Alan R. Sadovnik, Peter W. Cookson JR., Susan F. Semel and Ryan W. Coughlan - Exploring Education An Introduction To The Foundations of Education (2017, Routledge) - Libgen - Li

Exploring Education
This much-anticipated fifth edition of Exploring Education offers an alternative to traditional

foundations texts by combining a point-of-view analysis with primary source readings. Pre- and
in-service teachers will find a thorough introduction to the foundations disciplines—history,
philosophy, politics, and sociology—and their application to educational issues, including school
organization and teaching, curriculum and pedagogic practices, education and inequality, and
school reform and improvement. This edition features substantive updates, including additions
to the discussion of neo-liberal educational policy, an analysis of the renewed interest in school
vouchers, and a more detailed conversation about student, teacher, and school diversity. The fifth
edition also includes updated data and research as well as new selections of historical and contem-
porary readings.
At a time when foundations of education are marginalized in many teacher education programs
and teacher education reform pushes scripted approaches to curriculum and instruction, Exploring
Education helps teachers to think critically about the “what” and “why” behind the most pressing
issues in contemporary education.
Alan R. Sadovnik is Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Education, Sociology,

and Public Administration and Affairs at Rutgers University-Newark, USA.
Peter W. Cookson, Jr. is a Senior Researcher at the Learning Policy Institute Palo Alto
California and Washington DC, and teaches in the Sociology Department at Georgetown
University, USA.
Susan F. Semel is Professor of Education at the City College of New York, USA and Professor
of Urban Education at the City University of New York Graduate Center, USA.
Ryan W. Coughlan is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Guttman Community College, CUNY,

USA.
Exploring Education
An Introduction to the Foundations
of Education
Fifth Edition
Alan R. Sadovnik, Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Susan F. Semel

and Ryan W. Coughlan
Fifth edition first published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of Alan R. Sadovnik, Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Susan F. Semel and
Ryan W. Coughlan to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted
by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
First edition published by Pearson Education, Inc. 1994
Fourth edition published by Routledge. 2013
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-22215-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-22216-8 (pbk)
Typeset in Goudy
by Florence Production, Stoodleigh, Devon
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xiii
1 The Limits and Promises of Education: Toward Reflective Practitioners 1

Educational Problems 4
The Achievement Gaps 5
The Crisis in Urban Education 7
The Decline of Literacy 10
Assessment Issues 13
Understanding Education: The Foundations Perspective 14
The History of Education 14
The Philosophy of Education 15
The Politics of Education 16
The Sociology of Education 17
The Foundations Perspective: A Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Approach 17
Critical Literacy and Empowerment: Toward the Active Voice of Teachers 18
2 The Politics of Education: Conservative, Liberal, Radical, and Neo-Liberal

Perspectives 20
The Purposes of Schooling 21
Political Perspectives 22
General Issues: Conservative, Liberal, Radical, and Neo-Liberal Perspectives 22
Traditional and Progressive Visions of Education 25
The Role of the School 26
Explanations of Unequal Educational Performance 27
Definition of Educational Problems 28
Educational Policy and Reform 29
Education and the American Dream 30
The Neo-Liberal Perspective 31
From Political Perspectives to the Politics of Education 33
Evidence Use and the Common Core State Standards Movement:
From Problem Definition to Policy Adoption,
Lorraine M. McDonnell and M. Stephen Weatherford 35
What “Counts” as Educational Policy? Notes Toward a New Paradigm,
Jean Anyon 52
3 The History of Education 69

Old World and New World Education: The Colonial Era 69
The Age of Reform: The Rise of the Common School 73
vi Contents
Opposition to Public Education 74

Education for Women and Blacks 74
Urbanization and the Progressive Impetus 75
Education for All: The Emergence of the Public High School 78
The Post-World War II Equity Era: 1945–1980 80
Cycles of Reform: Progressive and Traditional 80
Equality of Opportunity 82
Educational Reaction and Reform and the Standards Era: 1980s–2016 87
Understanding the History of U.S. Education: Different Historical Interpretations 88
The Democratic-Liberal School 89
The Radical-Revisionist School 90
Conservative Perspectives 91
Conclusion 92
Empowerment and Education: Civil Rights, Expert-Advocates, and Parent
Politics in Head Start, 1964–1980, Josh Kagan 97
Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict, and Educational Change, Samuel Bowles
and Herbert Gintis 128
4 The Sociology of Education 135

The Uses of Sociology for Teachers 136
The Relation between School and Society 137
Theoretical Perspectives 138
Functionalist Theories 138
Conflict Theories 139
Interactionist Theories 141
Effects of Schooling on Individuals 142
Knowledge and Attitudes 142
Employment 142
Education and Mobility 143
Inside the Schools 144
Teacher Behavior 145
Student Peer Groups and Alienation 146
Education and Inequality 146
Inadequate Schools 147
Tracking 148
De Facto Segregation 148
Gender 148
Sociology and the Current Educational Crisis 149
The School Class as a Social System: Some of Its Functions in American
Society, Talcott Parsons 150
On Understanding the Processes of Schooling: The Contributions of Labeling
Theory, Ray C. Rist 165
The Politics of Culture: Understanding Local Political Resistance to Detracking
in Racially Mixed Schools, Amy Stuart Wells and Irene Serna 176
5 The Philosophy of Education and Its Significance for Teachers 196

The Perspective of Philosophy of Education 196
What Is Philosophy of Education? 196
The Meaning of Philosophical Inquiry 197
Contents vii
Particular Philosophies of Education 197

Idealism 197
Realism 199
Pragmatism 203
Existentialism and Phenomenology 207
Neo-Marxism 209
Postmodernist and Critical Theory 212
Conclusion 214
My Pedagogic Creed, John Dewey 215
Wide-Awakeness and the Moral Life, Maxine Greene 218
6 Schools as Organizations and Teacher Professionalization 225

The Structure of U.S. Education 226
Governance 226
Size and Degree of Centralization 226
Student Composition 227
Degree of “Openness” 228
Private Schools 228
Conclusion 229
International Comparisons 229
Great Britain 230
France 231
Japan 231
Germany 232
Finland 233
Conclusion 234
School Processes and School Cultures 234
Teachers, Teaching, and Professionalization 236
Who Becomes a Teacher? 237
The Nature of Teaching 238
Underqualified Teachers 240
Teacher Professionalization 240
Rich Land, Poor Schools: Inequality of National Educational Resources and
Achievement of Disadvantaged Students, David Baker and Gerald LeTendre,
with Brian Goesling 242
What Do the National Data Tell Us About Minority Teacher Shortages,
Richard Ingersoll 252
7 Curriculum, Pedagogy, and the Transmission of Knowledge 262

What Do the Schools Teach? 262
The History and Philosophy of the Curriculum 263
The Politics of the Curriculum 267
The Sociology of the Curriculum 272
Multicultural Education 275
Curriculum Theory and Practice: The Reconceptualization of Curriculum
Studies 276
Pedagogic Practices: How the Curriculum Is Taught 277
The Philosophy of Teaching: Differing Views on Pedagogic Practices 278
viii Contents
The Stratification of the Curriculum 280

The Effects of the Curriculum: What Is Learned in Schools? 281
Conclusion 283
The Politics of a National Curriculum, Michael W. Apple 284
The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s
Children, Lisa D. Delpit 296
8 Equality of Opportunity and Educational Outcomes 311

Calculating Educational and Life Outcomes 311
Class 314
Race 315
Gender 315
Educational Achievement and Attainment Gaps by Student Background 316
Students with Special Needs 331
Conclusion 332
School Differences and Educational Outcomes 332
The Coleman Study (1966) 333
The Coleman Study (1982) 335
Conclusion 336
School Segregation 341
Educational Attainment and Economic Achievement 341
Education and Inequality: Mobility or Reproduction? 343
Class and the Classroom: Even the Best Schools Can’t Close the Race
Achievement Gap, Richard Rothstein 344
Fifty Years since the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship between
Schools and Inequality, Douglas B. Downey and Dennis J. Condron 350
A Social Constructionist Approach to Disability: Implications for Special
Education, Dimitris Anastasiou and James M. Kauffman 365
9 Explanations of Educational Inequality 383

Explanations of Unequal Educational Achievement 383
Student-Centered Explanations 386
Genetic Differences 387
Cultural Deprivation Theories 388
Cultural Difference Theories 388
School-Centered Explanations 393
School Financing 393
Effective School Research 396
Between-School Differences: Curriculum and Pedagogic Practices 398
Within-School Differences: Curriculum and Ability Grouping 399
Gender and Schooling 402
Do Schools Reproduce Inequality? 404
It’s Not “a Black Thing”: Understanding the Burden of Acting White and
Other Dilemmas of High Achievement, Karolyn Tyson, William Darity, Jr.,
and Domini R. Castellino 406
“How You Bully a Girl”: Sexual Drama and the Negotiation of Gendered
Sexuality in High School, Sarah A. Miller 430
Contents ix
The Rules of the Game and the Uncertain Transmission of Advantage:

Middle-class Parents’ Search for an Urban Kindergarten,
Annette Lareau, Shani Adia Evans, and April Yee 444
A Black Student’s Reflection on Public and Private Schools, Imani Perry 466
10 Educational Reform and School Improvement 470

Effective Teachers 470
Educational Reform from the 1980s to 2016 472
Federal Involvement in Education 474
Goals 2000: Building on a Decade of Reform 475
No Child Left Behind 476
Race to the Top 478
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 479
Approaches to Reform 480
School-Based Reforms 481
School Choice, Charter Schools, and Tuition Vouchers 481
Privatization 488
Teacher Education 488
Teacher Quality 492
The Effective School Movement 492
Societal, Community, Economic, and Political Reforms 496
State Intervention and Mayoral Control in Local School Districts 496
School Finance Reforms 499
Full Service and Community Schools 500
Harlem Children’s Zone 500
Connecting School, Community, and Societal Reforms 501
A Theory of Educational Problems and Reforms 502
School Vouchers and Student Achievement: Reviewing the Research,
David Trilling 507
A Critical Look at the Charter School Debate, Margaret E. Raymond 511
Ravitch–Tilson Debate, Diane Ravitch and Whitney Tilson 516
Appendix: Suggested Resources 525

Permissions 528
Bibliography 531
Index 579
Preface
The first three editions of Exploring Education: An Introduction to the Foundations of Education were
published by Allyn & Bacon. After they decided not to publish a fourth edition, Routledge
generously offered to publish a fourth edition and now this fifth edition. It originally developed
out of our dissatisfaction with the textbooks available for foundations of education courses. None
of us is a strong advocate of traditional textbooks, as they often simplify complex material to the
point of distortion, and, more importantly, they do too much work for students. One of the reasons
many undergraduate and graduate students cannot read in a critical and analytical mode is that
they have been educated, in part, through reading textbooks that summarize everything for them.
As firm believers in the use of primary sources, we have written a book that will provide students
with material that will encourage them to read, write, and think critically.
Originally, we wanted to compile a reader on the foundations of education. Once we began,
however, the project evolved into a combined text/reader in a number of ways. First, in testing
the readings in our classes, we found that many of our students required a context to help them
make sense of the readings. Thus, we concluded that a book that combined our own text with
illustrative readings made more pedagogical sense. As we moved along, we began to realize that
our writings should not simply be an introduction to the readings; rather, each chapter should
include our own analysis of the material, with a set of readings at the end of each chapter to
illuminate the major concepts. This formula, we believed, would provide the necessary balance
between text and primary sources.
Moreover, in thinking about our own textual material, we concluded that we wanted to present
our point of view about the value of the foundations of education and their application to
understanding education. Further, we wanted to argue that a “foundations perspective,” as we call
it, is a useful tool in helping to improve schools and schooling.
Thus, the final product is the result of considerable thinking about the importance of the
foundations of education for teachers and prospective teachers and about how best to present
the foundations of education to students. Our book is nontraditional in that it combines our own
analysis with primary source readings. We have chosen to include a smaller number of complete
or near-complete readings, rather than a larger number of shorter, excerpted readings. We believe
strongly that students need to read complete sources to develop their critical reading, writing,
and thinking skills.
The purpose of Exploring Education is to provide prospective and practicing teachers with an
introduction to the foundations of education: history, philosophy, politics, and sociology of
education. We also draw on the research of anthropologists of education in a number of places.
Chapters 1 through 5 provide a basic introduction to the value of the foundations perspective
and to the politics, history, sociology, and philosophy of education. Chapters 6 through 10 apply
the foundations of education to particular educational issues, including school organization and
teaching, curriculum and pedagogic practices, education and inequality, and school reform and
improvement. Our approach is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, we have attempted to provide
a research- and theory-based approach that demonstrates the usefulness of the foundations lens
for thinking critically about and, hopefully, solving educational problems.
xii Preface
This fifth edition continues to reflect these goals. We have eliminated some readings and
added others based on responses from faculty, students, and reviewers. Additionally, the new
readings often reflect more updated perspectives and data. At a time when foundations of education
are marginalized in many teacher education programs, we hope this book helps teachers and
prospective teachers to think critically about the what and why as well as the how.
Exploring Education has truly been a collaborative effort. Although each of us was responsible
for writing a number of chapters (Sadovnik: Chapters 2, 7, and 9; Cookson: Chapters 4, 6, and 8;
Semel: Chapters 3 and 5; Sadovnik, Cookson, Semel, and Coughlan: Chapter 1; Semel, Cookson,
and Sadovnik: Chapter 10), Sadovnik edited chapters 2, 4, 9, and 10; Semel edited chapters 3,
5, and 6; Coughlan edited chapters 1, 7, and 8; and Coughlan edited all of the Tables and Figures
with updated data. The final product is the outcome of our joint efforts. We have attempted to
create a consistency in style throughout.
Finally, we hope this book provides teachers and prospective teachers with a tool for under-
standing schools and a belief in their ability to help improve schooling. Although this book conveys
a realistic portrayal of the societal and institutional factors that inhibit meaningful educational
change, we believe that teachers, long the forgotten voice in educational reform, need to be part
of such change. We believe that the foundations perspective is an important tool in school
improvement and change, and hope our book provides its readers with both a realistic picture of
educational problems and a sense of hope that they can contribute to change.
Acknowledgments
A number of individuals have contributed to the publication of the fifth edition. First and foremost,
our editor Catherine Bernard, who has been Sadovnik’s editor on two previous books and Semel’s
on one, has provided exemplary support, guidance and friendship throughout. She has kept us on
task in a firm, but supportive manner. Second, her editorial assistant Matthew Friberg has been
instrumental in the revision and production processes. Mr. Friberg has been especially effective
in the detailed and difficult permissions process.
Danbee Lee, a graduate assistant in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers
University-Newark provided research assistance for the fifth edition.
In addition, Helen Strain of Taylor and Francis Books in Abingdon, UK offered invaluable
assistance guiding us through the production process.
We believe this is a better book because of their input.
1 The Limits and Promises
of Education
Toward Reflective Practitioners
Americans have always placed a great deal of faith in education. Schools have been viewed as
providers of opportunities for social mobility, as places that nurture and develop the hearts and
minds of children, as antidotes for ignorance and prejudice, and as solutions to myriad social
problems. Throughout this country’s history, countless Americans have regarded schools as a
symbol of the American dream—that each successive generation, through hard work and initiative,
could achieve more than their parents’ generation.
This is not to say that Americans have not been critical of their educational system—quite
the contrary! Throughout history, schools have been the subject of intense controversy and debate.
Questions concerning teaching methods, politics, curricula, racial desegregation, equality of educa-
tional opportunity, and countless other issues have constantly defined the educational arena. It
is precisely because Americans believe so passionately in education and expect so much from
their schools that the educational system has never been free of disagreements and, at times, heated
disputes.
Throughout the twentieth century, educational leaders, teachers, parents, and students dis-
agreed about the fundamental goals of education and the educational practices occurring within
classrooms. As the educational system steadily expanded and as the society of which it is a part
became more complex, the role of schools also became more diverse, if not more diffuse. As
prospective teachers, you are about to enter a profession that has both exciting possibilities and
serious challenges. It is also a profession that is constantly subject to criticism and reform efforts.
A look at the last 35 years provides a small but poignant glimpse of some of these reform movements.
Once again, today, there is a crisis in education. To historians of education, however, the
existence of a crisis is by no means new and the meaning of crisis is by no means clear. In the
early 1970s, crisis in education referred to the inequalities of educational opportunity, the allegedly
authoritarian and oppressive nature of the schools, and the way in which classroom practices
thwarted the personal development of students. The phrases of the day emphasized relevance, equity,
freedom, and individualism. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the emphasis shifted and the crisis
was attributed to the decline of standards and authority, which was thought to be linked to the
erosion of U.S. economic superiority in the world. The phrases of the day talked about excellence,
standards, back to basics, and cultural literacy. Today, education reform is largely focused around
issues of school choice.
In these cycles of educational reform, teachers are often seen as both scapegoats and saviors.
They are scapegoats in that if students do not know enough, it is because their teachers have not
taught them enough or, worse still, do not know enough to teach them. Or, if children are not
developing their individual creative abilities, it is because their teachers may have been more
concerned with classroom control than individualized instruction. Teachers are saviors, on the
other hand, in that they are mandated to implement the recommendations of each new wave
of reforms.
As prospective teachers, you are thinking about a career in education for a variety of reasons.
Some of them may include your love of children, the effects your own teachers had on you, the
2 The Limits and Promises of Education
desire to make a difference and contribute to society, and your desire to help children develop
both emotionally and intellectually. Some of you may have some less noble reasons, including
the perception—however inaccurate—that teachers have easy schedules (home by 3:00 and
summers off). Whatever your specific motives, we are sure that you are entering the profession to
make a positive contribution to the lives of children and to gain internal satisfaction from
witnessing educational success. Although we strongly believe that teachers can and do make a
difference, we also recognize that you will be entering an educational system that has many
problems. These problems often limit teachers in the fulfillment of their goals.
It is not our intention to depress you with pictures of educational problems nor to create an
unrealistic portrait of an educational panacea that does not exist. Rather, we wish to produce a
balanced tapestry of the world of schools—a world filled with both promise and limits, hope and
despair. But most important, the purpose of this book is to help you understand this world of
education: how it works, the factors that affect it, and your role as a teacher in making it better.
The following vignettes present the two poles of the teaching experience. The first, the poignant
story of a teacher in an urban public school system, represents the underside of this country’s
schools and the frustration of a teacher caught in the middle of political, social, and educational
problems that she alone cannot possibly solve:
My experience as a school teacher, both as a high school English teacher and an elementary school
teacher, has been one of disappointment, frustration, anger and anxiety. I chose secondary English for
a number of reasons, two primary ones being my love of literature and my comfortable familiarity with
the school setting. Nothing in my college training gave me even an inkling that literature would not
be the focus of my teaching, or that my future students would have values, outlooks and attitudes that
were totally unfamiliar to me . . . .
Imagine my shock, then, when I walked into a classroom the following fall as a newly licensed teacher,
and encountered surly, hostile, disinterested, below-grade-level students! . . . They had been reared on
failure and low expectations, and consequently regarded school and teachers as enemies . . . .
As shocked and repulsed as I was initially, I was still determined to make a difference in the lives
of my students. I thought I could plough through the poverty, illness, abuse, neglect and defeatism of
their lives and get them to respond to Shakespeare’s language, to Hawthorne’s characters, to Hardy’s
themes. How foolishly unrealistic I was. My successes were scant and infrequent, my failures numerous
and daily. I rarely knew the feeling that some teachers profess to experience when they “reach even
one child.” I was too numbed by a sense of futility to feel any sense of success . . . .
Over the years, I became cynical and resentful and even contemptuous of some of my students.
When colleagues praised my teaching and my management ability, I felt as though I were fooling the
world—a guilty feeling. Why would people think I was a good teacher when I knew that most of my
students were bored, that they were making little if any progress and that I was not being dynamic or
even enthusiastic in my approach? The answer is that none of those things mattered. As long as there
was order in the room and notes on the chalkboard, everyone was satisfied. Record-keeping and keeping
control of the kids were all that seemed important to administrators. You clocked in and clocked out
and got paid, regardless of what you did in the intervening hours. Good teachers got no more recognition
than poor ones, and poor ones could not be weeded out once they were tenured. It all seemed so pointless
and hopeless.
. . . My current school has classrooms that are converted closets, lacks paper and other integral
supplies, employs an assistant principal whose job was given to him by a politician, allows hordes of
children to simply watch cartoons in the auditorium and calls that a “media lesson,” is overrun with
mice and roaches, has gaping holes in ceilings and walls, has toilets and water fountains that are
nonfunctioning, and promotes children who are practically illiterate. Security breaches abound, with
intruders walking in and out of the building at will; instruction is interrupted sometimes ten or fifteen
The Limits and Promises of Education 3
times in one hour by announcements blaring over the intercom; innovative ideas that certain teachers
toil to create in an effort to improve the school are almost always ignored by a principal who is resistant
to change. Teachers live for 3 o’clock dismissals, for holidays, for summer vacations. A snow storm that
closes the school for a day is viewed as one of nature’s blessings.
What happened to the joys and rewards of teaching and learning? After eighteen years of seeking
the answer and trying to buck the system, I’ve given up. It’s been said that one good teacher can influence
a child’s entire life. I’ve never seen that happen personally. I’ve seen students come back to visit favorite
teachers, I’ve heard students thank and praise helpful teachers, and I’ve known students who’ll work
harder for one teacher than he has for others. But I’ve never met an inner-city student who claimed
that the course of his life had been shaped by one particular teacher, or who was inspired enough by
that teacher’s values and ideals to rethink his own. Maybe I expected too much from the profession;
maybe I should be satisfied when one or two children out of thirty improve their reading comprehension
or math skills each year. But I’m not; it isn’t enough for me! (Katz, 1988)
The difficulties experienced by this teacher are not representative of what all or even most
teachers face, but they do indicate that the educational systems that you will enter are often beset
with problems that are not solely educational.
On the other hand, this second vignette speaks passionately and lovingly about the positive
effects of teachers and describes the kind of teacher we all want to be. Written by Fred Hechinger
in the New York Times and entitled “Gift of a Great Teacher,” this tribute captures the ways in
which teachers make a significant difference in the lives of students:
Tessie is different from the other teachers, a 9-year-old boy told his parents. . . . When he was asked
how she was different, he replied, “Tessie knows how we children think.”
Tessie, the boy’s fourth-grade teacher at [a school in New York City], was Theresa Ross, who taught
elementary and middle school classes for nearly 60 years. . . . Last June Tessie, who was affectionately
known by that name to children and adults alike, died at the age of 83 . . . .
The only way to describe great teaching, a rare art, is to study great teachers like Tessie. When her
pupils recognized that she knew how they thought, it did not mean that she herself thought childishly
or indulgently about them. To write about her is not to celebrate a person but to try to define some
qualities of exceptional teaching.
It has been said that education is what you remember when you have forgotten what you learned.
Often, that means remembering one’s great teachers more vividly than any particular lesson. Anyone
who has never had at least one such teacher is truly deprived. To expect many is unreasonable. . . . As
a teacher, [Tessie’s] only doctrine was to make education come to life. When she taught history, her
favorite subject, she took the children back with her into antiquity. She believed that even fourth-
graders could deal with the universe.
[A former student teacher] in Tessie’s class . . . recalls how Tessie used all the children’s experiences
to teach them—street games, the previous night’s television programs, great myths.
She would do “weird” things. . . . To make children understand the evil consequences of a hostile
invasion, she once had her pupils “invade” another classroom. As expected, the result was often bedlam,
and she asked the children to report on the experience.
Great teachers are strong enough to dare being unconventional, even controversial, and this was
an example. Actually, . . . Tessie had second thoughts about the experiment and never repeated it.
Still, both she and the children had learned from the experience.
. . . Great teachers develop their own ways, without relying on prescribed lesson plans. Tessie said:
“The child needs a framework within which to find himself; otherwise, he is an egg without a shell. The
adult is there to guide and teach. If a child asks how to do something, you don’t tell him just to go and
find out; you say, ‘Come, let’s work it out together.’”
. . . Once, a picnic in the park that she and her fourth-graders had prepared was rained out, to universal
groans. Tessie’s response was to have the desks and chairs pushed aside, turning the classroom floor
into a substitute picnic ground.
Tessie tried to get children to understand the nature of leadership without lecturing about it. She
might start with baseball or with the news, and then move on to Julius Caesar.
. . . When Tessie died, even the youngest children who had known her sensed a sharp loss. Some
felt guilty, said one teacher who met with them to talk about Tessie’s life and to help them cope with
her death. Perhaps, the teacher thought, as Tessie got older and a little forgetful, the children thought
they might not have been sufficiently thoughtful and appreciative. A more plausible explanation
may be that the children instinctively recognized an extraordinary teacher, and mourned the loss.
(Hechinger, 1987)
How do you balance the extremes of these portraits? On one hand, you see an educational
system beset with insurmountable problems; on the other hand, you see a world in which individual
teachers have the power to influence countless children in a positive way. Moreover, what is the
relationship between the two? That is, how do the problems within schools limit teachers’ abilities
to make a difference? And how do teachers who do make a difference help solve some of the
problems? Teacher number 1 was not a less effective teacher than teacher number 2. Rather, the
social, political, and economic problems she encountered in her school made it almost impossible
to be effective. Teacher number 2 worked in a setting without these problems and one far more
conducive to teaching excellence. The important point is that teachers work within organizational
contexts that have a profound impact on their lives in classrooms.
As a person entering the teaching profession, you will ultimately find yourself in a curious
quandary—responsible for educational problems and their solutions, but often without the
necessary knowledge and perspective for understanding the complexity of these problems and
the intricacies of their solutions. Furthermore, although teacher education programs do a respect-
able job at providing teachers with teaching methods, research on teacher education as well as a
number of reform proposals indicates that programs are less effective in providing teachers with
a social and intellectual context for understanding the educational world in which these methods
will be employed. This understanding is crucial to the development of teachers, who must be an
integral part of the problem-solving process if schools are to fulfill their promise.
In his classic book, The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills (1959) outlined the value of
a sociological perspective for understanding society. The sociological imagination, according to
Mills, allows individuals to transcend the often narrow boundaries of their lives and to see the
world from the broader context of history and society. Adopting the sociological imagination
permits the user to connect his or her own life with the social, cultural, and historical events that
have affected it, and ultimately enables the individual to understand how and why these forces
are instrumental in shaping human existence. The promise of sociology, then, is its ability to
provide a powerful understanding of society and oneself (Sadovnik, Persell, Baumann &
Mitchell, 1987, p. 3). In light of the significant social, political, economic, and moral questions
of his time, Mills argued that “the sociological imagination [is] our most needed quality of mind”
(Mills, 1959, p. 3).
In a similar vein, contemporary American education, as we have argued, is beset by problems.
The following section provides a brief overview of some of these.
Educational Problems
During the 1980s and 1990s, educational problems became the focus of national attention, and
they continue to be today. The issues of educational standards, excellence, and the decline of
U.S. educational superiority in the international arena became central concerns. To a lesser extent,
although of equal importance, the topic of equity, with particular attention to the crisis in urban
education and the plight of children in the United States, received significant discussion. Although
subsequent chapters will look at these issues more completely, this section briefly outlines a few
of the significant educational problems today and some of the policies and programs aimed at
treating them.
The Achievement Gaps

