Superintendent Parla’s observation of de facto segregation
invariably focused on the issue of race, and the high concentration of minority
students in several schools such as Greenwood Elementary, which the Trenton
Times pointed to in its editorial imploring swift action. But raising the issue
of race itself raises issues which many people may find uncomfortable
addressing.
Is it appropriate for students to be taught in a school that
is overwhelmingly of one race, or, more to the point, a school that is either
all white, or absent white people? The assumption is that somehow students that
aren’t exposed to students of another color are being deprived of a “multicultural
education” in a multicultural society. This of course presumes that students of
color somehow think differently, or have a different perspective on life,
simply due to their skin color; that students “ think with their blood.” How
could we possibly have a thorough reading of a book or a discussion about
discrimination unless there is a minority present to represent a minority
perspective? This thinking also implies that all learning takes place inside
schools, and that students don’t learn life lessons on their “free time.” I
find this a very troubling attitude, especially when tied to the second
implicit concern of those who decry “one color schools.”
The Superintendent also observed that test scores in these “high
concentration minority schools” were markedly less than the scores in schools
with a high white population. Taking this concern to its logical conclusion
suggests that white students need be present in schools if you want scores to
go up. So are white students in general smarter than minority students? What
other direction could this go? Are we really going to argue that separate is
always unequal?
Since arguments about the relative intelligence of races,
specifically the argument that blacks and Latinos are generally less intelligent
than whites, is specious, we need to look at other variables to explain the
lower test scores. Is it the quality of the teachers being hired at those
schools, or of the clinical supervision they are receiving? Is it the quality
of resources available at the schools? Is it the curricula, or the number of
students in “special services?”
All of these aforementioned variables may be impactful, but
I believe the answer is far more obvious. As the Times noted; at Greenwood
Elementary 80 percent of students “come from families with low incomes.” So
rather than race, maybe the real issue isn’t race but income inequality. These
schools don’t need more “whites,” they need more middle and upper class
students. Is it that students don’t think “with their blood,” but “with their
wallets?” This is an admittedly trite
way of framing the argument, but there is at least empirical evidence that does
show clear correlations between income and education. You need look no further
than our State’s own District Factor Groups, where the connection between a DFG and test scores is pretty stark. Ninety
nine of the State’s 100 worst performing high schools are in urban areas- and
in the lowest two DFGs- where incomes are relatively low, the focus on income
seems a much more productive approach to take than an approach whose goal is to
reach a greater racial balance among the schools.
Fortunately for Hamilton, unlike, let’s say Trenton, where
there really is no recourse to take in redistricting with an eye towards greater
income balance, Hamilton has that power. Let’s be frank, something akin to “busing”
must be undertaken. I think it is still worth investigating the quality of the
teaching staff, namely the mix of veteran and novice teachers and the quality
of their supervision, but the bottom line is that the only way we are going to
achieve greater balance in academic performance in the Hamilton School District
is through policies that achieve greater economic balance. Of course any effort
to do so will meet stiff resistance. Superintendent Parla certainly has his
hands full. His is a worthy goal, and I hope he is able to enlist stakeholders
with the will to stand with him.
This debate on education, raising issues of opportunity and
equality, is very similar to the discussion being played out regarding
affirmative action. For decades the focus has been on race, and unfortunately
the one group of people who have been most forgotten are low income whites; a
group every bit as deserving of “affirmative action” as poor minorities.
Discrimination based on income may not be as evocative as
that based on race, but it is every bit as destructive as discrimination based
on some immutable characteristic. If he succeeds, it will be instructive to the
greater picture of academic imbalance throughout the State. For the next few
years, all eyes should be on Hamilton.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment