed the gap by the spring of their secondgrade year (Ohio Department of Education, as cited in Hadderman, 2002). According to Hadderman (2002), the research on both the Cleveland and Milwaukee programs, along with a privately funded scholarship program in New York, were inconclusive and inconsistent regarding student achievement. The U.S. General Accounting Office, in October 2001, also concluded that there was no clear indication that the Cleveland and Milwaukee programs raised student achievement (Zehr, 2001). Florida’s A+ Opportunity Scholarship Program Florida’s school choice program, A+ Opportunity Scholarship Program (A+OSP), offers students the opportunities to receive vouchers to attend

80

Chapter 4

private schools or other public schools if their schools are designated as “failing” according to the state’s standards (Costa et al., 2003). These authors further noted that a state-sponsored evaluation conducted by Florida State University, Harvard University, and the Manhattan Institute concluded that the A+OSP has had a positive impact in that it was successful in motivating failing schools to improve their academic performance. (American Education Reform Council, as cited in Costa et al, 2003, p. 12)

Enterprise Programs As mentioned above, there are several new entrepreneurial enterprises that are competing with public schools for students. Some of these programs are privately funded scholarship programs, some are programs that contract with public schools to offer a service to the district, while others are in competition with the public schools. Research has been unable to shed any light on the effectiveness of these programs when compared to public schools. However, the research does point to who is participating in the programs and the satisfaction levels of the parents of the participants (ECS, 1999). According to a study of New York’s School Choice Scholarships Program, conducted by Peterson and his colleagues in 1998, students who received a scholarship “scored higher in math and reading tests than control-group students” (ECS, 1999, p. 7). However, Alan Krueger found that there were several problems with the data from Peterson’s research including the absence of some of the participants’ scores (Yglesias, 2004). When added into the calculations, the missing data actually showed no statistically significant difference between those students participating in the program and those in the control group. The debate rages on, and politicians, political activists, and educators are waging war on this issue. The answer will not come easily and the results from our experimentation with school choice will not become evident for several years. Our future educational leaders will have to battle this issue in the upcoming years, and our public school system will have to face the fact that they will no longer be able to conduct “business as usual.”

THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION This chapter has analyzed the issues surrounding school choice, especially school choice in the form of voucher programs, including the debate surrounding school choice, the history of school choice, and the impact these programs have had on student achievement. In the conclusion of this chap-

Educational Equity and School Choice

81

ter, I would like to analyze the future of public education, paying particular attention to the role of the future educational leader. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a court case that has ultimately changed the face of education, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In the Court’s verdict, Chief Justice Earl Warren had these words to say about the importance of public education for all children in the United States: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. (PBS, n.d., p. 2)

Have things changed since 1954? Are the words that Chief Justice Warren used in 1954 still applicable to the children of today? When we actually dig into the real issues at stake in the Brown decision, we find that it is ultimately the issue of the Haves not wanting to give the Have Nots an opportunity to have anything. For half a century before the Brown decision those in power in the United States had kept those “undesirables” separated by using the “separate but equal” doctrine. However, history has shown that separate was definitely not equal, and we see the same things happening in today’s society. I am not just talking about in schools but also in the fabric of our society. Will the push for school choice through the use of vouchers become an issue of social justice? Why do we hear of protests when politicians attempt to raise funds for schools through tax dollars but do not hear the same outcry when it comes to building and maintaining prisons and prisoners? In the case of school funds, the person asking for more is deemed an “inefficient and ineffective manager of public funds,” while those who build more prisons are “tough on crime.” Could it be that we are just attempting to again segregate the “undesirables,” first by denying the funding needed to provide an equitable education and second by locking them away where we do not have to worry about what they do to each other when schools do not provide them an opportunity for success? Are we forgetting the dual role that schools play in providing public and private benefits to persons living in a democratic society characterized by diversity such as is found in the United States (Levine, 2002)? Can we offer these roles when using voucher programs?

82

Chapter 4

Research clearly enlightens us to the lack of overwhelming compelling evidence that supports school voucher systems concerning student achievement. It is also clear that parents of participants in these voucher programs are more satisfied with their schools. So, if public schools want to compete in today’s society, they are going to have to make sure that parents are satisfied with their schools. Future public school leaders must rethink the way they “do business” and ensure that they offer students and families, especially those who have traditionally been bound to the less desirable schools, an opportunity to gain experiences that will ultimately allow for adulthood success based on talent and not privilege. Equitable education does not mean equal education, and it will be the responsibility of the educational leader to ensure that all children have opportunities for success. The question that must be answered is whether or not these equitable opportunities for success can be provided by way of a voucher system, and the educational leader will be at the forefront of this debate.

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities • Conduct a public opinion survey of the parents in your school district concerning their satisfaction of their experiences with your school and their opinions on school choice. Analyze the data from the survey and determine strengths and weaknesses. Make an action plan to address the weaknesses that are evident from the data. • Develop a communication plan for your school that describes in detail how you would involve all stakeholders in the communication process. • Interview school leaders at the private or parochial schools in your area. Determine their views on the school choice issue, especially that concerning the school voucher push. Pro/Con Debate School choice is an issue in today’s educational arena. Public outcry for school reform has led to a debate over the effectiveness of school voucher systems, yet no definitive data has been found to indicate the effectiveness of such programs. In college and university preparation programs for educational leaders, one issue that must be examined is that of school choice, chiefly voucher programs, and the educational leader’s role in today’s era of competition for America’s students. Question: What impact will school choice have on the opportunity for students to have access to an equitable education? (See table 4.1.)

Educational Equity and School Choice

83

Table 4.1. PRO

CON

1. Vouchers create a competitive marketplace that will cause public schools to improve in order to attract and retain students.

1. Vouchers will take money away from public schools that are already financially strapped and put this money into the hand of entrepreneurs who are looking to make a profit.

2. Vouchers cause schools to be more efficient and productive, thus leading to a more effective use of public tax dollars.

2. Vouchers will take away from the common experiences that all citizens should have in order to prepare them for living in a democratic society.

3. Vouchers allow parents to exercise their constitutional rights to bring up their children according to their own beliefs, values, and ideals.

3. Vouchers will create a new form of segregation between advantaged and disadvantaged youths.

Action Research Questions Utilize the following questions to guide your action research activities within your school. • What are the perceptions of your school community (e.g., staff, students, community members, parents) regarding school vouchers? What are the perceptions of private and parochial school leaders regarding this issue? Are there significant differences among the differing perspectives? What does this mean for the school leader? • Is there a significant difference in the performance of public-school students and students involved in a school choice voucher program on a national standardized assessment? • Work with your school’s chief financial officer to answer the following questions: Will school voucher programs create a significant impact on public school funding in your district? What will this mean for the school leader? Websites for Additional Information School Choice www.edreform.com www.schoolchoiceinfo.org www.schoolchoices.org www.cato.org/current/school-choice/

84

Chapter 4

eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/choice/index.html www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/vouchers/ www.brook.edu/gs/brown/20031117schoolchoicereport.htm School Voucher Programs www.schoolchoices.org/roo/vouchers.htm www.weac.org/Resource/vouchpg.htm usconservatives.about.com/od/vouchers/ www.aauw.org/issue_advocacy/actionpages/positionpapers/vouchers.cfm www.nsba.org/novouchers/ www.connectforkids.org www.allianceforschoolchoice.org

REFERENCES Bolick, C. (2003). The key to closing the minority schooling gap: School choice. American Enterprise, 14(3), 30–32. Carlos, L. (1993). The privatization of choice. Office of Educational and Improvement Policy update number 3. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research & Development. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Costa, A., Elseginy, S., Lusco, E., & Pinney, J. (2003). Vouchers: A school choice. ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED482515. Ediger, M. (2003). Vouchers and the public schools. College Student Journal, 37(4), 569–73. Education Commission of the States (ECS). (1999). The progress of education reform 1999–2001. Denver: ECS. ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. Ed434390. Gorman, S. (2003). Pro choice. Washington Monthly, 35(9), 18–21. Hadderman, M. (2002). Trends and issues: Public voucher plans. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472999. Levine, H. M. (2002). A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouchers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 159–74. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: The National Commission on Excellence in Education. Peterson, P. E. (2003). A choice between public and private schools: What next for school vouchers? Spectrum: The Journal of State Government, 76(4), 5–8. Peterson, P. E., Howell, W. G., & Greene, J. P. (1999). An evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program after two years. Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance.

Educational Equity and School Choice

85

Public Broadcasting System (PBS). (n.d.). Jefferson-enlightenment: Brown vs. board of education-racial segregation in public schools. www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/brown .htm (accessed August 9, 2006). Reed, L. W., & Overton, J. P. (2003). The future of school choice. USA Today, 131, 49–51. Richard, A. (2003). Gov. Owens pledges to sign Colorado voucher bill. Education Week. www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=30colo.h22 (accessed August 10, 2006). Sweetland, S. R. (2002). Theory into practice: Free markets and public schooling. Clearing House, 76(1), 8–12. Walsh, M. (2002). Voucher advocates plan a multistate legal battle. Education Week. www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=07institute.h22 (accessed August 10, 2006). Yglesias, M. (2004). The verdict on vouchers. American Prospect, 15(2), 51–53. Zehr, M. A. (2001). Effect of vouchers on achievement unclear, GAO says. Education Week on the Web. www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/10/10/06voucher.h21 .html?qs=effect+of+vouchers+on+achievement+unclear&levelId=1000 (accessed August 10, 2006).

5 Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides Lee Stewart

DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Many forms of government have existed throughout history and run the gamut from A to Z, from anarchy where no one rules to xenocracy where one is ruled by a foreign power (Chrisomalis, 2006). The democratic form of government employed by the United States is an experiment that has proven to be one of the more appealing forms of government for the people being led. Democracy allows for those being ruled to govern through direct participation or through elected representatives. Democracy and the democratic principle calls for social equality and respect for everyone in the system; it will not work in the absence of these two principles. Education is the proven way to honor and protect a democracy. The people governed by democracy must have some kind of basic understanding, derived through education, in order for the system of democracy to flourish. When those who make up the system, the people, fail to participate in a productive manner, the system will fail. Public education in the United States has, for many years, served the purpose of assuring that citizens possess the basic level of education required to make appropriate decisions about government. Educating the public for the purpose of becoming good citizens was one of the primary purposes of education in the minds of political leaders after the end of British rule of the thirteen colonies (Ornstein & Levine, 2000). This must continue if our democratic form of governance is to continue. When one group of citizens, for whatever reason, begins experiencing an increase in the availability of resources over another group, a gap begins to occur. This gap is then perpetuated by the very resources that are gained by 87

88

Chapter 5

the citizens who hold these extra possessions. The gap in essence is widened due to the exponential forces of having and using the additional capital. Information, or education, is one such resource that tends to perpetuate and widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. As one’s educational level rises, so to does their income (Day & Newburger, 2002). As one’s income increases, so to do their opportunities for higher forms of education. This sequence continues until someone has the courage to break the cycle. Public schools have the potential to be the equalizer in our system by offering each child an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. Children who are appropriately educated have a greater chance of breaking free from the constraints that have kept them and their families from experiencing the wealthy resources available to many other citizens in the United States. However, there is one problem—unlike children who come from middleto upper-income homes, children living in poverty do not experience comparable levels of success in public schools (Renchler, 1993). Many students are raised without the resources needed to successfully navigate through the public school system. Herein lies the real dilemma for educators: ways must be found to close the achievement gap. The first step in the process of closing the achievement gap is to begin understanding what children in poverty face. The next step is to design programs to assist these students with their unique needs.

POVERTY AND ITS TOLL ON CHILDREN To begin the process of understanding what children in poverty face, a definition of poverty is in order. According to Alexander and Wall (2006), one common method of discerning if a student is from a low-income home is his or her participation in the National School Lunch Program. Alexander and Wall explain that children who live at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible to receive free meals at school, while students who live in homes where the income is between 130 percent and 185 percent are eligible to receive reduced priced lunches. From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, a family of four lived on $24,505 if they were at 130 percent of the poverty level, and they lived on $34,873 if they were at 185 percent of the poverty level (Alexander & Wall, 2006). The net result is that people living in poverty, and those living in lowincome homes, do not have enough resources to adequately take care of the basic needs of living and therefore are living in at-risk conditions. For our discussion we will use a loose definition of poverty to include all students who are living at or just above the line of poverty, that is, students who are eligible to receive free or reduced lunches.

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

89

Poverty-stricken students live each day without necessary resources and often attend school ill-equipped to be successful. These students often do not have adequate shelter, clothing, or food, which places a great strain on their ability to learn. Maslow theorizes in his hierarchy of needs that people must have their basic-level needs met before they can embark on the higher needs (Maslow, 1954). Physiological and safety needs, the basic needs as defined by Maslow, must be met before students can get the most out of their educational experience. Students living in poverty conditions are under a constant stress that few others face due to their physiological and safety needs not being met. These stressful situations negatively influence the student at home, in school, and in their relationships with their peers. Jensen (n.d.) suggests there is a negative impact on the brain, body, and behavior of those who undergo sustained stress. Jensen (n.d.) posits people who undergo sustained stress will sometimes experience impaired short-term memory. Short-term memory is a requisite to daily living. Students who begin experiencing short-term memory problems, among other issues, will also experience problems in their academic endeavors. This failure to learn is often escalated due to the additional stress placed on the student by teachers and the public-education system. It should not be inferred that educators need to lower their expectations for students living in poverty; educators must learn to make accommodations for these students’ needs. Students will often forget facts and information a teacher believes to be important when they are overly concerned about safety issues. Some students worry about what food will be served, if any, when they get home; others worry about the neighborhoods they must pass through to get home. Understanding this potential problem is the first step in helping students overcome their fears. This then becomes a two-front battle. One front is to work with the appropriate authorities to ensure the safety and well-being of students; by far the larger battle. The other front is offering information and tools to help students with their short-term memory problems. One solution that can assist students in improving memory is offering daily planners to students. Daily planners are relatively inexpensive and can be a great tool when students are taught how to use them appropriately. A teacher can choose to simply assign failing grades to students who are constantly forgetting to do their homework or the teacher can become proactive in training students on methods of remembering assignments. Many of the Blue Ribbon Schools, a designation of a superior school acknowledgment by the U.S. Department of Education, offer daily planners to all their students. Principals in these schools have noted in their Blue Ribbon application process the importance of students using daily planners (U.S. Department of Education,

90

Chapter 5

2005). These outstanding principals understand the importance of assisting students with resources useful in developing good success strategies. Another mammoth problem students living in poverty face is prioritizing their lives. This is a typical problem for most adolescents and is only exacerbated by the undue and sustained stress faced by many students living in poverty (Jensen, n.d.). The ability to place daily activities in order of importance is an essential element of daily living. Students living in poverty will often fail to appropriately prioritize their daily activities; homework and other important activities are simply left undone. While daily planners can be a tremendous help here, there are additional strategies that must be applied to this problem as well. Teachers need to use a variety of methods to teach students living in stressful situations, brought on by poverty, in how to manage their time. Sometimes it is as simple as visiting with students about matters of time management. Other times, the teacher may need to conference with parents to discuss reinforcing the importance of prioritizing life’s activities. Another issue facing children living in poverty is their unsatisfactory medical options. Bracey (2006) states: “Money gives people options. Poverty takes them away” (p. 60). Bracey illustrates that children in poverty often do not get appropriate medical attention. He further suggests that vision problems and other medical conditions are not treated with the same urgency as they would in students who grow up in homes with adequate resources. These untreated conditions often lead to other more complicated conditions. Students who are not adequately treated for disease will often experience difficulties in their schoolwork. Those who would suggest that parents just need to meet the needs of their children are often not aware of the financial constraints many poor families are under. Paying the utility bills, rent on the apartment, and basic food bills often leaves the family with a deficit at the end of the month. Areas that suffer then become the nonessentials, which includes healthcare. States have begun addressing health issues; however, to what extent this is helping continues to be open for discussion among all concerned parties. One program designed to help parents of children in poverty with basic healthcare is the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). States are awarded matching funds by the federal government to implement an insurance plan for uninsured children. Benefit packages, eligibility groups, levels of coverage, and administration issues are to be determined by each state under broad guidelines set forth by the federal government (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.). It is important for educators to be aware of the physical well-being of students and to understand local, state, and national plans that assist students living in poverty. When the physical needs of students living in poverty are not met, these students will very often be distracted from learning.

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

91

Another issue facing poor students is their failure to carry the same political and social clout that students from middle- and upper-class homes hold. Bracey (2006) explains that only 36 percent of poor students believe they have a teacher who is their friend at school, while 93 percent of middle- to upper-class students believe they have a teacher who is their friend at school. These numbers speak volumes about the social clout, or lack thereof, that students from poorer homes hold. Programs have been implemented to overcome this problem in some secondary schools. Two such programs warrant further discussion: the advisory program and Capturing Kids’ Hearts program.

PROGRAMS TO HELP STUDENTS LIVING IN POVERTY Advisory Programs One program designed to cause students to feel welcome and wanted by adults at public secondary schools is the advisory program. These programs appear in many forms, but the foundations are the same for all advisory programs. These programs are designed to encourage student and teacher interaction. Osofsky, Sinner, and Wolk (as cited in National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2004) suggest that students who feel welcome and wanted at school will experience greater success both emotionally and educationally than students who do not feel accepted. This is particularly important in answering the problems associated with the 64 percent of poor students who feel that no one at school cares about them on a personal or social level. In most advisory programs, teachers are assigned ten to twenty students for whom they will be responsible during the students’ tenure at school. Advisory classes meet from one to six times a semester. Many issues, such as grades and school-activity announcements, are discussed during the advisory period. One activity administered during the advisory period is the handing out of report cards to students by their advisory teacher. Advisory teachers use this as an opportunity to begin discussing the importance of grades with students; this might very well be the only time some poorer students ever hear the importance of grades and education. Advisory periods are also used for announcements concerning school, class, and student issues. These topics range from when and where class pictures might be taken to deeper issues of constructively dealing with social problems and concerns. Students learn to share with each other and their teachers. For children living in poverty, this is one way, and sometimes the only way, for them to become a part of the educational community. As

92

Chapter 5

students living in poverty begin experiencing some of the benefits of becoming a part of the fabric of the school, they will have more opportunities to be successful academically. Once students begin experiencing academic success, the process of demonstrating the way out of poverty that comes through academic success can begin. One advisory program in a small East Texas town just south of Dallas has become more than just a homeroom class. The principal has worked with his teachers to set up an advisory program in which students and teachers make the connections that are vital for all students, especially students living in poverty. Students are contacted on a weekly basis by their advisor through the use of an advisory class period. During this period, advisors are responsible for making a meaningful contact with students both academically and socially. Connections made during this class go far beyond the walls of the school and tend to last a lifetime. The associations that are formed transcend the academic area to important social interactions that must exist in order for a school to have the climate needed for complete academic and democratic success. In addition to contacting their advisory students weekly, advisor-teachers in this program are also required to contact the parents of their fifteen students if the students’ grades are dropping in any class. This personal contact allows students and their parents to understand that the school does care about their well-being. Advisors receive grades for their assigned students and are required to speak with the teachers of these students about critical academic issues. Two purposes are served by this contact; first, advisors of the students get to know the grades of their students, and second, it opens up lines of communication between teachers on the campus. Finally, all parents of students in this advisory program must be contacted by their child’s advisor-teacher at least one time per semester regardless of grades. The parents of average students are rarely, if at all, contacted for any reason. Parents of these students have expressed their appreciation to the principal for the correspondence they receive from this particular school. Capturing Kids’ Hearts Self-development programs are also a way to promote positive relationships between students and teachers. These programs are designed to first and foremost teach the faculty how to promote positive relationships at school. Capturing Kids’ Hearts (CKH) is one such program. The CKH program trains school personnel to deal with students on a personal level; this is an anomaly at many secondary schools. Educators are encouraged to build relationships with all students, for example, shaking students’ hands at the door, saying the students’ names as they enter, greeting the students in the hallways and around the school (Flippen Group, n.d.a).

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

93

When programs such as CKH are implemented, Rosebrock (as cited in Flippen Group, n.d.b) suggests in his study, that schools begin experiencing and moving toward a positive climate due to some of the structural changes taking place in the system. Rosebrock (as cited in The Flippen Group, n.d.b) posits that when a democratic student government is formed, which is one of the tenets of the CKH program, it helps build a sense of community and mutual respect. Student self-esteem rises and relationships begin developing between staff and students. Schoolwide discipline referrals decrease due to fairness and cooperation that begin to permeate. Overall, all students begin experiencing a stronger sense of belonging, which in turn facilitates the demise of many social concerns facing students from poverty backgrounds. Overcoming these social issues becomes the first step in closing the achievement gap for students living in poverty. The specific kind of program one chooses to encourage relationships among students and teachers is not the most important issue; the point is, these relationships must exist if students are to become a part of the system. Children in poverty are often the ones who benefit most from relationship programs because of their limited social resources.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ RESPONSIBILITIES Schools are responsible for helping children living in poverty conditions find their way out of poverty. No other organization is as adequately equipped for this work as public schools. Religious and other charitable organizations actively help families in need; this is useful for the short-term immediate problems faced by families living in poverty. Government assistance is also available to assist families in poverty. But, ultimately, none of these programs or institutions offer long-term solutions to the varied problems faced by children in poverty. The problem falls back on public schools. So, what will we do? First, a definition for the achievement gap is in order. The achievement gap, as defined for our purposes in this book, is the academic gap that exists between those with ample resources to be successful in schools and those without these needed resources. The achievement gap illustrates the disparities that exist between wealthy and poor students in terms of resources. When educational resources are not available to students living in poverty, these students are at a distinct disadvantage. One example of this disparity is the availability of computers and Internet services to middle- and upper-class students that are not available to poorer students. Unlike middle- to upper-class students, poorer students often do not have access to a home computer or an Internet service to do required homework. Yes, students can go to the library; the question is, what will be their mode of transportation?