Since the 1960s, the achievement gaps based on social class, race, ethnicity, and gender have
been the focus of educational policy. These gaps include group differences in achievement
based on standardized tests and grades; attainment based on the number of years of schooling,
high school and college attendance and graduation, dropout rates, and completion of honors and
advanced placement courses; and opportunity based on access to qualified teachers, challenging
curriculum, placement in special education, and investments in education, including state and
local funding. Beginning with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 through
President George W. Bush’s reauthorization of the act, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
federal educational policy attempted to reduce these gaps (Cross, 2004). The 2015 reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the form of the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) responded to criticisms from both conservatives and progressives and eliminated many
of the testing requirements and sanctions for underperformance that were central to NCLB. Under
President Obama, Race to the Top (RTT) and ESSA continued some of the floundering policies
initiated under NCLB and placed varying levels of emphasis on teacher accountability, standards,
and school choice. As the Trump administration takes office, the focus remains on achievement
gaps while the use of school choice policies grows.
Trends
The gaps include higher academic achievement by high-income students compared to low-
income students; white and Asian students compared to black and Hispanic students, even when
controlling for socioeconomic level; and male students compared to female students. There have
been some improvements since the 1960s, with the gender gap closing dramatically and in some
cases, women outperforming men. Until 1988, social class, race, and ethnic differences decreased,
but since then these gaps have widened, despite continued educational policies aimed at reducing
them. Data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) illustrate these achieve-
ment gaps.
• During the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, the math and literacy achievement gaps
between black and Hispanic students on one hand and Asian and white students on the other
narrowed. Between 1988 and 1990, this progress halted and gaps began to widen. In 1990, the
gap between white and black 17-year-olds on the NAEP Math was 20 points, and in 1999,
it was 32 points; in 1988, the gap between white and black 17-year-olds in NAEP Reading
was 21 points, and in 1999, it was 31 points. In 2012, the gap between white and black 17-year-
olds slightly contracted to 26 points on both the NAEP Reading and NAEP Math (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, The Condition of
Education, 2015).
• On grade 4 Reading Achievement, 36 percent of all students were proficient or above, and
69 percent of all students scored basic or above. Disaggregated by group, the scores are black
students: 18 percent at or above proficient and 52 percent at or above basic; Asian students:
57 percent at or above proficient and 84 percent at or above basic; Hispanic students: 21

percent at or above proficient and 55 percent at or above basic; white students: 46 percent
at or above proficient and 79 percent at or above basic (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Educational Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2015).
• On grade 8 Mathematics Achievement, 40 percent of all students were proficient or above,
and 82 percent of all students were basic or above. Disaggregated by group, the scores are
black students: 19 percent at or above proficient and 65 percent at or above basic; Asian
students: 65 percent at or above proficient and 93 percent at or above basic; Hispanic
students: 26 percent at or above proficient and 73 percent at or above basic; and white students:
51 percent at or above proficient and 90 percent at or above basic (U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, National Center for Educational Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2015).
• With respect to social class differences, on grade 4 Reading Achievement, 21 percent of
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch demonstrated proficiency while 52 percent
of those not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch demonstrated proficiency. On grade 8
Mathematics Achievement, 24 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
demonstrated proficiency while 58 percent of those not eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch demonstrated proficiency. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educa-
tional Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2015).
• With respect to attainment, four-year high school graduation rates, by group, were: all students:
81 percent; Asian: 89 percent; black: 73 percent; Hispanic: 71 percent; American Indian:
70 percent; and white: 87 percent (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Edu-
cational Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2015).
• With respect to attainment, in 2009, 35 percent of graduates earned credits in dual credit,
Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate courses. 10 percent of these students
were Asian, 10 percent were black, 15 percent were Hispanic, 0 percent were American Indian,
and 64 percent were white (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2015).
• With respect to opportunity, in 2007–2008, 15.6 percent of all secondary classes were taught
by teachers without a major or minor in their teaching field. In low-poverty schools it was
10.9 percent; in high-poverty schools it was 21.9 percent (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).
• With respect to opportunity, in 2012, black students comprised 16 percent of all public school
K–12 enrollment. They comprised 9 percent of enrollment in gifted and talented classes; 19
percent of enrollment in special education classes; and 38 percent of suspensions. Asian
students comprised 5 percent of all public school K–12 enrollment. They comprised 9 percent
of enrollment in gifted and talented classes; 2 percent of enrollment in special education
classes; and 1 percent of suspensions. Hispanic students comprised 25 percent of all public
school K–12 enrollment. They comprised 17 percent of enrollment in gifted and talented
classes; 21 percent of enrollment in special education classes; and 22 percent of suspensions.
American Indian students comprised 1 percent of all public school K–12 enrollment. They
comprised 1 percent of enrollment in gifted and talented classes; 1 percent of enrollment in
special education classes; and 1 percent of suspensions. White students comprised 50 percent
of all public school K–12 enrollment. They comprised 61 percent of enrollment in gifted and
talented classes; 54 percent of enrollment in special education classes, and 34 percent of
suspensions (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The
Condition of Education, 2015).
• With respect to investments, in 2012, the nation had an effective funding gap between highest
and lowest poverty districts of $1,200 per student, $30,000 for a typical classroom of 25 stu-
dents, $600,000 for an elementary school of 500 students, and $1.2 million for a high school
of 1,000 students. These gaps vary by state, with some (e.g., Illinois, New York, and Pennsyl-
vania) having large gaps and some (e.g., Ohio, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey)
providing more funding to high-poverty districts (Education Trust, Funding Gaps, 2015).
Policy Issues
There is little agreement about the causes of the achievement gap or solutions aimed at eliminating
it. Some researchers point to factors inside schools, including school funding, teacher quality,
curriculum tracking, and teacher expectations; others blame outside-school factors, including
poverty, parental involvement, cultural differences, and lack of economic opportunities. The policy
issues aimed at reducing the achievement gap are discussed more fully in the next section on
improving urban schools, where the various achievement gaps are most pronounced.
Programmatic Issues
Consequently, there is also little agreement about programs aimed at eliminating the gaps. Some
advocate programs that are aimed at reducing the school-based gaps in opportunity, including
teacher quality and experience, unequal funding, access to rigorous curricula, and comprehensive
whole-school reforms (Education Trust, 2004b, www.edtrust.org). No Child Left Behind (NCLB),
Race to the Top (RTT), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) are this type of programmatic
reform. Others advocate programs that are aimed at reducing economic and cultural disadvantage
as well as social, economic, and health disparities related to poverty (Anyon, 1997, 2005a;
Rothstein, 2004b). The programmatic issues aimed at reducing the achievement gap are discussed
more fully in the next section on improving urban schools, where the programmatic debates have
been most heated.
The Crisis in Urban Education

This nation’s urban public schools continue to be in crisis. Central cities have high concentrations
of poor and minority residents, and their schools have come to reflect the problems endemic to
urban poverty. Although there are similar problems in rural schools and in many suburban schools,
urban educational problems represent the nation’s most serious challenge. A high proportion of
urban schools are ineffective by most measures of school quality, and a large percentage of urban
students perform below national standards. Despite these dismal data, there are policies and
programs—including school restructuring programs, effective school models, and school choice
and magnet programs—that many believe display significant potential for improvement. Clear
national, state, and local policies are needed that emphasize excellence with equity and funding
for programs.
Trends
Urban schools reflect the demographic characteristics of the urban environment. As large cities
have become increasingly poor and populated by minorities, their schools have come to reflect
the problems of urban poverty. Low student achievement, high dropout rates, and high levels of
school ineffectiveness characterize many urban school districts.
• The United States has witnessed a significant increase in the percentage of poor and minor-
ity children and youth living in the central cities of the country. In 1971, 17 percent of the
children and youth between the ages of 6 and 17 in large central cities were both poor and
minority; by 1983, this percentage increased to 28 percent and continued to increase through-
out the 1980s, the 1990s, and persists today (Anyon, 1997, 2005a; Levine & Havighurst,
1989, p. 75; Reardon, Arshan, Atteberry, & Kurlaender, 2010). While the concentration of
poor and minority children in central cities persists, recent trends show that inner-ring suburbs
are diversifying and an influx of white, higher-income families to cities is occurring (Juday,
2015).
• Urban schools reflect social stratification and segregation. Due to the concentration of poor
and minority populations in large urban areas, urban public schools have significantly higher
percentages of low socioeconomic status (SES) and minority students than neighboring sub-
urban school districts. In 2016, 76.5 percent of the children in New York City were from
low-income families eligible for free or reduced lunch; 83.6 percent were black, Hispanic, or
Asian. Increasingly, affluent white families in cities send their children to private schools
(New York City Department of Education, 2016).
In 2016, the enrollments of the five largest city school districts in the United States were:
1. New York: Asian: 15.3 percent; black: 27.8 percent; Hispanic: 40.5 percent; and white: 14.8
percent.
2. Los Angeles: Asian: 15.3 percent; black: 8.4 percent; Hispanic: 74.8 percent; and white: 9.8
percent.
3. Chicago: Asian: 3.9 percent; black: 37.7 percent; Hispanic: 46.5 percent; and white: 9.4 percent.
4. Miami: Asian: 1.0 percent; black: 21.8 percent; Hispanic: 69.2 percent; and white: 7.3 percent.
5. Houston: Asian: 3.7 percent; black: 24.5 percent; Hispanic: 62.1 percent; and white: 8.4 per-
cent.
• In urban schools, the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and academic attain-
ment and achievement reflects overall national patterns. Students from lower SES families
reach lower levels of academic attainment and performance than students from higher SES
backgrounds. For example, in New York City 31.4 percent of students from low-income
families are reading at or above grade level while 54.8 percent of all other students are reading
at or above grade level. Similarly, 30.3 percent of students from low-income families have
demonstrated math capabilities at or above grade level while 52.5 percent of all other students
have demonstrated math capabilities at or above grade level (New York City Department of
Education, 2016).
• Many urban public schools do not provide their students with a minimally adequate educa-
tion. In 2015, only 27 percent of eighth grade students in New York City performed at or
above the proficient level on the NAEP mathematics test and on the NAEP reading test.
These data reflect national patterns for public schools in large urban areas (U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Trial Urban District Assessment,
2015).
Policy Issues
There is considerable disagreement among researchers and policy makers about how to improve
urban schools. There is little consensus about school choice (giving parents the right to choose
their children’s schools), desegregation, and school financing policies. What is clear, however, is
that policies that are aimed at the schools alone, without addressing the significant social and
economic problems of urban areas, are doomed to failure (Anyon, 1997, 2005a; Ravitch, 2010;
Rothstein, 2004b).
• Inequities in school financing exacerbate the problems faced by urban school systems. Because
school financing is based on state funding formulas and local property taxes, most urban
districts spend significantly less per pupil than wealthier suburban districts. Recent lawsuits
in New Jersey, New York, and other states have sought to remedy these inequalities with
varying degrees of success. For example, Abbott v. Burke in New Jersey has provided funding
for its 31 urban Abbott districts, equal to its highest socioeconomic districts, although the
School Finance Reform Act (SFRA) of 2008 has replaced Abbott as the New Jersey funding
formula. The new formula has maintained additional funding for all low-income districts in
the state. Also, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit in New York resulted in the state’s
highest court mandating an additional $5.6 billion per year for New York City students.
• Demographic realities make urban schools increasingly segregated both by race and social
class. A growing body of research indicates significant positive effects of racial and economic
integration (Grant, 2009; Mickelson, 2008; Frankenberg & Orfield, 2007; Schwartz, 2010;
Wells, 2016) and many policy makers argue that there are moral imperatives requiring school
desegregation (see UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012).
• The difficult problems within urban schools have, in part, resulted in a crisis in staffing. Many
urban school systems face a continual teacher shortage and witness significant teacher turnover.
Most important, in many cities there is a crucial shortage of teachers of color to serve as role
models for the increasingly nonwhite student population (Educational Priorities Panel, 1987;
Ingersoll, 2004; Ingersoll & Perda, 2010; Khalil, 2012; New York State Board of Regents,
1999; Albert Shanker Institute, 2015).
• Policy makers disagree about how to improve urban schools. Some studies propose a radical
overhaul of public education, including a voucher system, a free market competition between
public and private schools, and unlimited parental choice in school selection (Chubb & Moe,
1990). Other studies suggest that such policies will increase the ability of high-income families
to improve their children’s education and ultimately continue to penalize low-income families.
From the 1990s onward, charter schools (public schools that are independent of local school
districts) became increasingly popular (Bulkley & Wohlstetter, 2004; Wells et al., 1998;
Sadovnik, 2011b). There is significant disagreement about whether or not charter schools
outperform traditional public schools (Baker, 2016; CREDO, 2009a, 2009b; Hoxby, 2009;
Sadovnik, 2011b).
Programmatic Issues
Research suggests that there are programs that will improve urban schools. Effective school models,
magnet programs (specialized schools), school choice programs, and parental community involve-
ment all indicate promise. Funding for successful programs is needed to encompass a larger urban
population.
• Effective school research has indicated that there are programmatic ways to improve urban
schools. For example, the following characteristics have been identified with unusually effec-
tive schools in general and in urban settings: a safe and orderly environment; a clear school
mission; instructional leadership by a principal or school head; a climate of high expectations;
a concentration on instructional tasks; monitoring of student progress; and positive home-
school relations (cited in Gartner & Lipsky, 1987, p. 389). School restructuring efforts based
on these principles suggest promise. For instance, the work of Deborah Meier, former prin-
cipal of Central Park East Secondary School in New York City, and James Comer, at Yale
Medical School, in the New Haven Schools, are striking examples. Meier successfully
implemented progressive school restructuring in an urban school with a mostly black and
Hispanic population. Although CPESS closed in the early 2000s, years after Meier left, the
school under Meier’s leadership remains an example of an effective urban school (Semel,
Sadovnik, & Coughlan, 2016).
• Compensatory education programs (programs aimed at providing equality of opportunity for
disadvantaged students) have resulted in academic improvement for children from low SES
and disadvantaged backgrounds. Although the overall research on the effects of compensatory
programs is mixed, there are studies that indicate that effective compensatory programs result
in positive academic and social results (Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990). Many policy makers
believe that programs such as Head Start (a preschool program for children from low-income
families), dropout prevention programs, and many bilingual education programs need to be
better funded, not eliminated (Lynch, 2004/2005).
• School choice programs may help to improve the education of urban children. Although there
is disagreement about the extent of parental choice, many researchers believe that some
combination of school choice and magnet school programs will improve urban education
problems. In a number of urban settings, such as Minneapolis and District 4 in New York City,
there have been significant improvements. In addition, studies of magnet and charter schools
indicate significant educational possibilities (Grant, 2009; Lubienski, Weitzel, & Lubienski,
2009; Miron, Evergreen, & Urschel, 2008; Powers & Cookson, Jr., 1999; Tractenberg,
Sadovnik, & Liss, 2004; Sadovnik, 2011b).
• The paucity of minority teachers and the lack of multicultural curricula are significant prob-
lems in urban school systems. Many experts believe that, given the student populations of
most urban schools, it is imperative that programs are developed to attract and train teachers
of color and to develop more multicultural curriculum projects.
The Decline of Literacy

