19

Issues of Difference Contributing to

US Education Inequality
Eric JOHNSON & Tyrone C. HOWARD
Education inequities have been rampant in the United States for the past four
centuries. Despite the portrayal of education as a tool for empowerment, enlightenment, and economic mobility for all, the precious commodity of education
has been elusive for scores of citizens. Historically, the divides in educational
opportunities have usually fallen along racial, gender, religious, and social class
lines. An examination of the history of schools in this country reveals the manner in which they have always been designated as an institution for those of privilege, power, and influence beginning with the common school movements as
early as the 1830s (Coleman 1967; Ehman 1980; Spring 2006).
It is important to note that education is not a discipline that can stand alone
without an historical, political, economic, and social/cultural context (Rothstein
1993). A closer examination of early schools in the US shows that they frequently served as spaces for indoctrination underscored by political, economic,
and social notions that benefited those in power. One of the political rationales
behind the creation of schools was to create future political leaders, create a political consensus among citizens, maintain political power, and socialize individuals for political systems and civic participation (Cremin 1957; Ehman 1980;
Gordon 1961). Conversely, economics have undoubtedly played a role in the
creation of schools. From the exploitation of free labor from enslaved Africans,
the indentured servitude of indigenous populations, the use of human resources
to build economic infrastructure has been consistent in the US financial evolution. Schools have played an integral role in the socialization of young minds
about the necessity to maintain economic arrangements despite the seemingly
inhumane ramifications that were associated with economic and political expansion (Anyon 1988).
A careful analysis of the manner in which educational opportunities have
been afforded in the United States over the past three centuries reveals that issues of difference have usually been tied to these disparities (Anderson 1988;
Banks 1995). These differences, whether they have been tied to family history,
ethnic origin trajectory to the United States, language, social status, cultural values, religious persuasions, sexual orientation, disability, or political beliefs, have
444
D.B. Holsinger and W.J. Jacob (eds.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International
Perspectives, 444460.
Comparative Education Research Centre 2009

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

445

had a significant influence on the types of opportunities afforded to individuals.

In many cases, these factors have shaped educational and life experiences more
so than the principles purported to be core American values such as hard work,
perseverance, loyalty, dedication, and sacrifice. Thus, it goes without stating that
issues of difference, no matter their manifestation, have served as sources of
tension, dissonance, prejudice, and outright discrimination for scores of people
in the nation state. In many ways, our inability to come to grips with difference
has been one of the most troublesome realities of this nations history. Allan
Johnson (1997) aptly states
The real illusion connected to difference is the popular assumption that
people are naturally afraid of what they dont know or understand. This
supposedly makes it inevitable that youll fear and distrust people who
arent like you and, in spite of your good intentions, youll find it all but
impossible to get along with them. (p.16)
Some would argue that the inability to accept or understand difference has
proved to be the primary source behind access to educational equality in the US.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the manner in which the concept of
difference has had an indelible influence on educational equity and access in the
United States. We acknowledge that differences manifest on multiple levels and
classifications, and that an interrogation of each of these constructs of difference
merits its own investigation to understand the complexity of educational opportunity. However, for this chapter we will delve into the manner in which the difference along race, class, and gender lines affects educational disparities. These
three areas will be used as our units of analysis because they have a sordid history of denying countless citizens the ability to enjoy basic unalienable rights
that are tied to US democracy, namely, freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit
of happiness. Moreover, the historical roles that race, class, and gender have
played continue to shape contemporary issues that remain critical to high quality
education in the 21st century.

Theoretical Framework
Systemic analyses that seek to emancipate and/or liberate human beings by utilizing the agency people have to create and impact their own reality are best exemplified by critical social theory (Kellner 1984). Critical social theory describes
the interconnected ways that social structures tend to reproduce inequity in the
form of domination and subordination (Habermas 1984). This examination will
use the lens offered by critical social theory to identify how difference is used as
the marker for educational institutions to perpetuate the status quo in terms of
power, privilege, domination, and subordination.
One of the essential components of critical social theory is that it must not

446

Part V North & South America

only identify areas of inequity and inequality, but it must also provide avenues of
transformation that improve identified conditions (Kellner 1988). The merits of
critical theory are evaluated in its success to guiding the struggle of human beings to improve their conditions. Critical social theory attempts to encourage
people to question the reality that social institutions (and in this case, the educational system) promote and create, and to conceptualize a society and social institutions (educational) that work to promote human dignity (Lyotard 1984).
Using the lens of critical social theory, this emanation seeks to do three
things: (1) analyze the use of difference within educational structures that produces varied and inequitable outcomes for identified groups, (2) identify how the
concept of difference shifts and transforms to extend notions of domination and
subordinations, (3) suggest a new reality that encourages education institutions
to examine not the affected groups of varied outcomes but the institutional polices and structures that produce education inequality.