94

Chapter 5

This gap is not closing as one would hope, not according to state education agencies. Consider, for example, the data from the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) of Texas. According to the 2005 Texas AEIS report, 50 percent of students from the economically disadvantaged population passed all tests, compared to 64 percent of the whole state (Texas Education Agency, 2005). In states such as Texas, in which the passing of high-stakes testing in all five academic areas determines whether a student graduates from high school, this gap continues to widen. While there has been some increase in economically disadvantaged scores, it is easy to see that something must be done to close this gap. There are many examples of schools that are closing the achievement gap. The work is not easy, but it is simple. The remainder of this chapter will be dedicated to a demonstration of how schools begin closing the gap that exists between the wealthy and poor students. Remember, it can be done because it is being accomplished in schools across the nation. A simple five-step process can be the genesis for school leaders to begin closing the achievement gap.

THE PLAN FOR CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP In order to close the achievement gap, principals and teachers must (1) appropriately, frequently, and accurately assess all students, (2) collect data from the multiple assessments, (3) disaggregate the data from these assessments, (4) design an action plan and then follow through with the plan, and (5) reassess students and the plan for desired effects. Again, this seems obvious and simple; the problem is that principals do not often take the opportunity to follow through with the steps. It can be viewed as a cyclical process that is ongoing. Appropriate Assessments Appropriate assessments or benchmarks should be given three times during the school year. The first assessment should occur at some point in the second month of school. Teachers and principals need to know early in the process where students are in terms of their academic needs. Students have been with teachers long enough to have learned important information that will be tested, but it is also early enough in the year to find and offer assistance to students who are at risk. The first benchmark will be very useful as a place to begin tracking students. Tracking needs some further discussion at this point. Students are not tracked into programs, classes, or levels. Tracking is a procedure whereby anecdotal notes are kept on students; these notes include test scores and observations on individual

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

95

students. Data is collected for each student by objective for the purpose of accelerated instruction in needed academic areas. Data Collection This is a great time to consider data collection. Principals from highperforming schools collect data and use this information to make needed improvements. This seems straightforward; however, it is not always the case with data collection. Simply purchasing a program that collects data on assessments is not enough; in fact sometimes a collection program is not even necessary. However one chooses to collect data is not important; the important issue is how one chooses to use the data collected. The second benchmark should be given around the fourth month of school; this is the time when a true picture of learning can be illustrated with the data. Competencies that were once weak should now be growing toward mastery levels. Student progress can now be tracked to ascertain particular areas of weakness. Individual plans should now be developed for students. In order for this to be accomplished, successful principals will disaggregate the data. Data Disaggregation Disaggregation of data should be carried out by cross-tabbing competencies with ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Data must be considered on individual students as well as groups of students. Successful principals know which students are doing well and poorly on individual competencies. They know which competencies are weak for individual teachers and grade levels. Data that demonstrate both strengths and weaknesses must be considered in the areas of ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. There is no replacement for knowing the data; it is that simple. It should be noted as this point that computer programs such as Microsoft’s EXCEL can make this work more manageable. Designing the Plan of Action The data has now been collected and analyzed; it is time for the plan of action. The plan of action becomes the genesis for true academic success. Individual and group plans need to be developed and carried out for those students who have been identified. No plan will be successful if one does not follow through on the plan. Successful principals will require everyone to follow the plan of action; this will require principals to meet with teachers, students, and parents about the specific plan of action for a particular student. Principals should take the time to visit during the tutorial periods to assure the implementation of accelerated instruction.

96

Chapter 5

Follow-through cannot be overemphasized; principals and teachers must be consistent in their efforts to accelerate the instruction of students who struggle academically. Teachers must follow through with the teaching and tutorial process. High expectations must be set and checked for student success. Principals need to evaluate and monitor by observing frequently and expressing an interest in the success of students who are being tutored during and after school. This is perhaps the most critical component to the whole process; principals must communicate with underprivileged students because this is often the only time an adult will emphasize educational goals. Parents of students living in poverty have a difficult time communicating with their children at home about educational issues; these parents also reported much less involvement in school activities (Lee & Bowen, 2006). The third benchmark should be administered toward the end of January, just before state-mandated standardized testing. Gathering data and tweaking plans for student interventions is the reason for disaggregating the third benchmark. This is perhaps the most critical time because students and teachers are swiftly moving toward the big test instituted by the states. Tutorial sessions should be offered during and after school at this point in the process. These tutorials should be designed around needed competencies so all energy and efforts focus on the identified needs of specific students. In other words, this is the time when students should be divided up according to their specific needs based on competencies they have failed to master. Reassessment After the third benchmark, reassessment of specific needed areas should be employed. As the teacher works on specific areas with identified students, precise assessments dedicated to definite competencies will need to be administered. When a particular competency is mastered, the teacher will need to move the student on to other needed areas of accelerated instruction. This is a straightforward process, and one that will bring about detrimental consequences if overlooked by administrators and teachers.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Thus far, the focus in this chapter has been on the process of closing the achievement gap through the use of accelerated academic programs to fit the unique needs of children in poverty. Successful principals also understand the importance of community involvement in the process of creating

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

97

schools that successfully educate all students. Community involvement consists of more than simply inviting a few business people or parents in to help make decisions about school matters; it is more than inviting a few business owners to purchase advertisement space in the Friday night football program or school yearbook. In the past this might have accurately defined community involvement; those days are over. Community involvement now entails a true reciprocal communication process between public schools and all community members. It is important to understand some of what this process entails. Familiarity with the Community One matter of extreme importance is for administrators and teachers to become acquainted with and understand the community where they work. Some of the more successful principals, for example, require all new teachers at the beginning of the school year to board a school bus and travel through the neighborhoods of their students. Understanding and being sensitive to the conditions in which students live is critical for teachers to understand. Students who live in areas where crime is high, motivation is low, and household incomes are at the poverty level will likely experience different and more profound obstacles to their education. Even though there are some individual cases of child abuse and neglect, parents living in poverty are no different than parents of upperand middle-class students when it comes to caring for their children; they want what is best for them. School personnel must conduct business with parents as if the parents want what is best for their children; most do (Haberman, 1999). Respect the Community Respect is a second critical issue. School personnel must learn to respect all parents regardless of their socioeconomic conditions. Conditions where people live do not necessarily reflect their work ethic, or for that matter, the character quality of people. Some have not had the same opportunities in life as others who are seemingly more productive. Life has thrown a curve for some of these parents and they do not have the necessary tools to deal with what life has handed them. The job of the administrator or teacher is not to judge the person living in this situation. Their job is to show respect and assist these families in their efforts to move forward. Education becomes the answer for overcoming poverty. Education begins with a mutual respect among professionals at school, the students, and the caregivers of those students.

98

Chapter 5

Motivate the Community to Action Activating the community is another vital component in bridging the achievement gap. When the community becomes an active participant in the school, students perceive there is an importance in education. A greater possibility exists for a child to see the importance of education when he or she sees a caregiver visiting the school, working at the school, or attending afterschool programs. School personnel are responsible for community involvement; administrators must invite, in an authentic manner, parents to be involved. Public schools have not been highly successful at involving parents of poorer students with school activities or committees (Thurston & Navarrete, 1996). When parents feel they are accepted and appreciated, they will more likely become involved in school activities. Listen to All Constituents There must also be a balance of community members’ voices. As many voices begin being heard by the principal and other staff members, some will have the tendency to rise to the top and others will tend to vanish into obscurity. The principal’s responsibility is to help reach a consensus among the voices. This can be a daunting task, but one that must be accomplished; otherwise some will simply give up talking because their voice is seldom heard. For the principal, this entails finding the time to get community members together for dialogue. Haberman (1999) has suggested that a principal cannot be “too tired, too important, or too busy for evening and weekend interactions” (p. 90). Dialogue is the only way to truly experience a balance among the voices. Become Aware of Community Needs One final area deserving of some attention is the sensitivity that must exist among the staff at the school and the community at large. There is a wide array of needs among community members; all school personnel must become aware of these needs and develop sensitivity to the needs among various stakeholders in the community. Principals have little problem accepting and answering the needs of the community when the community mirrors the principal. Problems arise when a principal is confronted with members of the community from different backgrounds, especially when the background of the individual is one of low socioeconomic status. Principals and other staff members at the school need to be keenly aware of the biases that will exist among those who are living in these economic conditions; they might consider the principal as someone who does not care or someone who does not understand their plight.

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

99

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Effective communication, both verbally and nonverbally, must be considered in these circumstances. It is important to communicate with all members of the community; this includes those living in low socioeconomic conditions. It is equally important not to talk down to someone living in these conditions. However, just as we should use the appropriate verbal language, it is also important to focus our attention on the nonverbal aspects of our communications. Remember who the audience is each time a dialogue is about to occur. How we dress, what we drive, and where we meet are just a few of the important considerations that should be noted. An important aspect to consider is dress. Principals and other educators should think about dressing professionally, yet in a more casual manner when dealing with those in low socioeconomic conditions. The principal does not want to come across as one who thinks he or she is better than the community in which he or she serves. When a principal meets with parents, it is also important to think about the surroundings. When a principal’s office is too elaborate, stuffy, or expensive, the principal might choose to meet in an empty classroom. When meeting in his or her office, the principal should consider the seating arrangement for those in attendance. It is better to pull the chairs around on the same side of the desk or perhaps gather around a table, so everyone has a better chance of feeling equal. Whether the subject is one of dress, the choice of automobiles, or the place of a meeting, the important matter to remember is that successful principals will always do whatever it takes to involve all the community members in a positive way. The principal must continue to do everything he or she can to break down the barriers that keep students from low socioeconomic backgrounds from experiencing the same success levels as middle- and upper-class students.

FINAL REFLECTIONS A truly democratic society provides opportunities for all to become successful and contribute to society. If the economic and intellectual status of our society continues to deteriorate, our nation will face a financial and structural collapse. Public education is the institution that can provide long-term and permanent change that will result in closing the achievement gap. The achievement gap is a battle we have been fighting for some time now and will continue to fight if we are interested in educating our students to become productive citizens in a democratic society.

100

Chapter 5

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities • Conduct a data audit for a district utilizing genuine, yet anonymous, student, campus, and district TAKS, TPRI, standardized tests, and benchmark assessment scores and develop an academic improvement plan for the district. • Create a plan for increasing parental and community involvement to include specific workshops and classes designed to provide adult education and guidance for improving student achievement outside the school environment. • Develop a research study on the effects of tracking student achievement. • Design a research-based pre– and post–language assessment for children entering and exiting the prekindergarten program. Pro/Con Debate University leadership preparation courses are charged with preparing future educational leaders to meet the needs of all stakeholders in order to ensure student success. Bridging the achievement gap for at-risk students living in poverty in a high-stakes testing environment, while practicing equity and fairness for all, is vital for today’s educational leader. Question: Is the principal’s understanding of student learning and issues related to achievement gaps enough to ensure academic success for at-risk students? (See table 5.1.) Websites for Additional Information On Poverty www.childrensalliance.org/childfacts/poverty.cfm www.nccp.org/pub_cpt05b.html www.nccp.org/pub_cif.html www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm www.christianchildrensfund.org/uploadedFiles/Public_Site/news/Relief_ professionals/ChildrenandPoverty-%20Paper%201%20-%20Intro% 20to%20DEV.pv5.pdf poverty2.forumone.com/library/subtopic/5041/?offset=20 On Data Disaggregation www.doe.state.in.us/asap/pdf/UsingDisagDataEffectively.pdf www.schoolboarddata.org/chapter_three/disaggregated_data.pdf

Achievement Equity and the Gap That Divides

101

Table 5.1. PRO

CON

1. Equity for all students requires principals and teachers to provide additional time and resources to meet the needs of at-risk students.

1. Teachers cannot provide equity and fairness for all students if they spend all of their time reteaching for at-risk students.

2. Principals, as the instructional leaders, are responsible for the academic success of at-risk students.

2. Many factors impact achievement gaps. Schools cannot be solely responsible for the academic success of at-risk students.

3. Principals are responsible for supporting teacher effectiveness by requiring staff development based on teacher observation and best practices.

3. Teachers are more knowledgeable about their needs related to teaching effectiveness and should be allowed to determine their own professional growth activities.

4. Principals should expect teachers to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of individual students.

4. Teachers must not deviate from the curriculum timeline or all the TEKS will not be covered.

On Tracking and Detracking www.educationnext.org/20044/72.html www.inmotionmagazine.com/altern.html www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0504bur.htm On Community Involvement www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/pa0cont.htm www.aasa.org/links/content.cfm?ItemNumber=2625 Action Research Questions • Why do children who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program enter school academically behind their peers? Examine this question within the school. • How does intense early language-vocabulary instruction improve the achievement gap for kindergarten children identified as being at-risk, by state standards? Compare policy and practice within the school, examining state standards and school code. • To what degree will differentiated instruction in the classroom improve student achievement for at-risk students? Examine programs that integrate differentiated instruction within the school, in particular

102

Chapter 5

focusing on curriculum and pedagogy considerations that contribute to inequitable or equitable learning experiences. • How can increased parental involvement in public school improve student academic achievement? Examine different parental involvement programs in relation to the needs of students in the school.

REFERENCES Alexander, K., & Wall, A. (Winter 2006). Adequate funding of education programs for at-risk children: An econometric application of research-based cost differentials. Journal of Education Finance, 31(3), 297–319. Bracey, G. (2006). Poverty’s infernal mechanism. Principal Leadership, 6(6), 60. Chrisomalis, S. (2006). Forms of Government. phrontistery.info/govern.html (accessed June 13, 2006). Day, J. C., & Newburger, E. C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf (accessed July 14, 2006). Flippen Group. (n.d.a). Capturing kid’s hearts training; What is it? www.flippengroup. com/educ_ckh_what.html (accessed July 14, 2006). Flippen Group. (n.d.b). Research Summary. www.flippengroup.com/pdf/research_ summary.pdf (accessed June 23, 2006). Haberman, M. (1999). STAR principals serving children in poverty. Indianapolis: Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education. Jensen, E. (n.d.). Five-day brain compatible facilitator training. San Diego: Jensen Learning Corp. Lee, J., & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218. Maslow A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (2000). Foundations of education, seventh ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Renchler, R. (1993). Poverty and Learning. Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education. eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest083.html (accessed July 14, 2006). Texas Education Agency. (2005). Academic Excellence Indicator System Performance Report 2004–2005. www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2005/state.html (accessed June 25, 2006). Thurston, L. P., & Navarrete, L. (1996). A tough row to hoe: Research on education and rural poor families. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394771. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). 2004–2005 No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Program Application. www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2005/applications/ ri02-chester-w-barrows.doc (accessed July 14, 2006). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). National SCHIP policy. www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalSCHIPPolicy/ (accessed June 24, 2006).

6 Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student Dalane Bouillion

INTRODUCTION They are the children who require critical instructional attention, who are labeled in many ways, and who may constitute the most misunderstood and truly underserved student population on campus. They are the students who are classified through federal-funding sources as those who are served through special education due to their special needs. This chapter will posit the means by which the federal government holds special education student programs accountable in public schools, the urgency surrounding the needed understanding for effectively contextualizing data, and the need for professional development and practices that support the type of learning that is necessary for the educational advancements for students with special needs as measured within new accountability systems designed by individual states mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act.

NCLB: Law of the Land No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. The spirit of the law illuminates the need to shift “authority from the federal government to the states” (Reeves, 2002, p. 199). The letter of the law mandates intensified accountability measures, an emphasis on reading improvement, as well as other “bipartisan” issues surrounding the perceived needs of American students. The “principles of No Child Left Behind date back to Brown v. Board of Education” (USDE, 2004, p. 13) when racially separate schools were declared 103

104

Chapter 6

unconstitutional. Now, over fifty years old, the Brown decision has implications for the intentions of NCLB, which specifically identifies populations (e.g., limited English–speaking students) and areas (e.g., reading and math) that must be specifically addressed. The law purports to link the ideals of Brown and the courts to the newer law by providing for inclusiveness and equity. It also “ensures accountability and flexibility as well as increased federal support for educators” (USDE, 2004. p. 13). Additionally, the law commands that “children with disabilities” (USDE, 2004, p. 21) be helped by providing “genuine access to the general education curriculum” (Allbritton, Mainzer, & Ziegler, 2004, p. 153). This may be accomplished in various ways including mainstreaming, inclusion, and other forms of appropriate instructional arrangements that work to provide a more equitable approach to the general curriculum. NCLB further develops the previous mandate for special needs students, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was last reauthorized in 1997. Currently, under NCLB, accountability measures must be in place to assess the growth of the majority of special needs students in both reading–language arts and mathematics. The law also provides for “specially designed alternate assessments” for those students “with the most significant cognitive disabilities” (USDE, 2004, p. 21). These assessments vary based on various state accountability systems. Understanding which measure to administer to each student is quite a daunting task given the consequences of many of the states’ protocols regarding testing procedures. Various “models for determining how many students need alternate assessments” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 155) exist depending on each state’s own interpretation. Additionally, the “systems vary qualitatively” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 155) based on the states’ broader (and already existing) accountability systems. Although the difficult decision of which test to administer faces administrators, the test results must produce results. NCLB “promises[s] that students with disabilities will achieve at the same levels as other students” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 153). Under this law, both schools and their school districts must be held “directly accountable for the learning process of all students, explicitly including students with disabilities” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 153). It has been documented that schools have been “slow to adopt procedures for including students with disabilities in meaningful assessment systems” (Allbritton et al., 2004, pp. 155–56) across the nation. Nonetheless, Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams will be forced to make decisions about the appropriateness of which test to administer to students. These teams are comprised of the student’s parent and pertinent school district staff in order to make sound decisions based on the individual needs of the student. Course selections, instructional arrangements, and

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student

105

accommodations are some of the topics that are discussed. Under NCLB requirements, teams will also have to determine which test is most appropriate based on students’ disabilities and the options available within the specifications of the state. Although NCLB outlines the assistance that must be provided to students, some states are falling behind in narrowing the gaps that the law is intended to target. Fullan and colleagues (2006) suggest that NCLB is “falling painfully short of its goals” (p. 89) in some states. School systems will not be able to “succeed until there is a new understanding of the need for capacity building” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 89). In order for the gaps to decrease, an internal accountability system must be present in order to meet the needs of overarching federal expectations. Both individual schools and school districts should have systematic plans for collecting and interpreting data. The urgency of this structure allows for timely changes or impedes the acquisition of skills to be measured. Utilizing data in order to make sound instructional decisions “to improve teaching and learning is the exception rather than the rule” (Reeves, 2002, p. 215). In many cases, data are not used in a timely fashion; critical information is “delivered to the school and classroom many months after the students took the test” (Reeves, 2002, p. 215). The best instructional leaders have an almost seamless system in place that provides for nearly immediate feedback to both teachers and students so that the instructional process is both informed and modified based on needs. Adequately Yearly Progress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a requirement under No Child Left Behind. Each state is required to have its own definition of adequate yearly progress in order to measure this standard in both individual schools and school districts. States must have a declared and unified accountability system in which to measure AYP to determine if the state, as a whole, as well as individual campuses and school districts are making measurable needed progress for identified students in various content areas. The state system must be “as fair and accurate as possible” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5) while allowing for a “number of additional provisions” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 3). The first allowable provision is the option of averaging scores. Under this guideline: States can average scores from the current year with scores from either the previous year or the previous two years when calculating the score that will be compared to the state performance target for the purposes of determining AYP. Schools can also average scores across all grades within a school. (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5)

106

Chapter 6

While the system must be fair, this provides states leeway to determine which scores will actually be utilized within the state accountability system. The intent is to prevent overlooking any student, but this may be circumvented if decisions are made by states that will allow the data to be skewed. States are also only required to count the population that comprises fullyear students. Those students are defined as “students who have been enrolled in the school for at least one full academic year” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5). Schools “are only accountable for groups that are large enough to reveal ‘statistically valid and reliable’ data; each state has discretion to set the minimum number of students required for group accountability” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5). This provides for error and has severe implications when equity is considered. Finally, states may apply a particular statistical procedure, known as a confidence interval, to “minimize the chances of schools not making AYP” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5). States may use this “statistical technique that can add to the reliability of determinations, particularly for smaller groups of students” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5). In order to ensure that no student population group escapes the accountability measures, AYP requires “at least 95% of all students and all groups of students” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 3) participate in the assessment practices deemed appropriate by the states. The Education Trust report says it best—“setting a minimum number of students and using confidence intervals can enhance accountability determinations. However, if they are abused, they can obscure real problems” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 5). The variation in the exercise of options described will make it difficult to truly measure the progress of American students. What exists as the standard in one state will vary in others. When reports are published as to the effectiveness of education by all states, this should be considered. The first data collection for AYP purposes began with the use of results produced during the 2001–2002 school year. Once this base line data was established, each state was required to begin raising its expectations in order to eventually increase the number of students meeting or exceeding the specifics defined by the state. Most important, the bar must be raised adequately in order to meet the goal of all students meeting proficiency within a twelve-year timeframe. For each year, a determination must be made based on the following: If the school as a whole and each individual group within the school has met or exceeded the statewide goal in math and language arts, 95% of all students and groups of students have taken the tests, and the school has met the statewide goal for the additional academic indicator [specified by individual states], then the school has met AYP. (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 3)

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student

107

If states cannot achieve each part of the above criterion, then the state has not met AYP. States are also required to “identify for improvement any Title I school that does not meet the state’s definition of adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years” (USDE, 2004, p. 22) and beyond. Identification for improvement also requires decisions regarding the sanctions that schools and school districts will face if improvement is not achieved. The reprimands become increasingly severe as continuous years of “missing AYP” are accumulated. Although it sounds fairly easy to design these requirements, serious potential conflict may result when state standards and federal requirements meet and misalignment occurs. States have been given an opportunity to do more than what we normally hear referred to as “school reform.” Under this mandate, states may creatively transform their own educational system. How many will accept this challenge in order to seriously attempt a transformation? How many will “merely replace the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., with one located in their state capital” (Reeves, 2002, p. 200)? Instructional leaders must do more than simply “deliver standards from the state capital to the classroom” (Reeves, 2002, p. 48). States have an opportunity to design a personalized system that will support the type of instruction that will benefit all students. Will it happen? What does AYP mean for special education? Simply, school districts are required to “demonstrate each year that students with disabilities are making progress toward proficiency in the general curriculum” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 154). States are required to assess reading–language arts and math “every year in grades 3–8, as well as once in grades 10–12” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 3) beginning in 2005–2006. Results must be documented separately for the population that devises students with special needs so that comparisons can be made. Gone are the days where any population may be omitted or overlooked in the accountability system. AYP will serve as the signal for states to know which student populations are performing in all areas and which areas require intervention. Under AYP, “High average scores can no longer substitute for making sure that all students get the [same] education” (The ABCs of “AYP,” 2004, p. 9). The stakes are high, as NCLB “punishes the school and the school district” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 159) if students with special needs do not perform at the state expected level as compared to students that are of the same age. Again, Data Disaggregation Accountability is a responsibility; it is “more than test scores” (Reeves, 2002, p. 99). Educational leaders should turn to the data when critical

108

Chapter 6

decisions must be made about instructional programs. NCLB mandates that the learning process be closely monitored. Explicitly, the results for special education students must be reported “separately from that of other students” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 153) yearly. There is an evident need for knowing how to adequately disaggregate data for all populations. Additionally, having data available to instructional leaders is no longer enough. Now, the law mandates that decisions must be made based on results. This interpretation process has become the priority for all instructional leaders, as no grounded instructional decision can be made separate from the evidence. Public Law 94-142 (PL 94-142) was mandated in 1975 and called for a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities. Since this time, schools have been forced to look at individual students with special needs. The law was reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and now also requires the educational process to hold itself accountable for individuals. Now, under NCLB, schools continue to be required to serve students individually, as mandated under previous requirements for students with special needs. However, schools must now take a collective look at students with special needs as an entire population of its own with an ever-increasing standard for improvement. Moreover, the subpopulation of students served through special education will need to be further defined by assessing the achievement of other factors within the population such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status. This illuminates the need for professional development that must begin with instructional leaders. Learning how to interpret data must be our first step, as data must inform our decisions in order to erase the gaps and assist students with special needs. Reeves (2002) speaks to the critical urgency: Teaching a generation of teachers and principals to analyze test data—something that was never part of their university undergraduate or graduate school curricula—is difficult enough under perfect circumstances. The problem is compounded when the state uses three tests—perhaps one for reading, another for writing, and yet another for mathematics—and all three use different terminology and measurements to describe student proficiency. (p. 220)

Consistent assessments with appropriate instruction allow for consistent analysis and focused determination in helping students achieve. Constant Professional Development Because NCLB requires school districts to report the progress of all students, professional development must be in place in order to adequately and effectively learn new best practices based on research in order to make a positive gain for all students. Educational leaders must know how to

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student

109

determine which opportunities to suggest for professional development and which ones to avoid. These decisions must be driven by data. Reeves (2002) warns, educational leaders must know how to determine between “popularity and effectiveness” (p. 97). Teacher survey results that indicate a professional development opportunity was overwhelmingly favored does not imply that the session will effectively contribute to the goals of the campus and the special population that comprises students with disabilities. Enthusiasm to embrace a new idea does not mean that the practice is sound or that it will raise scores. Fullan and colleagues (2006) make a stand for a deeper contextualization of professional development. The entire concept of professional development is heightened as it is intentionally deemed “professional learning” (p. 21). This term implies that teachers must first be learners before being able to serve as teachers. For special needs students, focused and individualized learning is imperative, and teachers cannot have “personalization and precision without daily learning on the part of teachers, both individually and collectively” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 21). Additionally, as with all knowledge development, the learning required by teachers must be timely, specific, and within the context that defines the content to be taught. How will this happen? Fullan and colleagues (2006) suggest two steps: “Replacing the concept of professional development with professional learning is a good start; understanding that professional learning ‘in context’ is the only learning that changes classroom instruction is the second step” (p. 25). Professional learning is more than a meeting of teachers. The meetings must also promote self-learning “in relation to focused instruction” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 25). This type of vision calls for systemic change facilitated by a responsible instructional leader, who may exist in roles defined as the superintendent, principal, curriculum specialist, and so forth. After embarking on the vision of professional learning, teachers must be developed through a deep understanding of effective classroom teaching strategies. This means that “effective teaching [is] structured and focused on the learning needs of each student in the class” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 93). Teachers must be held accountable for how children learn and acquire knowledge. They need to “learn to care as much about the quality of the tasks . . . provide[d] for students as [they] care about the quality of [their] own performance” (Schlechty, 2001, p. 215). Effective classroom strategies also speak to the need for organization and other “routines, structures, . . . and management” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 93) techniques, which support a conducive learning environment required by students. As Brooks and Brooks (1999) note, we must teach teachers that it is important to “look at the child’s behavior [about and during learning] as a manifestation of movement to an ensuing way of reasoning” (p. 83).

110

Chapter 6

Meaning, what a student does while he or she is learning will assist the teacher with understanding the learning needs of the student, as well as the direction in which to move to continue to provide needed knowledge development. A plethora of effective strategies that support classroom learning will serve well all students, especially those with special needs. Each child must be viewed as an individual with specific requirements and an individual knowledge base upon which to build future learning. Instructional leaders must also offer professional learning in the areas of both “intervention and assistance” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 94). This is the most important type of development for teachers who work with students who have special needs. Intervention is required for the students who usually “fail to make satisfactory progress” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 94). So many times, this group of students includes those with special needs and those who “may have severe emotional blocks that interfere with concentration” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 94). These students require instructional interventions, special assistance, and lessons designed to engage them in the learning process. Some interventions or reconfigurations currently being used to assist students with special needs are inclusion, coteaching, and mainstreaming. Data disaggregation, as well as a shared belief system regarding the expectations of the instructional program, must guide the instructional and curricular decisions needed in order to make the difference with special populations. The shared belief system, where all stakeholders understand the expectations and accept responsibility for them, will provide the standard for instructional expectations. In any case, an intervention system will need to be established to meet the needs of all students. This will prevent them from falling further behind their peers, which as described earlier, is unacceptable under NCLB. Although the focus for professional learning has been directed toward teachers, others will also require understanding in order to assist students with special needs. To adequately execute the type of instruction and accountability described, “general education teachers, related service personnel, paraprofessionals, administrators, parents and students” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 158) must know about the changes and the expectations. A cooperative approach to “planning, application, and evaluation” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 158) will best serve students with disabilities both in the learning environment and in IEP meetings. Testing requirements also present opportunities for professional learning. Allbritton and colleagues (2004) suggest that in a “perfect world, students with disabilities would be tested at the grade level of their age mates” (p. 154). However, this is not always appropriate. Because of the variance in state tests, local testing determinations, and curricula, requiring all students to achieve at one level will be extremely difficult. In fact, the expectation

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student

111

of one lofty standard may result in “disproportionately high dropout rates among at-risk students, particularly those with disabilities” (Allbritton et al., 2004, p. 154). Knowing that dropout rates are high among at-risk students provides an additional avenue for professional development (professional learning) and critical conversations with students and parents. The power in building these types of relationships, in order to fully understand the rigorous requirements for students with special needs, provides the support that students deserve in order to complete high school, consider their future, and become productive citizens in our democratic society. No Excuses For too long, the performance of some students and some schools has been defined by educators who use excuses based on “differences in . . . intellectual ability . . . and in students’ family background” (Schlechty, 2001, p. 80). So, what can we do as practitioners? Reeves (2002) warns that the “root cause of the failure rate of most initiatives is not only the lack of resources but also the lack of leadership focus” (p. 214). Moreover, this lack of achievement is due to the ineffective use of available resources. Leaders are spread so thinly that “time, attention, and resources” (p. 214) are not effectively, adequately, or equitably spent on the initiative. Instructional leaders must have more than a surface understanding of what is actually being taught in public schools. The accountability process that has been drilled down to teachers must be shared by instructional leaders. Fullan and colleagues (2006) posit: “Currently, principals, district leaders, and system leaders are in a weak position to take responsibility for the quality of instruction because they have so little real information on what is taught, let alone how well” (p. 90). The answer to truly assisting special education students with authentic learning is to make ourselves an integral part of the accountability system within our own local system. Accountability without responsibility will not begin to make the advances that NCLB mandates. Expect teachers to build relationships with their students, as the established relationship will provide the catalyst for all learning. In order for instructional leaders to expect this, they, as leaders, must also establish relationships with the staff. Personal relationships with staff will serve as the model for all teacher and student relationships. Value both teachers and students, as both groups have something to offer the educational process. Schlechty (2005) goes so far as to ask you to think of them as volunteers. Moreover, he expects teachers to become learners and requires learners to also think of themselves as teachers. Teachers must become “the leader of learners” (Schlechty, 2005, p. 34) and the one who asks the right questions, rather than being the “answer

112

Chapter 6

giver” (p. 34). With this reciprocal approach to learning, everyone will achieve more. This is a drastic shift in thinking, as teachers are accustomed to thinking of themselves as the ones who provide students light when they enter our schools in darkness (Prensky, 2007). We must acknowledge what students know in order to build upon their existing foundations. Instructional leaders must also take a stand for both teacher and student engagement. Schools cannot engage students without teachers also being engaged. Schlechty (2005) warns that “engagement does not result from students’ desire to learn” (p. 9). Rather, students are engaged “because the tasks and activities they are being encouraged to do . . . have inherent meaning and value for them” (Schlechty, 2005, p. 9). Educators require development or professional learning constantly. Fullan and colleagues (2006) are instructive when they suggest, “Mere information . . . gets transformed into knowledge through interaction, and knowledge becomes wisdom through sustained interaction. Teachers . . . become experts over time, but only under these conditions” (p. 87). When teachers have knowledge and can utilize motivation to assist student learning, the knowledge and motivation amalgamate so that the power of “social capital is being used in the service of learning for all” (Fullan et al., 2006, p. 87), both teachers as well as students. Teachers who work with special education students must also be encouraged to take a constructivist stand for student learning. Constructivists posit that learning is “enhanced when the curriculum’s cognitive, social and emotional demands are accessible to the student” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 69). For whom would this be more appropriate than that of the student with special needs? Teachers need to uncover the connection between the written curriculum and the “suppositions that each student brings to a curricular task” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 69) in order for them to adapt their curricular tasks required by students. The constructivist classroom must become the status quo in order to try to begin to reach the standards set by No Child Left Behind and the requirements set by defining Adequate Yearly Progress. Most important, at the end of each year, we must ask not what content teachers covered, but rather what students actually learned (Reeves, 2002). Schlechty (2001) advises: Remember that your primary tasks are to keep the entire school focused on the core business of the school, creating quality work for students, and to remove any barriers that distract teachers from this focus. You are as responsible for what teachers do in the classroom as are the teachers themselves. (p. 214)

In order to determine what students have actually learned requires the instructional leader to make courageous decisions in order to improve the learning environment. Tradition, under NCLB, must be left behind as

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student

113

history. Educational transformation is the necessary calling for change, in order for students with special needs to compete with their peers and be measured by the mandates of the law.

CONCLUSION Although over fifty years old, the Brown decision marked a pinnacle in the change process that occurred in our American democracy. Since that time, legislation has been written to ensure the equity of other populations and their needs. NCLB was created to “solve” many of the social justice dilemmas that face the educational system today. However, the ways in which states interpret their assignment regarding accountability will make the difference for these students, or it will restrict them from reaching their full potential in order to function in our American society. In order to adhere to the mandates of NCLB, instructional leaders must have a strong working knowledge of the requirements surrounding students with special needs. They must hold themselves accountable for curricula being taught within their educational system. They must know how to effectively collect and interpret data in order to make sound instructional decisions and changes. Additionally, instructional leaders must understand the need for professional learning so that the instructional program and processes needed for student achievement evolve. No longer may excuses exist for this population, as no child is to be left behind.

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities 1. Identify a law that pertains to students with special needs. Discuss both the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” with regard to special needs students. Discuss how the law improves the conditions for students and how it limits them. 2. Review the accountability results of a campus. Pay particular attention to the results of students with special needs. What do the results reveal? Are changes necessary? What do you imagine takes place in the classroom? What do the results reveal about the principal? 3. Choose a teacher to discuss with you his or her impressions of NCLB and AYP. Since the implementation of the law, what changes has the teacher made to assist both the student and the school in meeting the requirements of the law? What is the teacher’s opinion of the changes that have been made?

114

Chapter 6

4. Choose a student with special needs to discuss with you what happens in his or her classroom. Based on the conversation, try to determine if instructional arrangements and expectations have changed since NCLB and AYP. Pro/Con Debate Preparation courses in colleges and universities must assist with minimum knowledge to prepare future instructional leaders. One growing component of the instructional leader’s responsibility is to be able to comprehend data related to students with special needs in order to make informed instructional decisions that are both within the law and that are identified as a best practice. Disabling condition, ethnicity, gender, and status regarding socioeconomic eligibility must be a part of the data collection process as well as the accountability reporting required under NCLB. Question: Is the instructional leader’s understanding of data surrounding students with special needs enough to make informed instructional decisions that will increase student scores in measured subpopulations? (See table 6.1.)

Table 6.1. PRO

CON

1. Principals are accountable for their special education test scores.

1. Many factors contribute to the success or failure of the state tests that are taken by students with special needs.

2. Principals diagnose and prescribe needed campus professional learning.

2. Professional learning goals are based on the mass needs of the campus, which can compromise the smaller special education population.

3. Principals are forced, under NCLB, to monitor all subpopulation accountability requirements on their campus.

3. Understanding the growth or decline in an area does not simplify the need for determining adequate professional learning needs.

4. Federal, state, and local guidelines are making it almost impossible for students with disabilities’ academic needs to be overlooked.

4. Decisions that benefit the entire school are generally made first in order to make the greatest gains and impact the rating system.

Educational Equity and the Special Needs Student

115

Websites for Additional Information www.makingstandardswork.com www.ed.gov www.schlechtycenter.org www.nces.ed.gov Action Research Questions 1. As compared to other campuses in your district, your school ranks one of the lowest when special education test scores are compiled. What do the instructional practices on your campus reveal to you? What do you wish to accomplish with regard to students with special needs? How will you share your vision with stakeholders? What steps will you take to ensure this vision reaches fruition? 2. Your campus has not met AYP. Scores indicate that African American males have performed significantly lower than Hispanic males. Based on data, what instructional decisions and professional developmentlearning decisions are required? 3. Parents of students with special needs have made an appointment with you to discuss the performance of their students as compared to other campuses within your district. As you prepare for the meeting, consider the following questions: Why is improving the performance of special education students important to you? To your vocation and society? 4. Your regular education teachers are voicing on campus that the energy being spent on the accountability measures surrounding students with special needs is wasted and unimportant. How do you respond to these teachers? How do you respond to the larger faculty and staff?

REFERENCES The ABCs of “AYP”: Raising achievement for all students. (2004, Summer). Washington, DC: Education Trust. Allbritton, D., Mainzer, R., & Ziegler, D. (2004). Will students with disabilities be scapegoats for school failures? Educational Horizons, 82(2), 153–60. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Prensky, M. (2007, January). Engage me or enrage me: Educating today’s digital native learners. Poster session presented at the mid-winter meeting of the Texas Association of School Administrators, Austin.

116

Chapter 6

Reeves, D. B. (2002). The leader’s guide to standards: A blueprint for educational equity and excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schlechty, P. C. (2005). Creating great schools: Six critical systems at the heart of educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. U.S. Department of Education (USDE), Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs. (2004). A guide to education and no child left behind. Washington, DC: USDE.

7 Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners: Using Reflection and Criticality Julia Ballenger and Sharon Ninness

As advocates for equity and social justice, teachers and administrators support quality education for all students so they can attain their fullest potentials. These educators do not settle for the status quo; instead, they passionately and courageously confront socially unjust structural and political systems that may lead to the marginalization of culturally and linguistically diverse students whose educational systems often place them in at-risk situations. McLaren (1988) supports that educators must view the school system from the lens of critical pedagogy, which “encompasses an unwavering commitment to empower the powerless and transform existing social inequities and injustices” (p. 214). It is important for educators to address the existing inequalities of today’s schools by using criticality to reflect on issues related to equity and access (Nieto, 2003). Current standards-based reform and accountability movements in the field of educational leadership emphasize the triangular power of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teachers and administrators influence the social and academic performance of English-language learners (ELLs). In addition to such terms as “second language learners” (SLLs), “culturally and linguistically diverse” (CLDs), and “bilingual,” the terms of “English-language learners” (ELLs) and “limited English proficiency” (LEP) are used to describe students who are in the process of acquiring English language skills and knowledge. In this chapter, the terms “ELL” and “LEP” are used interchangeably to refer to these students. In this chapter, the authors will focus on the knowledge that educators need to know, the skills that educators need to demonstrate, and the dispositions (i.e., personal values, beliefs, and vision) that educators need to possess 117

118

Chapter 7

to address the specific needs of English-language learners. The context of this chapter will include: (1) demographics, (2) legal requirements, (3) program models, (4) professional development, (5) parent involvement, (6) values and beliefs systems, and (7) social justice issues related to instruction, special education referral, and assessment.