Critics of U.S. public education have pointed to the failure of schools to teach children basic
literacy skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, and basic knowledge in history, literature,
and the arts. Although there has been significant controversy over the value of such skills and
knowledge, and whether such a decline is related to the decline in U.S. economic superiority, it
is apparent that schools have become less effective in transmitting skills and knowledge.
Trends
During the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, educational reforms stressed standards
and accountability. Although there are problems with using standardized tests, and despite some
achievement increases of the 1990s, comparisons of U.S. students to students from other coun-
tries, SAT scores, and other data indicate continuing problems in literacy.
• U.S. high school students performed less well than their counterparts in other industrialized
nations in mathematics, science, history, and literature. Studies by the International Asso-
ciation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IAEEA) reflect this trend. In 2012,
students in the U.S. scored slightly above average in comparison to other OECD countries on
measures of reading literacy. Only 8 percent of U.S. students demonstrate advanced literacy
skills.
• Only 9 percent of U.S. students demonstrate advanced math skills. Students in the U.S. scored
below the OECD average in mathematics.
• Students in the U.S. scored below the OECD average in science. Only 7 percent of U.S.
students demonstrate advanced science skills (U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, 2015).
• U.S. high school students scored lower on the SAT verbal and mathematic tests in the 1980s
than in previous decades. For example, in 1967–1968, the average verbal SAT score was
466 and the average mathematics score was 492. In 1977–1978, the average scores were 429
and 468, respectively; in 1987–1988, the average scores were 428 and 476, respectively;
in 1994–1995, the average scores were 428 and 482, respectively; in 2002–2003, the average
scores were 507 and 519, respectively; and in 2009–2010, the average scores were 501 and 516,
respectively (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989a,
1989b, 1997a, 1997b; U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2004a). The validity of this comparison over time
is questionable, since more students attended college and thus took the SATs in the 1980s
(therefore, a larger number of students from the lower achievement tracks in high school took
the SATs), and the scores were recentered, creating higher scores in the post-1998 period.
• In addition, U.S. high school students do not score particularly well on standardized tests of
culturally valued knowledge in history and literature. For example, in What Do Our Seventeen
Year Olds Know? Ravitch and Finn (1987) argued that 17-year-old high school students have
abysmal knowledge of basic information in history and literature. Although there is general
controversy over the intrinsic value of such knowledge, New York State high school perform-
ance on these tests may indicate a problem in U.S. schools in transmitting this form of cultural
knowledge to its students.
• In the 1980s, critics argued that the curriculum in many public and private high schools was
“watered down” and provided far too many elective courses of suspect value and too little of
substance. The National Commission on Excellence report (A Nation at Risk) and other reports
pointed to the absence of a core curriculum of required courses for all students. In addition,
critics suggested that, because most states require only the fulfillment of credit hours (that
is, four years of English, three years of mathematics, etc.), specific knowledge in curriculum
areas is rarely uniformly required. In addition, some critics pointed to the absence of a national
curriculum and standards, commonplace in many countries (e.g., France), as a major short-
coming in U.S. education. Although there was significant controversy over many of these
claims, there was agreement that the curriculum in most U.S. high schools needs significant
attention.
• In the 1990s, although national curriculum standards did not emerge, curriculum standardsset
by national associations, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
and the National Council of Social Studies (NCSS), as well as standards mandated by indi-
vidual states often based on these, resulted in an increase in curriculum standards (“Quality
Counts, 1999,” 1999). Over the past few years the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
have been adopted by many states. However, some states have since dropped the CCSS in
response to public disapproval.
• The U.S. literacy rate (and illiteracy rate) is shocking. According to the National Assessment
of Adult Literacy, 30 million Americans have below basic literacy levels. An additional
60 million Americans function at a basic level and are only able to perform simple, everyday
literacy activities. Another 95 million Americans have an intermediate literacy level. Only
28 million Americans, 13 percent, demonstrate proficient literacy. These data are well below
the literacy rates of other industrialized nations and are a serious indictment of the nation’s
educational system (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
Policy Issues
There is little agreement about policy regarding standards and curriculum. Given the constitutional
authority granted to states and localities for educational policies, many people argue against any
ederal governmental role. Others, such as Chester Finn, Jr., continue to propose the adoption of
national standards in curriculum, knowledge, and skills (Finn, 1989). Finally, many are concerned
with the need to balance higher standards with the guarantee that all students are given an equal
opportunity to meet these standards.
• The adoption of national standards in curriculum, knowledge, and skills is a controversial
proposal. The creation of nationally prescribed norms of what should be taught, what students
should learn and know, and what students should be able to do is favored by some and opposed
by others. Those in opposition believe that such norms should be locally determined or that
such norms are impossible to develop. While the Common Core State Standards gained a
great deal of support during the Obama Administration, this support is waning.
• The balancing of higher standards and the ability of all students, particularly disadvantaged
students, to meet these standards is an important issue. With high dropout rates in many
urban school districts, many fear that simply raising standards will exacerbate an already
problematic situation.
• The development of core curriculum for graduation from high school, which would include
the same academic subjects and knowledge for all students, poses significant issues about what
the curriculum would include. Proponents of core curriculum, such as Chester Finn, Jr. and
E. D. Hirsch, suggest that the curriculum should include the canons of Western civilization
as its starting point. Critics of this view suggest that a more multicultural curriculum needs
to be developed.
• Policies aimed at raising standards and improving curriculum need to look at the effects of
curriculum tracking policies. Curriculum tracking at the high school level and ability grouping
(with the same or different curricula) at the K–12 level is a controversial policy. Proponents
point to the functional necessity and benefits of homogeneous groups; critics, such as Jeannie
Oakes (1985), point to the inequities of such arrangements. Because research is inconclusive,
policies concerning tracking need to be carefully addressed.
Programmatic Issues
In the past two decades, all 50 states and most localities have implemented programs to raise
academic achievement. At the federal level, the Goals 2000 legislation defined a national set of
learning goals for all students, NCLB mandated state testings in grades 3 through 8, and RTT
pushed Value Added Models (VAM) of assessment of schools and teachers based on student test
scores.
• Programs at the state and local levels to define what students should know and be able to do
were implemented in the 1990s. Taking their initial cue from the National Commission on
Excellence report, A Nation at Risk (1983), many states and districts increased curriculum
requirements for graduation and instituted core curriculum requirements. One fear is that
such programmatic reforms may be artificial and raise scores simply by having teachers teach
to tests. Another concern is that such standardization of curriculum may reduce innovation.
• States initiated minimum performance requirements for promotion (grades 4, 8, 10) and gradu-
ation (grade 12). NCLB initiated mandated state testing, as well as requiring states to label
schools that did not meet standards, as In Need of Improvement. Schools labeled this way
faced significant sanctions, including restructuring or closure. The Every Student Succeeds
Act eliminated this practice in 2015.
• Effective school research indicates that schools that place student learning as the most import-
ant school goal are effective in improving learning. The application of effective school models,
especially in urban areas, is necessary to ensure equity.
• Compensatory education programs and dropout prevention programs are essential if higher
standards are not to become one more barrier for disadvantaged students. With literacy rates
lowest with at-risk children and poor adults, both in urban and rural settings, literacy programs
aimed at these populations are required.
• There have been increases in achievement due to these reforms. For example, from 1982 to
2015, the percentage of high school students taking the challenging academic courses recom-
mended in A Nation at Risk increased significantly. Enrollments in Advanced Placement (AP)
courses also increased significantly, and the number of students passing AP exams nearly tripled
between 1982 and 2015. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores also
increased. The average performance in mathematics improved substantially on the NAEP
between 1978 and 2015. Among 9- and 13-year-olds, the improvement was the equivalent of
at least one grade level. Performance in science was also higher in 2015 than in 1978 among
all age groups, especially in general science knowledge and skills. These gains in academic
performance, while significant, are not sufficient. The NAEP results in reading performance
remain relatively unchanged, and the narrowed gap in performance between white students
and students of color remains unacceptably large (U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2012a, 2012b, 2015).
Assessment Issues
For both educational problems—the crisis in urban education and the decline of literacy—there
are a number of assessment issues that need to be addressed. More empirical evidence on school
effectiveness, especially qualitative studies on school processes, is needed. New assessment measures
that eliminate class, racial, gender, and cultural bias must be developed.
• Large-scale educational studies have provided important data on school and student outcomes.
More studies on the process of schooling, including ethnographic studies, are needed to
understand the factors within schools that affect student achievement.
• Effective school research has provided significant understanding of the relationship between
school organization and processes, and academic achievement. Research that assesses the
implementation of effective school models based on this research is needed.
• More research on the relationship between family, culture, community, and school is needed.
Although there are many theoretical analyses of these issues, far more empirical research is
needed.
• New assessment techniques are needed to evaluate teacher and student performance and curri-
culum design. Studies indicate that traditional assessment devices may be culturally and racially
biased. In addition to different quantitative measures, many researchers and educators believe
that qualitative approaches such as portfolios should be considered (Martin-Kniep & Kniep,
1992; “Quality Counts, 1999,” 1999). More recently, value added models (VAM) of teacher
quality based on student growth on standardized achievement tests have been part of the
federal Race to the Top (RTT) policies. Such models have been controversial, and more
research is needed to ensure that such measures are valid and reliable (B. Baker, 2011).
The preceding discussion is a brief overview of a few of the many problems addressed more
fully in this book. The presentation of trends, policy issues, programmatic issues, and assessment
issues provides only a glimpse into the complexity of the problems and their solutions. In subsequent
chapters, the specific issues will be explored in greater detail. For our purposes here, it is important
to recognize that, as teachers, you will face many of these problems and will need a perspective
for grappling with them. We believe that the foundations perspective is an important tool in
understanding and solving such difficult educational dilemmas.
Understanding Education: The Foundations Perspective

As you can see, there is no shortage of critiques and there are a plethora of reform proposals. New
teachers need a quality of mind—the kind of perspective that the sociological imagination
advocated by Mills (1959) offers—in order to place the educational system in a context. Such a
context or framework is necessary to understand the schools and the teacher’s place within them,
to understand how the schools relate to other aspects of society, and to see how educational
problems are related to larger societal dilemmas. Finally, seeing the schools in their context will
enhance your understanding of how the schools today reflect the historical evolution of reform
efforts as well as how current debates frame what the schools will look like for each successive
generation of teachers and students.
What do we propose that you, as prospective teachers, need in order to understand and answer
these questions? Quite simply, we call it a foundations perspective. The foundations perspective is
a lens for viewing the schools analytically from a variety of approaches that, taken together, provide
the viewer with an understanding of the connections between teacher, student, school, and society.
The foundations perspective also serves to relate educational organization and processes, and
educational theory and practice. Most important, it links the understanding of these relationships
to meaningful activity—the improvement of this nation’s schools.
The foundations perspective consists of four interrelated approaches: historical, philosophical,
political, and sociological. Through the use of the insights of the history of education, the philo-
sophy of education, the politics of education, and the sociology of education, you will be better
able to comprehend the educational system you are about to enter as teachers.
The history, philosophy, politics, and sociology of education, or what are commonly referred
to as the foundations of education, are by no means separate and distinct perspectives. On one
hand, they represent the unique vantage points of the separate disciplines of history, philosophy,
political science, and sociology. On the other hand, historians, philosophers, political scientists,
and sociologists rarely write from their own disciplines alone; more often than not, they tend to
view the world from interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives. Therefore, although the
following discussion presents the insights of each as a separate entity, please keep in mind that
ultimately the foundations perspective seeks to combine all four disciplinary approaches and to
look at the relationships between their central areas of concern. What, then, are the central areas
of concern? And what is their value for teachers? We begin with the first question.
The History of Education

In The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch (1983) bemoaned what he termed the “waning of
a sense of history.” Lasch argued that contemporary Americans had lost their understanding
of the past and therefore could neither understand the complexities of the present nor look to a
better future. For Lasch, the historical perspective is essential not only because it gives one a grasp
of one’s heritage but also because it empowers one to envision the possibilities of the future.
All of you will enter an educational system that looks the way it does today because of historical
processes and events. The debates, controversies, and reforms of the past are not unimportant
footnotes for historians to mull over in their scholarly work. Rather, they are the pieces in the
historical puzzle that comprise the educational world that you, as teachers, will inherit. Likewise,
you in turn will become the next generation to place its stamp and have an impact on what the
schools of tomorrow will be like.
In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx (1963) wrote, “Men make their own
history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances
chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from
the past.” History, then, provides people not only with a chronicle of the past but with a deep
understanding of how and why the world has come to be. Such an understanding helps individuals
to see both the limits and the possibilities for the future.
The schools look and work the way they do because of complex historical events and processes.
To understand the educational problems of today, you must first have a perspective from which
to comprehend these historical processes. This is the value and purpose of the history of education.
It is often said that people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat the mistakes
of the past. Although we do not claim that the study of the history of education will make educators
capable of eliminating mistakes altogether, and although the history of education suggests that
people indeed tend to repeat some mistakes, we nonetheless believe that an ignorance of the past
is a major barrier to educational improvement. Thus, the insights of the history of education are
crucial to a foundations perspective.
This book will introduce you to the events that have defined the evolution of the U.S. educa-
tional system and to the significant debates between historians of education regarding the meaning
of these events. First, you will look at the major historical periods in U.S. educational history:
the colonial period, the common school era, the progressive era, and the modern era. Through
an examination of what historians have written about each period, you will come to understand
the relationship between each period and the debates and issues that characterized it, and you
will be able to see how each educational reform set the stage for successive reform and reaction.
Second, the readings in this book will also explore the controversies in the history of education
about the interpretation of these events. That is, even when historians agree about the facts of
educational development, they often passionately disagree about why things happened as they
did. Over the past 30 years, for example, democratic liberal historians, who believe the historyof
U.S. education represents the increasing success of the schools in providing equality of opportunity
for all citizens, and revisionist historians, who believe that the history of U.S. education represents
a series of broken promises and the triumph of social and economic elites, have raised significant
questions about the role of schools and the groups that have power to shape the educational system.
Through an exploration of the views of historians from both of these perspectives, you may see
that our schools are indeed the product of a variety of related factors and that the present debates
are inherited from the past and influenced by its triumphs and defeats. To understand this is to
understand the complexity of the present.
The Philosophy of Education

In order to comprehend fully the world of schooling, you, as future teachers, must possess a social
and intellectual context (the foundations perspective). An understanding of the philosophy of
education is essential in building this perspective.
Students often wonder why philosophy is considered to be an integral part of the foundations
perspective, arguing that education is shaped by practice rather than by theory. They argue that
teachers are called on to make situational decisions and that the methods employed by teachers
at any given moment are based on their instincts or feelings. Students object to the study of philo-
sophy on the grounds that it is an elite discipline that has little practical value. Why, then, do we
contend that philosophy is an important component of both comprehending and negotiating the
world of schooling?
We begin to answer this question by establishing the relationship between educational practices
and philosophy. As is customary in the discipline of philosophy, issues are often resolved by posing
questions and offering answers, which in turn usually lead to more questions. This method, estab-
lished centuries ago by the ancient Greeks, is known as the dialectic method. Thus, we begin by
posing the first of two questions to our students: What is your practice?—that is, What will you
do with your own classes when you become practitioners? After our students describe, define,
or clarify what they intend, we pose a second question: Why will you do what you have just des-
cribed? By asking you to reflect on the “what” and “why” as you go about teaching in your class-
rooms, we may help you realize that your decisions and actions are shaped by a host of human
experiences firmly rooted in our culture.
For example, why do some of you prefer informal classroom settings to formal ones? Why might
some of you lean toward the adoption of the project method—an interdisciplinary curriculum
approach developed during the progressive era? We suggest that your feelings might be articulated
in the work of John Dewey, or that a preference for adopting the spiral curriculum may best be
articulated through Jerome Bruner’s work on curriculum. In other words, the choices that you,
as prospective teachers, make and the preferences you have may best be clarified and expressed
through the study of the philosophy of education.
As educators, we believe certain fundamentals exist within the human experience that color
the choices we make as human beings and as teachers in the classroom. We suggest that as prospec-
tive teachers, you begin your reflective quest for these fundamentals by examining thought patterns
and ideas within the discipline of philosophy.
This brings us to our second point: the uniqueness of the study of the philosophy of education,
as distinct from philosophy. An interdisciplinary approach is called for in order to seek out the
theoretical foundations upon which practice will be built. As students of the philosophy of educa-
tion, it is important that you read selections from literature, psychology, sociology, and history,
as well as philosophy. Through a thorough examination of thought patterns within the different
disciplines, you will be sufficiently empowered to affect your own personal syntheses of the human
experience, reflect on your world views, and make your own intensely personal choices as to what
sort of practitioners you will be. Ultimately, the philosophy of education will allow you to examine
what ought to be and thus enable you to envision the type of teachers you want to be and the types
of schools that ought to exist.
The Politics of Education

Throughout history, schools have been the subject of considerable conflict about goals, methods,
curriculum, and other important issues. Decisions about educational policies are rarely made in
a smooth consensual manner, but rather are often the result of battles between various interest
groups. U.S. schools are a contested terrain in which groups attempt to use political strategies to
shape the educational system to best represent their interests and needs.
Political science helps educators understand power relations and the way interest groups use
the political process to maximize their advantages within organizations. A political science per-
spective focuses on the politics of education—on power relations; on the relationship between
the local, state, and federal governments and education; on school financing and law; and on the
question of who controls the schools.
One of the major questions political scientists ask is How democratic are our schools?—that
is, To what extent are educational policies shaped by the pluralistic input of many groups, or To
what extent are they the result of domination by political elites? The political science approach
to education will allow you to examine the complexities of questions such as these, while also
providing important insights into education policy and change.
Another issue of importance, especially for teachers, is the organizational politics within schools.
How do educational interest groups within schools—including administrators, teachers, students,
and parents—arrive at policy? Which groups have the power to shape educational decisions for
their own benefit? What are the patterns of political conflict and consensus? How do the relation-
ships between these groups help define the educational debates of today? Through a close look
at the politics of education, you will become aware of how these group interactions are essential
for understanding schools and, more importantly, the ability of teachers to shape and change the
educational system.
The Sociology of Education

The discipline of sociology developed at the end of the nineteenth century amid the turmoil and
promise of industrialization, urbanization, and a growing faith in democracy and education. As
more and more children were required to attend schools, questions arose about the relationship
between school and society. As the institution of education grew, there was a perception among
many thinkers that schools would help usher in a modern era in which merit and effort would
replace privilege and inheritance as the criteria for social and occupational success.
Sociologists of education generally shared in this optimism. They began to explore the ways in
which students were socialized for adult status, they examined the school as a social system, and
they analyzed the effects of education on students’ life chances. They believed that they could
improve education through the application of social scientific theory and research. Because of
their scientific orientation, sociologists of education are more apt to ask what is rather than what
ought to be. They want to know what really goes on in schools and what the measurable effects of
education are on individuals and on society. The hallmark of the sociological approach to education
is empiricism, or the collection and analysis of social facts within a theoretical context that allows
researchers to build a coherent set of findings. Thus, sociologists of education are interested in
collecting data, and they try to avoid abstract speculation.
The sociological method is particularly useful when educational practices are related to educa-
tional outcomes. For example, in a study of public, Catholic, and other private schools, sociologists
Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore (1982) were able to compare learning outcomes in these three types
of schools by using survey analysis techniques. A practitioner or policy maker interested in school
improvement can have some confidence that these results are valid and generalizable, and not
simply opinion or wishful thinking. Of course, results are always subject to interpretation because
all knowledge is, in a sense, the result of competing interpretations of events and ideas.
In sum, the methods of sociology are useful tools for understanding how schools actually inter-
act with society. Although social science has no monopoly on wisdom or knowledge, it is based
on an honest attempt to be objective, scientific, and empirical. Like history, sociology grounds
us in the social context and tempers our educational inquiries by contrasting the real with the
ideal. The sociological approach is fundamental to the foundations perspective because it keeps
one’s observations focused and testable. Without knowing what is, one cannot make the ought to
be a reality.
The Foundations Perspective: A Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary

Approach
The history, philosophy, politics, and sociology of education are separate disciplines; they are
rarely used in isolation and are most often combined to ask the type of questions we have discussed.
Although the selections in this book are often written from one of the perspectives, they generally
use more than one of the disciplinary approaches. In fact, they are usually multidisciplinary and/or
interdisciplinary (i.e., integrating more than one discipline). Moreover, the foundations perspective
is a way of viewing schools that uses each of the approaches—the historical, the philosophical,
the political, and the sociological—in an integrative manner. Therefore, although Chapters 2
through 5 of this book are organized around each discipline, the remainder is thematically arranged.
Each theme is looked at through a variety of foundations approaches, each reflecting the critical
applications of a foundations perspective to education.
Critical Literacy and Empowerment: Toward the Active Voice of