Difference: A Contributing Factor to Educational

Inequality
Difference and education inequality are concepts with broad implications and
applications but simultaneously, each has particular contextual understandings
within the field of education (Schultz 2006). Difference for the purpose of this
examination is conceptually representative of the identified characteristics that
serve as observable markers indicating the presence of an individual or group.
Education inequality refers to qualitatively distinctive educational experiences
and processes that produce inequitable outcomes or identify disparities in access.
These two ideas are inextricably connected to inquiries founded on notions of
inequality.
An examination of how difference contributes to education inequality is
important to understanding how difference is a construct that is mobilized as a
socio-economic-political idea (Shapiro & Purpel 2005). Difference in this
framework is not simply a set of unique characteristics, but it is also a mechanism by which dominate and subordinate relationships are maintained and reinforced (Apple 1995a; Sleeter & Grant 2007; McLaren 2003b). In this context,
identification of difference is designed for the expressed purposes of domination
or, conversely, subordination. Difference mobilized as a socio-economic-political
idea is a pre-requisite for education inequality (Kincheloe & Hayes 2006).
Distinctions surrounding gender in US schools are not simply the results of
benign differences between boys and girls. Gender distinctions have identified
education inequalities that produce varied and inequitable outcomes between
males and females (Bailey et al. 2002). The Title IX Legislation of 1972 essentially prohibits sex discrimination in institutions receiving federal dollars (Cusher, McClelland, & Stafford 2006). As a result, Title IX had and continues to have

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

447

social, economic, and political implications on every aspect of school (Halsey,

Lauder, Brown, & Stuart-Wells 1997). Suggesting gender differences simply
identify innate and prescribed social behaviors of men and women or boys and
girls is a failure to acknowledge the perpetuation of power relations that tend to
benefit men often at the expense of women. Notions of gender are even further
complicated when analyzed in the context of race, class, and ethnicity (Giddings
1984). This point can be expanded with race and the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision of 1954, a case that in effect made racial segregation in schools unconstitutional. As a result of the Supreme Courts decision,
hundreds of African American teachers lost their jobs because they were not
permitted to teach in predominantly White schools, and thousands of African
American students moved from all Black schools to predominantly White
schools (Walker 1996). The decision continues to impact the social, political,
and economic landscape of US schooling.
Difference itself seems to be an allusive concept that is not stable, instead it
is an idea that is fluid and transforms to capture any identifying characteristics
that perpetuate the status quo (Karabel & Halsey, 1977). The fluid transformation of difference and its political, economic, and sociocultural implications in
US schooling contribute to a continued state of education inequality. These
transformations and metamorphoses are evident in English only movements, gay
and lesbian issues, and US policy on immigration to name a few (Kincheloe &
Hayes 2006). Separate notions of difference such as race, gender, class, ethnicity,
language, and culture are puzzled together under very complex circumstances to
perpetuate inequality in ways that are not easily separable. These separate notions are closely associated, but each also has a unique historical, political, and
socio-cultural legacy of education inequality in US schooling. Notions of difference singularly or in complex combinations identify the other and produce
circumstances that contribute to a long legacy of education inequity (Marcuse
1969).

The Role of Social Class in Education

Many educators critical of the distributions of educational resources in the US
operate from the standpoint that education is under girded by political aims,
which have clearly defined economic ramifications (Bowles & Gintis 1976;
Darder 1991; Freire 1970; McLaren 2003a). From this critical perspective, education is situated within a capitalist economic system that places the needs of
working-class students, families, and communities against the needs of the capitalist labor system that requires cheap labor from a large majority of its population. Bowles and Gintis (1976) posit that education serves the needs of a capitalist structure, in that it is set up to reproduce and sustain existing class stratification. In more concrete terms, low-income students typically attend unequally