KNOWLEDGE Demographics The U.S. population is becoming more and more linguistically and racially diverse. Data collected by the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA, 2002) revealed a substantial increase in the number of identified students with limited English proficiency enrolled in U.S. public schools from the 1991–1992 through 2001–2002 school years. While the total enrollment of students in K–12 increased by only 12 percent during this twelve-year period, the number of identified students with limited English proficiency in these grades increased by 95 percent. In 2001–2002, almost 10 percent of the total K–12 public school population was identified as limited English proficient; 4,747,763 students out of the total public school population of 48,296,777 were limited English proficient (NCELA, 2002). Not only has the ELL student population increased exponentially, but the different languages of these students have increased in their diversity. The 2000–2001 Annual Survey of State Educational Agencies (SEA) in the United States, including the insular areas and freely associated states (outlying areas), was conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA). This survey reported more than 460 languages were spoken by LEP students nationwide. The submitted data indicated that the native language of the majority of limited English proficient students was Spanish (79.2 percent), followed by Vietnamese (2 percent), Hmong (1.6 percent), Cantonese (1 percent), and Korean (1 percent), and that other language groups each represented less than 1 percent of the LEP student population (Kindler, 2002). This demographic data indicates that diverse students of color are increasing in large numbers within the United States. Thus, it is important for educators to develop instructional goals and design curriculum and programs that not only meet the needs of the dominant culture but also incorporate the prior experiences and the cultures of ethnically and linguistically diverse student populations to help prevent the marginalization of these populations as well their experiences in at-risk situations within the educational

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

119

system. With the increasing number of culturally diverse populations in this country, it is crucial that educators acquire the skills, knowledge, and dispositions to engage in professional conversations so that can they create culturally proficient schools that meet the academic and social needs of all demographic groups (Lindsey, Graham, Westphal, & Jew, 2008). Legal Requirements In recent years, the goal of school accountability has gained support from the American public, policyholders, and educators. Educational reform efforts have been based on the belief that the U.S. educational system should meet all students’ academic needs—a just society should not tolerate the existing achievement gap in students’ academic performance. Although a general consensus exists regarding the importance of this goal, a debate exists regarding “how to design accountability systems that yield fair, accurate, and useful information on which to base decisions about school improvement” (Crawford, 2004, p. 1). It is a challenge for courts and legislatures to provide sufficient oversight that will ensure student achievement to the fullest extent without relying on “one-size-fits all mandates” (Crawford, 2004, p. 1), which lead to additional problems. No Child Left Behind (2001) is the most recent legislative attempt to close the existing achievement gap by ensuring that all students make annual yearly progress. The courts in this country also have determined some accountability standards in their judicial decisions. Office of Civil Rights and Castañeda Standards. The Castañeda v. Pickard (Texas, 1981) judicial decision documents the legal requirements for educating English-language learners. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a three-part test, known as the Castañeda standards, to determine if school districts were taking the appropriate steps to overcome language barriers, as required by federal law (Crawford, 2004). These standards require that programs in schools serving ELLs: (1) should be based on sound educational theory as determined by experts in the field, (2) have a reasonable calculation of resources, personnel, and practices to be implemented effectively, and (3) undergo evaluation and restructuring, if necessary, so that language barriers are overcome (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981). For over two decades, the Castañeda standards have guided enforcement activities by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. While these standards have held districts accountable for helping students overcome language barriers, they have not been very effective. Crawford

120

Chapter 7

(2004) reports: “Due to limited funds and political resistance, Castañeda has played a relatively limited role in improving the education of ELLs” (p. 8). No Child Left Behind The primary goal of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2001), federal legislation that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, is to close the achievement gap that has existed for generations in this country as well as gaps in learning in general. Due to this legislation, student testing has increased substantially, and all schools are held accountable for all students’ performance. Requiring that students take reading and math tests annually in grades 3–8 and during one year in high school, NCLB has “codified accountability as our national educational blueprint, requiring schools to increase test scores incrementally so that all students are proficient in reading and math by 2014” (Booher-Jennings, 2006, p. 758). This legislation affects approximately twenty-five million students annually (National Center for Educational Statistics, n.d.). Supporters of NCLB hoped that an emphasis on high standards for all students in conjunction with its accountability system for attaining those standards also would result in schools’ increased attention on the academic progress of English-language learners; however, this did not happen (Crawford, 2004). Although NCLB initially was mandated with socially just intentions, in some cases, this legislation has led to harmful effects for some students who are still being left behind, including English-language learners. As originally intended, NCLB has focused increased attention on the academic progress of ELLs, but it has not provided adequate resources to address some of the most hindering obstacles to their academic achievement, which include “resource inequities, critical shortages of teachers trained to serve ELL’s, inadequate instructional materials, substandard school facilities, and poorly designed instructional programs” (Crawford, 2004, p. 2). Booher-Jennings (2006) addresses two dilemmas related to the unintended consequences of accountability systems, to which she refers as “educational triage” (p. 757): (1) the use of data to target some students at the expense of others, and (2) the possible exclusion of certain groups of students from access to scarce educational resources. A disconnect can exist between administrative theory supporting the use of assessment data to best meet the individual needs of every student and the actual practice of the use of test data to determine on which students to focus educational efforts and resources in the most educationally efficient manner. Program Models NCLB (2001) does not require that states provide a specific program model for English-language learners. It is important that educators become

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

121

knowledgeable of the various program models for educating ELLs in order to best meet the educational needs of this population. Programs for ELLs have been categorized as additive or subtractive models (Lambert, 1975; Roberts, 1995; Simons & Connelly, 2000). Additive models include programs in which students maintain their first language while acquiring a second one, and subtractive models include programs in which students lose their first language in the process of acquiring a second one. Additive program models typically encompass pluralistic goals that affirm individual and group language rights and support group autonomy, while subtractive program models typically have assimilationist goals that involve the assimilation of minority speakers into the majority language and culture in a “melting pot” process for national unity (Roberts, 1995). Simons and Connelly (2000) describe additive models as those programs that use native-language instruction for all or a major part of the school day, and they describe subtractive models as those programs that use English as the language of instruction. Simons and Connelly refer to additive program models as models that “foster native language maintenance and heritage cultural pride” (p. 68). Examples of additive program models include maintenance, late exit, or developmental bilingual education and two-way–dual language bilingual education. On the other hand, Simons and Connelly (2000) describe subtractive program models as ones that “include no provisions for maintenance of the students’ primary language and heritage culture pride” (p. 68). According to these authors, examples of subtractive program models include submersion (illegal in the United States), immersion, structured immersion, early-exit transitional bilingual education, and pullout English as a second language (p. 68). Simons and Connelly (2000), however, caution educators against oversimplifying this additive-subtractive dichotomy and the degrees of variance among these program models. Educators must be aware of a number of criteria to determine program effectiveness. For example, some of these programs described as subtractive may include “well-designed multicultural or anti-bias curriculum components that enable ELLs to share or teach native-English speaking peers about their culture and language, and the opportunity to learn about other cultures” (Simons & Connelly, 2000, p. 69). Ironically, Simons and Connelly (2000) point out: Some programs described as subtractive may actively encourage children’s use of their native language to express themselves in class through the use of native speakers of the newer ELLs home language who are fluent enough in English to translate the newer student’s words into English until the new student develops the ability to express himself or herself in English. (p. 69)

Currently, LEP students are provided with five types of instructional programs, and these programs can be classified into one of two categories: bilingual or English as a second language (ESL). The five types of programs for LEP

122

Chapter 7

students are (1) transitional/early-exit bilingual education, (2) maintenance/ late-exit/developmental bilingual education, (3) two-way/dual language bilingual education, (4) content-based ESL/sheltered English, and (5) pullout English as a second language (ESL) (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). The first three programs are bilingual while the last two are ESL programs. Transitional programs are the type of bilingual education program most often offered to LEP students (August & Hakuta, 1998). It is difficult to determine the exact numbers of various programs offered because many programs are not registered with the Center of Applied Linguistics, which maintains program data (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).

SKILLS Professional Development NCLB (2001) recognizes the importance of highly qualified teachers, and it provides states flexibility in the use of federal funds so that a greater emphasis can be placed on improving teacher quality. This legislation sets high standards for professional development to ensure that federal funds promote research-based effective practice in the classroom. Education in the areas of K–12 math and science is being strengthened through math and science partnerships for states to work with institutions of higher education to improve instruction and curriculum. In addition, the Reading First initiative allows states to have access to funds in order to implement comprehensive, scientifically based reading programs in kindergarten through second grade. In order for professional development to be effective, it must be ongoing, sustained, and targeted to teachers’ classroom and professional knowledge needs. Some professional development strategies found to improve teaching include the following: coaching; book studies; peer modeling; collaborative problem-solving; experiential opportunities to engage teachers in actual teaching, assessment, and observation; and connections to the teacher’s classes, students, and subjects taught (NCTAF; 1997; DarlingHammond, 1998; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). All teachers of ELLs should be knowledgeable about language learning and how language itself relates to teaching and learning. Wong-Fillmore and Snow (2000) suggest the following three practical ways that educators can build their capacity to teach students who are English-language learners: (1) learning about oral language development, (2) learning about written language development, and (3) learning about academic English. Teachers should understand how oral language develops and be aware of the basic units of language, such as phonemes, morphemes, words, sentences, and discourse. They also should emphasize two important aspects of written

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

123

language development: narrative and expository writing. Wong-Fillmore and Snow (2000) point out that students, especially ELLs, often come to school with text structures that are culturally rooted and contrast with the school’s text cultures. These authors state: “Different cultures focus on different aspects of an episode. Understanding a child’s story requires knowing what information the child considers most important in order to guide the student in acquiring the story structure valued at school” (p. 28). In addition to oral and written language development, educators must ensure that ELLs master academic English. Students must master academic English to understand textbooks, write papers, solve mathematical word problems, and take tests. In the article “English Language Learners: Boosting Academic Achievement,” the American Educational Research Association (2004) defines academic English as the competence “to speak with confidence and comprehension in the classroom on academic subjects . . . including the ability to read, write, and engage in substantive conversations about math, science, history, and other school subjects” (p. 2). It is imperative that educators are aware of these best practices and receive appropriate staff development to ensure the successful implementations of these practices and program models. Administrators must provide support for this training in the form of funds, time, and encouragement. Parent Involvement The essential component of providing an appropriate education for ELLs is the involvement of parents in the education of their children (Hill & Flynn, 2006). A leading model of parent and community involvement was developed by Joyce Epstein (1996) at Johns Hopkins University. Epstein supports that the main reason for creating school, family, and community partnerships is to help all students attain success in schools. In her partnership framework, Epstein (1996) identifies the following six types of parental and community involvement: 1. parenting to help all families to establish home environments to support children as students; 2. communicating, which involves designing effective forms of schoolto-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress; 3. recruiting and organizing parents’ help and support; 4. providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning; 5. decision-making that includes parents in school decisions and in the development of parent leaders and representatives; and

124

Chapter 7

6. collaborating with community to identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development. (pp. 111–12) Parental involvement continues to be a challenge for schools. Hill and Flynn (2006) offer five recommendations to help schools involve parents and the community in the educational process. First, schools should reflect the different languages and cultures that are represented. Art and instructional work displayed in the hallways and classrooms should depict the various ethnic and culture diversity of the student population. Second, books should be purchased for the library that will broaden all students’ understanding of different cultures and ethnic groups. Third, districts are encouraged to use bilingual staff to the greatest extent possible. With limited numbers of bilingual teachers available, districts should involve community members who share the same native language. These community members could serve as key communicators and also assist the district in building family-community-school networks. Fourth, parents should be provided information about how they can participate in their children’s education and in the school’s site-based decision-making process. Fifth, English classes can be provided for parents of ELLs in the communities where they reside. In The Texas Successful Schools Study: Quality Education for Limited English Proficient Students, the Texas Education Agency (2000) found that parents in successful institutions demonstrated pride in and support for their schools. These parents were involved in such activities as preparing materials for teachers, making bulletin board decorations, sorting and packaging science and math manipulatives for teachers, serving as resources for home language development and classroom storytelling, and monitoring lunch rooms and hallways. Even though many of the parents were limited Englishspeaking, they felt empowered because they knew that the administration and staff valued the cultures of the community. It is important that the culture of English-language learners and their parents is embedded in parent involvement activities within the school. Knowledge of families’ cultural backgrounds is necessary to meet students’ instructional needs and the needs of their families. Knowledge and understanding of culture are important tools for understanding students’ instructional needs and the needs of their families (Delpit, 1995; Nieto, 2004; Valenzuela, 1999).

DISPOSITIONS Importance of Culture and Learning Dispositions are personal values, beliefs, and visions that educators possess. Educators’ behaviors are driven by their values and belief systems. In

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

125

Affirming Diversity, Nieto (2004) warns educators about the subtle implications of deficit theories that assume children are inferior to others due to genetic, cultural, or experiential differences. This type of belief system continues to have a negative impact on culturally and linguistically diverse learners. In Promoting Academic Success for ESL Students, Collier (1995) states: “Social and cultural factors are at the heart of the process of influencing all aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and academic development” (p. 21). Lindsey and colleagues (2008) address the following factors that contribute to the existing achievement gap: ineffective, disengaging instruction, underqualified teachers, limited preschool attendance, prejudiced stereotype threat and poor student self-concept, low teacher expectations, competing technology, test bias, poverty, and high mobility. Supporting that race and ethnicity are more salient variables than poverty to understanding the achievement gap, these authors state: “As difficult as it is to accept, the achievement gap has a face, and it is more about racial-ethnic demographic disparities than it is about economic differences” (p. 8). According to Lindsey, Robins, and Terrell (2003), there exist two main barriers to the acquisition of cultural proficiency, a process that acknowledges and validates persons’ current values and feelings: (1) the presumption of entitlement or systemic privilege and (2) unawareness of the need to adapt. The authors support that it is difficult for people to acquire cultural proficiency when they believe that they have gained all of their personal achievements and societal benefits based on their personal merit and the quality of their character. It is also difficult for people to acquire cultural proficiency when they are not aware that they need to make personal and organizational changes in response to diverse people with whom they interact. Because people believe that only others need to change and adapt to their cultures, they do not make needed changes. Adherence to a culturally relevant pedagogy is a way to break down these barriers. It is crucial that educators reflect on their own personal values and beliefs to determine what impact their behaviors have on culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Gay (2000) supports that effective teachers in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms are those who are able to provide culturally relevant instruction; they use cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically and linguistically diverse students to make learning more relevant and effective. Effective educators respect all students, and they exhibit beliefs that all students can learn. Not only do these educators exhibit sensitivity to cultural diversity, but they also exhibit sensitivity to individual diversity, realizing that not all members of a certain culture are exactly alike in their beliefs and value systems. Educators must be cautious that they do not use culturally relevant or multicultural teaching in inadequate ways to address existing inequalities in schools. When culturally responsive pedagogy is taken out of context and

126

Chapter 7

provided in prepackaged programs of “best practice,” it can be a “band-aid approach” to addressing serious problems of social injustice related to equity and access (Nieto, 2003, pp. 6–7). Culturally relevant or multicultural teaching needs to encompass more than ways of promoting self-esteem or providing a curriculum that substitutes one set of heroes and inventors for another (Nieto, 2003). When culturally relevant teaching is limited to these practices, students might acquire positive feelings regarding themselves and their heritages, but they might not receive the needed academic skills that prepare them to be successful in the workplace. In addition, effective educators should be willing to collaborate with diverse colleagues, parents, and guardians. They should pursue variations and differences in approaches to learning, including learning styles and performance modes and how they affect learning. The development of fluent English-speakers that provide English-language learners with language models is pivotal for successful acquisition of the English language (Cummins, 2002; Valdes, 2001; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). Educators’ values and beliefs also affect their efforts to address school practices that have an adverse impact on the access of ELLs to a quality education. The disproportionate number of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education programs is related to factors arising from system bias and discrimination within the public school system. Disproportionality: An Issue of Equity and Social Justice Despite federal legislation and litigation that address issues of equity and social justice, a disproportionate number of culturally and linguistically diverse students continue to be enrolled in special education programs. In addition, a greater incidence of the disability conditions of mental retardation, learning disability, and emotional disturbance exists among these populations (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Investigations of disproportionality by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR) have found that it varies among districts, states, and regions, and Congress has made it a national priority that must be addressed in a decisive manner (Daugherty, 1999). Reducing disproportionate representation is a high priority for both OSEP and OCR, as well as for many groups and associations that represent ethnic minorities and special education, due to the following associated problems: (1) the provision of inappropriate educational programming, (2) the misclassification of students, and (3) the discriminatory placement in special education classes (Burnette, 1998). The disproportionate representation of culturally diverse populations in special education is a concern for educational equity due to the negative effects of stigmatizing labels, re-

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

127

stricted access to general education settings, and the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of special education programs (Hosp & Reschly, 2004). Not only do inequities in educational opportunities and outcomes result from ineffective education, but disproportional representation in special education programs may lessen students’ access to curriculum and instructional opportunities as well as to interaction with teachers and peers within the general education setting (De Valenzuela, Copeland, Gi, & Park, 2006). In violation of IDEA’s (1997) mandate for the provision of education in the least restrictive environment, special education students who are culturally and linguistically diverse have a greater likelihood than Anglos of receiving instruction in restrictive educational settings (Fierros & Conroy, 2002). Since disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse populations in special education remains an unresolved issue today, it is imperative that educators develop an understanding of its important components (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Although poverty and its associated risk factors are related to the problem of disproportionality to some extent, “the high variations in identification rates among minority groups with similar levels of poverty and academic failure cast serious doubts on assertions by some researchers that it is primarily poverty and not bias that creates these deep racial disparities” (Losen & Orfield, 2002, p. xxv). Although culturally and linguistically diverse populations have a greater incidence of poverty and associated risk factors that place them at risk for being identified with disability conditions, other factors arising from system bias and discrimination within the public school system also influence the identification process (Bensimon, 2005; Losen & Orfield, 2002; Parrish, 2002). Societal inequities such as disproportionality may be the result of educators’ “cognitive frames that govern their attitudes, beliefs, values, and actions” (Bensimon, 2005, p. 100). It is crucial that school practitioners develop a “cognitive frame of equity” (Bensimon, 2005, p. 100) and exert ongoing aggressive efforts “to correct attitudes and behavior associated with special education identification of minority school children” (Oswald, Coutinho, & Best, 2002, p. 2). Once students are referred to special education, it is probable that they will be determined eligible for special education services (Yesseldyke, Vanderwood, & Shriner, 1997). Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005) support that practitioners can help resolve part of the disproportionality problem by becoming aware of certain associated factors on which they can have a direct influence. These authors identify the following three important school factors on which practitioners can have an effect to reduce the disproportionality of minority students in special education programs: instructional factors, referral procedures, and assessment practices.

128

Chapter 7

All of these factors can be related to systemic school bias. Before they are referred to special education, all students, including those who are culturally and linguistically diverse, should receive high-quality educational interventions that have been scientifically proven to be effective (Kovaleski, 2002). These interventions should be implemented consistently across school settings in the same district, and their progress should be monitored on a continual basis. They also should be provided in students’ primary languages. ELL students should not be referred to special education for any reason related to culture or language. Once they are referred to special education, ELL students should be assessed by highly trained and qualified examiners using appropriate assessment practices with valid, reliable, and culturally fair instruments in compliance with state and/or federal guidelines (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). This chapter has delineated the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that teachers and administrators need to know in order to effectively meet the needs of English-language learners. While there is no one best program model for teaching ELLs, it is important that educators select the model that will best meet the specific needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students in their schools. Within a program model, educators should meet learners’ individual needs by differentiating content, process, product, and learning environment based on their readiness, interests, and learning profiles through a range of instructional and management strategies, such as multiple intelligences, varied questioning strategies, graphic organizers, interest centers, and independent study so that they are able to attain their fullest potentials (Tomlinson, 1998). In addition, teachers and administrators should work to involve all parents in their children’s education to the fullest extent possible. It is crucial that educators reflect on their own personal values and beliefs and determine what impact their behaviors have on culturally and linguistically diverse learners. To ensure that all students have access to a high-quality education, it is imperative that administrators and teachers work to correct social injustices in the educational system by focusing on factors related to systemic bias, such as instruction, referral procedures, and assessment practices, on which they can have a direct effect.

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities 1. Discuss the definition of culture. Have the students construct webs showing aspects of their individual cultures, then share them with the class.

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

129

2. Discuss the metaphors of this country being a melting pot, which involves the assimilation of cultures into one national culture, versus a fruit salad, which involves individual cultures retaining their individual flavors but at the same time enriching the total taste of a national culture. Is it necessary for citizens to give up part of their cultures for this country to maintain its unity and sense of nationalism? In what ways do various cultures enrich this country? 3. Discuss the importance of language in relation to cultural identity. When students are forced to give up the development of their native language, can they maintain their culture? 4. A student who has basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) in English understands about every fourth or fifth word that is spoken in English. Read a short passage to students in Spanish without any explanation and then administer a multiple-choice quiz with five questions in Spanish about the orally presented material. Afterward, facilitate a discussion regarding how the students felt during this activity. Did they have an educational opportunity to understand the material? Should the law require bilingual students to take a state-mandated exam after receiving instruction in this country for two years when cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) skills can require five to seven years to develop (Cummins, 1999)?

Pro/Con Debate In 1968, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act (1968) to ensure the acquisition of equal educational opportunities for LEP students and the fostering of respect for their cultures. Since that time, the LEP population in the United States has increased to more than 5.5 million who speak more than four hundred languages, and their English language acquisition and academic achievement have been funded for more than $13 billion by NCLB, under Title I and Title III (Batalova, 2006). As the LEP population and educational funding have increased substantially, the effectiveness and high expense of bilingual education have become controversial, and, in recent years, three states with large LEP populations have banned bilingual education: California in 1998, Arizona in 2000, and Massachusetts in 2002. Question: Consider whether or not bilingual education should be provided to LEP students. (See table 7.1.)

130

Chapter 7

Table 7.1. PRO

CON

1. Bilingual education is a civil right because students cannot receive equitable educational opportunities if they are instructed in a language they cannot understand.

1. All students should have the opportunity to be instructed fully in English. Instruction in another language takes away valuable time that could be spent on developing students’ English skills.

2. Bilingual programs are essential to foster respect of nonnative Englishspeaking students’ cultures.

2. English should be mandated as the official language of the United States because a common language unifies this country.

3. Bilingual education is based on two principles of knowledge: all children can engage in complex thinking tasks, regardless of their language, and the use of and facility in the primary language enhances the acquisition of a second language in classrooms with models of instructional excellence (Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages, n.d.).

3. Bilingual education is ineffective. Students who receive instruction in bilingual programs have poor literacy skills in both English and their native language as supported by their low scores on state-mandated tests. Graduates who have received instruction in bilingual programs do not possess adequate English skills to be successful in the workforce.