Teachers
In the past few years, teacher accountability has become a centerpiece of educational reform
debates. On one hand, those who have been termed the new educational reformers have argued
that teacher quality is among the most important factors in effective schools and that strong
accountability measures are required to ensure that every child has a high quality teacher. Arguing
that teacher unions have protected ineffective teachers through tenure, dismissal, and layoff
policies, these reformers have called for a number of policies to ensure teacher quality. These
include the evaluation of teachers through value added models (VAM) linked to their students’
achievement on standardized tests, the end of tenure and last in, first out seniority (LIFO), rather
than merit based layoff policies, and streamlined policies for removing teachers deemed to be
ineffective (Ravitch, 2010, 2013). These policies were cornerstones of President Obama’s Race
to the Top policy.
On the other hand, critics of these policies argue that the new reformers overstate dramatically
the number of incompetent teachers and that value added models are extremely flawed in evalu-
ating teacher quality (B. Baker, 2011). Further, they argue that while teacher quality is an important
factor in school and student achievement, the new reformers’ “no excuses” perspective ignores
the many factors outside of schools, especially poverty, as central to explaining the achievement
gap (Ravitch, 2013; Sadovnik, 2011b). Teacher unions, such as the American Federation of Teach-
ers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) have responded to these criticisms by
saying that teachers are being scapegoated for problems often beyond their control.
Although these vociferous debates between the new reformers and teacher unions and other
policymakers have highlighted important differences about the causes of the achievement gap,
for the most part the voices of teachers have been left out of policy decisions. Teachers’ voices
have long been silent in discussions of educational reform. On one hand, administrators, college
professors, politicians, and other educational experts all write about what is wrong with schools,
but often without the practical experiential foundation of what it is like in the classroom. On the
other hand, teachers often criticize these writings because the experts lack an understanding of
what is termed “life in the trenches.” However, many teachers show the same kind of oversight
when they criticize the experts—they sometimes believe that the voice of experience is sufficient
to describe, understand, and change schools. What is needed is a perspective that relates theory
and practice so that teachers can combine their experiential knowledge with a broader, more
multidimensional analysis of the context in which their experiences occur. The foundations per-
spective provides a theoretical and empirical base, but it alone is similarly insufficient as a tool
for optimal understanding and effective change. When combined with the experiential voice of
teachers, however, the foundations perspective becomes a powerful tool for teachers in the
development of their active voice about educational matters.
In the view of C. Wright Mills (1959), the individual does not have the ability to understand
the complex social forces that affect him or her and make up a society simply by virtue of living
in the society. Likewise, teachers, solely by virtue of their classroom experiences, do not have the
tools to make sense of the world of education. In fact, some teachers are too close and subjectively
involved to have the emotional distance that is required for critical analysis. We are not suggesting
that a teacher’s experience is unimportant. We are saying that the theoretical and empirical insights
of the foundations of education must comprise a crucial part of a teacher’s perspective on educa-
tion and thereby contribute to critical literacy. Critical literacy in education is simply the ability
to connect knowledge, theory, and research evidence to the everyday experiences of teaching.
Through the use of a foundations perspective, teachers can develop this essential ability and
become, in Donald Schön’s (1983) words, “reflective practitioners.”
Criticisms of teacher education programs suggest that teachers do not receive a sufficiently
intellectually rigorous education. Reports by the Carnegie Task Force (1986), the Holmes Group
(1986, 1995), and the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996) stated
that teacher education programs, especially those at the undergraduate level, place too much
emphasis on methodology and do not provide a solid knowledge base in the traditional disci-
plines that education students will eventually teach. The overemphasis on process at the expense
of depth and breadth of knowledge and intellectual demands has, according to these critics, resulted
in teachers who do not possess the intellectual tools needed to educate their students success-
fully. Thus, the cycle of educational decline in terms of knowledge and skills is reproduced. These
reports propose the elimination of undergraduate education programs. In their place, the
Commission recommends the requirement that prospective teachers complete professional
training at the graduate level after attaining a liberal arts baccalaureate degree. Since these reports,
a number of alternatives to traditional university-based teacher education have emerged that have
sought to fast track the “best and brightest” into teaching. These include Teach For America
(www.teachforamerica.org/), the New York City Teaching Fellows (www.nycteachingfellows.org),
and the New Teacher Project (http://tntp.org/). There has been considerable debate about the
effectiveness of such programs and the degree to which they may threaten teacher professionalism
(Darling-Hammond & Snowden, 2005; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).
Although these criticisms are somewhat simplistic in that they often scapegoat teachers for
educational problems that go well beyond the shortcomings of teacher education programs, we
do believe that teachers should be more liberally and critically educated. The emphasis on know-
ledge, however, is not sufficient. The cultural literacy envisioned by the educational reformers of
the 1980s and championed by writers such as E. D. Hirsch, Allan Bloom, and Diane Ravitch will
not by itself provide teachers with the analytical and critical tools needed for understanding the
schools. Although cultural literacy is important (even though the question of what constitutes
the knowledge that teachers and students ought to have is a crucial dilemma), teachers need criti-
cal literacy in their ongoing attempt to make their voices heard and to effect meaningful change.
Students and teachers often ask us how critical literacy will help them solve problems. Are we
suggesting that teachers equipped with the ability to understand the educational system will
improve it easily? Of course not! Understanding the schools and improving them are two different
matters. Without changes in the factors that affect the schools, as well as changes in the structure
and processes within the schools, it is highly unlikely that large-scale change or even significant
improvement will take place. What we are saying, however, is that teachers must be part of the
ongoing dialogue focused on improving schools, and in order to contribute meaningfully to this
dialogue they need more than their own experiences. They need the knowledge, confidence, and
authority that are products of critical literacy.
Developing critical literacy is a first and necessary step toward bringing the active voice of teach-
ers into the educational debates so that, together with other professionals, teachers can become
intimately involved in the development of a better educational world. It will not be easy. As sociolo-
gists, philosophers, and historians of education, we do not pretend that the record suggests that we
should be overly optimistic; neither does it suggest, however, that we should lose hope. It is our
profound desire that the readings in this book will give you the tools to become part of this ongoing
effort—the quest for better schools, better teachers, and a more humane and intelligent society!
2 The Politics of Education
Conservative, Liberal, Radical,
and Neo-Liberal Perspectives
Too often, teachers and prospective teachers look at educational issues within the narrow context
of schools. That is, they treat what goes on inside classrooms and in the school at large as unrelated
to the larger society of which it is a part. Schools are institutions that are rarely immune from
external influences such as the economy, the political system, the family, and so on. Moreover,
schools in every society exist for specific reasons, not all of which are educational. It is essential,
then, that you understand the diverse and often conflicting purposes of schooling, as these goals are
often at the heart of disagreements about education.
The terms education and schooling are sometimes used interchangeably when, in fact, they refer
to somewhat different but related processes. Lawrence A. Cremin, the distinguished historian of
U.S. education, defined education as
the deliberate, systematic, and sustained effort to transmit, evoke, or acquire knowledge, attitudes, skills,
or sensibilities, as well as any outcomes of that effort . . . . The definition projects us beyond the schools
and colleges to the multiplicity of individuals and institutions that educate—parents, peers, siblings, and
friends, as well as families, churches, synagogues, libraries, museums, summer camps, benevolent societies,
agricultural fairs, settlement houses, factories, publishers, radio stations, and television networks. (1977,
pp. 135–136)
Cremin’s definition looks at education in the broadest possible sense to include all processes in
a society that transmit knowledge, skills, and values, and educational institutions as all the places
in which these activities occur.
Schooling is a more narrow process, as it is concerned with the activities that occur in schools.
Therefore, where education is the most general societal activity, schooling is a particular example
of the ways in which education occurs within the schools. Clearly from these definitions, schools
are educational institutions. Why do they exist and what are their purposes?
In the broadest sense, schools have political, social, economic, and intellectual purposes. On
a philosophical level, however, the purposes of education speak to what the political scientist
Amy Gutmann refers to as
that portion of education most amenable to our influence; the conscious efforts of men and women to
inform the intellect and to shape the character of less educated men and women. And we naturally
begin by asking what the purposes of human education should be—what kind of people should human
education create. (1987, p. 19)
Therefore, the purposes of education, in general, and schooling, in particular, are concerned with
the type of society people wish to live in and the type of people we wish to live in it. Ultimately,
the purposes of education are directed at conceptions of what constitutes the “good life” and a
“good person”—questions that have been at the center of philosophical inquiry from Plato to
Aristotle, Marx, Freud, and Dewey.
As you will read throughout this book, there is little agreement about these difficult questions.
Although men and women have different ideas about what society and individuals ought to look
like, every society attempts to transmit its conception on these matters to its citizens. Education
is crucial to this process.
The Purposes of Schooling

The specific purposes of schooling are intellectual, political, social, and economic (Bennett &
LeCompte, 1990, pp. 5–21). These purposes refer to their role within any existing society—for
our purposes, U.S. society. As you will read later in this chapter and in Chapter 4, one often must
make the distinction between what the purposes of schooling are and what they ought to be. For
example, those who support the goals of a society believe that schools should educate citizens to
fit into that society; those who disagree with its goals believe that schools should educate citizens
to change the society. As you can see, differing visions of education relate back to differing con-
ceptions of what constitutes a good society.
The intellectual purposes of schooling are to teach basic cognitive skills such as reading, writing,
and mathematics; to transmit specific knowledge (e.g., in literature, history, the sciences, etc.);
and to help students acquire higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.
The political purposes of schooling are to inculcate allegiance to the existing political order
(patriotism); to prepare citizens who will participate in this political order (e.g., in political demo-
cracies); to help assimilate diverse cultural groups into a common political order; and to teach
children the basic laws of the society.
The social purposes of schooling are to help solve social problems; to work as one of many insti-
tutions, such as the family and the church (or synagogue) to ensure social cohesion; and to socialize
children into the various roles, behaviors, and values of the society. This process, referred to by
sociologists as socialization, is a key ingredient to the stability of any society.
The economic purposes of schooling are to prepare students for their later occupational roles
and to select, train, and allocate individuals into the division of labor. The degree to which schools
directly prepare students for work varies from society to society, but most schools have at least
an indirect role in this process.
As you will read in Chapter 4, these purposes sometimes contradict each other. For example,
the following question underscores the clash between the intellectual and political purposes of
the school: If it is the intellectual purpose of the school to teach higher-order thinking skills, such
as critical thinking and evaluation, then can it simultaneously engender patriotism and conformity
to society’s rules? Lawrence A. Cremin pointed out:
Schooling—like education in general—never liberates without at the same time limiting. It never em-
powers without at the same time constraining. It never frees without at the same time socializing. The
question is not whether one or the other is occurring in isolation but what the balance is, and to what
end, and in light of what alternatives. (1977, p. 37)
This dialectic, or the tension between schooling’s role in maintaining the status quo and its
potential to bring about change, is at the heart of differing conceptions of education and schooling.
As we pointed out earlier, those who support the society tend to stress the school’s role in helping
to maintain it; those who believe the society is in need of improvement or change stress its role
in either improving or transforming it. In the following sections, you will read about how differ-
ent political perspectives on education view not only the purposes of schooling but a variety of
related issues.
Political Perspectives
Debates about educational issues often focus on different views concerning the goals of schools
and their place within society. From the inception of the U.S. republic through the present, there
have been significantly different visions of U.S. education and the role of schools in society.
Although many of the views are complex, it is helpful to simplify them through the use of a
political typology. In its most simple form, the different visions of U.S. education can be discussed
in terms of conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives. Although the nature of these approaches
has changed over time, what follows is a contemporary model of how each perspective views a
number of related educational issues. In the following sections, we will explore each perspective
in terms of its view of U.S. society, its view of the role of the school in relation to equality and
the “American dream,” its explanation of student failure and under-achievement in schools, its
definition of educational problems at the turn of the twenty-first century, and its educational policy
and reform proposals.
General Issues: Conservative, Liberal, Radical, and Neo-Liberal Perspectives

Political perspectives on education have rarely been used consistently. One of the problems in
using labels or typologies is that there is often little agreement about what constitutes the basic
principles of any particular perspective. Furthermore, there have been historical changes in the
meanings of each of the approaches under consideration: the conservative, the liberal, and the
radical. In addition, as many educators have used the terms traditional and progressive to denote
similar approaches, there is often considerable confusion over matters of terminology. In this
section, we will define each of the perspectives and relate them to progressive and traditional
perspectives. In subsequent sections, the specific features of the conservative, liberal, radical, and
neo-liberal perspectives will be delineated.
A perspective is a general model for looking at something—in this case, a model for under-
standing, analyzing, and solving educational problems. As you will see throughout this book, there
has been and continues to be little agreement about the nature and causes of, and the solutions
to educational problems. In order to understand the ways in which various authors look at
educational issues, it is necessary to understand how they approach the problems—that is, to
understand where they are coming from (their perspective, its assumptions, etc.).
The conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives all look at educational issues and problems
from distinctly different, although at times overlapping, vantage points. Although there are areas
of agreement, they each have distinctly different views on education and its role in U.S. society.
Moreover, they each have fundamentally different viewpoints on social problems and their solution
in general, and their analysis of education is a particular application of this more general world
view. Finally, the neo-liberal perspective supports some of the tenets of both the liberal and
conservative positions. The following sections first summarize the conservative, liberal, and radical
perspectives and then present the neo-liberal perspective in relation to these.
The Conservative Perspective

The conservative view has its origins in nineteenth-century social Darwinist thought (see Gordon,
1977) that applied the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to the analysis of societies. This
perspective, developed originally by the sociologist William Graham Sumner, looks at social evo-
lution as a process that enables the strongest individuals and/or groups to survive, and looks at
human and social evolution as adaptation to changes in the environment. From this point of view,
individuals and groups must compete in the social environment in order to survive, and human
progress is dependent on individual initiative and drive.
A second feature of the conservative viewpoint is the belief that the free market or market
economy of capitalism is both the most economically productive economic system and the system
that is most respectful of human needs (e.g., for competition and freedom). Based in part on the
eighteenth-century writings of the British political economist Adam Smith and applied to
twentieth-century economic policy by the Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, conserva-
tism argues that free market capitalism allows for the maximization of economic growth and
individual liberty with competition ensuring that potential abuses can be minimized. Central to
this perspective is the view that individuals are rational actors who make decisions on a cost-
benefit scale.
Thus, the conservative view of social problems places its primary emphasis on the individual
and suggests that individuals have the capacity to earn or not earn their place within a market
economy, and that solutions to problems should also be addressed at the individual level. The
presidency of Ronald Reagan represented the political ascendancy of this viewpoint. Reagan
championed a free market philosophy and argued that welfare state policies (government inter-
vention in the economy) were at the heart of an American malaise. His presidency (1980–1988)
was characterized by supply-side economics (a form of free market capitalism), the elimination
of many governmental regulations, and the curtailment of many social programs. The Reagan
philosophy stressed individual initiative and portrayed the individual as the only one capable of
solving his or her own problems. Whereas conservatives lauded Reagan’s policies and credited
him with restoring U.S. economic growth, both liberals and radicals were very critical.
The Liberal Perspective

The liberal view has its origins in the twentieth century, in the works of the U.S. philosopher
John Dewey, and, historically, in the progressive era of U.S. politics from the 1880s to the 1930s.
Perhaps more important, the liberal view became politically dominant during the administration
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933–1945) and what is often referred to as the New Deal era.
The liberal perspective, although accepting the conservative belief in a market capitalist
economy, believes that the free market, if left unregulated, is prone to significant abuses, particularly
to those groups who are disadvantaged economically and politically. Moreover, the liberal view,
based on the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, believes that the capitalist market
economy is prone to cycles of recession that must be addressed through government intervention.
Thus, the liberal perspective insists that government involvement in the economic, political, and
social arenas is necessary to ensure fair treatment of all citizens and to ensure a healthy economy.
The impact of such liberal policies is evident throughout the twentieth century, from the New
Deal initiatives of FDR (including the Social Security Act and the Works Progress Administration,
a federally funded jobs program) to the New Frontier proposals of John F. Kennedy, to the Great
Society programs of Lyndon Baines Johnson to (although he probably would take issue with this)
George H. W. Bush’s savings and loan bailout.
The liberal perspective, then, is concerned primarily with balancing the economic productivity
of capitalism with the social and economic needs of the majority of people in the United States.
Because liberals place a heavy emphasis on issues of equality, especially equality of opportunity,
and because they believe that the capitalist system often gives unfair advantages to those with
wealth and power, liberals assert that the role of the government is to ensure the fair treatment
of all citizens, to ensure that equality of opportunity exists, and to minimize exceedingly great
differences in the life chances and life outcomes of the country’s richest and poorest citizens.
Moreover, liberals believe that individual effort alone is sometimes insufficient and that the
government must sometimes intercede on behalf of those in need. Finally, the liberal perspec-
tive on social problems stresses that groups rather than individuals are affected by the structure
of society, so solutions to social problems must address group dynamics rather than individuals
alone.
The Radical Perspective

The radical perspective, in contrast to both the conservative and liberal perspectives, does not
believe that free market capitalism is the best form of economic organization, but rather believes
that democratic socialism is a fairer political-economic system. Based on the writings of the
nineteenth-century German political economist and philosopher Karl Marx (1818–1883), the
radical viewpoint suggests that the capitalist system, although undeniably the most productive
form of economic organization, also produces fundamental contradictions that ultimately will lead
to its transformation into socialism.
Although the economic analysis of these contradictions is complex and unnecessary to the level
of understanding required here, it is important to note that the central contradiction pointed out
by radicals is between the accumulation laws of capitalism (i.e., that wealth is both accumulated
and controlled privately) and the general social welfare of the public. That is, radicals (Gordon,
1977; Bowles & Gintis, 1976, 1986) assert that, at this stage in capitalist development, U.S. society
has the productive capacity to ensure a minimally acceptable standard of living, including food,
shelter, and healthcare for all its citizens. Thus, radicals believe a socialist economy that builds
on the democratic political system (and retains its political freedoms) would more adequately
provide all citizens with a decent standard of living. What is essential to the radical perspective is
the belief that social problems such as poverty and the educational problems of the poorest citizens
are endemic to capitalism and cannot be solved under the present economic system. Rather, radicals
assert that only a transformation of capitalism into democratic socialism will ensure that the social
problems that disproportionately affect the disadvantaged in U.S. society will be addressed.
Radicals believe that the capitalist system is central to U.S. social problems. They also recognize
that the capitalist system is not going to change easily and, furthermore, that most Americans
fervently support it. Therefore, most radicals place their primary emphasis on the analysis of
inequality under capitalism, the economic and power relationships that are central to the
perpetuation of inequalities, and policies that seek to reduce these inequities under the existing
capitalist system. Thus, while theoretically and politically supporting change, the radical
perspective often agrees with those liberal programs aimed at issues concerning equity.
Finally, the radical perspective believes that social problems are structural in nature—that is,
that they are caused by the structure of U.S. society and therefore the solutions must be addressed
to this structure, not at individuals. To argue that social problems are caused by deficits in
individuals or groups is to “blame the victim,” according to the radical perspective (Ryan, 1971).
The collapse of the communist (state socialism) world in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union has resulted in serious challenges in the United States to the claims of the radical
perspective. Conservatives and many liberals argue that the events in the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe signal the death of communism, as well as socialism, and denote historical
evidence for the superiority of capitalism. Although it is clear that state socialism as practiced in
the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has failed, radicals do not agree that its failure denotes
either the bankruptcy of socialism or the final moral victory of capitalism. Rather, radicals suggest
that socialism failed in these cases for a number of reasons.
First, without a capitalist economic base to build on (a prerequisite for socialism in Marx’s
original theory), socialist economies in communist societies could not efficiently produce suffici-
ent goods and services. Second, without a democratic political base, communist societies denied
the necessary human freedoms essential to a healthy society. Furthermore, radicals suggest that
the collapse of state socialist economies does not preclude the ability of socialism to succeed in
democratic-capitalist societies. Finally, radicals argue that the collapse of communism in no way
eliminates the problems endemic to Western capitalist societies, particularly those related to
extremes of inequality. Therefore, although conservatives view these events with great satisfaction,
radicals point to the social problems in U.S. society. Liberals, to some degree, believe that these
events point to the power of their point of view: that the collapse of socialist economies in
communist societies indicates the strength of the capitalist economy, while the significant social
problems that remain in U.S. society suggest the importance of further liberal responses.
The three perspectives, then, have overlapping but distinctly different views on the nature of
U.S. society and its social problems. The conservative perspective is a positive view of U.S. society
and believes that capitalism is the best economic system, as it ensures maximum productivity with
the greatest degree of individual freedom. Social problems, from its vantage point, are caused by
individuals and groups, and it must be individuals and groups that solve them on their own, with
little or no direct government intervention.
The liberal perspective is also positive about U.S. society, albeit with reservations. Liberals
also believe that capitalism is indeed the most productive economic system, but they suggest that,
if left unrestrained, capitalism often creates far too much political and economic disparity between
citizens. Thus, liberals believe the state (government) must intercede to ensure the fair treatment
of all and that social problems are often the result of societal rather than individual or group
forces.
Finally, the radical perspective, unlike the other two, is negative about U.S. society. It recognizes
the productive capacity of its capitalist economic system, but it argues that the society structurally
creates vast and morally indefensible inequalities between its members. Radicals, who favor
significantly greater equality of outcomes between citizens, believe that U.S. social problems cannot
be solved under the existing economic system. They favor a movement toward democratic sociali-
sm: a society that, according to radicals, would combine democratic political principles (including
representative government, civil liberties, and individual freedom) with a planned economic
system—one that is planned for the satisfaction of the human needs of all of its citizens.
In the United Kingdom, under Tony Blair’s and Gordon Brown’s New Labour party, which
was in power from 1997 to 2010, the government supported a blend of liberal and radical policies.
Based on British sociologist Anthony Giddens’s (the director of the London School of Economics)
concept of the third way (1999), New Labour believed that the strengths of market capitalism,
combined with welfare state socialism, reflected the goals of social democracy. After the election
of Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010, the country returned to con-
servative and neo-liberal policies.
Traditional and Progressive Visions of Education

Discussions of education often refer to traditional and progressive visions. Although these terms
have a great deal in common with the conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives discussed
earlier, they are sometimes used interchangeably or without clear definitions, and therefore there
is often confusion concerning terminology. For our purposes, we will use the terms traditional and
progressive as the most general representations of views about education. Traditional visions tend
to view the schools as necessary to the transmission of the traditional values of U.S. society, such
as hard work, family unity, individual initiative, and so on. Progressive visions tend to view the
schools as central to solving social problems, as a vehicle for upward mobility, as essential to the
development of individual potential, and as an integral part of a democratic society.
In a nutshell, traditionalists believe the schools should pass on the best of what was and what
is, and progressives believe the schools should be part of the steady progress to make things better.
In relation to the conservative, liberal, and radical perspectives, there is significant overlap. If we
use a political continuum from left to right, with the left signifying the radical pole and the right
the conservative pole (mirroring the political terminology of left and right wing), we suggest the
following relationship:
Progressive Traditional
Radical Liberal Conservative
Thus, progressive visions encompass the left liberal to the radical spectrums; traditional visions
encompass the right liberal to the conservative spectrums. Obviously, as with all typologies, this
is somewhat of a simplification. Although many theories that we will discuss and illustrate in sub-
sequent chapters may have significantly more overlap, this typology is, nonetheless, a useful tool
for understanding different visions about education.
The discussion so far has concentrated on the general approach to U.S. society and social
problems taken by each perspective. The next section looks specifically at how each perspective
analyzes education and educational problems.
The Role of the School

The role of the school is a central focus of each of the perspectives and is at the heart of their
differing analyses. The school’s role in the broadest sense is directly concerned with the aims,
purposes, and functions of education in a society.
The conservative perspective sees the role of the school as providing the necessary educational
training to ensure that the most talented and hard-working individuals receive the tools necessary
to maximize economic and social productivity. In addition, conservatives believe that schools
socialize children into the adult roles necessary to the maintenance of the social order. Finally,
they see the school’s function as one of transmitting the cultural traditions through what is taught
(the curriculum). Therefore, the conservative perspective views the role of the school as essential
to both economic productivity and social stability.
The liberal perspective, while also stressing the training and socializing function of the school,
sees these aims a little differently. In line with the liberal belief in equality of opportunity, it
stresses the school’s role in providing the necessary education to ensure that all students have an
equal opportunity to succeed in society. Whereas liberals also point to the school’s role in socializing
children into societal roles, they stress the pluralistic nature of U.S. society and the school’s role
in teaching children to respect cultural diversity so that they understand and fit into a diverse
society. On the political level, liberals stress the importance of citizenship and participation in a
democratic society and the need for an educated citizenry in such a society. Finally, the liberal
perspective stresses individual as well as societal needs and thus sees the school’s role as enabling
the individual to develop his or her talents, creativity, and sense of self.
Therefore, the liberal perspective sees the role of education as balancing the needs of society
and the individual in a manner that is consistent with a democratic and meritocratic society.
That is, liberals envision a society in which citizens participate in decision making, in which adult
status is based on merit and achievement, and in which all citizens receive a fair and equal oppor-
tunity for economic wealth, political power, and social status.
Diane Ravitch, historian of education, eloquently summarizes the liberal view of education:
To believe in education is to believe in the future, to believe in what may be accomplished through
the disciplined use of intelligence, allied with cooperation, and good will. If it seems naively American
to put so much stock in schools, colleges, universities, and the endless prospect of self-improvement
and social improvement, it is an admirable, and perhaps even a noble flaw. (1983, p. 330)
The radical perspective, given its vastly differing view on U.S. society, likewise has a significantly
different view of what the school’s role is. Although radicals believe schools ought to eliminate
inequalities, they argue that schools currently reproduce the unequal economic conditions of
the capitalist economy and socialize individuals to accept the legitimacy of the society. Through
what radicals term social and cultural reproduction, the school’s role is to perpetuate the society and
to serve the interests of those with economic wealth and political power. Most important, through
a vastly unequal educational system, radicals believe that schools prepare children from differ-
ent social backgrounds for different roles within the economic division of labor. The radical
perspective, unlike the liberal, views equality of opportunity as an illusion and as no more than an
ideology used to convince individuals that they have been given a fair chance, when in fact they
have not. Therefore, the radical perspective argues that schools reproduce economic, social, and
political inequality within U.S. society.
In Chapter 1, we discussed the U.S. belief in education and the view that schooling is an essen-
tial component of the American dream of social mobility and equality of opportunity. Conserva-
tives, liberals, neo-liberals and radicals have differing views on the role of the school in meeting
these goals.
The conservative perspective believes that schools should ensure that all students have the
opportunity to compete individually in the educational marketplace and that schools should be
meritocratic to the extent that individual effort is rewarded. Based on the belief that individuals
succeed largely on their own accord, conservatives argue that the role of the school is to provide
a place for individual merit to be encouraged and rewarded.
Liberals believe that schools should ensure that equality of opportunity exists and that inequality
of results be minimized. Based on the historical record, the liberal perspective indicates that
although schools have made a significant difference in the lives of countless Americans and have
provided upward mobility for many individuals, there remain significant differences in the
educational opportunities and achievement levels for rich and poor.
Radicals believe that schools should reduce inequality of educational results and provide upward
social mobility, but that historically the schools have been ineffective in attaining these noble
goals. Moreover, the radical perspective argues that under capitalism schools will remain limited,
if not wholly unsuccessful, vehicles for addressing problems of inequality—problems that radicals
suggest are structurally endemic to capitalism.
Explanations of Unequal Educational Performance

If, as radicals and many liberals suggest, schooling has not sufficiently provided a reduction in
inequality of results, and as educational achievement is closely related to student socioeconomic
backgrounds (as was indicated in Chapter 1), then the explanation of why certain groups, parti-
cularly from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, perform less well in school is a crucial one. Con-
servatives argue that individuals or groups of students rise and fall on their own intelligence, hard
work, and initiative, and that achievement is based on hard work and sacrifice. The school system,
from this vantage point, is designed to allow individuals the opportunity to succeed. If they do
not, it may be because they are, as individuals, deficient in some manner or because they are mem-
bers of a group that is deficient.
The liberal perspective argues that individual students or groups of students begin school with
different life chances and therefore some groups have significantly more advantages than others.
Therefore, society must attempt through policies and programs to equalize the playing field so
that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a better chance.
Radicals, like liberals, believe that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds begin
school with unequal opportunities. Unlike liberals, however, radicals believe that the conditions
that result in educational failure are caused by the economic system, not the educational system,
and can only be ameliorated by changes in the political-economic structure.
Definition of Educational Problems

Until this point, we have focused on the role of the school and, in particular, its relationship to
equality of opportunity and results. Although these are certainly significant issues, the ways in
which each perspective addresses specific educational problems at this point in the twenty-first
century, and consequently how each sees solutions to these, is of the utmost importance. We will
begin with a discussion of the definition of educational problems.
The conservative perspective argues the following points:
1. In their response to liberal and radical demands for greater equality in the 1960s and 1970s,
schools systematically lowered academic standards and reduced educational quality.
Conservatives often refer to this problem as the decline of standards.
2. In their response to liberal and radical demands for multicultural education (i.e., education
that responds to the needs of all cultural groups), schools watered down the traditional curri-
culum and thus weakened the school’s ability to pass on the heritage of American and Western
civilizations to children. Conservatives often define this problem as the decline of cultural
literacy.
3. In their response to liberal and radical demands for cultural relativism (i.e., that every culture’s
values and ideas are equally valid), schools lost their traditional role of teaching moral
standards and values. Conservatives often refer to this problem as the decline of values or of
civilization.
4. In their response to liberal and radical demands for individuality and freedom, schools lost
their traditional disciplinary function and often became chaotic. Conservatives often refer
to this problem as the decline of authority.
5. Because they are state controlled and are immune from the laws of a competitive free market,
schools are stifled by bureaucracy and inefficiency.
Liberals have significantly different viewpoints on the major educational problems of our times.
The liberal perspective argues the following points:
1. Schools have too often limited the life chances of poor and minority children and therefore
the problem of underachievement by these groups is a critical issue.
2. Schools place too much emphasis on discipline and authority, thus limiting their role in help-
ing students develop as individuals.
3. The differences in quality and climate between urban and suburban schools and, most specific-
ally, between schools with students of low socioeconomic backgrounds and high socioeco-
nomic backgrounds is a central problem related to inequalities of results.
4. The traditional curriculum leaves out the diverse cultures of the groups that comprise the
pluralistic society.
The radical perspective, although often similar in its analysis to the liberal viewpoint, is quite
different in its tone. The radical perspective argues the following points:
1. The educational system has failed the poor, minorities, and women through classist, racist,
sexist, and homophobic policies.
2. The schools have stifled critical understanding of the problems of American society through
a curriculum and teaching practices that promote conformity.
3. The traditional curriculum is classist, racist, sexist, and homophobic and leaves out the
cultures, histories, and voices of the oppressed.
4. In general, the educational system promotes inequality of both opportunity and results.
Educational Policy and Reform

Defining educational problems is the first step toward the construction of solutions. From the
1980s to the 2000s, proponents of each perspective supported specific educational reform and
policy recommendations. The following brief discussion outlines the policies and programs of
each without going into any detail. (A more detailed analysis will be provided in Chapters 3, 6,
and 10.)
Conservatives support the following:
1. Return to basics (often referred to as back to basics), including the strengthening of literacy
skills, such as reading and writing, and other forms of traditional learning.
2. Return to the traditional academic curriculum, including history, literature, and the canons
of Western civilization.
3. Introduce accountability measures for students and schools, including minimum standards of
performance and knowledge—that is, create minimum standards for what students should
know and for the skills they should possess at specific grade levels (e.g., fourth, eighth, and
twelfth grades).
4. Introduce free market mechanisms in the educational marketplace, including tuition tax
credits and vouchers for parents who wish to send their children to private schools and public
school choice programs, including charter schools (allowing parents to choose among different
public schools). This is often referred to as school privatization.
Liberals support the following:
1. Policies should combine a concern for quality for all students with equality of opportunity
for all. This is sometimes referred to as quality with equality.
2. Policies should lead to the improvement of failing schools, especially urban schools. Such
programs should include school-based management and teacher empowerment (decentralized
control of individual schools with teachers having a significant voice in decision making),
effective school programs (programs that are based on what is called the effective school
research—research that indicates “what works”), and public school choice programs. Whereas
liberals support parental choice of public schools, they rarely support conservative proposals
for complete privatization, tuition tax credits, and vouchers, as these are seen as threatening
public education and creating increasingly unfair advantages for parents who are already
economically advantaged.
3. Programs should enhance equality of opportunity for disadvantaged groups, including Head
Start (a preschool program for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds), affirmative
action programs, compensatory higher education programs (college programs for disadvantaged
students), and so forth.
4. A curriculum should balance the presentation of the traditions of Western civilization with
the treatment of other groups within the culturally diverse society.
5. A balance should be maintained between setting acceptable performance standards and
ensuring that all students can meet them.
Radicals support the following:
1. On a general level, radicals do not believe that educational reform alone will solve educa-
tional problems, as they see their causes outside the purview of the educational system. Short
of what most radicals see is necessary but unrealistic largescale societal change—they support
most liberal reform programs as long as they lead to greater equality of educational results.
2. Programs should result in greater democratization of schools—that is, give teachers, parents,
and students a greater voice in decision making. Examples of these are teacher empowerment,
school-based management, school decentralization, and school-community cooperation
efforts.
3. Curriculum and teaching methods should involve “critical pedagogy” (Giroux, 1988;
Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998)—that is, radicals support educational programs that enable
teachers and students to understand social and educational problems and to see potential
solutions (radical) to these.
4. Curriculum and teaching methods should be multicultural, antiracist, antisexist, anticlassist,
antihomophobic—that is, radicals support educational programs that include curricular
treatment of the diverse groups that comprise U.S. society and that are pedagogically aimed
at sensitizing students to classism, racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Radicals, although often supporting many of the liberal educational reform proposals, are less
sanguine about their potential effectiveness. In fact, as Samuel Bowles pointed out, the failure of
liberal reforms may prove successful in a very different political context:
Educational equality cannot be achieved through changes in the school system alone. Nonetheless,
attempts at educational reform may move us closer to that objective if, in their failure, they lay bare
the unequal nature of our school system and destroy the illusion of unimpeded mobility through
education. Successful educational reforms—reducing racial and class disparities in schooling, for example,
may also serve the cause of equality of education, for it seems likely that equalizing access in schooling
will challenge the system to make good its promise of rewarding educational attainment or find ways
of coping with mass disillusionment with the great panacea. (1977, p. 149)
Education and the American Dream

The next chapter will focus directly on the ways in which educational reform evolved in U.S.
history. Although our discussion thus far has looked at the last 50 years, it is essential to understand
that the present debates and crises are outcomes of a much longer historical time span in which
the disagreements about educational issues helped shape the present educational system. It is also
important to note that all three perspectives have different views on U.S. educational history,
especially with regard to the school’s success in living up to the democratic promise discussed in
Chapter 1.
Conservatives argue that the U.S. schools have succeeded in providing a quality education for
those who are capable and have taken advantage of it, and that, until the 1960s and 1970s, schools
were responsible for U.S. superiority in economic and technological realms. On one hand,
conservatives argue that the system has provided a meritocratic selection process that has ensured
that the most talented and motivated individuals are rewarded by the schools and later in life.
This mechanism historically has successfully guaranteed that the important roles and occupations
are filled with those individuals capable of handling them. On the other hand, conservatives believe
that the progressive reforms of the twentieth century (to be discussed in Chapter 3), especially
those occurring in the 1960s and 1970s, eroded the quality of the schools, their curriculum, and
what students learned. Thus, the U.S. educational system, from this point of view, is found wanting,
especially in relation to its role in economic development and competitiveness.
The liberal perspective is more concerned with the social and political functions of schooling
than the economic. As such, liberals believe that schools have been successful in extending public
education to the masses and providing more opportunity for mobility than any other system in
the world. Moreover, liberals believe that U.S. education has been essential in the long, slow,
and flawed march toward a more democratic and meritocratic society—a society where one’s
individual achievement is more important than one’s family background, a society that is more
just and humane, and a society where tolerance of others who are different is an important value.
Despite these successes, liberals argue that the educational system has been an imperfect panacea
(Perkinson, 1995) and has yet to provide sufficient access, opportunity, and success for all citizens,
and thus must continue to improve.
The radical perspective is far less optimistic about the historical success than either the liberal
or conservative viewpoints. According to radicals, the U.S. schools have been unsuccessful in
providing equality of opportunity or results to the majority of citizens. Although it is true that
the United States has educated more people for longer periods of time than any other nation in
the world, radicals believe the overall outcomes have reproduced rather than reduced social and
economic inequalities. According to this perspective, the historical record suggests that, although
educational opportunities expanded throughout the twentieth century, students from different
class backgrounds were offered different types of education (e.g., middle- and upper middle-class
students in an academic program in the public high school and poor students in a vocational
program; middle- and upper middle-class students in a four-year baccalaureate college education
and poor students in a two-year community college education). Therefore, according to radicals,
the history of U.S. education has been the story of false promises and shattered dreams.
In the next chapter, you will have the opportunity to explore the events, conflicts, debates,
and reforms that comprise this history and to judge for yourself the extent to which the history
of U.S. education supports one or more of these political interpretations.
The Neo-Liberal Perspective

During the past decade, neo-liberal reforms have received significant attention as the latest solu-
tions in policy discussions of urban school reform and efforts to reduce the achievement gap. Neo-
liberal reform is often a synthesis of conservative and liberal perspectives. Neo-liberal reformers
have critiqued failing traditional urban public schools and attribute their failures to teacher unions
and their support of teacher tenure and layoffs based on seniority and the absence of student,
teacher and school accountability to ensure improvement. This critique has been part of an over
two-decade conservative and neo-liberal celebration of market based choice reforms, with
reformers arguing that school choice through charters and vouchers is necessary to destroy the
public school monopoly and to provide the competition required to improve urban schools.
Borrowing from the logic of Diane Ravitch’s Left Back (2000), neo-liberals turned the progressive
left’s argument about equity on its head, suggesting that traditional public schools, rather than
providing equality of opportunity for low-income children, have systematically reproduced
inequalities through failing schools for these students, a claim reminiscent of Bowles and Gintis’s
Schooling in Capitalist America (1976).
This neo-liberal agenda has become an important feature of official federal, state, and local
policy. At the federal level, President Bush’s No Child Left Behind (2001) mandated the use of
student achievement tests to measure school quality, and President Obama’s Secretary of Educa-
tion Arne Duncan’s signature program, Race to the Top (RTT), required states to expand the
number of charter schools and to implement Valued Added Models (VAM) of teacher evaluations
based on student achievement to qualify for RTT funding. In 2015, President Obama's Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB, but maintained many of its neo-liberal
requirements. At the state level, Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has pledged to
eliminate teacher tenure and seniority based layoffs, increase the number of charter schools, and
pass voucher legislation. At the local level, former Democratic Newark Mayor, now U.S. Senator
Cory Booker, with the influx of a $100 million dollar gift from Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg
and another $100 million in matching funds, initiated a school reform process that includes an
expansion of charter schools (Russakoff, 2015). Also in Newark, the decade-old Newark Charter
School Fund, with over $20 million in funding from among others the Walton, Broad, and Gates
Foundations, has embarked on increasing the number of charter schools in Newark.
Neo-liberal reforms stress five areas for educational policy: 1. Austerity; 2. The market model;
3. Individualism; 4. State intervention; and 5. Economic prosperity, race and class. They have
synthesized both conservative and liberal perspectives to provide a critique of traditional public
education.
First, austerity involves cutting public spending on education. Like conservatives, they argue
that the enormous increases in federal, state and local education spending have not resulted in
concomitant increases in student achievement, especially in urban schools, and that efficiency
can reduce costs and improve quality. They argue that urban parochial schools perform at higher
levels than their traditional counterparts at much lower costs, although the evidence on this is
extremely mixed at best (B. Baker, 2011).
Second, neo-liberals, like conservatives, believe that the free market solves social problems
better than governmental policy. Based on this belief, neo-liberals support charter schools, vouchers
for private school attendance, especially for low-income children, and privatization of schooling
through for-profit educational management companies (Lipman, 2011).
Third, like conservatives, neo-liberals believe that educational success or failure is the result
of individual effort rather than of social and economic factors. The only factors outside the indi-
vidual responsible for educational success are school quality, which is better addressed by a market
model, and the culture of students and their families, which are better addressed through the
promotion of middle-class educational attitudes, values and behaviors (Moscovitch et al., 2010).
Fourth, like liberals, neo-liberals believe that state intervention in the educational system is
at times necessary to ensure equality of opportunity. Whereas conservatives believe that the market
is capable of “raising all boats,” neo-liberals believe that state intervention is sometimes required
to ensure that failing schools or districts improve. Therefore, neo-liberal policies include state
intervention into failing districts and schools, the closing of failing schools, and, as in No Child
Left Behind and Race to the Top, federal measures to support and reward successful educational
policies, and negative sanctions to punish failing policies (Sadovnik, 2011b).
Fifth, like liberals, neo-liberals believe that race and social class are important factors in the
achievement gap and that black and Hispanic students and lower income students are more likely
to achieve and attain at lower levels than white, Asian and higher-income students. While neo-
liberals have made the elimination of these race and socio-economic achievement gaps a central
part of their reform policies, they do not see poverty as an excuse for educational inequality. Rather,
neo-liberals blame failing schools and ineffective teachers as the primary causes of school and
student failures. Moreover, they argue that education is the key to global economic competitiveness,
so that improving education is fundamental to United States global economic superiority (Apple,
2004; Lipman, 2011).
Ironically, Diane Ravitch (2010, 2013) herself has attacked these neo-liberal reforms as
betraying their promise of improving public schools because the new reformers have attempted
to privatize public education, have championed closing schools rather than fixing them, have
supported charter schools over traditional public schools, and narrowed the curriculum through
the overreliance on standardized testing in reading, writing and mathematics.
From Political Perspectives to the Politics of Education