448

Part V North & South America

funded, low-performing schools, exit those schools to work for meager wages
while living in low-income neighborhoods, subsequently sending their children
to the same type of underfunded schools and maintaining a firm place in a seemingly endless cycle. More specifically, these schools suffer from a host of ailments which plagues students from low income backgrounds, many of whom are
disproportionately students of color, namely, lack of investments, low property
taxes, strained social services, pollution, crime, police brutality, and other ailments that affect poor communities.
Kozol (1991) has shed light on the manner in which schools receive disproportionate funding, which has a detrimental influence on school quality and overall
effectiveness, and contributes to savage inequalities. Conversely, affluent students attend better staffed and resourced schools with higher qualified teachers,
smaller class sizes, and additional enrichment courses, exit these schools to work
in white-collar professions, gain access to human and cultural capital which aids
their educational and professional success (Bourdieu 1973), and provide their children with the same type of educational, social, and economic opportunities.
Critical to the work that Kozol (2005) has examined about inadequate
schools is that they are disproportionately non-White and largely poor. More
recent research has uncovered findings similar to Kozols work about the impact
of inequitable distribution of funding. Chiu and Khoo (2005) examined how resource distribution inequality and bias toward privileged students has a significant impact on students school performance. Using data on 15-year-olds from
41 countries, Chiu and Khoo discovered that countries that showed more equitable distributions with their resources had students who performed better on key
academic indices.
One of the primary theoretical frameworks that seek to explain how social
class differences have created multi-tiered educational and social structures has
been social reproduction theory (Apple 1978, 1986; Bourdieu 1973; McLaren
1994, 2003a). Steeped in an analysis of education being intimately tied to labor,
production, and disguised exploitation, social reproduction theorists contend that
schools are a reflection of the effects of a harsh capitalist system, reproducing
the existing class structure. Bowles and Gintis (1976) assert that the American
education system is subordinated to and reflective of the reproductive process
and structure of class relations in the United States (p.56). According to critical
education theorists, this is indeed the function of education, and it is not, as
many liberal educational scholars or traditional multiculturalists would argue, a
failure of a democratic system. Anyon (2005) eloquently frames this argument
by stating the following:
Low-achieving urban schools are not primarily a consequence of failed
educational policy, or urban family dynamics, as mainstream analysts and
public policies typically imply. Failing public schools in cities are, rather, a

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

449

logical consequence of the U.S. macroeconomyand the federal and regional policies that support it. Teachers, principals, and urban students are
not the culpritsas reform policies that target increased testing, educator
quality, and the control of youth assume. Rather an unjust economy and the
policies through which it is maintained create barriers to educational success that no teacher or principal practice, no standardized test, and no zero
tolerance policy can surmount. (p.2)
Therefore, educational failure as a logical consequence to US economic policies
posits that educations function is the perpetuation of values and social relations
that produce and legitimate the dominant worldview at the expense of a vast
number of citizens (Darder 1991, p.19). From a critical perspective, this worldview is inherently capitalistic, racist, and sexist. One of the principal points of
concern for critical theorists is overt domination and oppression in society,
which has an inevitable influence on schools. Gramsci (1971) speaks to the
manner in which hegemony has been used to implement particular world
views that have contributed to such inequities.
Critical scholars have also demonstrated that our educational system is increasingly controlled by corporate market interest (Apple 1995a; Giroux 2003;
McLaren 1994, 2003b; Molnar 2003). Responding to the conservative wave of
corporate school reform efforts, Apple (1995b) posits that their interest is not
benignit is set up to extend US economic influence and power:
This new power bloc combines business with the New Right and with
neo-conservative intellectuals. . . . it aims at providing the educational conditions believed necessary both for increasing international competitiveness,
profit, and discipline and for returning us to a romanticized past of the
ideal home, family, and school. (p.78)
The globalization of the US capitalist market makes it essential to understand
that what is occurring in the US education system is related to what is happening
to third world countries. A number of scholars posit that there is a direct relationship between increased global domination of transnational corporations and
loss of US jobs, which in turn affects the communities in which our students
reside and the schools that they subsequently attend (Apple 1995a; Chomsky
2000). While a host of scholars has examined the macrostructural impacts of
social class on schooling, others have taken a more microlevel analysis of the
effects of social class on school quality. Knapp and Wolverton (2004) maintain
that social class has a detrimental impact on both content and pedagogy, wherein
the curriculum is less rigorous and more concerned with social control, and disconnected from students background knowledge. Instruction is frequently
non-dynamic and painfully repetitive without enhancing learning and student
thinking. Habermas (1987) refers to the pedagogy of poverty that afflicts

450

Part V North & South America

scores of low-income classrooms, wherein an area where social class disparities

were highlighted on a large scale recently occurred in California. In Williams v.
State of California, a lawsuit was filed in May 2000 when 97 students from 46
different elementary, junior high, and high schools in California were part of a
class action lawsuit to force the state of California to face the appalling conditions of many of its public schools. The plaintiffs argued that the State was negligent in providing thousands of public school students, particularly those in
low-income communities and communities of color, with the bare minimum
necessities required for an education such as textbooks, trained teachers, and safe
and clean facilities. The States failure to provide these bare minimum necessities to all public school students in California violates the state constitution as
well as state and federal requirements that all students be given equal access to
public education without regard to race, color, or national origin.
The lawsuit never reached trial as a US$1 billion settlement was reached
four years later, but the case helped shed much needed light on the gross disparities that existed in California classrooms, particularly those from low-income
backgrounds. Student health and safety was being severely compromised in
many schools due to the substandard conditions of school facilities, which were
unsafe, not up to county and state building codes, poorly ventilated, vermin infested, and had a litany of other slum conditions. Furthermore, learning opportunities were significantly hampered by lack of qualified and highly trained teachers, lack of gifted, advanced, and honors classes, and inadequate school supplies
and materials. The Williams case was important because it helped illuminate the
manner in which issues of economic deprivation and social class division create
harsh and unimaginable learning environments.