4. It usually takes about five to seven years for LEP students to acquire an adequate level of academic language proficiency to understand textbooks and the items on standardized tests (Cummins, 1999). These students should not be exited early from bilingual programs before they develop adequate CALP levels. They also should not remain in these programs longer than is necessary.

4. The earlier English is acquired, the better because young children learn English more quickly. Language learning becomes more of a challenge as children become older, and they retain more of a foreign accent.

5. LEP students need to be instructed by qualified, fully bilingual teachers who can explain concepts in students’ primary languages and English to facilitate their understanding.

5. Bilingual education is too expensive. The most efficient way to learn a language is by immersion because it provides the most exposure.

Websites for Further Information www.cal.org/resources/digest /0108ortiz.html nces.ed.gov/ coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/BERoadmap.htm coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Pages/4X4Guidelines.htm

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

131

www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bilingual/resources.shtml jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/BME.html www.carla.umn.edu/esl/resources.html www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/resources.htm Action Research Questions 1. NCLB (2001) clearly states that no one program model shall be required of states. With this in mind, what are pedagogical strategies that are effective in fostering ELL academic learning and social interaction within the school setting? 2. How do program models, practices, and policies contribute to the academic success of ELLs participating in bilingual education and dual language programs in selected school sites? 3. How can educational leaders ensure equal access to core curriculum and advance placement courses for ELLs? 4. What are the instructional leadership skills needed to support and maintain a dual language education program? 5. How do teachers provide a school environment that supports culturally and linguistically diverse learners?

REFERENCES American Educational Research Association. (2004). English language learners: Boosting academic achievement. AERA Research Points, 2(1), 1–4. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Batalova, J. (2006). U.S. in focus: Spotlight on limited English proficient students in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99–111. Booher-Jennings, J. (2006). Thinking about accountability: Rationing education in an era of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 756–61. Burnette, J. (1998, March). Reducing the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. ericec.org (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 417 501 (accessed February 15, 2007). Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981). Collier, V. P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. Woodside, NY: New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Educators. Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Center on Education Policy. National Association for Bilingual Education.

132

Chapter 7

Cummins, J. (1999). Basic interpersonal communication skills and cognitive academic language proficiency. www.iteachilearn. com/cummins/bicscalp.html (accessed July 21, 2007). Cummins, J. (2002). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society, second ed. Corvina: California Association for Bilingual Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5–15. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604. Daughtery, D. W. (1999). Disproportionality issues in the implementation of IDEA ’97. NASP Communique, 28(4), 16–18. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Culture conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. De Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Gi, C. H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 425–41. Epstein, J. L. (1996). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappa, 76, 701–12. Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39–70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 185–99. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Revision (IDEA) (Public Law No. 105170). 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33 (1997). Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services 1999–2000 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. Kovaleski, J. F. (2002). Best practices in operating prereferral intervention teams. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 645–56). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. Paper presented at the Annual Learning Symposium on Cultural Factors in Learning, Bellingham, Washington, November 1973; and at the Annual Convention of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Denver, March 1974. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED096820. Lindsey, R. B., Graham, S. M., Westphal, R. C., & Jew, C. L. (2008). Culturally proficient inquiry: A lens for identifying and examining educational gaps. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2003). Cultural proficiency: A manual for school leaders, second ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (2002). Introduction: Racial inequity in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. xv– xxxvii). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Addressing Equity and Social Justice Issues for English-Language Learners

133

McLaren, P. L. (1988). Culture or canon? Critical pedagogy and the politics of literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 58(2), 213–34. National Center for Educational Statistics. (NCES). The Nation’s Report Card: Parents guide to the NAEP, n.d. nces.ed.govf/nationsreportcard (accessed March 17, 2006). National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (NCELA). (2002). Numbers and stats: The growing number of limited English proficient students, 1991/1992– 2001/2002. www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/stateposter.pdf (accessed October 20, 2008). National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: Author. Nieto, S. M. (2003). Profoundly multicultural questions. Educational Leadership, 60, 6–10. Nieto, S. M. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, fourth ed. New York: Longman. No Child Left Behind Act. 34 CFR Part 200 (2001). Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). What is the role of bilingual education? faculty.ed.umuc .edu/~jmatthew/articles/obemla.html (accessed July 20, 2007). Oswald, D. F., Coutinho, M. J., & Best, A. M. (2002). Community and school predictors of over-representation of minority children in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Parrish, T. (2002). Disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 15–38). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Press. Roberts, C. A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 369–78. Simons, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Quality ESL programs: An administrator’s guide. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Texas Education Agency. (2000). The Texas successful schools study: Quality education for limited English proficient students. Program Evaluation Unit and Office for the Education of Special Populations, Austin, Texas. In cooperation with Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi, Texas. www.nclea.gwu.edu/pubs/tea/tsss.pdf (accessed July 7, 2007). Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum. Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State of University of New York Press. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–46. Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Yesseldyke, J. E., Vanderwood, M. L., & Shriner, J. (1997). Changes over the past decade in special education referral to placement probability: An incredibly reliable practice. Diagnostique, 23, 193–203.

8 Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education Betty J. Alford

The lack of preparation of secondary students for postsecondary education and for careers has been chronicled in major national reports by the Education Trust (1999, 2001) and produced by the U.S. Department of Education (1999, 2006), as well as by leading theorists in the field of educational leadership such as Murphy, Beck, Crawford, Hodges, and McGaughy (2001). Particularly, the gap in college attendance by urban and suburban students and rural students has been documented with rural students accessing postsecondary education at an even lower level than urban or suburban students (Adelman, 2006).

In the Education Trust’s 1999 report titled Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap between Leaving High School and Entering College and High-Performance Jobs, as in subsequent reports titled Youth at the Crossroads: Facing High School and Beyond (2001) and New Frontiers for a New Century: A National Overview (2001), statistics are repeatedly shared to document the need for increased secondary student preparation for success in postsecondary education in response to the changing realities of our complex world. Indicators of a need for significant changes to be made in the level and quality of work achieved by secondary students include that currently although 70 percent of secondary students are enrolling in college, one-third never enroll again after the first semester, and half never graduate. This phenomenon has occurred in the context of a significant change in the job market in that the number of unskilled jobs has decreased while the number of skilled jobs has increased (National Commission on the High School Senior Year, 2001). Students whose parents may have been able to attain a decent to high standard of living with a high school education will 135

136

Chapter 8

not find that the same opportunity is afforded to them (National Commission on the High School Senior Year, 2001). In addition, there are significant changes in our nation’s demographics with an increasing minority population. Texas, for example, is projected to become a minority-majority state by 2008 with Hispanics accounting for more than 40 percent of the state’s population and African Americans accounting for 11 percent, while Caucasians are projected to account for 45 percent, and other groups are projected to represent 4 percent of the state’s population (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2000). The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2000) reported: “The white college enrollment rate of 5.1 percent continues to exceed the 3.7 percent participation rate for Hispanics and the 4.6 percent rate for Blacks” (p. 12). Outreach to Hispanic and African American students to promote the access and success of these students in postsecondary education is needed. Coupled with this need for increased student participation and success in postsecondary education is the present reality that nearly half of all entering freshmen take remedial courses and that students taking remedial courses are less likely to succeed in postsecondary education (Education Trust, 1999). Adelman (1999), a senior policy analyst for the U.S. Department of Education, reported: Only 18 percent of college students requiring three or more remedial courses, and 9 percent of college students requiring more than two semesters of remedial reading managed to complete a baccalaureate degree, compared with 54 percent of students requiring no remediation and 45 percent of those requiring only one remedial course who attain a bachelor’s degree. (p. 1)

Adelman (1999) further stated that the most important factor in a student’s preparation for later success in postsecondary education is a student’s course-taking patterns in secondary school. Participation in the more rigorous advanced secondary courses is an important prerequisite to success in postsecondary education. When students successfully complete challenging, upper-level courses in secondary school, the gap between ethnic and socioeconomic groups disappears in academic performance (Adelman, 1999, 2006; Burton, Burgess-Whitman, Yepes-Baraya, Cline, & Myung-in Kim, 2002). This chapter is based upon the concept expressed by John Dewey (1902): “What the wisest and best parents want for their children, we must want for all children” (p. 3). If postsecondary education is needed for advanced positions in the workforce today as national reports suggest (Education Trust, 1999, 2001) and participation in rigorous courses with support systems for success is the greatest indicator of students’ preparation for success in postsecondary education (Adelman, 1999, 2006), then it is incumbent upon educational leaders to examine disparities in students’ preparation for

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

137

postsecondary education as they promote equity and excellence in secondary schools. In this chapter, the disparities in students’ preparation for postsecondary education in rigorous courses will be examined. Particularly, the disparities in terms of socioeconomic groups will be discussed. The need for professional development to foster increased student participation and success in rigorous advanced-level courses in secondary schools as a step in preparing students for postsecondary education will then be addressed, followed by consideration of what educators can do to strengthen a college-going culture in schools. Activities and resources for school use will then be provided.

DISPARITIES IN STUDENTS’ PREPARATION FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION IN RIGOROUS COURSES College is more accessible to students who complete rigorous classes in secondary schools (Burton et al., 2002). Although many students express aspirations for attending college, they do not take the necessary courses to be ready for the challenge, and the aspiration is not fulfilled (Mau, Hitchcock, & Calvert, 1998). For example, the U.S. Department of Education report (1999) Preparing Our Students for the 21st Century: Key Areas in Education states: “According to the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88), 83 percent of students who took algebra and geometry went on to college within two years of their scheduled high school graduation. Only 36 percent of students who did not take algebra and geometry courses went to college” (p. 9). Minority and lower socioeconomic students do not complete these courses by ninth and tenth grades to the extent that Anglo and high socioeconomic students do (Burton et al., 2002). A disparity exists between the need for greater participation of minority students and students of low socioeconomic status in more rigorous secondary school classes and the actual changes that have occurred in many middle and high schools toward increasing student participation and success in these classes. In many schools throughout the nation, the honors and advanced placement (AP) classes are dominated by Anglo students, particularly those from middle to high socioeconomic groups (Oakes, Quartz, Ryan, & Lipton, 2000; Petrovich & Wells, 2005; Borman, Slavin, Cheung, Chamberlain, Madden, & Chambers, 2005). Injustices of tracking in schools and resulting policies and practices that prevent students from full participation in rigorous secondary school classes have persisted. Problems of tracking that have been cited are (1) perpetuation of social systems (McLaren, 1994); (2) segregation of students and lost talent result from tracking (Hanson, 1994); (3) disproportionate percentages

138

Chapter 8

of poor and minority students are placed in tracks for low ability and the noncollege bound (Darling-Hammond, 1994); and (4) parental overrides of rigid tracking differ by socioeconomic groups with low socioeconomic group parents accepting their child’s placement in lower level classes and parents of high and middle socioeconomic groups rejecting their child’s placement in lower level classes (Useem, 1992; Gamoran, 1992). Although educational research literature (Oakes, 1985; Gamoran, 1992; Useem, 1992) and national groups, such as the National Governors’ Association, the Council of Higher Education, and College Board have called for an end to rigid tracking for more than twenty-five years, many schools have not provided student outreach and support to ensure the success of greater numbers of students in rigorous secondary school classes. Attribution theory suggests that motivation is increased when students believe that success is due to their efforts rather than to unchangeable features of themselves (Francis, Kelly, & Bell, 1993; Weiner, 1986). Providing students with feedback on ways that help build or preserve their confidence so that they can succeed in challenging tasks if they invest reasonable effort is also an important concept of attribution theory (Good & Brophy, 1987). In order for students to do well in school, they must believe they influence their own academic success (Uguroglu & Walberg, 1986). Gladieux and Swail (1999) report: “Standards alone will not raise the achievement levels of low-income African-American and Hispanic students. Safety nets must be put in place to ensure a supportive environment for learning” (p. 21). Equally important are the establishments of relationships. Gladieux and Swail (1999) further point out: “Research and experience tell us that when these students beat the odds by enrolling and succeeding in college, the critical difference can often be traced to a particular individual—someone who served as a role model or otherwise sparked a sense of possibility for the future” (p. 21). Providing support for student success is essential in helping more students to achieve to higher levels in rigorous courses in secondary schools. Open access to rigorous courses is needed for increasing student participation in advanced-level secondary courses by all students in secondary schools. This is a position endorsed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). The NASSP 1996 report Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution, in which open enrollment for advancedlevel courses is advocated, states: “We envision a policy wherein advanced courses would be open to all students who accede to the challenge (p. 50).” This position also is endorsed in the mission statement of the College Board that states: “Universal access to high quality courses.” However, research studies have found differential course patterning available to students in many secondary schools through the courses that are offered and the processes used to assign students to classes.

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

139

In many secondary schools, “advanced courses are poorly subscribed to or frequently not even offered” (Bybee & Deboer, 1994, p. 201). Differential access to learning opportunities is provided by availability and access to advanced-level courses (Adelman, 1999). This influences the academic outcomes of the student body. Research studies confirm that counselor intervention to encourage students to pursue rigorous coursework needs to be implemented by middle school when students begin course-taking patterns (Useem, 1992). Gamoran (1992) found that the processes for admission to honors courses vary from school to school with some highly selective and rigid admission policies while others allow open enrollment.

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS A problem exists in that currently students of low socioeconomic groups and African American and Hispanic ethnic groups are not accessing advancedlevel courses to the extent that students of high socioeconomic students (Burton et al., 2002). In many rural and urban schools serving low socioeconomic students, AP courses are not offered for multiple subject areas (Burton et al., 2002). In addition to the need for increased access and equity for students’ participation in rigorous, advanced-level secondary classes by students of diverse ethnic and socioeconomic groups, concern that the present level of all secondary courses must be enhanced if students are going to be prepared for postsecondary education also is reported. As Norton (2000) notes, concerning the need for rigor in middle schools, “Looking back today, it’s apparent that the ‘Turning Points’ message about social and emotional support had a far greater impact on educators than its corresponding message about the need to strengthen the academic core of middle schools” (p. 1). Middle school students need “high content, high expectations, and high support” (Meier, 1990, p. 9), not a watered-down curriculum. The concern with the level of academic expectations in middle school does not subside in high school. As stated in a report by the National Commission on the High School Senior Year (2001), National life and the economy are changing much faster than our schools . . . The nation faces a deeply troubling future unless we transform the lost opportunity of the senior year into an integral part of students’ preparation for life, citizenship, work, and further education. (p. 1)

Improving secondary schools has emerged as a national focus (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2004, 2006). The process of open admission to advanced-level courses, such as AP courses, is highly significant in that AP courses are generally offered in the

140

Chapter 8

junior and senior years of high school. If students have not gained the prerequisite skills for advanced-level work, difficulty in these courses often is encountered. In many school courses, honors courses serve as the pipeline for who takes AP courses and who is successful. However, in many districts that pipeline is closed to many students. Oakes (1995) found that students from disadvantaged families were less likely to be advised to take the more challenging courses than students with the same test scores of higher socioeconomic status. Parents with higher educational levels were more likely to be involved in selecting the level of seventh-grade math for students (Useem, 1992). If guidance is not provided by counselors and teachers for more students to take the challenging courses, working-class students and parents on their own are less likely to be involved in the selection of challenging courses (Useem, 1992). At one time, counselors were labeled as gatekeepers (Burton et al., 2002). Bottoms (2002) reports that in a study of six urban schools, counselors in these schools now are opening the door. However, the need to provide support to students remains strong so that in all schools students are encouraged, not discouraged, from participating in rigorous coursework.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AS CHANGING MINDSETS AND DEVELOPING SKILLS A key leadership role in increasing students’ preparation for postsecondary education is influencing a change in mindsets to support the initiative for increased student participation and success in rigorous courses. Changing mindsets to support a change effort is critical to sustaining a change effort, and mindsets are impacted by dialogue and discussion (Senge, Cambron McCabe, Lucas, Kleiner, Dutton, & Smith, 2000). However, mindsets also are impacted by changes in educational practices that produce positive results. An educator interviewed commented: “First, you get a committed group of individuals. Then the results excite other people.” In research involving schools that were at various stages of opening access to challenging curriculum and instruction to all students, Oakes, Quartz, Ryan, and Lipton (2000) found that resistance to the change effort often is evident. It becomes important for educators to recognize that there may be some resistance to proposed changes from exclusive to inclusive practices, and as a superintendent commented, “Be prepared to meet some resistance.” For this reason, professional development becomes increasingly important, not just for helping educators to recognize the need and benefits of preparing students for higher levels but also to provide the knowledge and

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

141

skills to increase student performance. As a superintendent stated, “We can’t expect teachers to go from here to there overnight.” Quality professional development must be ongoing, sustained, and focused on subjectspecific knowledge to enhance instruction for all students (National Staff Development Council, 2001). The need for high-quality professional development is documented extensively in research literature with professional development cited as needed for the implementation of curricular and technological changes (Fullan, 1993; Joyce & Showers, 1995) and for initiating and sustaining school reform (Sparks & Richardson, 1997). Too often in education, pockets of excellence are achieved rather than whole school reform (Elmore, 2000). In order to move to large-scale reform from small pockets of excellence in schools and to improve learning for all students to create a culture of high academic expectations, results-based professional development is essential (Guskey & Sparks, 1996; Glatthorn & Fox, 1995).

WHAT EDUCATORS CAN DO In creating a college-going culture wherein increased numbers of students enroll and succeed in rigorous advanced-level courses, there are critical leadership roles. A part of the critical leadership role in changing mindsets to strengthen a college-going culture in secondary schools is to personalize the need. As Apple (1990) stated: Discussions about what does, can, and should go on in classrooms are not the logical equivalents of conversations about the weather. They are fundamentally about the hopes, dreams, fears, and realities—the very lives—of millions of children, parents, and teachers. If this isn’t worth our best efforts—intellectual and practical—then nothing is. (p. viii)

Leaders influence a shift in mindsets to a college-going culture by implementing needed actions. A middle school principal interviewed further illustrated the need to personalize the reform effort for creating a culture of high expectations as he stated, The first thing that we had to do was to actually internalize the belief in high expectations as leaders, because certainly it is a cultural change to some degree because society has always felt that there was a certain, select group of students who were smart enough and had the tools to pursue a post high school education. . . . The first thing that I had to do was to retrain my thinking [about who should attend college] to the point that saying that students should be college-ready was not something I just said as a principal, but something that I truly believed. (professional interview with principal)

142

Chapter 8

A mindset shift from exclusivity to inclusivity has resulted, as one school leader summarized: “We just decided that if a student wanted to try advanced-level classes, they should have the opportunity.” It is important as educators to publicize the advantages of participation in advanced-level courses and the importance of developing the prerequisite skills for later success in advanced-level classes. For example, the student’s chances of success in acquiring advanced placement course credit is enhanced by participation in pre-AP courses in middle and early high school. Leaders can inform students of all cultural and economic groups of the benefits of these programs of study and remove barriers to participation in honors or advanced-level classes even while ensuring that all courses are taught to a challenging level. Work for Systemic Change Another leadership act in strengthening a college-going culture is to focus on achieving systemic change to strengthen a culture of high expectations whereby increased numbers of students take advanced-level courses in preparing for college, recognize that college is possible and needed, and complete the preparatory steps for postsecondary admission and success. Systemic change is evidenced by an interconnectedness of practices, resources, and policies in support of a common goal. The needs of the twenty-first century and the changing requirements of the workforce demand increased academic preparation in order for students to be prepared for future endeavors. Strengthening a schoolwide culture of high expectations for all students wherein participation in postsecondary education is not a plan for a few, but the goal of all, is the vision in preparing all students for postsecondary education. Whether the student is planning to participate in a two-year technical program, the military, a community college, or a four-year university, each student benefits through participation in challenging courses (Adelman, 1999, 2006). A critical leadership action in strengthening a college-going culture is to analyze and refine policies and practices to promote a culture of high academic expectations. To increase the number of students participating in advanced-level secondary courses to include increased representation from all cultural and economic groups, analysis of policies and practices is needed. As Damico and Roth (1993) suggest, Policies which sound reasonable and fair may not be so in practice, but their consequences are rarely weighed. . . . Schools can do nothing about individual student factors, such as SES, which correlate with dropping out. They can, however, review and revise their policies and practices. (p. 7)

Although school personnel cannot do much about the socioeconomic class of students who attend their schools, they can do something about the

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

143

patterning of courses and the processes used to assign students to classes. School personnel can influence the achievement of students through restructuring the patterning of classes and facilitating the placement of students in challenging courses. Rather than simply add-on activities, planning interventions as integral parts of the school program is important. Toward achieving a cultural change of “the way we do things around here” that is reflective of increased academic expectations for all students, leaders can (1) focus on a compelling need with clear goals for improvement and an action plan with identified resources, (2) structure collaboration and ongoing study of students’ performance data in relationship to project goals, (3) provide professional development to support the goals, (4) maintain ongoing communication concerning the need for the initiative and the positive results that were being achieved by ongoing leadership from all levels of the organization. Strategies and practices to increase students’ preparation for postsecondary education include: • Implementing processes and practices that benefit students so that increased numbers of secondary students participate and succeed in rigorous, advanced-level courses; • Engaging in meaningful and ongoing professional development focused on achieving equity and excellence and increasing the challenge level in all secondary courses; • Communicating the vision of increased preparation for students, the positive results that are being achieved and the benefits for students; • Establishing support systems for student success. In seeking to impact systemic reform to a culture of high academic expectations, wherein greater numbers of students are prepared for success in postsecondary education, it is important to implement local action plans specific to the local context. This approach can involve outreach to students; changes in school policies and practices to encourage greater student participation in rigorous courses; professional development of teachers, counselors, and administrators through College Board workshops and leadership institutes that encourage both equity and excellence; and student and parent outreach to emphasize the value of students taking the rigorous courses. Implementation of these local action plans can help to create a culture of high academic expectations. An Example from a Grant Project In the East Texas Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), a U.S. Department of Education six-year grant, each campus designed local interventions to help in achieving increased

144

Chapter 8

student success. The GEAR UP partnership project was coordinated through the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University. The six-year project was a comprehensive and proactive program of services for students in grades 7–12. The project began in 1999 with seventh grade students in six rural schools that ranged in grade-level size from 593 to 15 students. Each of the schools served a student population representative of at least 50 percent low socioeconomic groups. Each year, the project continued to serve the initial class while adding a new seventh-grade cohort. Stephen F. Austin State University and Angelina College served as vital members of the partnership as did business and community groups. The purpose of this collaborative partnership of six school districts, a community college, a university, and business and community partners was to increase students’ success in postsecondary education. Intervention activities to strengthen a culture of high expectations for all students were provided through five project components: (1) student services, (2) professional development, (3) parent outreach, (4) community outreach, and (5) evaluation. Through student interventions, the GEAR UP project worked to ensure that each student would hear the important message that postsecondary education is important to his or her future, that taking the rigorous courses now in secondary school is the best preparation for postsecondary education and for life, and that support is available to help each student achieve success. These important messages were provided through multiple student and parent meetings at the time of course selection, during college visits as college students addressed GEAR UP middle and high school students, and in classrooms as teachers encouraged students to take more rigorous classes. As the project continued, students participated in GEAR UP programs of tutoring, mentoring, summer math-science camps, and ninth-grade transition camps as support for student success in the more challenging classes. Schools enacted changes in designations of course titles, in recruitment of students for the advanced-level classes, and in available support services. For example, districts changed all honors courses from honors to pre-AP and AP courses. This process involved much more than a mere name change. The process involved teachers attending summer advanced-placement institutes, schools hosting parent meetings to explain benefits of the program, counseling with students about the benefits of the rigorous courses, and mentoring of students. In addition, the change involved opening access to the pre-AP classes, recruiting for the classes and sponsoring a summer camp to heighten preparation for the rigor of the upcoming year. Pre-AP strategies were also incorporated into classes from teachers’ participation in the College Board Building Success Institutes with vertical team training as a vital part of the professional development comprehensive plan.