As you have read, there is considerable disagreement among the four perspectives. In the world
of education, these disagreements play themselves out in conflicts. These conflicts involve different
groups, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators, business people, and so on, and are central
to understanding educational decision making. As you will read in Chapter 3, the history of educa-
tion in the United States has rarely been a smooth one. It has involved the conflict between groups
with opposing values and interests, groups all seemingly interested in the same thing—the best
education for the nation’s children—but with significantly different perceptions of what that
comprises and how to go about it.
Sometimes these conflicts have been about curriculum and pedagogy (e.g., the conflicts about
vocational versus academic education in the 1930s and 1940s or traditional versus child-centered
teaching at the turn of the twentieth century); sometimes they have been about values and morality
(e.g., as in the textbook and book-banning controversies of the last 20 years or over the question
of prayer in schools); and sometimes they have been about civil rights and racial issues (e.g., the
violent battles over school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, in the late 1950s and in Boston,
Massachusetts, in the 1970s).
Sometimes these conflicts are external to the school and involve the federal, state, and local
governments, the courts, and the business community. Sometimes they are internal to the schools
and involve parents, teachers, and teacher unions or organizations, students, and administrators.
Whatever the specific nature of the conflicts, they all involve power and power relationships.
Political scientists are concerned with understanding how power relationships (i.e., which groups
have power and which do not) affect educational decision making and organizational outcomes.
As our discussion in Chapter 3 about the history of education will reveal, struggles about education
rarely involve equals, but rather involve groups with disparate degrees of power. Therefore, these
struggles often involve the attempts to maximize political advantage and to minimize that of
opposing groups.
Whereas political scientists are concerned with who controls our schools (Kirst, 1984), political
philosophers are concerned with who ought to control them and for what end. In her brilliant
book Democratic Education, Gutmann (1987) outlined the philosophical dimensions of this political
question. She argued that there are four different conceptions of who should have the authority
to determine educational matters: the family state, the state of families, the state of individuals,
and the democratic state (pp. 19–47). Each perspective answers the question, Who should have
the authority over educational decisions in a different manner?
The family state viewpoint is derived from Plato’s theories of education (to be discussed more
fully in Chapter 5). This approach sees the purpose of education as creating a socially stable society
committed to the good life and justice. The definition of a just society, however, is determined
by an elite—what Plato referred to as the philosopher kings (or in Gutmann’s gender equal
terminology, philosopher queens). It is this elite that defines the just society, and it is through educa-
tion that citizens learn to accept this view of society and are thereby able to contribute to its
smooth functioning. In terms of educational authority, it is a small and hopefully just elite that
should determine educational decisions.
The second viewpoint, the state of families, is derived from the eighteenth-century English
political philosopher John Locke. Based on the Lockean view that parents are the best guardians
of their children’s rights and interests, it suggests that families should have the final authority in
educational decision making.
The third position, the state of individuals, is derived from the work of the nineteenth-century
British philosopher John Stuart Mill. Based on the nineteenth-century liberal notion that the
state should not impose its will on individuals nor threaten their individual liberties, it suggests
that educational authorities should not “bias the choices of children toward some disputed or
controversial ways of life and away from others” (Gutmann, 1987, p. 34). Thus, educational
authority ought to provide opportunity for choice among competing conceptions of the good life
and neutrality among them (Gutmann, 1987, p. 34). In this manner, individuals have authority
over educational matters to the extent that they are given the freedom to choose among the
widest possible options about the kind of lives they wish to live.
Gutmann provided an exhaustive criticism of these three perspectives, suggesting that the family
state leaves one at the tyranny of the state, the state of families at the tyranny of families, and
the state of individuals without a clear way to reproduce what a society believes is responsible for
its citizens. Each perspective, she argued, is flawed because it fails to provide a compelling rationale
for either its view of a good society or who should define it.
Gutmann proposed a fourth perspective: the democratic state of education. In this view,
Educational authority must be shared among parents, citizens, and professional educators even though
such sharing does not guarantee that power will be wedded to knowledge (as in the family state), that
parents can successfully pass their prejudices on to their children (as in the state of families), or that
education will be neutral among competing conceptions of the good life (as in the state of individuals).
(1987, p. 42)
Recognizing that a democratic state has built-in problems, including the tyranny of the many
over the few, Gutmann argued that there must be two limitations on such a state: nonrepression
and nondiscrimination. Nonrepression does not permit the state or groups to use the educational
system for eliminating choice between different alternatives of a just society; nondiscrimination
requires that all children receive an adequate education—one that will enable them to participate
in the democratic deliberations of their society (1987, p. 46).
As you can see, the question of educational authority is a complex one and has been at the
center of educational conflict. Throughout this book, you will read about different educational
viewpoints and different recommendations for solutions to educational problems. In this chapter,
we have tried to make you aware that such conflicts rest on different assumptions about society,
the purposes of education, and who should determine these important matters.
In the following readings, the perspectives on education are illustrated. In the first article, “Evidence
Use and the Core Curriculum Standards Movement: From Problem Definition to Policy Adop-
tion," social scientists Lorraine McDonnell and M. Stephen Weatherford analyze the politics of
the use of research in the adoption of Core Curriculum State Standards (CCSS).
The second article, “What ‘Counts’ as Educational Policy? Notes Toward a New Paradigm,”
by educational researcher Jean Anyon, argues that these types of conservative and liberal
educational policies have had little impact on reducing the achievement gap. Anyon’s article
outlines a radical perspective in which she argues that liberal educational reforms must be tied
to larger political, social, and economic reforms to be successful. Her article combines a radical
critique of the excesses of free market capitalism with a view that liberal educational reforms are
necessary under capitalism.
Evidence Use and the Common Core State