The Salience of Race in Inequality

Race, in many ways, has been and remains the single dynamic that has shaped
United States history, its landscape, and the overall way of life (Marrable 2002;
Omi & Winant 1994). The failure to engage in critical discussions about race
and racism, and its ugly historical legacy in the United States continues to polarize a nation with increasingly rich racial diversity. As Manning Marable points
out, Instead of talking abstractly about race, we should be theorizing about the
social processes of racialization, of how certain groups in US society have been
relegated to an oppressed status, by the weight of law, social policy, and economic exploitation. (p.10) Mannings claim should serve as an alarming call to
education scholars who are concerned with issues of equity and access. The
noted sociologist Howard Winant (2001) states
Race is present everywhere. . . . Race has shaped the modern economy and
nation-state. It has permeated all available social identities, cultural forms,
and systems of signification. Infinitely incarcerated in institution and per-

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

451

sonality, etched in the human body, racial phenomena affect the thought,
experience, and accomplishments of human individuals and collectivities in
many familiar ways, and in a host of unconscious patterns as well. (p.1)
The United States record on issues of race and educational equality is far from
stellar. Some would argue that race has frequently served as the determining
variable in determining access to school quality and core democratic rights (Anderson 1988; Loury 2002). Leading theorists on race have argued that the marginalization of race and consequently racism are interwoven into the historical
conscious and ideological framework of the US and most of its institutions (Bell
1992; Delgado 1999). Critical race theorists assert that racism is and has been an
integral feature of American life, law, education, and culture, and any attempt to
eradicate racial inequities has to be centered on the socio-historical legacy of
racism (Delgado & Stefancic 2000). It is through this lens of race and all of its
manifestations that make critical race theorists seek to challenge racial oppression and subjugation in legal, institutional, and educational domains
Critical race theory within education seeks to give the much needed attention to the role that race plays in educational research, scholarship, and practice
(Ladson-Billings 2000; Solorzano & Yosso 2002; Solorzano 1998). The inclusion of a critical race framework is warranted in education when one considers
the perennial underachievement of African American, Latino/Latina, Native
American, and certain Asian American students in US schools. Critical race theory within education enables scholars to ask the important question of what racism has to do with inequities in education in unique ways. Critical race theory
examines racial inequities in educational achievement in a more critical framework than multicultural education or achievement gap theorists by centering the
analysis on difference and inequity on race.
One area that has come under intense scrutiny recently as an example of
where race has contributed to disproportionate inequities has been school punishment and discipline. One of the more compelling examples is the zero tolerance policies. Implemented in the late 1990s in response to the spate of school
shootings, the zero tolerance policies were designated to suspend or expel students for bringing weapons or drugs to school and curb student violence. Although the school shootings that prompted schools to adopt the zero tolerance
policies were at predominantly White schools involving White students, students
of color have been expelled and suspended at rates far higher than White. African American students make up approximately 17% of the nations student population but comprise 33% of school suspensions. Conversely, White students
who comprise 63% of the nations student population make up 53% of school
suspensions (Civil Rights Project 2000).
In almost every major city in the United States, African American male
students are overrepresented in suspensions and expulsions. In New York City,

452

Part V North & South America

African American males make up 18% of the student population, 39% of school
suspensions, and 50% of expulsions. The disturbing pattern holds true in Los
Angeles where African American males make up 6% of the student population,
18% of the suspensions, and 15% of expulsions (Civil Rights Project 2000). The
United States Department of Education reports that 25% of all African American
male students had been suspended at least once over a four-year period and are
2.6 times more likely than White males to be suspended from school (Schiraldi
& Ziedenberg 2001). Racial disproportionality in suspensions and expulsions is
also a consistent finding in the literature (McFadden, Marsh, Price & Hwang
1992). Yet, Skiba, Michael, Peterson, and Nardo (2000) conclude that studies
have yet to find racial disparities in misbehavior [are] sufficient enough to account for the typically wide racial differences in school punishment (p.6). Their
findings suggest that African American males do not necessarily misbehave
more than other students, notwithstanding disproportionate punishment statistics.

Difference? Different from Whom?

The inequality that is often concomitant with the social construction of difference is not easily captured or identified. As it relates to race and ethnicity,
Whiteness tends to provide a distinct advantage but not always (Morris 2006).
As it relates to sex, maleness tends to be an advantage (Hubbard 1995). As it
relates to language, English tends to be an advantage (Espinoza-Herald 2003).
As it relates to social status, wealth tends to be an advantage (Strouse 1997).
Even with these tendencies, race, status, and ethnicity tend to produce varied
outcomes that contradict these tendencies.
A measurement of most school indices would indicate that White children
perform better on standardized tests when compared with their African American and Latino/a counterparts regardless of socioeconomic status (Shapiro &
Purpel 2005). Asian American students, particularly those of Japanese or Korean
ancestry, outperform White students on standardized exams (Curry 1996). When
African American middle income students are compared with White students
from low income backgrounds, the advantage based on Whiteness decreases
considerably, and in some cases, it disappears altogether (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov & Duncan 1996). When boys and girls are compared as an aggregate group,
boys tend to have a slight overall advantage in terms of testing (Tate 1997).
When race, ethnicity, and class are accounted for, there are many scenarios under which girls do considerably better than boys. For example, White middle
income girls have a tendency to perform better than Latinos of any stratum (Patterson, Kupersmidt & Vaden 1990).
Attempting to quantify disadvantage and inequality based on difference is not
as easy a task as one might assume. The general advantages that tend to be gained
by Whiteness, maleness, class, or language are not absolutes and alone do not ex-

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

453

plain the perpetuation of inequality comprehensively. Given the reality that no

single set of characteristics explains the perpetuation of inequality, an honest investigation of difference and its role in the perpetuation of education inequality has
to account for the nuances and complexities that make absolute generalizations
inappropriate. However, analyses examining difference also have to account
clearly for the well documented legacy of legal educational discrimination based
on race. Moreover, analyses examining difference have to recognize the political,
economic, and social legacy of educational discrimination that gives privilege to
Whiteness at the expense of anyone identified as other (Sparks & Ramsey 2006).
The implicit question when referring to difference is: Different from what or
whom? The social construction of difference cannot simply be reduced to a single
set or one identifying marker. Difference in this context periodically refers to race
in some circumstances but in others, difference is about sexual orientation or ethnicity or any one or a set of characteristics that human beings use to distinguish
themselves from one another (Koppelman & Lee 2005). Difference here is not
about an individual or group of characteristics but it is more about an idea. The
idea human beings can be neatly categorized in into mutually exclusive groups.
Moreover, this idea rooted in the notion that an individuals or groups attitudes, behaviors, or world views can be ascertained by identifying and categorizing these arbitrary human divisions. In this context, difference does not necessarily require a human comparison group; this meaning of difference necessitates only the idea that certain collections of human beings are categorically distinct from one another. Central to this notion is the idea that certain groups of
humans can be assessed based on broad categories such as race, ethnicity, class,
gender, sexual orientation, or a host of other arbitrary distinctions of humanity.
This notion of difference represents the primary source for the social construction of the other. These broad categories provide surprisingly little information
about an individual or group. The resiliency of these categories speaks more to a
socio-economic-political necessity to group people more than it does to any real
connections of people involved in or affected by these categorizations.
The understanding that difference is not based on actual human differences
but on the false idea of mutually exclusive and socially constructed human categories is important. The fluidity of these socially constructed identities provides
the mechanisms to perpetuate inequality or it provides the opportunity to address
it. Once it is understood that these identities can and do change, these arbitrary
decisions can be investigated and re-evaluated for the purpose of improving the
quality of education for all students in US schools.

Why the Oppression Olympics is Not the Answer

The context of difference and its connection to inequality is often a source of
tension between affected groups. There is both a tendency and temptation to

454

Part V North & South America

place varying types of oppression and prejudice within a hierarchical framework.

This is frequently done due to the experiences of oppressed groups for the purpose of determining which group has been more systemically maltreated. The
inequitable distribution of resources often leaves marginalized groups competing
for a share of the paucity of resources set aside for disadvantaged groups. Consequently, marginalized groups have a tendency to organize around particular
characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and to a less
extent, class.
Disenfranchised groups vie for resources in what is perceived as a zero sum
gain environment (Verba & Nie 1972). For example, to the extent that schools
allocate resources addressing the issues that particularly affect students from the
Latino/Hispanic community; this decreases the resources that are available to all
other marginalized students (e.g., African American students, gay and lesbian
students). This perception has produced what can be referred to as the Oppression Olympics. This phrase attempts to capture the idea that competing marginalized groups share of educational resources is linked to their ability to quantify
how they are affected by systemic education inequality.
The Oppression Olympics encourages marginalized groups, based on an
array of differences, to focus on the experiences of the particular group they
represent or the community or communities for which they consider themselves
a member. In some respects, this approach accentuates differences and perpetuates varied educational outcomes based on notions of difference. The Oppression
Olympics facilitates, although often implicitly, a tension surrounding the access
and opportunity to educational equality. The zero sum gain approach often leads
many marginalized groups to believe that if one group gains it is at the expense
of all other marginalized groups.
The zero sum approach theoretically does not address systemic processes
that often perpetuate education inequality. If the goal is to improve the quality of
education for all students then it is necessary to examine what procedures and
structures are producing the outcomes. Latino/Hispanic and African American
students are often under-represented in advanced placement courses around the
county (Shapiro & Purpel 2005). This is further accentuated by the fact that
Latino/Hispanic and African American students are over-represented in special
needs classes (Obiakor & Ford 2002). Latino/Hispanic and African American
students are more likely to experience suspension in schools and are disproportionately affected by long-term suspensions (McFadden et al. 1992; Skiba, Peterson & Williams 1997). It is not enough to put more of these students in one
set of courses and less students in others nor is it enough to suspend some student less and some students more. It is important that the procedures that produced those realities be examined because if they are not then there will continue
to be similar results.
When various groups, both those who are marginalized and those who are

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

455

not, work together it is more likely to see systemic change that positively affects
all students matriculating through the US educational system (Cushner, McClelland & Safford 2006). If one was trying to clean a pool, you could not simply
clean one section of the pool and determine the entire pool is clean. Education
inequality only becomes educational equality when all students are presented
with the similar opportunities and access to educational success. It is not enough
to improve the circumstances for a particular community. The educational system either provides the similar opportunities for all communities or it does not. If
it does not, then the process continues to produce education inequality, and the
only circumstances that change is who is affected and to what degree. The entire
pool is clean or it is not.
The idea that marginalized groups have to compete for access to a finite
and relatively small set of resources is a significant contributor to the perpetuation of both the socio-economic-political notion of difference and its predicable
outcome of education inequality. Certainly, many of the differences between
groups are the result of legitimate divergent cultural world views and should be
acknowledged by the educational system. What is also important is that there is
as much diversity among groups as there is between groups. Moreover, the
processes and structures that produce varied educational outcomes affect many
of these groups in similar ways. To that end, the concerted efforts of different
groups can be a more effective tool than the divided and disconnected efforts
that operate in the interest of a particular group under particular circumstances.

Implications of Getting it Right

According to the 2000 Census data, 39% of the population aged 25 and younger
in the US is of non-White ethnic status, while the population 65 years and older
is 16% non-White (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The Asian American population
has tripled in the last 20 years, while the Hispanic/Latino population has doubled
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). It is of paramount importance that the next generation of students and teachers be both aware and prepared to operate in the world
they are destined to inherit.
Moreover, there is no aspect of education inequality affecting students from
non-White populations that does not also have an expression in White communities. High school dropout rates disproportionately affect Hispanic/Latino and
African American students (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). However, in major urban areas in the US, White students make up the single largest group of people
over 18 without a high school diploma (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). While White
students are more likely to attend college than African American and Latino/
Hispanic students, White people with a high school diploma and no college experience in urban areas outnumbers African American and Latino/Hispanic communities in the same category combined (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

456

Part V North & South America

The changing national demographics in the US require educators to represent the front line of the changing human landscape. It is important that Educators be prepared to become change agents for their students, themselves, their
classrooms, and many times their schools. Pedagogical approaches used by educators are more effective when they not only appreciate and respect the difference but also when they use difference as an asset to shape the educational environment possibility (Anyon 1988). The fluid notions of difference require educators and subsequently education institutions to become learners and reflective
in an effort to grow constantly through meaningful interaction with their students
and the cultures and communities they represent (Senge, Cambron-McCabe,
Lucas, Smith, Dutton & Kleiner 2000). This not only has the potential to improve the quality of education for students who represent marginalized groups, it
also represents a mode of interaction essential in a multicultural, multiracial, and
pluralistic society (Apple 1990; Freire 1998).
In the approach, education programs are encouraged to produce educators
who have the skills, self-efficacy, and the will to not be threatened by difference
but seek to understand, respect, and embrace difference in such a way that all
those involved become better for the experience. Educators cannot simply verbally
assert an appreciation for difference by way of multiculturalism, diversity, multiple
intelligences, or whatever else is the politically correct buzz word of the moment.
Educators are asked to respect the communities they work in particularly when it is
a community in which the teacher has little first hand knowledge or experience.
Education in general requires community building efforts, and those efforts are
particularly important in the context of the social construction of difference.
Education inequality is an important issue not just simply for marginalized
groups but for all students matriculating in US schools. The struggle to address
the outcomes of education inequality is better served when they are also
grounded in an effort to improve the structures and policies that produce inequity.
When unfair structures and policies are improved, the quality of education for all
students is improved. If the notion of difference is a pre-requisite for education
inequality, then the notion of community is a pre-requisite to change it. The notion of community is an essential idea in educational improvement because it is
important for school communities not to see themselves as disconnected communities with mutually exclusive cultures, values, and world views but rather as
a nation of interdependent communities with legitimate differences and similar
challenges and interest.

References
Anderson, James D. (1988): The Education of Blacks in the South 1860-1935. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Anyon, Jean (1988): Schools as Agencies of Social Legitimation, in Pinar, W. (Ed.),

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

457

Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers, pp.175-200.