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

145

The East Texas GEAR UP project was an inclusive project that focused on helping all students have a chance to dream about a promising future, but even more important, the project focused on helping all students to prepare successfully in secondary school so that they would, indeed, have choices for their next step after high school. Through locally designed actions, the schools achieved the goal of enhanced student learning and achievement and created cultures of high academic expectations in secondary schools. Increased numbers of students enrolled in pre-AP, AP, and other advancedlevel courses in the six partnership schools. In six years, the number of enrollments in these courses jumped from 3,033 to 6,075. This number indicates an increase in the number of advanced courses that individual students were taking as well as an increase in the number of students taking at least one advanced-level course. To accommodate the increased numbers in advancedlevel classes, the partner schools added twenty-one new pre-AP and ten new AP courses, in addition to adding multiple sections of existing courses. Honor courses that had restrictive admission criteria were changed to pre-AP and AP courses that were open to all students. Partner schools also modified policies and practices to encourage students to select more rigorous courses through grade point weighting of rigorous courses. Campusplanning councils devised outreach activities for students, such as participation in summer math-science camps, college visits, and programs by college students to reinforce the importance of taking the more challenging classes. College entrance examinations were paid for by the district with all students encouraged to take the exams. Parent meetings, educator professional development, and student-support services also were provided. In addition, teachers participated in intensive, subject-specific professional development activities that enhanced instruction in all courses. Vertical alignment and vertical team meetings were further ways that a culture of high expectations was reinforced. As a result, increases in minority participation in advanced-level classes and of low socioeconomic students resulted in addition to increases in the number of students receiving college credit in AP courses by scoring a 3, 4, or 5 on AP tests. This project serves as an example of tangible actions that can be taken to promote both equity and excellence for all students to strengthen a college-going culture in schools.

CONCLUSION Influencing mindsets, policies, and practices and a focus on achieving systemic change are vital in increasing student participation and success in rigorous courses and strengthening a college-going culture. Establishing opportunities for professional dialogue about issues of access, support, and

146

Chapter 8

opportunity also are essential in achieving the change process. A constant focus by high school and middle school leaders is crucial in achieving the change effort with vertical team planning. Without this focus and the adoption of the mindset of inclusiveness and outreach for students to participate in rigorous courses, policies can be created that undermine the goals of this reform effort. Passionate, sustained leadership by a core group of individuals who internalize the need for increased student participation and success in rigorous secondary school courses is vital to the accomplishment of the goal to create a college-going culture in schools.

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities 1. Conduct an audit of student participation in advanced-level courses in your school by ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Investigate whether the advanced-level courses mirror the population of the school in ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Read Answers in the Toolbox in the list of research reports below and discuss. 2. Investigate three sources of information on financial aid from the Internet and report your findings. 3. Investigate programs offered by colleges and universities in partnership with public secondary schools to encourage a college-going culture in schools. For example, information concerning Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) can be accessed on the Internet at the following address: www.ed.gov/gearup. 4. Investigate two sources of university and two sources of career information from the websites listed after the pro/con debate below. Analyze one of the research articles listed after the website list to assess the importance of its findings to student preparation for higher education. Pro/Con Debate The College Board mission focuses on achieving equity and excellence for all students. Although the College Board does not mandate open access to courses in the advanced-placement program, open access to AP courses is advocated. Increasingly, secondary schools are opening the courses to all students. Question: Is an open access policy for AP courses insufficient to ensure increased minority and low socioeconomic student participation in these classes? (See table 8.1.)

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

147

Table 8.1. PRO

CON

1. Multiple methods of outreach are needed to increase student participation and success in the AP program, particularly students of traditionally underserved groups.

1. Students must take responsibility for their own learning.

2. It is educators’ responsibility to share the benefits of the advanced level classes to parents and students.

2. It is the parents’ responsibility to assist the student in course selection.

3. Support systems should be provided to ensure students’ success in AP courses.

3. If a student is struggling in the class, the student should be moved to a regular level course where he or she will be successful.

Websites for Additional Information Information on Colleges and Universities in General College Board Online www.collegeboard.org Web U.S. Universities, By State www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state U.S. Universities & Community Colleges www.utexas.edu/world/univ Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board www.thecb.state.tx.us (Go to the section called Closing the Gaps) U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov U.S. Department of Education GEAR UP Program www.ed.gov/gearup Information on Financial Aid College Board Online www.collegeboard.org (Click on Financial Aid Services/The Process) College Is Possible: Paying for College www.collegeispossible.org/paying/paying.html College Guides and Aid www.collegeaid.com College Scholarships, Fellowships and Postdoctoral Awards scholarships.kachinatech.com/scholarships/scholar6.html FAFSA www.fafsa.ed.gov

148

Chapter 8

Research Reports ACT and the Council of the Great City Schools (1999). “Gateways to Success: A Report on Urban Student Achievement and Course-Taking.” www .act.org/news/releases/1999/08-02-99.html Adelman, C. 1998. “Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement. www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox Education Trust (1999). “Dispelling the Myth: Higher Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations.” www.edtrust.org/dispell.pdf U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000). “The Condition of Education 2000.” nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid-2000062 U.S. Department of Education (1997). “Mathematics Equals Opportunity.” A White Paper prepared for U.S. Secretary for Education Richard Riley. www.ed/gov/pubs/math Action Research Questions 1. What were the key practices that have influenced students in your school, particularly those of traditionally underserved groups in postsecondary education such as students from low socioeconomic groups, to take the advanced-level classes in secondary school? 2. What were key elements in your school’s mentoring program in creating a college-going culture in schools? 3. What practices and processes were instrumental in working with your middle school to achieve greater participation and success in advanced-level courses? 4. What policies and practices were identified as most important in supporting a culture of high expectations in your school? 5. In what ways did professional development contribute to a culture of high academic expectations in your school? 6. What interventions were most important in creating a culture of high academic expectations in your school?

REFERENCES Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/Title.html (accessed September 21, 2001). Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Office of Education Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum, second ed. New York and London, Routledge.

Equity and the Preparation of Students for Postsecondary Education

149

Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for all: First-year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 1–22. Bottoms, G. (2002). Raising the achievement of low-performing students: What high schools can do. Contract #ED-99-CO-0160. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Burton, N. W., Burgess-Whitman, N., Yepes-Baraya, M., Cline, F., & Myung-in Kim, R. (2002). Minority student success: The role of teachers in advanced placement program (AP) Courses. College Board Research Report No. 2002-8. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Bybee, R. W., & Deboer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357–87). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Damico, S. B., & Roth, J. (1993). General track students’ perceptions of school policies and practices. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 1–8. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994, Spring). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5–30. Dewey, J. (1902). School and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The Education Trust. (1999). Ticket to nowhere: The gap between leaving high school and entering college and high-performance jobs, 3(2). Washington, DC: Education Trust. The Education Trust. (2001). New frontiers for a new century: A national overview. Washington, DC: Education Trust. The Education Trust. (2001). Youth at the crossroads: Facing high school and beyond. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Francis, K. C., Kelly, R. J., & Bell, M. J. (1993, Winter). Success in school: A research agenda on student attrition and retention in the SEEK Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 437–41. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Briton, PA: Falmer. Gamoran, A. (1992). Access to excellence: Assignment to honors English classes in transition from middle to high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 185–204. Gladieux, L., & Swail, W. S. (1999). Financial aid is not enough: Improving the odds for minority and low-income students. In J. E. King (Ed.), Financing a college education: How it works, how it’s changing (pp. 177–97). Phoenix: Oryx Press. Glatthorn, A. A., & Fox, L. E. (1995). Quality teaching through professional development. New York: Corwin Press. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Motivation. In T. Good & J. Brophy (Eds.), Looking in classrooms, fourth ed. (pp. 173–215). New York: Harper & Row. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34–38. Hanson, S. L. (1994, July). Lost talent: Unrealized educational aspirations and expectations among U.S. youths. Sociology of Education. 67(3), 159–83. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal, second ed. White Plains, NY: Longman. Mau, W. C., Hitchcock, R., & Calvert, C. (1998). High school students’ career plans: The influence of others’ expectations. Professional School Counseling, 2, 161–66.

150

Chapter 8

McLaren, P. (1994, second ed.). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York. Longman Company. Meier, D. (1990). Introduction. In Anne Lewis (Ed.), Making it in the middle: The why and how of excellent schools. New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Murphy, J. Beck, L.G., Crawford, M. Hodges, A., & McGaughy, C. (2001). The productive high school: Creating personalized academic communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: NASSP. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) (2004). Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: NASSP. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2006). Breaking ranks in the middle: Strategies for leading middle level reform. Reston, VA: NASSP. National Commission on the High School Senior Year. (2001). Raising our sights: No high school senior left behind. Princeton, NJ: The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development. Rev. ed. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Norton, J. (2000). Important developments in middle grades reform. The Kappan, 81(10), 1–20. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96, 681–90. Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 568–75. Petrovich, J., & Wells, A. S. (2005, August). Bringing equity back: Research for a new era in American educational policy. New York: Teachers College Press. Senge, P., Cambron McCabe, N. H., Lucas, T., Kleiner, A., Dutton, J., & Smith, B. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Sparks, D., & Richardson, J. (1997). What is staff development anyway? Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2000). Statewide fact book. www .thecb.state.tx.us/reports/default.cfm (accessed February 15, 2007). Uguroglu, M. E., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Predicting achievement and motivation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19, 1–12. United States Department of Education. (1999). Preparing our students for the 21st century: Key areas in education. Washington, DC: Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. United States Department of Education. (2006). The condition of education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle school and math groups: Parent’s involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263–79. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag.

9 Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Educational Leaders Janet Tareilo

HISTORY OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY If the examination of cultural diversity were being undertaken before the 1950s, this chapter could be completely written by using one sentence: “No cultural diversity allowed.” Before the 1950s, segregation was accepted and supported by legislative policies. This belief in separating the races encompassed retail merchants who posted “White Only” signs, the military who accepted all colors of men but assigned them less important and more menial tasks, and the educational system that kept their doors closed to anyone who was not white or had any physically handicapping situation. Schools and acquiring an education did not always play an important role in the development of the citizenry. In fact, the role taken by the schools in the nineteenth century in regard to influencing family life was somewhat limited (LaBelle & Ward, 1994). At this time, the most significant factor shaping children’s lives revolved around their large extended families and the environment where the children lived and played on a daily basis (LaBelle & Ward, 1994). Unless a child came from an affluent, white, Christian household, he or she was working on a farm or keeping younger siblings while both parents worked wherever and whenever they could. These times were also influenced by accepted norms associated with specific ethnic populations and groups. The past issue of slavery and Jim Crow Laws, established in 1876, mandated African Americans and whites would be kept separate (Lindsey, Robins, Terrell, 1999). Belief systems regarding the abilities and family life of any group other than whites included misconceptions, ill treatment, and, in some cases, hatred. Schools were especially closed to any kind of thought regarding the concept of cultural 151

152

Chapter 9

diversity if these thoughts were in direct conflict with the accepted norms of the times. Conformity within the educational structure of the schools permitted little to no understanding or acceptance of differences. It would be nice to believe that the wheels of social justice changed after the Civil War and before World War I, but that is not the case. On entering World War I, many educational goals initiated by school systems were still focusing primarily on a monoculturalistic approach to education and teaching practices (LaBelle & Ward, 1994). Being a “good” American citizen overshadowed individualism and uniqueness of differing cultures. Further discussion regarding cultural diversity and the educational system could not continue without a composite look at the essence of culture itself. Cultural diversity is a variety of human societies or cultures in a specific region or in the world as a whole; equally it could be referred to as multiculturalism within an organization (Chan-Tibergien, 2006). One can only imagine the world as it was for those who were poor, those with different facial features, those who could not be understood because of language barriers, and those who differed in any way from whites. History would later reveal these differences in a more positive light as needed inventions, meaningful writings, unforgettable works of art, and life-saving medical breakthroughs came from men and women of varied cultural and economic backgrounds. Unfortunately, even with amazing inventions and cultural contributions, little changed in the treatment of people from multicultural populations. A major case of the 1950s began turning the tide for social justice in regard to the educational system in the United States. In 1954, the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ended court-imposed segregation and declared the schools in America would be desegregated and made equal for all (Lindsey et al., 1999). The Supreme Court of the United States had officially declared the practice of “separate but equal” was unlawful and all forms or means used to separate school children were to be stopped. Some school districts, especially in the north, moved ahead with this order. Many southern areas moved much slower to enact the decision and found themselves facing desegregation orders that forced the issue of equality to be addressed. The next thirty years of education were also filled with continued reforms and increased cultural awareness. The 1960s included the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in several areas including education, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which ensured funding would be made available to enact changes dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (LaBelle & Ward, 1994). The 1960s also represented a time in U.S. history where people came face to face with an examination of the impact of varying cultural heritages (Hanley, 1999).

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

153

In the 1970s, the concept of cultural diversity was emphasized when professional educators become increasingly aware of the different racial and ethnic groups attending their schools as a result of previous court decisions (Lindsey et al., 1999). Legislative decisions from the 1960s caused such upheaval for school systems by requiring equal opportunities for learning, improved facilities, and extended programs for children that had previously been denied. Many students of color were still deprived basic human rights, but classrooms were now places where everyone would be treated as equals. However, teachers were still predominately white and many were unprepared for the cultural diversity found in their classrooms. Most teacher-preparation classes gave little attention to the educational needs of black, poor, non-English-speaking, or physically impaired children. Examples of literature portrayed the lives of white families while black family life depicted mostly agricultural settings. Henze, Katz, Norte, Sather, and Walker (2002) believe that the educational system in place is directly reflective of the patterns and structures accepted in the larger society. Social justice concerns of this time concentrated on educational equality that would improve opportunities for primarily African American students as compared to the benefits received by white children (Lindsey et al., 1999). Because so many white teachers focused on their own educational experiences, children of color and children with any difference were educated by men and women with little to no understanding of their experiences. In the field of education, the 1970s and 1980s were direct results of multicultural approaches to teaching and instruction. The push to bring cultures together providing equal opportunities came about as a direct result of (1) the civil rights movement, (2) a rise in ethnic consciousness, (3) a critical analysis of ethnically appropriate teaching materials, and (4) a loss of belief in theories associated with cultural diversity (LaBelle & Ward, 1994, p. 22). Children began to benefit from diverse classroom settings that fostered an acquisition of new languages, recognized the learning capacity of others, and continually asked students to become more involved citizens (Phillip & Crowell, 1994). A new understanding about cultural diversity took flight in the 1990s and is continuing in the present educational system. Teachers are challenged through their preparation and instructional methods to plan for and acknowledge the barrage of differences that enter their classrooms (Wong, 2001). Multicultural awareness now includes understanding the changing role of women, gay and lesbian households, severely handicapped students, and people of all ages and languages seeking an education (LaBelle & Ward, 1994). With the many changes facing teachers and schools, the roles and responsibilities of school leaders also required many changes. Cunningham and Gresso (1993) see the task of leadership as one of supporting and fostering cultural awareness on a campus. As society changes

154

Chapter 9

so does the educational system that produces the citizens. The aspects of school leadership have not changed. The children of poverty, children of color, and children with handicaps are still entering schools every day. Where history once dealt with only black and white issues, now the school is a multitude of different mixtures of color. The principal’s role is not only one of leadership but also one of influence and this influence extends to recognize the differences that exist in their schools, student populations, and learning opportunities (Roberts & Poats, 2006). Cultural diversity in regard to the public school system and the inhabitants of those institutions may have been overlooked in the past. The awareness of cultural differences can actually influence issues concerning school safety, mediate intergroup conflicts, encourage parental involvement, enhance the curriculum, and assist school personnel to discover each child’s individual potential. Leading this endeavor is the principal of the school. Henze and colleagues (2002) contend that the principal can actually be a positive influence on issues that arise between interethnic groups. Henze and colleagues (2002) write: “In schools, we as educators have an opportunity to examine the cultural aspects found on campuses at the same time assisting others to identify themselves” (p. 11). Through the actions of the principal, accepting and understanding children with differences affects the teaching process, the climate of the school, and the future of the students. The history of cultural diversity, with its misconceptions and maltreatment of others who were different, actually gave way to legislation that improved educational benefits, facilities, and opportunities for children from all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic levels. Concepts such as equity, fairness, and acceptance began to surface in the public school setting where many were not prepared or ready to face the impact of these changing times.

CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS For many years in our school systems, student desks were predominately filled with white, middle- to upper-class, English-speaking children who lived in modest neighborhoods, went to the same churches, and played together on little league baseball teams every summer. The school community, until the 1960s civil rights movement and desegregation efforts, served one type of child. With the changes in legislative policies, these schools had begun to experience changes that many were unprepared to handle. Monoculturalistic establishments were facing the arduous task of educating children who were no longer white but instead a mixture of several colors and shades, children who came from diverse social levels, and children who had varying physical and educational abilities.

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

155

The historical framework of cultural awareness associated with the American educational system was important for four primary reasons: (1) schools were deemed the place to learn about how to become an American citizen; (2) schools served as the place to become prepared to meet the economically changing environment; (3) schools provided a social context in which to learn more about the workings and beliefs of inner groups; and (4) schools provided an arena for students to develop their own sense of identity that may have been different from the ones held by their parents (LaBelle & Ward, 1994). Schools themselves became another kind of melting pot that realized serving only one major identifiable group was a thing of the past. The educational system began to realize that a changing demographic situation also meant an end to a monocultural learning environment (Hanley, 1999). Instead of seeing schools with a few black, Hispanic, or Asian children mixed among the traditional white setting, the past twenty-five years have seen our schools filled with more interracial students, an increased number of students with handicapping conditions, an influx of more and more non-English-speaking students, and a new awareness of students with gender and sexual concerns (Lindsey et al., 1999). As these diverse groups continue to enter the public school system and the current population of the United States experiences dramatic fluctuations, the primary focus placed on the educational entities should be to ensure that each child receives “equitable opportunities for school success and are prepared for the workplace” (McGhee, 2006, p. 517). The United States Census Bureau (n.d.) reports that within the next three years there will be a 9.5 percent increase in the U.S. population with the following growth recorded: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

7.2 percent change for whites alone group; 12.9 percent change for blacks alone group; 33.3 percent change for Asian alone group; 34.1 percent change for Hispanic of any race group; 30.7 percent change for all other groups.