Standards Movement: From Problem
Definition to Policy Adoption
Lorraine M. McDonnell and M. Stephen Weatherford
Despite calls for research-based policies, other Research is an important but variable com-
types of evidence also influence education policy, ponent of this mix and, as such, raises two ques-
including personal experience, professional tions: How does the use of research vary over
expertise, and normative values. This article stages of the policy process? How is it integrated
focuses on the Common Core State Standards with other types of evidence in policy deliber-
(CCSS) initiative, examining how research use ations? Findings from policy analysis suggest
varied over stages of the process and how it was that several factors influence decisions about
integrated with other types of evidence. By whether and how to use research, including its
drawing on elite interviews, we find that CCSS availability and perceived usefulness, along
promoters and developers used evidence in much with the incentives policy makers have for guid-
the way that policy analysis research would pre- ing and justifying decisions using alternative
dict and that while research evidence was a major warrants such as constituent preferences and
resource, it was combined with other types of political ideology. However, because political
evidence depending on political and policy goals and policy goals differ over the course of policy
at different stages of the CCSS process. development, the factors shaping research use
From the provisions of No Child Left Behind also vary depending on the stage of the policy
(NCLB) to the Investing in Innovation grants process.
competition, the expectation in recent federal This article explores the question of how
policies is that states, local districts, and schools the use of research and other types of evidence
will design their programs based on research. differs as policy evolves from an idea to a set of
Increasingly, state and local initiatives echo the prescriptions or incentives that are considered
federal call for research-based policy. Yet decades for formal enactment. The article’s focus is the
of policy analysis suggest that even officials use of research in the development of the Com-
predisposed to acting on research knowledge do mon Core State Standards (CCSS) in K–12
not rely solely on it to inform their decisions or mathematics and English-language arts (ELA)
to build a case in support of particular policy and their subsequent adoption in 45 states. In
options.1 That validated research is not the sole the first two sections, we describe the special role
ground for policy choice comes as no surprise to of policy entrepreneurs and then summarize
students of politics. Majone (1989) emphasizes assumptions drawn from research about evidence
that evidence is intended not only to inform but use during different stages of the policy process.
also to persuade, and he casts the net widely, The following section briefly describes our
including “[any] information selected from the research. We then assess the extent to which
available stock and introduced at a specific point evidence use in the Common Core is consistent
in the argument in order to persuade a particular with these patterns.2
audience of the truth or falsity of a statement”
(10). Evidence, then, is a much broader category
The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs
than research, ranging from the results of formal
in Evidence Use
research studies to statistical data, judgments
based on professional expertise, the personal Policy research has consistently demonstrated
experience of practitioners, and appeals to the critical role that policy entrepreneurs play in
values articulated through stories and symbols. bringing new ideas into different policy arenas
and in advancing those ideas, sometimes for producers such as university researchers or think-
many years before they reach decisionmakers’ tank staff who choose to disseminate their work
agendas (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Kingdon directly as it relates to particular policy issues and
1995; Mintrom 2000; Sheingate 2003). Policy venues. Alternatively, they may be intermediary
entrepreneurs are “advocates who are willing to organizations that act as research brokers and
invest their resources—time, energy, reputation, translators in the course of pursuing their organ-
money—to promote a position in return for izational mission (e.g., foundations, nonprofits,
anticipated future gain in the form of material, interest groups). Policy entrepreneurs may be
purposive, or solidary benefits” (Kingdon 1995, current or former elected officials, whose political
179). They can occupy a variety of formal and status lends their advocacy an additional claim
informal policy-making roles, but the most to the attention of their colleagues. Regardless of
effective ones typically have a claim to a public whether they function from an official position
hearing, are known for their political connec- inside government or an unofficial one outside,
tions or negotiating skills, and are persistent policy entrepreneurs have to be sensitive to the
(Kingdon 1995). differing types of evidence needed throughout the
One of the resources that policy entrepre- policy development cycle.
neurs draw upon is research. Entrepreneurs are
advocates, however, and they use research stra-
Stages of the Policy Process and
tegically in defining a policy problem, framing
Evidence Use: Assumptions from
it, and then shaping and promoting a particu-
Policy Analysis
lar solution. Although these strategic and
persuasive uses of research are at odds with the Policy making is rarely linear—moving from
rational choice models that dominated policy problem definition to design, agenda setting,
analysis in its early years, they represent a more enactment, and finally implementation. Rather,
valid depiction of the actual use of research in policy options may exist before a problem is
policy-making venues (Majone 1989; Stone defined, and during implementation, policies
2012). A simplistic version of this assumption is may cycle back for new enactments or fall off the
that policy entrepreneurs use research results agenda altogether. Nevertheless, despite non-
selectively and even distort findings to advance linearity and limited predictability about direc-
their case. Entrepreneurs may certainly misuse tion and duration, most policies move through
research, but the competitive nature of the well-defined stages, and past research suggests
political process and the fact that credibility is that evidence use varies across phases of the
the policy advocate’s most important resource policy cycle.3 The current analysis focuses on
minimizes outright distortion. At the same time, three distinct stages: (1) problem definition and
the inevitable complexity of real-world policy promoting a solution, (2) policy design, and (3)
making allows ample room for uncertainty and policy enactment.4
interpretation. For instance, in some cases, such
as school choice, research results are inconsistent
Problem Definition and Promotion of
and contested. Even in cases where the research
a Solution
base is solid, however, as with early literacy
acquisition or the determinants of student reten- In his seminal work on agenda setting, John
tion, its application to problem definition and Kingdon (1995) details the interplay between
policy solution is open to interpretation and disparate facts and their interpretation in the
framing, depending on the context and feasibility process of defining a given situation as a policy
factors such as political, organizational, and problem. Indicator data or a body of research
resource conditions. may, for instance, identify a problem—for
How policy entrepreneurs use research know- example, highway deaths are rising, childhood
ledge also depends on who the entrepreneurs immunizations rates are declining, program costs
are. In some instances, they may be knowledge are increasing— or research might indicate that
a current policy is not producing its intended reform) as well as the organized principles,
effects. Typically, most members of a policy values, and causal beliefs in which policy pro-
network will accept such research-based infor- posals are embedded (democratic representation,
mation as valid. At the same time, “there is a distributional equity; Beland 2005, 2). Because
perceptual interpretative element” in defining ideas typically embody a set of desired ends and
policy problems (Kingdon 1995, 110). That ele- the strategy or theory about how to produce those
ment is manifested in what data are highlighted, results, they capture normative and instrumental
how they are interpreted, and in what factors are dimensions of policy. In promoting their ideas,
identified as causing the problem. policy entrepreneurs frame arguments that com-
As Stone (2012) notes, problem definition is bine normative theories and empirical evidence
the strategic representation of situations. It is stra- from a variety of sources—for instance, about
tegic and interpretative for several reasons. First, what education ought to achieve and how it
whether a given situation constitutes a policy ought to be delivered.
problem depends on how participants perceive Significant policy ideas grounded in a com-
the discrepancy between it and some ideal state bination of research and other evidence are criti-
or social goal. What that goal is and the distance cal in altering well-established policy regimes.
between its attainment and the status quo Sometimes called “policy monopolies,” these
depend on their value preferences. Second, institutional arrangements have several advant-
part of problem definition is identifying causes, ages that allow them to resist changes even when
and “to identify a cause in the polis is to place they have outlived their usefulness. They (a) are
burden on one set of people instead of another” supported by powerful policy ideas that are
(Stone 2012, 207). How the cause is defined has connected to core political values, (b) combine
direct implications for who will bear the costs of empirical information and emotive appeals, (c)
a policy and who will benefit from it. Therefore, can be easily understood, and (d) are commu-
those likely to be affected by a policy have a nicated directly and simply through image
strong incentive to influence the selection and and rhetoric. Policy entrepreneurs can disrupt a
framing of relevant evidence. Finally, how a policy monopoly and effect major change, but to
problem is defined shapes the policy solution do so they need to redefine the dominant policy
proposed. So policy entrepreneurs promoting a image using ideas that challenge it and capture
particular policy option will select evidence that the imagination of the media, policy makers, and
allows them to define a problem in such a way that the public. Entrepreneurs provide new under-
their policy proposal becomes the preferred standings of policy problems and new ways of
solution. conceptualizing solutions (Baumgartner and
The nature of problem definition, then, Jones 1993).
suggests that although research results and indi- In sum, the policy analysis literature suggests
cator data play a role, other types of evidence that during the problem definition and solution
may be equally important. These include appeals identification stage, research-based evidence is
to values such as equality, liberty, and economic likely to be combined with evidence appealing
security. Metaphors may also be used to evoke to elected officials’ and their constituents’ core
strong political and cultural symbols (e.g., values and that evokes positive emotional
bureaucratic red tape, invasion of privacy; Stone responses. Normative evidence is especially
2012). Policy entrepreneurs also often try to put important when the option being advocated
a human face on a problem through the use of embodies a significant idea and requires a major
anecdotes and other narrative devices. policy change. However, even in these cases,
The likelihood that a range of evidence will some evidence is necessary that demonstrates
be used at this stage of the process increases there is a reasonable likelihood the proposed
for major policies that embody significant ideas. policy option will result in the expected out-
Ideas in the policy arena are specific policy alter- come.5 That evidence may be selectively framed
natives (test-based accountability, school finance and interpreted, but it needs to be derived from
systematically collected and analyzed data gener- available for long (Kingdon 1995). Policy
ally viewed as reliable and valid. entrepreneurs, forced to move quickly before the
window closes, may bring forward policy
proposals that are not fully developed and that
Policy Design miss or ignore evidence suggesting problems or
This stage of the policy process consists of tech- unintended effects.
nical tasks undertaken in a politicized context. The evidence used at this stage, then, is less
A policy option has now moved to the decision likely to include the type of normative and
agenda and is being considered for formal emotional arguments that are often central in
enactment. At this point, legislative language the first stage. Evidence grounded in legal
is drafted, specifying such details as the funding analysis, evaluation studies, and basic or applied
mechanism and administrative arrangements. research on the relationship between policy
Legislative staff are primarily responsible for interventions and learning outcomes is likely
the work, and they draw on legal and fiscal to play a central role in drafting specific policy
expertise to ensure that the resulting language is provisions. However, the political context means
consistent with existing policy and legislative that less systematic sources of evidence are also
authority. Related policies often serve as tem- considered and that some research may be
plates for how to structure the new policy. Staff ignored.
may also draw on evaluations of past policies and
on research documenting the relationship Policy Enactment
between different types of intervention strategies
and educational outcomes. Major sources of The imperative at this stage is to build a mini-
evidence at this stage are research, past policies, mal winning coalition in favor of the policy. The
and the professional judgment of legislative and evidence brought to bear is basically a reprise
executive branch staff (Quirk and Nesmith of what was used in the first stage to define
2011). the policy problem and promote a particular solu-
The political context in which the details of tion. However, because the policy has subse-
a policy are developed has several implications quently been developed from a general idea into
for what additional evidence is used. First, those a detailed legislative proposal, the evidence is
advancing the policy need to maintain support likely to be more specific and to be targeted
and blunt opposition. They also need to consider to address the questions and concerns of indivi-
the interests and concerns of the agency staff dual legislators, especially those who are still
and street-level bureaucrats who will be imple- undecided about the policy (Mucciaroni and
menting the policy, and thus other evidence Quirk 2006, 24). At this point, legislators will
will come from these individuals and the groups continue to consult with relevant interest
that represent them. The evidence might be groups and constituents. But they will also look
research findings and other data, if available, to colleagues who are experts in the policy
as well as professional judgment and personal domain (e.g., committee chairs) and to leaders
experience. It can be presented formally in legis- of their partisan caucuses for cues about how to
lative hearings and also discussed in informal vote and for evidence to justify the vote (Kelman
meetings with elected officials and their staffs. 1987).
Often the most persuasive evidence will be local
knowledge from an official’s own constituents
Rationale for Focusing on the
—for example, conversations with hometown
Common Core and Study Data
educators about their classroom experience. A
second political dimension involves timing. The CCSS is an especially appropriate research
The opportunities for action on a policy pro- site for observing the use of evidence for three
posal—the open policy window—may not be reasons. First, it has the potential to become
one of the most significant policy shifts in Ameri- process;9 and additional names of potential
can education in more than a century, for it informants offered by interviewees. Our primary
fundamentally alters a long-standing policy method for analyzing the interview data was to
regime of academic content standards unique to identify the stages of the policy cycle in which
each state. Second, the Common Core’s advo- respondents participated and then to compare
cates explicitly promoted it as “research and their reports of the types of evidence used with
evidence-based” and established procedures to hypotheses derived from the policy analysis
encourage the use of research in drafting and literature. We found few inconsistencies among
validating the standards. Finally, the Common respondents about evidence use by stage of the
Core is an ongoing policy that moved from the policy cycle. Differences in the interpretation
idea stage to adoption within 5 years. As such, of evidence or the weight given evidence types
it provides the opportunity to examine research and sources were largely explained by role
use in real time rather than ex post, as has been position (e.g., CCSS critics interpreted the
typical of earlier studies. Because our primary relationship between standards and achievement
interest is in mapping the use of evidence over differently than proponents; academic curri-
the development of this policy, we employ the culum experts gave greater weight to research
predominant approach to within-case qualitative results and less to judgments about feasibility
causal analysis in political science—process based on administrative experience than state
tracing (Bennett and Elman 2006; George and agency staff).10
Bennett 2005; Mahoney 2000). The goal of
process tracing is to gather information about
The Stages of the Common Core
specific events and outcomes, especially through
Initiative and Evidence Use
a close examination of the intervening processes
that link the multiple features and individual
Defining the Problem and Promoting
actors involved in the case. For instance, process
Common Standards as the Solution
tracing has been used to explore causal
relationships underlying key foreign and Although more than 20 national organizations
domestic policy decisions (Collier et al. 2005; and their members would eventually become
George 1979). involved in promoting adoption and imple-
The analysis draws on extensive interviews mentation of the Common Core, a small group
with leaders of the Common Core movement of policy entrepreneurs initially promoted the
and their supporters, members of the work idea of similar academic content standards across
groups and committees charged with writing and multiple states. This group included several for-
validating the CCSS, national and state mer governors, education advocacy groups, and
education policy makers and researchers, as well organizations representing state and local offi-
as groups critical of the CCSS.6 Over the past cials. The origins of the Common Core move-
2 years, 111 interviews have been conducted at ment can be traced back to several unsuccessful
the national level and in four states. These struc- attempts 2 decades earlier, including efforts
tured interviews focus on the politics and process spearheaded by organizations representing sub-
of Common Core promotion, development, ject-matter specialists and the National Council
and adoption; why participants chose to use on Education Standards and Tests (NCEST),
certain types of evidence; and what other types chaired by Roy Romer, then Governor of
were either unavailable or not used.7 Potential Colorado.11 These attempts, introduced in both
interviewees were identified through multiple the G. H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations,
sources, including a large database of documents foundered, enmeshed in controversies over the
related to the CCSS and its development;8 curricular values underlying state standards
consultation with staff at the James B. Hunt Jr. and assessments. They were opposed in Congress
Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy, by Republicans who feared possible federal
who were active participants in the CCSS encroachment and Democrats concerned about
the impact of assessments on students who had groups, foundations that might support the
not had adequate opportunities to learn the effort, and the media (personal interviews).
required content. Their definition of the problem was strategic-
Although these controversies made top- ally crafted to point to common K–12 standards
down national standards a non-starter, the idea across multiple states as the solution. Together
of voluntary, shared standards gained momen- with the organizations they lead, Hunt and
tum with an initiative begun by a group of Wise drew together the findings of several lines
states. In 2001, Achieve, in collaboration with of research to shape a clear image of the policy
the Education Trust and the Thomas B. challenge:12
Fordham Foundation, established the Ameri-
can Diploma Project (ADP) to try to ensure • The achievement of US students is low
that high school diplomas signified that stu- compared with the nation’s global eco-
dents are prepared academically for entry into nomic competitors.
higher education and the workforce. These • The United States has an unacceptable
standards were based on surveys of higher achievement gap among students depend-
education faculty and businesses indicating ing on their race and ethnicity, social class,
what knowledge and skills students needed to and place of residence.
pass college-level courses and workplace train- • US students leave high school inade-
ing programs. Sixteen states agreed to align quately prepared to succeed in college and
their high school graduation requirements with employment.
the benchmarks derived from the surveys. • Countries with high-achieving students
Subsequently, 15 states agreed to develop a have focused, rigorous, and coherent
common assessment in Algebra II, and later national standards.
five states agreed to develop and administer an • US standards vary considerably across
Algebra I exam. As one organizational repre- states and are “a mile wide and an inch
sentative involved in the effort noted, “the deep.”
ADP was the existence proof that you could get • Academic content standards common to
common standards” (personal interview). multiple states are a critical ingredient in
In 2006, two former governors, James B. solving these problems.
Hunt Jr. of North Carolina and Bob Wise of
West Virginia, decided that what had seemed Together with the proviso that the Common
impossible 10 years earlier was now a realistic Core is an initiative led by states for states,
aspiration. In their view, policy makers, edu- these arguments have continued to form the
cators, and the public had become accustomed essence of the Common Core rationale.
to the idea of content and performance stand- Although the competitiveness of the United
ards. Opinion polls indicated support for States in the global economy was central to the
national standards, and state policy makers narrative, research showing dramatic variation
were beginning to see potential cost advantages among states came to play an increasingly pro-
to common standards, particularly given the minent role in the problem definition phase.13
requirements of NCLB. Hunt and Wise A National Research Council (NRC) report
became the policy entrepreneurs most res- sharpened the issues and brought two important
ponsible for persuading key decision makers lines of research to the attention of the policy
and constituent organizations to support the community.14 One was research by Andrew
idea of national (subsequently renamed “com- Porter and his colleagues—a fine-grained
mon”) standards (Hunt 2009; Rothman 2011; analysis of 31 state standards in three subjects,
personal interviews). They identified their comparing state standards to each other and
audience as the national policy community— measuring their alignment with the National
governors, chief state school officers, other Council of Teachers of Mathematics mathe-
state officials, members of Congress, civil rights matics standards and the science standards
developed by the NRC. Focusing on topic The case for common standards was crystal-
coverage and the level of cognitive demand, the lized in a report published by the National
researchers found little evidence to support Governors Association (NGA), the Council of
the assumption that a de facto national Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and
curriculum existed as a result of states’ use of Achieve (NGA et al. 2008). Authored by an
national documents such as the NCTM stand- International Benchmarking Advisory Group,
ards or the widespread adoption of similar text- chaired by then-Governor Janet Napolitano
books. In fact, overlap in topic coverage across (AZ), then-Governor Sonny Perdue (GA), and
grade levels within the same state was greater Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of the Intel
than the alignment across states at the same Corporation board, the report drew heavily on
grade level (National Research Council 2008). research using data from the Programme for
The implications that policy entrepreneurs drew International Student Assessment (PISA) and
from Porter’s work were considerable state-to- Trends in International Mathematics and
state variability and substantial redundancy in Science Study (TIMSS).15 The report focused on
current state standards. US students’ low achievement, compared with
This evidence of variability in content stand- international competitors, and documented
ards gained additional force as further research the achievement gap separating US students
analyzed state-by-state variation in assessments from different socioeconomic backgrounds,
and performance standards (National Center for noting that the distribution of US students’
Education Statistics 2007). Mapping state scores puts the country among the most unequal
proficiency standards in mathematics and in the world. It warned that “the United States
reading for grades 4 and 8 onto the appropriate is falling behind other countries in the resource
National Assessment of Educational Progress that matters most in the new global economy:
(NAEP) scale, researchers found that state dif- human capital” (NGA et al. 2008, 5). The report
ferences in the percentage of students scoring at recommended that states upgrade their standards
the proficient level on state assessments did not “by adopting a common core of internationally
represent real differences in achievement as benchmarked standards in math and language
measured by NAEP but reflected where a state set arts for grades K–12 to ensure that students are
its proficiency levels. Most state cut points, equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills
moreover, fell below the equivalent of the to be globally competitive” (6). The advisory
NAEP proficient standard, and some even group grounded its rationale for international
fell below the NAEP basic standard. A telling benchmarking in William Schmidt’s research
example, presented at the NRC workshop, on TIMSS, showing that standards in high-
was that a North Carolina student performing performing countries are characterized by focus
at the same level on the NAEP reading assess- (fewer topics covered at greater depth), rigor,
ment as one in South Carolina would be deemed and coherence (an orderly progression of topics
proficient in North Carolina but performing at following the logic of the discipline and minim-
a basic level in South Carolina, with the possibil- izing repetition; 24).
ity of having to attend a remedial class because Evidence use during this phase of the CCSS
South Carolina’s proficiency standard (cut score) process was quite consistent with what would be
was higher (National Research Council 2008, predicted by the policy research literature. The
23). For advocacy groups supporting national challenge for the entrepreneurs promoting
standards, this discrepancy between student national standards was to dismantle one of the
performance on state assessments and NAEP most deeply entrenched and strongest policy
was powerful information in efforts to persu- regimes in US education: the tradition of each
ade state officials because it contributed to a state and its local districts deciding separately
picture of states with significantly different, and what students should be taught. In doing so,
typically low, expectations of students (personal they had to define a set of problems to which
interviews). their alternative policy idea was the solution.
Research-based evidence was used to demon- economic health of their states—even though
strate that state-specific standards policies had educators were less persuaded that this was a
resulted in considerable variability in curricular compelling reason for major curricular change.
goals across states. Evidence of variability in During this stage of the process, then, one
content and performance standards across states, particular set of inferences, among the differing
and differing levels of student achievement on ones that could be drawn from research and
standardized tests, was strong and generally indicator data, were selected and framed in such
accepted. There was, however, less agreement a way as to persuade key policy audiences that
about the relationship between the two and the common standards held the potential to rectify
cause. pressing educational and economic problems.
The resultant need for interpretation allowed In one respect, the initial phase of the CCSS
proponents to represent the situation strategic- process differed from what happens typically
ally, attributing low achievement to states’ when policy entrepreneurs define problems
variable and low-quality standards. Other and promote solutions. The CCSS process did
researchers—especially those who study policy not rely heavily on the use of symbols and
implementation—drew a different conclusion, emotional appeals. Strongly held values, such as
emphasizing the lack of system capacity, especi- ensuring equality of educational opportunity and
ally supports for teachers and students (Cohen keeping the United States globally competitive,
and Moffitt 2009). They argued that the short- were prominent in the discourse on national
comings documented in research findings are less standards, and at one point, Governor Hunt
the result of standards themselves than how likened the challenge to World War II (National
policies have been implemented. Where the Research Council 2008, 73). However, perhaps
standards-based accountability ideal envisioned because most of the appeals at this stage were to
that curriculum and instructional materials, political elites and organizational leaders and not
teacher training, and assessment would be closely to the general public, data rather than symbols
coordinated, in practice the assessment portion and stories were more prominent.
had come to dominate, and many schools lacked
the capacity to bring all students to proficiency
Developing and Validating the CCSS
(Goertz 2007; Ravitch 2010).
These alternative inferences lead to different Because of past opposition to standards issued by
policy solutions, but all researchers could say the national subject-matter organizations and
with any certainty is that, at best, common the federal government’s role in sponsoring those
standards might be a necessary, but not sufficient, efforts, it was agreed that states would have to
condition for improved educational out- take the lead this time. Consequently, CCSSO
comes.16 The enabling conditions necessary for and NGA assumed leadership during this stage
standards policies to work as envisioned are of the process. It began when 48 states signed a
the various supports in which policy makers had memorandum agreeing to participate in a process
underinvested in the past. Common Core advo- of developing a common core of state standards
cates understood what researchers were telling in ELA and mathematics and to support the
them about enabling conditions. However, development of common assessments to measure
during this stage of the policy process, they chose progress toward the standards. The process pro-
to downplay them because they would com- ceeded in two phases: a set of college-and-career-
plicate the agenda at a time when a policy ready (CCR) standards were first developed to
window was opening but might not be open for define what students should know at the end of
long.17 The Common Core’s policy entre- high school in order to be prepared to enter
preneurs also used research evidence strategically college or a workforce training program, followed
in how they framed its rationale, emphasizing by the design of K–12 standards that essentially
global competitiveness because it carried great map back from the CCR standards to grade-by-
appeal among governors concerned about the grade ones that allow students to build toward
mastery of the CCR standards by the end of high The limited supply of relevant research was
school. a second factor shaping evidence use. When
The second stage of the CCSS process can best asked why the standards documents note that
be described as technical tasks undertaken in they are based on “research and evidence,”
a political context, or, as one leader of the a leader of the development effort replied,
development process described it, “I would argue “we wanted to be able to cite non-peer-reviewed
that the standards development was primarily a research because there’s not enough research
political process informed by evidence” (personal available, and often the findings are inconclus-
interview). Four factors shaped evidence use ive” (personal interview). The type of evidence
during this stage. The first was CCSSO and used in the absence of appropriate research was
NGA’s assertion that one guiding principle of the expert judgment.
development process “is being driven by A notable example emerged in the develop-
evidence and research. In the past, standards were ment of the mathematics standards. Research on
largely based on personal judgment. By allowing learning trajectories in mathematics is quite
personal judgment to determine what concepts robust at the K–2 level but not at higher grade
are in or out of standards, the process often levels.18 Learning trajectories in the early grades
becomes a negotiation, rather than a reflection are better developed for several reasons, includ-
on what the evidence and research tells [sic] us ing the ability to draw on a rich research base by
about the connection between K–12 experiences developmental psychologists about children’s
and success in higher education and promising early learning and the relative simplicity of
careers” (Wilhoit 2009). concepts and skills at the early childhood level
Leaders of the CCSS initiative acknowledged as compared with the complexity of topics and
that their commitment to ground the effort in how they might be related and sequenced in
research and evidence was a strategy to avoid past more advanced mathematics (Clements 2011,
ideological debates stemming from the “curricu- 20). Consequently, the standards writers asked
lum wars” of the 1990s (personal interviews). So, several researchers who study math education for
in essence, reliance on research operated as a their best judgments about what trajectories
political strategy to depoliticize the standards might look like in higher grades based on how
development process. Consistent with the com- students learn. They then used those inferences
mitment to research-based evidence, a variety of in deciding where to place topic and skill
sources were used. These included research standards. Similarly, mathematicians were also
syntheses published by organizations such as the asked what progressions of standards made sense
NRC, expert panels convened by federal govern- in terms of the logic of mathematics as a dis-
ment agencies, and national subject-matter cipline and the foundations for higher-level
associations; scholarly journal articles, chap- mathematics study.19
ters, and conference presentations; reports by Those directly responsible for drafting the
Achieve, ACT, and the College Board based standards viewed their task as drawing on avail-
on faculty surveys and analyses of the rela- able research evidence to the extent that they
tionship between student performance on could and ensuring that major concepts were
admission tests and their grades in lower division grounded in research: “It’s not as if every word of
course work; and reviews of international test every standard is based on [research] evidence,
data and the standards of high-performing coun- like the difference between the [ELA] central
tries. The standards writers also reviewed existing idea standard in grade seven versus six—but the
state standards and the NAEP frameworks. guardrails, the unities, the thread, the core prin-
Although they were not formal research studies, ciples that guide them and develop through them
these reviews constituted a form of applied policy are based on the evidence” (personal interview).
analysis in that the policy document under In their attempts to move the process along,
development was systematically compared with leaders of the standards development assumed
existing policies. that “if we waited for the perfect research to
inform the development of the standards, we standards writers.21 Like the SDE personnel,
would never have the standards today. So the the teachers focused on how their colleagues
goal was to use the best available research with were likely to respond to the draft standards.
the understanding that as we move deeper and Consequently, they were particularly attentive
deeper into implementation, researchers, aca- to a logical presentation of the standards and to
demia will produce further research, and that the language not being overly academic. The
further research will inform future iterations of NEA group used a similar process, submitting
the standards” (personal interview). multiple reviews and meeting with the standards
A third factor shaping the CCSS leaders’ writers. Its concerns centered around the
evidence use was the desire to ensure that the inclusion of ELA standards focused on students
expert judgments relied upon were more than “judging the worthiness and relevance of
just those of researchers. Both NGA and information” and standards that distinguish
CCSSO had to maintain support among their “enabling skills from goals” (personal interviews).
state-level constituents and also among key The SDE staff, teacher organization repre-
groups such as teachers unions, whose members sentatives, and those from other organizations
would be critical to whether the CCSS would who reviewed early drafts and whom we
ultimately be implemented in classrooms. interviewed, reported that they felt their input
Although only one draft of the CCR standards was taken seriously and that they could see some
and one of the K–12 standards were available of it reflected in the final versions of the CCSS.
for public comment, state education agencies However, the tight time constraints of a process
were asked to comment on multiple drafts. Six that lasted less than a year meant that changes
states (California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, made after each successive draft were not
Massachusetts, and Minnesota) that had highly annotated or explained: reviewers of successive
regarded standards were specifically asked to drafts could see that they had been changed but
recommend standards writers and to review could not tell precisely in what ways. Never-
drafts.20 State department of education (SDE) theless, with a few notable exceptions, individual
personnel in states with standards that had been participants and groups whose members would be
judged rigorous by external groups, such as the affected by the standards felt that CCSSO and
AFT and the Fordham Foundation, reviewed the NGA staff were acting in good faith and trusted
draft CCSS to ensure that they met or exceeded the standards writers because several had assisted
their current standards in terms of parsimony, individual states in the past in developing their
coherence, and rigor (the “fewer, clearer, and own standards.22
higher” promised by CCSS developers). How- The fourth factor shaping evidence use during
ever, SDE staff in all participating states were also this stage was the role of the validation com-
given an opportunity to review several drafts. In mittee. The NGA and CCSSO convened a
exercising their professional judgment, they 29-member committee, including 17 university
were most concerned about clarity and logic of faculty and 6 others working in research
presentation based on their experience organ- positions. The committee also included three
izing and formatting standards to facilitate their teachers, two principals, and one urban super-
use in classrooms. intendent. Their charge was to review the pro-
Both the AFT and the NEA convened groups cess by which evidence was used to create the
of teachers to review CCSS drafts. The AFT drew CCR and K–12 standards and to determine
its group of reviewers from members involved in whether the standards writers had adhered to a
providing professional development to colleagues set of principles including “a grounding in avail-
and the NEA from national-board certified able research and evidence.”23 The committee
members. The AFT math review team met four could provide feedback to the standards writers,
times and the ELA team three times. After an but it could not rewrite the stand-ards. After
extensive review of drafts, they communicated meeting twice in person and through email
their concerns in face-to-face meetings with the exchanges with the NGA and CCSSO staff, all
but four members of the committee signed a of an open policy window and opportunity for
statement certifying that the CCSS are con- action. Grounding the standards as much as
sistent with the criteria established in the com- possible in research was an inspired political
mittee’s change. Those who did not sign off strategy that avoided not only past ideological
argued that the CCSS are not sufficiently controversies but also the negotiations and
rigorous and that current standards in states such “horse trading” that had led to bloated state
as California and Massachusetts were superior. standards in the past. At the same time, draw-
For other members of the validation coming on research ensured that the relationship
mittee, professional judgment was a major source between standards as a policy intervention and
of evidence. The compressed time frame and the desired goal of improved student learning
a realization about the limits of the research was systematically considered during the
base meant that they had to fall back on judg- development process, even if that relationship
ments based on inferences drawn from their could not be completely and validly specified.
general store of expert knowledge rather than As with policy design generally, development of
from a review of specific studies or even bodies the CCSS relied heavily on comparisons with
of research. One member of the validation past policies, evaluations of seemingly effective
committee described the process in this way: policies in other places, and on the professional
“It was pretty clear from the start that nobody judgment of those who would be responsible for
thought there was sufficient evidence for any of implementing the policy.
the standards. . . . The review process, in short,
was inclusive and involved feedback from a lot
State Adoption of the Common Core
of different perspectives. This is not ‘sufficient
State Standards
research evidence,’ but it is thoughtful profes-
sional judgment, applied systematically” In most states, adoption of the CCSS to replace
(personal interview). Several members of the the state’s existing standards required a vote
validation committee noted that familiarity by the state board of education (SBE) because of
with those drafting the standards was also a factor its authority over curriculum. Three factors
in the decision to validate them. Like the SDE explain the kinds of evidence that were used in
staff, validation committee members reported anticipation of the SBE vote. First, the adoption
knowing the standards writers and having stage was truncated. Even the Common Core’s
worked with them in the past. Their work was strongest supporters assumed that it would take
known to be rigorous, and they were trusted. 3 years or more for a majority of states to adopt
Another aspect of the validation committee’s the standards. They based that estimate on the
professional judgment was based on their know- extensive consultation and deliberation usually
ledge of current state standards and international required when states adopt new content stand-
standards and their belief that the CCSS are ards. However, the deadlines for the federal Race
better. to the Top competition, which awarded up to
The second stage of the CCSS process 70 points (14% of the total) on applications from
differed somewhat from the typical design phase states that adopted common standards and
of policy making. The standards writers were not assessments meant the adoption process in most
preparing legislation in the traditional sense, and states was shortened to only a few months. Con-
states had only agreed to participate in a drafting sequently, the process often resembled a political
process and not to adopt the new standards or campaign targeted at individuals and groups who
even to put consideration of them on their were likely to try to influence the SBE vote. The
decision agendas. Nevertheless, to a considerable CCSSO and NGA provided their constituents
extent, standards development was akin to the with a “messaging tool kit” that included answers
policy design stage, and evidence use was similar. to frequently asked questions, template letters to
Political support had to be maintained, and the the editor, and a sample op-ed article that could
process had to move quickly to take advantage be adapted depending on whether the author was
a business leader, teacher, civil rights leader, ards. So trust in how the standards were
or a parent. The substance of these communica- developed, coupled with a fast-moving adop-
tion strategies highlighted central parts of the tion process, meant that the research base was
CCSS narrative: the focus on students’ CCR rarely a topic of discussion at the state level.
preparation, US global competitiveness, the The adoption stage of the CCSS was quite
potential for commonality across states and local consistent with what typically occurs during
communities, the voluntary nature of state par- policy enactment. Instead of moving a policy
ticipation, and the inclusive state-led develop- proposal from a legislative committee to a floor
ment process (Common Core State Standards vote, the CCSS were considered for adoption
Initiative 2010). in more than 40 states, each with slightly differ-
The national educator, parent, education ent information needs. Few state participants
advocacy, and civil rights groups supporting the were concerned about the research support-
CCSS worked with their state affiliates and allies ing the CCSS. Rather, policy makers and
in providing information and other assistance.24 groups whose members were likely to be affec-
The policy entrepreneurs who had promoted ted by the CCSS wanted detailed comparisons
the Common Core and the writers who had between the Common Core and the state’s
developed the standards made numerous status quo standards, and they sought persu-
appearances in states to brief policy makers on asive arguments that the benefits would
the content and rationale for the CCSS. As a outweigh the substantial costs of such a major
result, evidence during this phase was a version change.
of the Common Core narrative that had been
used in the first two stages now customized to
Conclusion
various state audiences.
Federalism was a second factor shaping evid- Our examination of the Common Core move-
ence use, requiring that evidence use be ment suggests that its promoters and developers
tailored to particular states. Policy makers and have used evidence in much the way policy
the attentive public in states with especially analysis research would predict and that use has
rigorous standards had to be convinced that the varied over stages of the CCSS process. The
CCSS are at least as rigorous as their current factors that best explain when and how research-
ones. So systematic, side-by-side analyses were based evidence was used are political context and
prepared for a number of states comparing the the availability of relevant research. The political
CCSS with state standards. In some instances, context shaped how research was used stra-
these were done by in-state agencies, and in tegically at different stages. In the first stage,
others, organizations such as Achieve and policy entrepreneurs used research primarily in
WestEd prepared the detailed comparisons defining a set of problems for which they already
showing topic and skill coverage arrayed by had a solution. In doing so, their political task
grade. was to shape the inferences and policy impli-
A third factor was that except for a small cations that were drawn from multiple studies
group of CCSS opponents, there was little and data sources. In the second stage, the politi-
scrutiny of the research base during this stage. cal context provided a powerful incentive for the
State policy makers and their staffs assumed use of research-based evidence beyondthe func-
that CCSSO and NGA had used the validation tional one of legitimating the CCSS as grounded
committee and other mechanisms to ensure in research knowledge about the determinants of
that the CCSS had been adequately vetted and students’ post-high school success and the
were grounded in relevant research. In addi- cognitive and developmental pathways that
tion, SDE staff, state teacher organizations, and characterize effective learning. The promise to
other education-related groups knew that their base the Common Core on research and
colleagues had provided feedback and that it evidence allowed its promoters to avoid past
was substantially reflected in the final stand- ideological battles and to produce streamlined
standards. Drawing on participants’ professional specifying the conditions under which research
judgment and experience was a way to build and and other types of evidence are integrated
maintain support for the Common Core, but it during policy deliberations. Understanding how
also allowed the enterprise to move forward in evidence use varies over stages of the policy cycle
the absence of a sufficiently robust research base. is a critical step in developing a theory of how
By the third stage, the rationale for the CCSS research and other types of evidence together
was well developed and generally accepted, so inform policy.
the political context only required that the
narrative be tailored to specific audiences. The
Notes
new evidence introduced at this stage provided
systematic comparisons of the CCSS with 1. We define research-based evidence as evidence
existing state standards. grounded in one or more systematic studies
characterized by identifiable questions, an explicit
The Common Core represents a “best-case” design for collecting and analyzing data that is
example of research use in education policy attentive to issues of reliability and validity, and
making, because the nature of the policy is such some type of peer review.
that there was a strong likelihood research would 2. The study on which this article was based is sup-
inform its development. Although the relevant ported by a grant from the William T. Grant
research base is inadequate in several key areas, Foundation as part of its Uses of Research
Evidence Program. An essential goal of the
its major findings are largely uncontested, initiative is to connect studies of research use to
unlike in other areas of education policy such as broader disciplinary frameworks. For that reason,
school choice. The promoters and developers of we have grounded our examination of evidence
the CCSS recognized that their commitment use in the Common Core initiative in the policy
to standards grounded in research and evidence analysis and political science literature.
3. The discussion in this section draws on policy
would produce clear educational and political
research literature, but similar patterns of vari-
benefits. Nevertheless, even under these advan- ation in the use of evidence across stages of the
tageous conditions, they found it necessary and policy cycle are apparent in political science
desirable to integrate research with other types research on national institutions and processes.
of evidence depending on the political goals to For example, the legislative process in Congress
be accomplished during each stage of the policy is more open to new information (e.g., from
interest groups, social movements, the White
cycle. House, or research entrepreneurs) at the early
The major implication from this “best case” stages, when the need for action is being estab-
is that researchers need to develop a more lished or the agenda of concrete alternative propo-
nuanced theory of research use in education sals is being shaped, than at later stages, during
policy making. Even under the most favorable floor debate and voting (Kollman 1998; Light
1999; Mucciaroni and Quirk 2006).
conditions, research will be combined with
4. We chose not to include the implementation
other types of evidence. Part of the reason will phase in this analysis because we are still collect-
be political, but integrating research and other ing data on the Common Core’s implementation.
types of evidence can also serve policy and Also, our initial examination suggests that
educational purposes. The research base may be evidence use may vary significantly during imple-
inadequate or incomplete for the policy task, it mentation as compared with earlier stages because
it is a process that moves beyond policy making
may be inconsistent or contested, and wise policy into school and classroom practice with different
may require that basic research be combined opportunities and incentives for research use.
with knowledge based on professional judgment 5. Policies are often portrayed as “if, then . . .”
about how best to teach students in different statements that assume if a policy mandates or
educational and cultural contexts. Earlier studies offers incentives for certain actions to be taken,
demonstrated that assuming a straight line the change will occur. These theories of action are
essentially predictive causal statements, and
between research results and policy design was usually decision makers require some systematic,
naive (Weiss 1977, 1982). Now the challenge research-based evidence supporting the assumed
is to build on that fundamental insight by link between policy and effects.
6. In conducting the interviews, we benefited from (NCTM), developed academic content standards.
the able assistance of Jeanette Yih Harvie of UC Although controversial because of their construc-
Santa Barbara and Stephanie E. Dean at the tivist pedagogical approach, NCTM’s standards
Hunt Institute. were influential in shaping individual state
7. At the national level, we conducted 49 inter- standards. For a summary of unsuccessful efforts to
views, including interviews with representatives promote national standards during the 1990s, see
of the organizations developing the draft standards Rothman (2011, 29–52).
(the National Governors Association, the 12. The James B. Hunt Jr. institute for Educational
Council of Chief State School Officers), think Leadership and Policy (the Hunt Institute) assists
tanks and policy research organizations (e.g., the governors and other state leaders in improving
Brookings Institution, Center for Education their education policies and programs, largely
Policy), congressional and executive branch through convening state leaders, disseminating
staff, as well as interest groups involved in information, and providing expert consultation.
education policy (e.g., National Education The Alliance for Excellent Education is a national
Association [NEA], American Federation of advocacy organization working to improve high
Teachers [AFT], Council of Great City Schools, schools so that all students graduate prepared for
National Council of La Raza, Education Trust). postsecondary education and employment, especi-
To track the process of policy development ally those at risk of leaving high school without a
at the state level, we undertook detailed case diploma. Although both organizations work at all
studies in California, Indiana, Massachusetts, levels of the education system, the Alliance
and Tennessee. These four states were selected to focuses primarily on federal policy and the Hunt
provide regional variation and to include Institute on working with state officials. They
representation from states receiving and not each receive financial support from a variety of
receiving Race to the Top funding. funders, with foundations a major source for both.
8. Included in this database is an extensive 13. We recognize that for a policy initiative as broad
collection of research reports, policy briefs, and far reaching as the Common Core, multiple
speeches, blog posts, press releases, media bodies of research are potentially relevant,
accounts, and congressional testimony related to including ones focused on curriculum content,
the CCSS. These artifacts, which number teaching and learning, assessment, and evalu-
approximately 1,500, provide historical and ations of the effects of a variety of policies in
documentary background on the type of evidence the United States and internationally on differ-
cited, intended audience, salient policy issues, and ent groups of students. However, our purpose is
links among organizations. Subsequent analyses of not to catalog the supply of applicable research
these data will focus on mapping information that could have informed the Common Core
networks among various groups and individuals. initiative. Rather, based on interview data and
However, in this analysis, they were used to confirming documentary analysis, we identify
verify that the full range of CCSS policy actors what was reported as actually used in the process.
had been identified and to confirm interviewees’ For a number of sources that were central to policy
recollections about the specific documents they deliberations, such as international comparisons
reported consulting during the CCSS process. of academic content standards and student
9. Among sources that the Hunt Institute staff drew achievement, participants in the CCSS process
upon are participant observer notes from weekly cited syntheses of original research rather than
conference calls the institute convened among versions published in scholarly venues.
groups engaged in implementing the CCSS. The 14. In 2007, the Hunt Institute requested that the
calls began in September 2010 with 7–14 NRC organize two workshops to examine avail-
“advocacy partners” typically participating each able evidence on the ways in which standards-
week. They included organizations representing based accountability was currently functioning,
elected officials, teachers and administrators, criteria to use in evaluating common standards
higher education, parents, and nonprofit third- options, and the issues such an approach might
party providers. raise. Although an NRC committee planned the
10. Interviewees were assured that their responses workshop and commissioned papers, it was not
would be confidential and not be attributed to intended to reach any conclusions or make any
them, so only their role positions are noted in recommendations. However, the Hunt Institute
citing interview data. For a detailed discussion of drew on the research evidence presented at the
sample selection and elite interviewing in process workshops as an information source in advancing
tracing research, see Tansey (2007). the case for common standards (Hunt Institute
11. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several subject 2008a, 2008b).
matter organizations, most prominently the 15. Former governors Hunt and Wise were members
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics of the group, as were Chester Finn Jr., the presi-
dent of the Fordham Foundation; Kati Haycock, (Daro et al. 2011, 12). Researchers acknowledge
the president of the Education Trust; and William the probabilistic nature of learning progressions
Schmidt, a university distinguished professor at and that existing ones require additional empirical
Michigan State University and the director of examination (Sztajin et al. 2012).
TIMSS. Schmidt is the academic most associated 19. An example from the ELA standards of the
with promoting the need for national content limited availability of existing research relates
standards, and he functioned as a policy entre- to text complexity. An ACT report (2006) and
preneur in advancing that argument. other research highlight the significance of
16. Subsequently, after the CCSS were issued, critics students being able to master texts of increasing
began to argue that there is no research evidence complexity as a predictor of their academic
documenting a causal relationship between success in college and the workplace. Conse-
standards and student performance on assessments quently, text complexity became one of the pillars
and that there is no correlation between quality of the ELA standards. While acknowledging its
ratings of state standards and NAEP scores. importance and appropriateness as a standard,
States with content standards rated as weak by literacy researchers note that “the underlying
external bodies score about the same on NAEP as theory and research on text complexity that would
those with strong standards (Loveless 2012; support creation of state and district curricula and
Whitehurst 2009). Using a different analytical programs is in short supply” (Pearson and Hiebert
approach, Schmidt and Houang (2012) dispute 2012). One critical area where more robust
this conclusion as it applies to the Common Core research is needed to inform classroom practice is
mathematics standards. Building on techniques the measurement of text complexity. Although
developed as part of TIMSS, they first compare there are numerous formulas for measuring the
the proximity of state standards in 2009 to the readability of various types of texts, text com-
CCSS in mathematics, and after adjusting for cut plexity refers to more than the difficulty of words
points on state assessments and controlling for and includes structure, genre, and demands on
state demographics related to poverty, they find prior knowledge. Because current formulas do not
that states with standards more like the CCSS measure all these dimensions, and they are not
in mathematics had higher performance on the calibrated to the ELA CCSS text complexity
2009 NAEP. These analyses represent different grade bands, the standards document calls for the
ways of predicting the likely effect of the CCSS development of new tools as quickly as possible.
on student achievement, but the precise nature of It also notes, “the use of qualitative and quan-
that relationship will not be known until the titative measures to assess text complexity is
CCSS standards are actually implemented in balanced in the Standards’ model by the
classrooms across the country. expectation that educators will employ profes-
17. Although the systemic requirements and enabling sional judgment to match texts to particular
conditions of standards policies were not given students and tasks” (NGA and CCSSO 2010a, 7).
much prominence during the initial phase, 20. Three people were responsible for drafting the
policy entrepreneurs did acknowledge their role. mathematics standards: Phil Daro, a former
For example, Governor Hunt (2009) noted in director of the New Standards project; William
congressional testimony, “standards need to be McCallum, a professor of mathematics at the Uni-
supported by an integrated system, including versity of Arizona; and Jason Zimba, a professor of
curriculum, assessment, instruction, teacher pre- mathematics and physics at Bennington College.
paration, and professional development. Unless Those responsible for drafting the ELA standards
our efforts reach the on-the-ground activity of were David Coleman, the founder of Student
teaching and learning, they will have been in Achievement Partners, and Sue Pimentel, the
vain. Standards-based reform was meant to be cofounder of Standards Work. Each set of stand-
systemic reform.” ards writers was assisted by a large work team (51
18. Learning trajectories or progressions are defined in mathematics and 50 in ELA) that included
as “empirically supported hypotheses about the educators, researchers, and others with expertise
levels or waypoints of thinking, knowledge, and in curriculum and assessment design, cognitive
skill in using knowledge, that students are likely development, and English-language acquisition,
to go through as they learn mathematics and, one who were called upon to provide input and review
hopes, reach or exceed the common goals set for drafts on an as-needed basis. In addition, there
their learning. Trajectories involve hypotheses was a feedback group for each set of standards
both about the order and nature of the steps in the consisting of members with expertise similar to
growth of students’ mathematical understanding, that of the work group; they also reviewed drafts
and about the nature of the instructional experi- (21 for mathematics and 12 for ELA).
ences that might support them in moving step by 21. According to a participant in the standards-
step toward the goals of school mathematics” writing process, “the AFT teachers spent two days
reviewing the standards. When we went to meet Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993.
with the review team at the AFT, the math Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago:
teachers had actually cut-up the standards and had University of Chicago Press.
deliberated about whether the learning pro- Beland, Daniel. 2005. “Ideas and Social Policy: An
gressions made sense. So we started with the Institutionalist Perspective.” Social Policy and
research, and they looked at the research and then Administration 39 (1): 1–18.
reviewed the standards based on their experience. Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2006. “Quali-
Some revisions we made were actually based on tative Research: Recent Developments in Case
classroom teachers’ experience” (personal Study Methods.” Annual Review of Political Science
interview). 9:455–76.
22. In March 2010, NGA and CCSSO released a CCSSO and NGA (Council of Chief State School
draft of the CCSS for public comment. Approxi- Officers and the National Governors Association).
mately 10,000 individuals, about half of whom 2010. “Reactions to the March 2010 Draft
were teachers, responded to an online survey. The Common Core State Standards: Highlights
overwhelming majority of respondents supported and Themes from the Public Feedback,” http://
the concept of common standards, and their www.corestandards.org/assets/k-12-feedback-
comments focused on areas that required clearer summary.pdf.
language, more examples, and greater detail. Clements, Douglas. 2011. “What Do We Know
However, according to the summary report issued about Content and Curriculum?” In Research
by CCSSO and NGA, a significant number of in Mathematics Education: Where Do We Go from
respondents perceived the CCSS to be federal Here? Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC:
standards and expressed opposition to them on Institute for Research on Mathematics and Science
principle. Another group, representing hundreds Education, Michigan State University.
of respondents, pressed for health standards to be Cohen, David K., and Susan L. Moffitt. 2009. The
issued with the CCSS. One group questioned the Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the
CCSS on research grounds, arguing that they were Schools? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
developmentally inappropriate and at odds with Press.
the research on how children learn. They Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright.
expressed concern that the standards, in starting 2005. “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference:
with kindergarten students, placed too heavy an Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In
emphasis on academic knowledge and skills in the Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared
early grades and did not match the early learning Standards, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier.
standards for preK–3 that many states had adopted Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
(CCSSO and NGA 2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010.
23. The other standards development principles that “Messaging Tool Kit,” http:// programs.ccsso.org/
served as criteria for the committee’s validation of link/CCSSI%20Toolkit%20Sept%202010.pdf.
the CCSS were “evidence of the knowledge and Daro, Phil, Frederic A. Mosher, and Tom Corcoran.
skills that students need to be college and career 2011. Learning Trajectories in Mathematics: A
ready; a proper level of clarity and specificity; [and] Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment,
evidence that the standards are comparable with and Instruction. Research report R-68. New York:
other leading countries’ expectations” (NGA and Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
CCSSO 2010b, 1). George, Alexander L. 1979. “The Causal Nexus
24. One reason these groups were able to provide between Cognitive Beliefs and Decision-Making
assistance is that 18 national organizations Behavior: The ‘Operational Code’ Belief
received over $50 million between 2009 and System.” In Psychological Models in International
2010 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Politics, ed. Lawrence S. Fulkowski. Boulder, CO:
to provide information and help in implementing Westview.
the CCSS. In addition, 10 third-party providers George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005.
and 20 state and local education agencies received Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
approximately $39 million for the same purpose Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(information compiled from the Gates Foun- Goertz, Margaret E. 2007. “Standards-Based Reform:
dation and funded organizations’ websites). Lessons from the Past, Directions for the Future.”
Paper presented at “Clio at the Table: A
Conference on the Uses of History to Inform and
References Improve Education Policy,” Brown University,
Providence, RI, June.
ACT. 2006. Reading between the Lines: What the ACT Hunt Institute. 2008a. “Blueprint for Education
Reveals about College Readiness in Reading. Iowa Leadership 1.” Policy brief, June. James B. Hunt Jr.
City: ACT. Institute for Educational Leadership, Durham, NC.
Hunt Institute. 2008b. “Blueprint for Education National Research Council. 2008. “Common
Leadership 2.” Policy brief, October. James B. Standards for K–12 Education? Considering the
Hunt Jr. Institute for Educational Leadership, Evidence; Summary of a Workshop Series.”
Durham, NC. Alexandra Beatty, rapporteur. Committee on
Hunt, James B., Jr. 2009. “Strengthening America’s State Standards in Education, Division of
Competitiveness through Common Academic Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
Standards.” Prepared testimony before the Com- Washington, DC.
mittee on Education and Labor of the United Pearson, P. David, and Elfrieda H. Hiebert. 2012.
States House of Representatives, April 29. “Understanding the Common Core State Stand-
Kelman, Steven. 1987. Making Public Policy. New ards.” In Teaching with the Common Core State
York: Basic. Standards for English Language Arts, PreK–2, ed.
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Lesley Mandel Morrow, Timothy Shanahan, and
Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins. Karen K. Wixson. New York: Guilford.
Kollman, Ken. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion Quirk, Paul J., and Bruce Nesmith. 2011. “Reality-
and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Based Policymaking: Information, Advice, and
Princeton University Press. Presidential Success.” In Governing at Home: The
Light, Paul. 1999. The President’s Agenda: Domestic White House and Domestic Policymaking, ed.
Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton. Baltimore: Michael Nelson and Russell L. Riley. Lawrence:
Johns Hopkins University Press. University Press of Kansas.
Loveless, Tom. 2012. How Well Are American Students Ravitch, Diane. 2010. The Death and Life of the Great
Learning? Brown Center on American Education. American School System: How Testing and Choice
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Are Undermining Education. New York: Basic.
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Strategies of Causal Inference Rothman, Robert. 2011. Something in Common.
in Small-N Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Research 28:387–424. Schmidt, William H., and Richard T. Houang. 2012.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, Argument, “Curricular Coherence and the Common Core
and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, State Standards for Mathematics.” Educational
CT: Yale University Press. Researcher 41 (8): 294–308.
Mintrom, Michael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and Sheingate, Adam. 2003. “Political Entrepreneurship,
School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown Institutional Change, and American Develop-
University Press. ment.” Studies in American Political Development
Mucciaroni Gary, and Paul J. Quirk. 2006. Deliberative 17:185–203.
Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. Stone, Deborah. 2012. Policy Paradox. 3rd ed. New
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. York: Norton.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2007. Sztajin, Paola, Jere Confrey, P. Holt Wilson, and
Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards onto the Cynthia Edgington. 2012. “Learning Trajectory
NAEP Scales. Washington, DC: National Center Based Instruction: Toward a Theory of Teaching.”
for Education Statistics. Educational Researcher 41 (5): 147–56.
NGA and CCSSO (National Governors Association Tansey, Oisin. 2007. “Process Tracing and Elite Inter-
and Council of Chief State School Officers). 2010a. viewing: A Case for Non-probability Sampling.”
“Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (4): 765–72.
of the Standards.” In Common Core State Standards Weiss, Carol H. 1977. “Research for Policy’s Sake: The
for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/ Enlightenment Function of Social Research.”
Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Policy Analysis 3:531–45.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association Weiss, Carol H. 1982. “Policy Research in the
and Council of Chief State School Officers. Context of Diffuse Decision-Making.” Journal of
NGA and CCSSO (National Governors Association Higher Education 53 (6): 619–39.
and Council of Chief State School Officers). Whitehurst, Grover. 2009. “Don’t Forget the Curri-
2010b. Reaching Higher: The Common Core State culum.” Brown Center Letters on Education no. 3.
Standards Validation Committee. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, http://
National Governors Association and Council of www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/1014_curriculum
Chief State School Officers. _whitehurst.aspx.
NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve (National Governors Wilhoit, Gene. 2009. “Improving Our Competitive-
Association, Council of Chief State School ness: Common Core Education Standards.”
Officers, and Achieve). 2008. Benchmarking for Prepared testimony before the Committee on
Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World- Education and Labor, US House of Repre-
Class Education. Washington, DC: National sentatives, December 4.
Governors Association, Council of Chief State
School Officers, and Achieve.
What “Counts” as Educational Policy?