Anyon, Jean (2005): Radical Possibilities. New York: Routledge.
Apple, Michael W. (1978): The New Sociology of Education: Analyzing Cultural and
Economic Reproduction. Harvard Educational Review, Vol.48, No.4, pp.495-503.
Apple, Michael W. (1986): Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations in Education. New York: Methuen.
Apple, Michael W. (1990): Is There a Curriculum Voice to Reclaim? Phi Delta Kappan,
Vol.71, pp.526-530.
Apple, Michael W. (1995a): Education and Power (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.
Apple, Michael W. (1995b): Remembering Capital: On the Connections between French
Fries and Education. In The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Vol.2, No.1, pp.113-128.
Banks, James A. (1995): Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions,
and Practice, in Banks, J.A. & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on
Multicultural Education. New York: Macmillan, pp.2-20.
Bailey, Susan M.; Brown, Lyn Mikel; Campbell, Patricia B.; Clewell, Beatriz Chu; Erkut,
Sumru, et al. (2002): The Jossey-Bass Reader on Gender in Education. San Francisco: Wiley.
Bell, Derrick A. (1992): Faces at the Bottom of the Well. New York: Basic Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1973): Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction, in Brown, R.
(Ed.), Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change. London: Tavistock.
Bowles, Samuel & Gintis, Herbert (1976): Schooling in Capitalist America. New York:
Basic Books.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne; Klebanov, Pamela K. & Duncan, Greg J. (1996): Ethnic Difference
in Childrens Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics. Child Development, Vol.67, No.2, pp.396-408.
Chiu, Ming Ming & Khoo, Lawrence (2005): Effects of Resources, Inequality, and Privilege Bias on Achievement: Country, School, and Student Level Analyses. American
Educational Research Journal, Vol.42, No.4, pp.575-603.
Chomsky, Noam (2000): Chomsky on Miseducation. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Civil Rights Project (2000): Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of
Zero Tolerance and School Discipline, Report from a National Summit on Zero Tolerance, June 15-16, 2000, Washington, DC; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Coleman, James S. (1967): The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity. Harvard
Educational Review, Vol.38, No.1, pp.7-22.
Cremin, Lawrence (1957): The Republic and the School. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Curry, George E. (Ed.) (1996): The Affirmative Action Debate. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Cushner, Kenneth; McClelland, Averil & Safford, Philip (2006): Human Diversity in
Education: An Integrative Approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Darder, Antonia (1991): Culture and Power in the Classroom: A Critical Foundation for
Bicultural Education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Delgado, Richard (1999): When Equality Ends: Stories about Race and Resistance.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Delgado, Richard & Stefancic, Jean (Eds.) (2000): Critical Race Theory: The Cutting

458

Part V North & South America

Edge (2nd Edition). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Ehman, Lee H. (1980): The American School in the Political Socialization Process. Review of Educational Research, Vol.50, Spring, pp.99-119.
Freire, Paulo (1970): Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing
Company.
Freire, Paulo (1998): Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare to Teach.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Espinoza-Herald, Mariella (2003): Issues in Latino Education: Race, School Culture, and
the Politics of Academic Success. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Giddings, Paula (1984): When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race
and Sex in America. New York: Bantam.
Giroux, Henry A. (2003): Education Incorporated? in Darder, A.; Baltodano, M. & Torres,
R. (Eds.), The Critical Pedagogy Reader. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, pp.119-125.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971): Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International.
Habermas, Jrgen (1984): Theory of Communicative Action, Volumes I & II. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Halsey, A.H., Lauder, Hugh, Brown, Philip & Stuart-Wells, Amy (Eds.) (1997): Education: Culture, Economy, and Society. New York, NY: Oxford.
Hubbard, Ruth (1995): Profitable Promises: Essays on Women, Science and Health. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Johnson, Allan G. (1997): Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Karabel, Jerome & Halsey A.H. (Eds.) (1977): Power and Ideology in Education. New
York: Oxford.
Kellner, Douglas (1984): Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. London and
Berkeley: Macmillan and University of California Press.
Kellner, Douglas (1988): Postmodernism as Social Theory: Some Problems and Challenges. Theory, Culture & Society, Vol.5, Nos.2-3, pp.240-269.
Kincheloe, Joe L. & Hayes, Kecia (Eds.) (2006): Metropedagogy: Power, Justice and the
Urban Classroom. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Knapp, Michael S. & Woolverton, Sara (2004): Social Class and Schooling, in Banks, J.A.
& Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp.656-681.
Koppelman, Kent L. & Goodhart, R. Lee (2005): Understanding Human Differences:
Multicultural Education for a Diverse America. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kozol, Jonathan (1991): Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers.
Kozol, Jonathan (2005): The Shame of a Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling
in America. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria (2000): Racialized Discourses and Ethnic Epistemologies, in
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.257-277.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1984): The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of
Minneapolis Press.
Marable, Manning (2002): The Great Wells of Democracy: The Meaning of Race in
American life. New York: BasicCivitas Books.
Marcuse, Herbert (1969): Negations: Essays in Critical Theory. Boston: Beacon Press.
McFadden, A.C., Marsh, G.E., Price, B.J., & Hwang, Y. (1992). A Study of Race and