By the year 2010, children from each of these groups will be represented in classrooms across the United States. Hanley (1999) also contends that by the year 2020, 46 percent of the student population in our schools will be a variety of colors and cultures. As rapidly as the size of these populations are shifting, schools will also need to address further issues that will alter their educational purposes such as an increase in the number of children from severe poverty settings, students with little to no means of medical assistance, and students who will continually lack outside educational experiences that impact their learning

156

Chapter 9

abilities (McGhee, 2006). McGhee (2006) continues to report that the impact of these shifting populations will be most likely felt by the southern United States, and especially California, Texas, and Florida. Currently, the fastest-growing ethnic populations are Latinos with black and white populations staying more constant and showing less growth than the other groups (McGhee, 2006). These new predictions require all school personnel, especially the campus principal, to become more reflective of the true meaning of the educational system that exists on their campuses. The focus for these school leaders is their ability to be advocates for equity in all realms of instructional opportunities presented to and for all children (Hanley, 1999). The reexamination of instructional methods, curriculum guidelines, and assessment measures are only a few areas principals must hurriedly address if they are to provide an exemplary learning environment for this multitude of populations. Madsen and Mabokela (2005), with regard to leadership concerns and principal awareness of increasing culturally diverse campuses, remind us that “leadership and diversity are invariably connected as schools move from monocultural, non-diverse contexts to ones that contain ethnically and economically disadvantaged children” (p. 56). With these expected rapidly changing demographics in the populations that inhabit the United States, schools and school leadership will not be able to “escape the challenges of diversity” (Quezada & Osajima, 2005, p. 164). At the present time, there are approximately 47.7 million children enrolled in public education programs throughout the United States (McGhee, 2006, p. 519). Resting on the shoulders of campus principals is the daunting responsibility to care for and educate the rising number of varied populations. The campus leader must begin this quest in earnest for ways to incorporate equitable learning activities for these diverse populations by proactively examining classroom instruction and teacher expectations. These measures translate into equity for learning through opportunities initiated and guided by a culturally responsive principal. McGhee (2006) suggests that teachers complete early student assessments to identify the educational needs of the children. She also mentions the benefits of initiating different instructional strategies and alternate assessment measures when looking at culturally diverse student populations. School personnel should be continually asking questions regarding bilingual instruction, parental involvement, and program funding as they relate to discovering the most effective means to teach these children. The shift in ethnic populations, the increased number of students from poverty, and the effects of societal pressures will require school principals to be courageous and steadfast when examining the challenges they have

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

157

and will surely face on their changing campuses. McGhee (2006) describes what may occur when she writes: With an emphasis on the needs and academic achievement of the increasing number of students labeled as having a variety of special needs, administrators and school personnel must obtain a new set of knowledge and skills regarding the identification and services appropriate for the student. (p. 520)

For administrators in charge of the educational process on their campuses, they must recognize the existence of global citizens and strive toward reaching campus cultures that reflect social justice for all (Bennett, 2007). Equally, administrators are expected to shape curriculum and instructional endeavors that assist in the formation of democratic and multicultural experiences that exemplify equity and commonalities instead of differences (Parker, 2003).

BEING CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE The children who enter the doors of every school in the United States have the unquestionable right to a free public education. Children of all colors, from all nationalities, representing all levels of economic status, with a variety of physical abilities should be given the same opportunities to learn, grow, and succeed in the educational process. The faculty and staff of any school should create and foster a school culture that promotes acceptance of these differences. Morefield (1996) contends that “we must teach our children to appreciate and value the rainbow of cultures” (p. 10). The person responsible for leading this initiative is the campus principal. One of the many basics taught in principal-preparation programs follows the beliefs that principals are responsible for the schools they lead. They are charged with ensuring academic success, hiring qualified teachers, providing a safe and secure learning environment, meeting curricular expectations, following legal guidelines, and, most important, being an advocate for the children they serve. One of the most important realms in which principals can exhibit true leadership capabilities is in knowing and addressing the cultural pulse of their schools. Obidah and Teel (2001) conclude: “Human beings are shaped by their life experiences. We bring our own histories, prejudices, values, beliefs and cultural norms into our schools and classrooms” (p. 1). As school leaders who are in charge of an entire student population filled with a variety of cultural and physical differences, principals must acknowledge and understand their personal beliefs regarding these differences. Educational

158

Chapter 9

leaders who find themselves on culturally diverse campuses are continually involved in a balancing act between their own personal beliefs and the requirements they face in their positions of leadership (Welch, 2006). A true leader must find ways to include their beliefs in their leadership outlook as long as those beliefs foster student academic growth and encourage a positive school culture. Principals who choose to lead a school with a vision of equity and acceptance develop a clear understanding of cultural differences (Roberts & Poats, 2006). The personal perspectives regarding a principal’s view of cultural diversity, in many ways, shape their leadership abilities (Cunningham & Gresso, 1993). If principals’ personal beliefs help them categorize their leadership abilities to create and continue a positive school culture where all the children are valued, how does their training and preparation assist them in this endeavor? Roberts and Poats (2006) contend that because the social systems in place on school campuses are rapidly changing, the preparation at the college level in place for working with cultural diversity issues must be equally changing to meet that need. Madsen and Mabokela (2005) propose: “As we prepare leaders, they need to understand how to conceptualize identities from individual perspectives and what that means in responding to group differences” (p. 57). In some cases, these school leaders are unprepared for the duty of being culturally responsive to students from a variety of backgrounds melding into their schools (Henze et al., 2002). The purpose of any preparation program should be to build on existing skills, beliefs, and knowledge each candidate possesses especially when this useful ability could enhance student acceptance and worth. Roberts and Poats (2006) summarize this belief: Without a doubt, school administrators working in today’s schools and those preparing to enter the profession must become aware of the diverse makeup of these school communities and must ensure the development of programs that provide a sound and sensitive and effective education. (p. 153)

As Roberts and Poats (2006) maintain, there is an ever-pressing need for school administrators who are “sensitive to equity concerns” (p. 183). Once a principal explores and understands his or her personal beliefs and feelings regarding the many differences that could exist on their campuses, these school leaders must continue to look forward as they examine the teachers and the curriculum. Madsen and Mabokela (2005) suggest that the responsibility to employ highly qualified teachers for culturally diverse campuses and classrooms rests ultimately in the hands of the principal. In years past, a principal’s primary service to a school and its children was managerial in nature. With an increasing awareness of the cultural differences found on campus and

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

159

the impact of state-mandated testing, principals are directed to be more involved in the instruction that takes place in the classroom. Because teachers have a unique position in which to influence students’ thinking about acceptance (Levine, 2007), principals can help foster this position by supporting and encouraging experiences teachers provide in their classrooms. While both students and teachers enter schools with differing views and beliefs, classrooms need to be safe and encouraging atmospheres where teachers accept and recognize student differences (Gaitan, 2006). What better education can students receive than to learn acceptance of others by having educational experiences that provide open discussions, meaningful classroom activities, and encourage continual parental involvement. By this means, teachers provide the link to understanding the impact of how cultural diversity and awareness of differences enrich the educational process in place, not hinder it. The principal’s role in this endeavor is to create an overall school climate in which this frame of thinking and doing is supported. Unfortunately, the principal will also face those teachers who are unwilling or unable to accept culturally diverse classroom settings. Phillips and Crowell (1994) contend that many teachers experience classrooms that are foreign to them because of a lack of preparation to meet the diverse needs of their students, and they have difficulty accepting ethnic, social, and cultural differences of the students. As Wong (2001) writes, “For teachers, diversity has become inordinately complex compared to their own educational and early teaching experiences” (p. 117). Wong continues to say that students deserve to have an educational setting that fosters differences and acceptance of others. By being actually involved in the educational process taking place on their campuses, proactive principals are constantly in motion using their leadership skills, strategies, and personal feelings to guide instructional improvements. Lindsey and colleagues (1999) see well-prepared teachers as those teachers who have an innate understanding of the cultural differences in their classrooms and use those differences to teach, monitor, and assess the learning performance of all their students. With these beliefs and a supporting principal, the education of all students can only improve. Wong (2001) suggests several ways in which a principal can accomplish this: 1. Allow teachers the opportunity to restructure lessons that align the needs of their students. 2. Provide teachers the freedom to establish a supportive classroom culture that is conducive to the learning needs of their students. 3. Accept the practice that classroom teachers are intended to teach students about cultural and physical differences. 4. Encourage teachers to create safe classroom settings that are intended to protect the welfare of all students.

160

Chapter 9

The number of diplomas that hang from an office wall or the salary someone makes do not always define school leadership. School leadership can also be defined in the ways a principal accepts, nurtures, and exhibits his or her attitudes and actions regarding the differences found on the campus that make children feel cared for and successful. Principals cannot dismiss or disregard the differences in race, religion, gender, culture, or abilities that exist within the children that inhabit their schools (Roberts & Poats, 2006). Their thoughts, words, and actions are based on a sound belief that all the students in their care deserve an equitable education and learning environment. As a principal continues to examine his or her personal beliefs about cultural diversity and as teachers become more and more aware of the impact it has on the instructional process, both must turn their attention to the issue of curriculum. Lindsey and colleagues (1999) contend that the curriculum found in today’s classrooms may very well be the primary vehicle in which teachers and principals can identify and celebrate cultural differences. Wong (2001) equals that thought by suggesting that school personnel do not simply try to integrate groups into the curriculum but, more important, use the curriculum to support the unique characteristic of each group. This identification of certain skills and learning objectives can then be used by principals to develop a positive school culture that invites parents and community members to take part in the educational process. Never has there been a more aggressive drive to make schools, teachers, and principals accountable for the performance of individuals as well as identified groups. High-stakes testing combined with state and federal accountability measures place untold pressures on principals and teachers as they continue to see students who lack sufficient speaking and reading skills, students with limited learning abilities, and an increased number of students who live in poverty. Along with these concerns, the principal’s ability to be the instructional leader on his or her campus is magnified as funding and employment issues are directly tied to student performance. Teachers and principals should be in a constant state of examining and reexamining their practices that reinforce issues of cultural diversity, instructional methods, and the consideration of how academic strategies are influenced by social and physical abilities. Through careful and continual scrutiny of curricular issues and requirements, purposeful and meaningful teacher-staff development opportunities, and reflective classroom practices, principals can help to forge lasting relationships between students and the school. If all of these practices are in place, can a principal guarantee his or her student population will pass a prescribed and mandated mastery test that takes no cultural differences into consideration? First and foremost, children will pay little attention to instruction if they feel they are not safe in their school environment (Henze et al., 2002).

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

161

The possibilities of being bullied or facing racial slurs on a daily basis distract children from their desire to learn. If a handicapped student battles with classrooms ill-equipped to meet their needs, can instruction really be the focus of their day? Because of the socialization that occurs on a daily basis, schools become a place where discrimination and prejudices could form (Welch, 2006). Campus leaders must be willing to confront this possibility and prevent it from happening. Equally, culturally aware principals and teachers embrace these differences and reach further as they create safe learning environments, celebrate differences, support reading and writing initiatives that explore diversity, and accept all students for who and what they are. Too many times educators miss opportunities to teach students about their individual uniqueness (Dilg, 2003). Improving test scores for an individual or group may actually be a byproduct of the actions taken by school personnel to make students feel safe and teach them according to their individual needs. Instilling in students the idea that they possess unlimited potential may very well be a key to improving student performance. If these changes in teaching methods and curricular issues are to be enacted, the person called on to fulfill this obligation is the campus principal. The leadership efforts taken by campus administrators should include (1) teaching initiatives that include all populations on campus, (2) a curriculum rich with the history and cultural backgrounds of ethical and racial groups, and (3) practices that incorporate physical abilities instead of ones that draw attention to disabilities; then the true intent will be to improve student learning, not test scores (Lindsey et al., 1999). The principal is charged with the responsibility to design a type of learning environment that “works for all children” (Morefield, 1996, p. 2). The principal holds the power and ability to make this happen as well as the responsibility to create a welcoming and nurturing school climate. Madsen and Mabokela (2005) conclude: “School leaders must understand the complexity of cultural identity structure and its implications” (p. 56). Welch (2006) further defines culturally responsive principals as Leaders who have to recognize the value of the multicultural contexts not just for racial and ethnic minorities but also for all of the children they seek to educate. A plurality of ideas, perspectives, traditions, religions, abilities, stories, and heritages enhance the learning environment for teachers and students alike. (p. 140)

MULTICULTURAL, MULTIETHNIC, MULTIRACIAL Impacting campus and school leadership are the concepts most associated with cultural diversity: multiculturalism, multiethnicity, and multiracialism.

162

Chapter 9

Determining the definition of each of these words only requires a simple turn of a page in a dictionary or searching the Internet. Defining the impact these constructs have as they apply to the educational setting and campus leadership responsibilities may require more of an insightful examination of what is occurring in many schools and classrooms. The idea that an education only belonged to a few, and those few did not include the poor or children of color, has long since been discarded (Morefield, 1996). Classrooms are now filled with students who bring a variety of physical and cultural characteristics into the school setting. Even with these existing differences, all students seek and deserve an equal opportunity to learn. By definition, multiculturalism refers to or relates to an aspect of society that includes several different cultures, and multiculturalism includes the preservation of differences and identities found within a culture (Costello, 1991). Henze and colleagues (2002) contribute more with their definition of how the awareness of multiculturalism will help pave the way for development of social justice. Furthermore, Wong (2001) defines multiculturalism as “the rich diversity of student bodies and the celebration of that diversity” (p. 116). With these definitions in mind, what role does multiculturalism play on a school campus and what does the leadership role encompass when dealing with cultural diversity? The philosophy of multicultural education, according to Hill-Jackson, Sewell, and Waters (2007), regards an equal opportunity education as one that encompasses “all students regardless of gender, social class, ethnic, racial, or cultural characteristics” (p. 175). Multicultural campuses are schools that embrace the different groups represented inside their doors. Students and teachers are encouraged to explore these unique backgrounds and establish year-long celebrations of those differences through a variety of classroom experiences and school-supported activities. Each culture is represented and recognized for their continual contributions to society (Roberts & Poats, 2006). The curriculum focus includes reflective discussions and activities that allow the entire school access to the many benefits of learning about others (Wong, 2001). Leading these efforts is a culturally aware principal who looks to methods of including multicultural awareness to ensure student success. Principals who are mindful of the positive aspects of the many cultures that inhabit their schools are equally aware of the strengths and needs of individuals and the group as a whole. These principals show respect for all students in their speech and their actions. They set high expectations for the teaching staff and student population to follow their examples in the treatment of others. School leaders create a safe school atmosphere where “being wrong” or “being different” only provides continual learning opportunities, not belittlement. Acceptance of the differences that exist between groups is taught and practiced in such a way that the behavior becomes

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

163

second nature to the staff and students. Even with limited budgets, time constraints, rapidly changing demographics, and mandated accountability testing, principals lead the way to creating learning environments where all cultures are welcome. Multiethnicity refers to anything having to do with the inclusion of or pertaining to multiple ethnic groups (Costello, 1991). Many of the beliefs, practices, and even food choices still in effect in the United States come from different ethnic groups that walked out the doors of the immigration center on Ellis Island. Chinatown and Little Italy are only two of the designated areas where ethnic groups flourished and added to the American culture, a culture much like the one found on a school campus. Koppelman and Goodhart (2005) define ethnicity as “the identification of an individual according to his or her national origin and or distinctive cultural patterns” (p. 15). Imagine how impacting it would be if the principal of a school allowed those “distinctive cultural patterns” a chance to come alive on campus. An important characteristic needed by an effective leader is his or her ability to build positive and lasting relationships within the community they lead. The school setting should be no different as principals strive to educate, encourage, and support efforts to recognize the needs of each individual group on their campus. Does this mean that a principal should identify certain areas of the school for certain groups or permit one cultural group freedoms within the dress code guideline? The answer is yes as long as every child on the campus is offered the same rights and privileges and the action fosters building inter-group relationships. Does this mean that non-English-speaking students from any ethnic group should be provided instruction through a dual-language program? The answer is yes because at the heart of any instructional application is the desire for students to succeed. Just acknowledging the fact that so many ethnic groups can and will exist on a campus begins a process that could lead to meaningful relationships between individuals in a group and groups themselves. Furthermore, the principal’s willingness to listen, learn, and act on the personal and educational needs of the group impacts the entire school community. According to Lindsey and colleagues (1999), race “denotes a large group of people distinguished from one another by their physical appearances” (p. 28). Koppelman and Goodhart (2005) believe that “race is a social reality dictated by the color of one’s skin, even though skin color as a basis for human categorization is absurd” (p. 10). The identification of these groups includes African Americans (blacks), people with European ancestry (whites), Asian Pacific Islanders, Native American Indians, and Hispanics or Latinos (Lindsey et al., 1999, p. 28). The U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) identifies sixty-three individual race categories, twenty-eight Hispanic or Latino

164

Chapter 9

categories, thirty-six specific American Indian categories, five Alaska Native tribes, seventeen identified Asian categories, and twelve groups of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. Schools could and do house these groups and a variety of mixtures among the many groups. How absurd to think that anyone could identify any member of these multiracial groups based on physical appearance, much less assumptions about their learning. Is it feasible to assume that campus administrators could possibly know the beliefs and cultural behaviors of the many racial groups they serve? Of course not. In the case of multiracialism, principals play a more important role by finding ways to dismiss untruths about members of individual races. Principals determine the means in which understanding one’s own racial identity helps to correct some students’ misconceptions that are usually based on generational beliefs or practices. School personnel can serve as change agents by creating, accepting, and nurturing environments. These beliefs, no matter how morally or culturally incorrect, are ingrained in the thinking of many students until they are provided venues for developing their own beliefs. The combination of old norms, racial slurs, and inappropriate depictions of these groups sabotage the efforts of the school community when trying to create a safe and open cultural learning center.

CONCLUSION Principals accept the responsibility of school leadership with some expectations in mind. They expect the teachers to acknowledge every child for their individual worth. School leaders expect the students to want an education and do whatever it takes to learn and become successful. The school community is relying on administrators to ensure school safety and the respect for all its members. In reality, what they find are hubs of cultural diversity with a variety of thoughts and actions regarding student learning and academic performance. School leaders have the responsibility to be change agents, if necessary, who initiate, encourage, and support the differences on their campuses. They are knowledgeable about student populations and the staff in charge of their education. By setting clear expectations, being an example for the campus, and celebrating the cultural contributions of the varied groups and individuals, they are actually setting the stage for the awareness of how important social justice is on a school campus in developing the learning process that leads to success for all students of different colors, backgrounds, and abilities.

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

165

McGhee (2006) describes how future schools will respond to the issue of cultural diversity: The diversity of students who enter the schools of the future will bring religions most in the U.S. are not familiar with, poverty and consequences of poverty in many forms, lack of educational opportunities, and other characteristics and student needs schools must adjust to and serve. (p. 519)

At the helm of this future school stands an educational leader who is ready to recognize and use the positive qualities and traits of cultural diversity to sustain any and all learning initiatives that lead to continued student success. Meeting the Challenges of Differences While history has paved the way for understanding and accepting the many different populations that enroll in schools every year, embracing future concerns must be equally addressed. The concept of education began with the idea that only some children from some groups had the right to go to school (Morefield, 1996). No longer are children denied an education based on the color of their skin, their religion, or their abilities. The perceptions of educators regarding the purpose and need to educate all children have shifted as much as the changing populations in the United States. Providing individual learning experiences requires school personnel to have the knowledge and willingness to teach and lead in an atmosphere free from bias, prejudice, and misconceptions. Mutual understanding and cultural respect should be components of a well-rounded education that produces citizens who are aware of the need for social justice.

END OF CHAPTER ACTIVITIES Class Activities—School Administrators to Support and Encourage Cultural Awareness 1. Provide meaningful staff development for faculty and staff members that encourages and applauds cultural awareness of individuals and groups. • Acceptance of children with handicapping situations • Group identification (i.e., socioeconomic differences, dress) • Instructional methods for varied learners • Successful means of communicating with parents 2. Initiate a character education program that celebrates students’ strengths and contributions regardless of their cultural backgrounds or instructional needs.

166

Chapter 9

3. Develop schoolwide programs that recognize and celebrate cultural and physical differences throughout the school year. • International fairs • Christmas around the World • World Dress Day • Book studies and character days • Community projects 4. Initiate the Flat Henry Traveler Program for students to learn more about children like them who happen to live around the country and throughout the world. Celebrations of cultural diversity and differences among individuals and groups are not determined by a dedicated day (Cinco de Mayo) or a designated month (Black History Month). To truly celebrate cultural differences, activities should be encouraged and supported all year long. A proactive administrator continually seeks a variety of means to establish a common culture on his or her campus—a common culture that is made up of different beliefs and behaviors, one that celebrates a barrage of backgrounds, and one that comes from all economic levels of the community. The primary goal of every campus administrator should be to look at every face of every child and believe in their individual potential.

Pro/Con Debate Readying Culturally Aware Administrators University and college principal-preparation programs focus on courses designed to train administrators to face the daily challenges of school leadership such as instruction, personnel management, and student performance. Managerial duties, discipline concerns, and, most recently, the impact of testing accountability try the leadership qualities of many school officials. Added to these factors, administrators face issues of changing demographics, students with diverse educational needs, and more and more cultural differences such as gender recognition, gay and lesbian choices, and students with varied handicapping situations. The training and preparation these school leaders receive may or may not include recognizing and meeting the educational needs of multiethnic, multicultural, and multiracial student populations. Question: Is the principal’s awareness of cultural differences found in their school systems enough to improve individual student and group academic performance? (See table 9.1.)

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

167

Table 9.1. PRO

CON

1. Principal preparation courses are designed to encapsulate instructional methods that encourage and promote the success for all students.

1. Concepts of cultural awareness cannot be learned through preparation programs. Ensuring cultural and individual differences on a school campus must be learned while on duty.

2. Because of high-stakes testing measures, principals are constantly aware of student performance by identified groups.

2. Lack of knowledge on the part of the principal regarding how culturally diverse populations learn and succeed will impact student performance.

3. District, state, and federal requirements include providing for cultural and individual differences. Principals have the responsibility to be knowledgeable about these policies and take appropriate measures to ensure the directives are followed.

3. Many of the administrative duties are time-consuming, placing cultural awareness in the background of the daily managerial requirements.

4. As campus leaders, principals are the major force to build culture awareness for teachers, students, and community members.

4. All students should be taught using the same instructional methods because they are being taught to live in America as Americans.

5. Instead of taking the time to look at individual student performance, principals focus on group performance to meet state expectations.

5. By collecting data about student and group performance, principals can assist teachers in the development of instructional plans that meet the needs of all students.

Action Research Questions 1. The precept of cultural awareness impacts schools on many levels, especially the instructional practices found on campuses and in classrooms. The responsibility of the principal is to develop and sustain the knowledge base for the teaching staff by providing meaningful staff development opportunities. • How do principals determine the needs of a faculty and staff regarding issues of cultural diversity and respect for individual differences? • Once determined, how do principals initiate and maintain reflective classroom practices regarding these issues? 2. Because the demographics of the United States are rapidly changing, the populations that inhabit the schools are equally changing.

168

Chapter 9

Students from a variety of races and cultures with differing beliefs and behaviors need principals leading their schools who have a full understanding of their individual and group needs. • What planning steps and strategies can principals take to gather information on the various populations and cultures that exist inside their schools? • How does the principal, as instructional leader, use this information to help all students achieve? • How can principals connect cultural concepts to educational expectations in order to ensure the best instructional practices are taking place? 3. Creating safe and learning conducive environments for student populations is one of the major concerns facing school leaders. Because learning about and learning to accept people of other races, ethnic backgrounds, and economic statuses begins insightful dialogue for understanding, the principal can actually serve as a change agent for teaching the acceptance of cultural diversity. • How does working with and listening to multicultural groups create opportunities to build safe school environments? • What is the relationship between learning to accept differences in others and creating safe schools for children? • How can school leaders use parents and community members to support the need for cultural awareness and acceptance?

Websites for Additional Information Cultural Diversity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_diversity www.diversityhotwire.com www.indiana.edu www.pbs.org/pov www.teachingtolerance.org www.directionservice.org/cadre/EducatingOurChildren_01.cfm www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educators/preservc/pe300.htm www.ericed.gov/-21k wikipedia.org/wiki/multiculturalism www.aynrand.org/site/PagerServer?pagename=media_topic_multi culturalism www.ascd.org www.probe.org/content/view/778/169/ www.thechildrenscoucnil.org/resources/cultural_diversity.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/multiethnic

Diversity, Equity, and the Importance of Culturally Responsive Leaders

169

www.multiethniceducation.org www.pps.k12.or.us/depts-c/mc-me/ www.wikipedia.org/wiki/multiracial www/geocites.com www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol4/6 www.census.gov

REFERENCES Allen, C., & Antone, G. P. (2006). The merge of global awareness and classroom culture: Helping future teachers meet new challenges. www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/alle_antone.htm (accessed October 22, 2008). Bennett, C. I. (2007). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice, sixth ed. Boston: Pearson Education. Census 2000. (n.d.). Data on race and Hispanic origins. www.census.gov/mso/www/ rsf/racedata/tsld012.htm (accessed February 2, 2007). Chan-Tibergien, J. (2006). Cultural diversity as resistance to neoliberal globalization: Emergence of a global movement and convention. International Review of Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Costello, R. B. (Ed.). (1991). Random House college dictionary. New York: Random House. Cunningham, W. G., & Gresso, D. W. (1993). Cultural leadership: The culture of education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dilg. M. (2003). Thriving in multicultural classrooms: Principles and practices for effective teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Gaitan, C. D. (2006). Building culturally responsive classrooms: A guide for K–6 teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hanley, M. S. (1999). The scope of multicultural education. www.newhorizons.org/ strategies/multicultural/hanley.htm (accessed October 22, 2008). Henze, R., Katz, A., Norte, E., Sather, S. E., & Walker, E. (2002). Leading for diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hill-Jackson, V., Sewell, K. L., & Waters, C. (2007, July). Having our say about multicultural education. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43(4), 174–81. Koppelman, K. L., & Goodhart, R. L. (2005). Understanding human differences: Multicultural education for a diverse America. Boston: Pearson Education. LaBelle, T. J., & Ward, C. R. (1994). Multiculturalism and education: Diversity and its impact on schools and society. Albany: State University of New York Press. Levine, M. (2007). Teaching all students: Celebrating diverse minds. In Jossey-Bass Reader in Educational Leadership, second ed. (pp. 289–98). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (1999). Cultural proficiency: A manual for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Madsen, J. A., & Mabokela, R. O. (2005). Culturally relevant school: Creating positive workplace relationships and preventing intergroup differences. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

170

Chapter 9

McGhee, M. W. (2006). Meeting the needs of diverse student populations: Federal and state perspectives. In J. A. Vornbeg (Ed.), Public schools organization and administration. tenth ed. (pp. 517–50). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Co. Morefield, J. (1996). Recreating schools for all children. www.newhorizons.org/trans/ morefield.htm (accessed October 22, 2008). Obidah, J, E., & Teel, K. M. (2001). Because of the kids: Facing racial and cultural differences in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Parker, W. C. (2003). Schools are not private places like our homes: Diversity, democracy, and education. www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/parker.htm (accessed October 22, 2008). Phillips, D., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (1994). Cultural diversity and early childhood education. Board on Children and Families, National Academy Press. Washington, DC: Author. Quezada, R., & Osajima, K. (2005). The challenge of diversity: Moving toward cultural pluralism. In L. W. Hughes (Ed.), Current issues in school leadership (pp. 163–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roberts, L. F., & Poats, L. B. (2006). Cultural and ethical diversity in Texas schools: Implications for leadership effectiveness. In J. A. Vornberg (Ed.), Public schools organization and administration, tenth ed. (pp. 153–98). Dubuque, IA: KendallHunt Publishing Co. Welch, O. M. (2006). Seeing with cultural eyes: Leadership change in multicultural schools. In V. O. Pang (Ed.), Race, ethnicity, and education: Principles and practices of multicultural education (pp. 127–41). Westport, CT: Praeger Perspectives. Wong, S. L. (2001). Managing diversity: Institutions and the politics of educational change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Projected population change in the United States by race, and Hispanic origins: 2000 to 2050. www.census.gov/pc/www/ usinterimprog (accessed February 2, 2007).

10 Coda: The Equity Problem and the Work of Educational Leaders Patrick M. Jenlink

Of the many challenges facing public schools today, none is more formidable than eliminating racial, ethnic, and economic inequities in educational opportunity and student achievement. As a society, we have claimed that public schools are the great emancipators of our society. However, if we look closely, we find that schools typically reinforce rather than transgress the social, racial, and ethnic divides of our communities. Larson & Ovando, 2001, p. 1

Throughout American history the ideal of free public schools providing “common” and thus equal educational opportunities to all has conflicted with a society sharply divided by race and social class. Even today in contemporary America, as a public we have been confronted with the daily reality of educational inequities that have further divided a country and its people. Historically, efforts have been made to address the root causes of these inequities; the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education countered the earlier 1896 decision of separate but equal, rendered in Plessy v. Ferguson, which translated into outlawing formally segregated public schools, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 targeted funds to disadvantaged students in public schools. Despite these efforts, and many others in the years that have followed Brown v. Board of Education, our nation’s education system remains hallmarked by great inequity, and our schools remain places where inequities are experienced by students and teachers and parents. Crossing the threshold into a new millennium has been hallmarked in the first eight years by a series of defining events, which have shaped, irrevocably, society and its educational system. These events include the terrorist acts of 171

172

Chapter 10

September 11, federal mandates of No Child Left Behind, and demographic shifts in population density and racial makeup nationally, particularly in urban centers. Issues of diversity, both inter- and intragroup, further illuminate the complex and problematic nature of education, reflecting a deeply embedded, historical concern for equity and equality. Additionally, the attention drawn to standards and accountability in the American educational system illuminates the problems inherent in a system animated by technical standards and focused on codification of knowledge—a system that works to standardize teaching and learning, discrediting difference in the process. However, most profound of all is the reality that inequity remains a defining feature of America’s educational system; its prevailing force in schools reminds us of the work ahead. A fundamental concern for equity as a hallmark of our democratic society is at the heart of the educational leader’s work in schools. Inseparably linked with this concern is the question of whether schools are to serve and reproduce the existing society or to adopt a more critical role of challenging the dominant social order so as to develop and advance society’s democratic imperatives (Giroux, 1992, 1994; Kincheloe, 1999). The educational leader recognizes, as Niebuhr (1946) argued, that as a society our “capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but [our] inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary” (p. xi). A more passive role on the part of the educational leader lends to a reification and reproduction of the existing society with its many social problems, inequities, and injustices, whereas a critical active role, a role that challenges dominant social orders, addresses inequities, mediates the root causes of racial, gender, ethnic, class, and sexual orientation bias and discrimination, lends to transformation and the realization of a just and democratic society. The educational leader’s work is to understand that when equity, social justice, and democracy are central to the purpose of education, then schools enable the widest diffusion of teaching and learning as “a model of cultural renewal, in effect, to support something peculiarly consonant with the democratization of culture” (Scheffler, 1960, p. 57)—democratization that mediates social inequities and injustices reflective of deeply entrenched social issues in society. The educational leader’s work is to also recognize, as did Dewey (1916, 1927), the importance of making political and moral considerations an integral element of their practice, distinguishing between education as a function of society and society as a function of education. This means taking a stance for equity and justice, which interprets as educational leadership practice grounded in an understanding of theories of social justice and democracy—an awareness of the principles on which justice and democracy are founded and the practices through which they are lived.

Coda: The Equity Problem and the Work of Educational Leaders

173

Bringing equity center as a quintessential priority in the preparation and practice of educational leaders is the message brought to the foreground by the authors of the various chapters in Equity Issues for Educational Leaders. The purpose that guided the authors in bringing together this collection of perspectives on equity will be realized when the reader understands that inequities are endemic in America’s educational system and that inequities serve a dark cause as a social force working against the democratic ideals that define us as a civil society. This force must be countered by the work of educational leaders who take a leadership stance for equity, working in concert with teachers and students and parents and other cultural workers and public servants in illuminating and interrogating and eliminating the causes of inequity in our educational system and schools.

REFERENCES Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: H. Holt. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, P.L 89-10 (1965). Giroux, H. (1992). Educational leadership and the crisis of democratic government. Educational Researcher, 2(4), 4–11. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Educational leadership and school administration: Rethinking the meaning of democratic public cultures. In T. A. Mulkeen, N. H. CambronMcCabe, & B. J. Anderson (Eds.), Democratic leadership: The changing context of administrative preparation (pp. 31–47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Gordon, E. W. (1999). Education and justice: A view from the back of the bus. New York: Teachers College Press. Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). Critical democracy and education. In J. G. Henderson & K. R. Kesson (Eds.), Understanding democratic curriculum leadership (pp. 70–83). New York: Teachers College Press. Larson, C. L., & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Niebuhr, R. (1946). The children of light and the children of darkness. A Vindication of democracy and a critique of its traditional defense. New York: Charles Scribner’s sons. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of teaching. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

About the Contributors

ABOUT THE EDITOR Patrick M. Jenlink is professor of doctoral studies in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership and director of the Educational Research Center at Stephen F. Austin State University. He earned his bachelor of science degree with majors in sociology and biology and his teaching certification in social sciences from Northwestern Oklahoma State University. Dr. Jenlink also earned his master’s of education with emphasis in counseling from Northwestern Oklahoma State University. His doctorate in educational administration was received from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Jenlink has served as a classroom teacher at the junior high and high school levels, with assignments in social sciences and natural sciences, as well as serving as K–12 counselor. He has also served as building administrator and school district superintendent in Oklahoma. His university teaching experience includes Northwestern Oklahoma State University, Western Michigan University, and assignments in Europe with the University of Oklahoma and NATO. Dr. Jenlink’s teaching emphasis in doctoral studies at Stephen F. Austin State University includes courses in ethics and philosophy of leadership, research methods and design, and leadership theory and practice. Dr. Jenlink’s research interests include politics of identity, democratic education and leadership, and critical theory. He has authored numerous articles, guest edited journals, authored or coauthored numerous chapters in books, and edited or coedited several books. Currently Dr. Jenlink serves as editor of Teacher Education & Practice and coeditor of Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, both peer-reviewed journals. 175

176

About the Contributors

His most recent books include Dialogue as a Collective Means of Design Conversation (2008), Dewey’s Democracy and Education Revisited: Contemporary Discourses for Democratic Education and Leadership (2009), and The Struggle for Identity in Today’s Schools: Cultural Recognition in a Time of Increasing Diversity (2009). Dr. Jenlink’s current book projects include a coauthored book, Developing Scholar-Practitioner Leaders: The Empowerment of Educators (forthcoming), and an edited book, Teacher Identity and the Struggle for Recognition in a Changing World (forthcoming).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Betty Alford is currently a full-time professor at Stephen F. Austin State University in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership. Betty Alford earned her doctoral degree in educational administration in 1996 from the University of Texas at Austin. She has served as a middle school principal, an assistant elementary school principal, a high school counselor, an education service center consultant, and a secondary and elementary teacher. In her work at Stephen F. Austin State University, she currently serves as department chair and doctoral program coordinator and previously served as mid-management program coordinator. She has served as a cowriter for four U.S. Department of Education partnership grants totaling over $10 million. Dr. Alford has presented papers at AERA, UCEA, NCPEA, SERA, College Board National Forum, College Board Regional Institutes, and the GEAR UP National Conference and has authored journal articles and book chapters. Her research interests include the study of leadership preparation within the context of a principal preparation or doctoral program for educational leadership, the study of partnerships to develop a college-going culture in secondary schools, and the study of successful practices in meeting the needs of English-language learners. Julia Ballenger is currently the E. J. Campbell Distinguished Professor and an associate professor in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, where she serves as coordinator of the Principal Preparation Program and the Project DEVELOP Grant. Dr. Ballenger earned a master’s of education degree in 1973 from Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, and a doctorate of philosophy degree in 1996 from the University of Texas in Austin. Dr. Ballenger’s professional experience encompasses the public school, state, and university levels. At the public school level, she served as a teacher, principal, consultant, and central office administrator in both rural and urban school districts. At the state level, she served as a regional director and program coordinator in the Accountability and Accreditation

About the Contributors

177

Division of the Texas Educational Agency in Austin. Her research agenda includes gender equity, social justice, principal program evaluation, and culturally responsive pedagogy. She has published and presented various papers and studies at the state and national levels. Dr. Ballenger is actively involved in organizations at the university, state, and national levels. She has served in leadership roles in organizations such as Phi Delta Kappa, American Association of University Women, and the Texas Council of Women School Executives. At the state level, she has served as president of the Texas Council of Professors of Educational Administration, and, at the national level, she currently serves as membership chair for AERA/SIGRWE, assistant editor for NCEPA Connextions, NCATE-ELCC taskforce members, and NCATE/ELCC program reviewer. Dalane Bouillion currently serves as associate superintendent for curriculum and instructional services in Spring Independent School District in Houston, Texas. She earned a master’s degree in educational leadership in 1994 and a doctorate in educational leadership in 2004 at Stephen F. Austin State University. She served as an elementary school principal in a 5A school district and was named Principal of the Year for 2005–2006. Dr. Bouillion has served as an adjunct professor for Stephen F. Austin State University in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership. Her research interests include issues surrounding social justice, systemic change, and smaller learning environments. She has presented papers and studies at SERA, TASA, Texas ASCD, and other conferences. Dr. Bouillion also serves on the Board of Directors for the National Educator Program. J. Craig Coleman currently serves as superintendent of schools for Harleton Independent School District in Harleton, Texas. Prior to accepting the superintendency, Dr. Coleman served in higher education as an assistant professor in educational leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University and in public education as teacher, assistant principal, and principal. Dr. Coleman earned a master’s degree in educational leadership from Stephen F. Austin State University in 1999 and his doctorate in educational leadership from Sam Houston State University in 2003. He has published and presented nationally on educational topics including the superintendency, the principalship, organizational change, and program evaluation. Sharon Ninness currently works as a public school educational diagnostician as well as an university adjunct instructor. Her previous leadership positions include coordinator of an English literacy program, a gifted-talented specialist, and chairperson of language arts and gifted-talented programs at elementary and secondary levels. As an educator of thirty years, she has worked with

178

About the Contributors

ELL students in public and private schools, as well as at the university level. In addition to ESL and G/T endorsements, she possesses principal, diagnostician, elementary, secondary (English and Spanish), and special education certifications. From SFASU, Dr. Ninness holds a BA in English and Spanish, an MEd in educational leadership, and an EdD in educational administration and supervision. From TWU, she holds an MEd in special education. Dr. Ninness has coauthored twelve articles in refereed journals and five chapters in books. She has presented numerous research studies at regional, state, national, and international conferences, addressing such topics as cultural proficiency, bilingual assessment, high-stakes testing, democratic leadership, inclusive practices, differentiated instruction, disproportionality in giftedtalented programs, and human-computer interaction. Lee Stewart is currently a full-time assistant professor at Stephen F. Austin State University in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership, where he teaches in the doctoral program and the principal preparation program. He earned a master’s degree in educational leadership in 1995 at Stephen F. Austin and a doctorate in educational leadership from Baylor University in 2001. He has served in the role of administrative academic advisor, principal, and curriculum director in Texas public schools ranging in size from 1A to 5A. His research interests include studies involving school climate, bully prevention, school size, advisory programs, and schools within schools. Dr. Stewart has published and presented various papers and studies at AERA, SERA, NCPEA, NASSP, TASA, and other conferences. He currently serves as a member of the SFA faculty senate, SFA graduate committee, SFA COE Dean’s Advisory Council, and various other educational leadership roles. Sandra Stewart is currently a full-time assistant professor at Stephen F. Austin State University in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership, where she teaches in the principal preparation program. She spent seventeen years in public education as a teacher, administrative assistant, and principal. She earned a master’s degree in educational leadership in 1997 and a doctorate in educational leadership in 2004 from Stephen F. Austin State University. Her research interests include educational leadership, curriculum and instruction, educational reform, and social justice issues. Janet Tareilo currently serves as a full-time assistant professor at Stephen F. Austin State University in the Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership. After receiving her undergraduate degree from Stephen F. Austin in elementary education, she taught in the Lufkin Independent School District for seven years. Returning to Stephen F. Austin, she earned

About the Contributors

179

her master’s degree in educational leadership and served as an elementary principal for sixteen years. In December 2004, she received a doctorate in educational administration from Sam Houston State University. Dr. Tareilo’s contributions to higher education include research endeavors in the areas of social justice, improving principal preparation programs, and the impact of the campus principal as an instructional leader. Additionally, she has presented at several national conferences such as NASSP, NCPEA, and TASA. Through her role as a team leader with Project DEVELOP and her recruitment efforts, Dr. Tareilo continues to work with many school communities to foster the leadership development of aspiring campus administrators. Diane Trautman is a former public school teacher, administrator, and retired assistant professor in the educational leadership department at Stephen F. Austin State University, where she taught in the principal preparation program. For her doctoral dissertation at Sam Houston State University, she helped to develop and validate the synergistic leadership theory, a new gender-inclusive leadership theory. Her research interests have included gender equity, social justice, and teacher leaders. Her published articles include “Equalizing Opportunities: Analysis of Current Leadership Theory,” “The Synergistic Leadership Theory, Risks and Rewards of Teacher Leader Committees,” “Moving from Master Teacher to Teacher Leader,” “It’s Not Time to Celebrate Yet: A Need for More Gender-Inclusive Leadership Theories,” and “Validating Synergistic Leadership Theory in Education: The Importance of Including Female Leadership Experiences and Behaviors.”