Issues of Difference Contributing to US Education Inequality

459

Gender Bias in the Punishment of School Children. Education and Treatment of

Children, Vol.15, No.3, pp.140-146.
McLaren, Peter (1994): White Terror and Oppositional Agency: Towards a Critical Multiculturalism, in Goldberg, D.T. (Ed.), Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp.45-74.
McLaren, Peter (2003a): Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the
Foundations of Education (4th Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
McLaren, Peter (2003b): Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts, in Darder, A.;
Baltodano, M. & Torres, R. (Eds.), The Critical Pedagogy Reader. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer, pp.69-96.
Molnar, Alex (2003): What the Market Cant Provide, in Darder, A.; Baltodano, M. &
Torres, R. (Eds.), The Critical Pedagogy Reader. New York: RoutledgeFalmer,
pp.126-141.
Morris, Edward W. (2006): An Unexpected Majority: White Kids in an Urban School.
London: Rutgers University Press.
Nieto, Sonia (2004): Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural
Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Obiakor, Festus E. & Ford, Bridgie Alexis (2002): Creating Successful Learning Environments for African American Learners with Exceptionalities. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Omi, Michael & Winant, Howard (1994): Racial Formation in the United States. New
York: Routledge.
Patterson, Charlotte J.; Kupersmidt, Janis B.; & Vaden, Nancy A. (1990): Income Level,
Gender, Ethnicity, and Household Composition as Predictors of Childrens Schoolbased Competence. Child Development, Vol.61, No.2, pp.485-494.
Rothstein, Stanley William (Ed.) (1993): Handbook of Schooling in Urban America.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Schiraldi, Vincent & Ziedenberg, Jason (2001): Schools and Suspensions: Self-Reported
Crime and the Growing Use of Suspensions. Justice Policy Institute Policy Brief.
Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Schultz, Fred (Ed.) (2006): Annual Editions: Multicultural Education 06/07. Dubuque, IA:
McGraw Hill.
Senge, Peter; Cambron-McCabe, Nelda; Lucas, Timothy; Smith, Bryan; Dutton, Janice &
Kleiner, Art (2000): Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators,
Parents, and Everyone Who Cares about Education. New York: Doubleday.
Shapiro, H. Svi & Purpel, David E. (Eds.) (2005): Critical Social Issues in American Education: Democracy and Meaning in a Globalizing World. Mahwah, NJ: Elrbaum.
Skiba, Russell J.; Peterson, Reece L. & Williams, Tara (1997): Office Referrals and Suspension: Disciplinary Intervention in Middle Schools. Education and Treatment of
Children, Vol.20, No.3, pp.295-315.
Skiba, Russell J.; Michael, Robert S.; Nardo, Abra Carroll & Peterson, Reece L. (2000):
The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School
Punishment. The Urban Review, Vol.34, No.4, pp.317-342.
Sleeter, Christine E. & Grant, Carl A. (2007): Making Choices for Multicultural Education:
Five Approaches to Race, Class, and Gender. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Solorzano, Daniel G. (1998): Critical Race Theory, Race and Gender Microaggressions,

460

Part V North & South America

and the Experience of Chicana and Chicano Scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol.11, No.1, pp.121-136.
Solorzano, Daniel G. & Yosso, Tara Y. (2002): Critical Race Methodology: Counterstorytelling as an Analytical Framework for Educational Research. Qualitative Inquiry,
Vol.8, No.1, pp.23-44.
Sparks-Derman, Louise & Ramsey, Patricia G. (2006): What If All The Kids are White?
Anti-Bias Multicultural Education with Young Children and Families. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Spring, Joel H. (2006): American Education. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Strouse, Joan H. (1997): Exploring Themes of Social Justice in Education: Readings in
Social Foundations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tate, William F. (1997): Race-Ethnicity, SES, Gender, and Language Proficiency Trends
in Mathematics Achievement: An Update. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, Vol.28, No.6, pp.652-679.
U.S. Census Bureau (2000): Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for 18
years and Over, for the United States: 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Verba, Sydney & Nie, Norman H. (1972): Participation in America: Political Democracy
and Social Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, Vanessa Siddle (1996): Their Highest Potential: An African American School
Community in the Segregated South. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Winant, Howard (2001): The World is a Ghetto. Race and Democracy since World War II.
New York: Basis Books.