Notes Toward a New Paradigm
Jean Anyon
In my first article as a young PhD, which was schools is a complex problem, and education
published in the Harvard Educational Review, I policy as historically conceived has not been
argued that high school U.S. history curriculum, adequate to the task of increasing urban school
as represented in widely used textbooks, excises achievement to acceptable levels. Academic
and thereby defines out of existence radical learning in city schools is undoubtedly higher
responses American workers have had to the than in, say, 1900, yet there is still no large urban
problems they face on the job and in their district that can demonstrate high achievement
communities (Anyon, 1979). This educational in even half its students or schools. Noting
excision is one way that schooling mitigates this failure of educational policy to render most
against the development of working-class urban schools high-quality institutions, I ask,
consciousness. what should count as educational policy? As in
In empirical and theoretical work since then, any attempt to resolve complex issues, workable
I have investigated knowledge and pedagogical solutions can only be generated by an under-
experiences made available to students in dif- standing of underlying causes.
ferent social-class contexts (1980, 1981), and The diagnosis I provide is based on analyses
have attempted to understand the consequences completed for my book, Radical Possibilities:
of ways we conceptualize urban education, urban Public Policy, Urban Education, and a New
school reform, and neighborhood poverty. Social Movement (Anyon, 2005). In this book
Recent arguments have aimed at unseating sim- I examine federal and regional mandates that
plistic notions of the causes of urban poverty and affect economic and social opportunities avail-
low achievement in city districts, and explicating able to the urban poor. I find that despite stated
unexplored relations between urban education intentions, federal and metropolitan policies
and movements for social change (e.g., 1995, and arrangements generally restrict oppor-
1997, 2005). tunities available to city residents and neigh-
In this article I think about education policy borhoods. I show how job, wage, housing, tax,
over the seventy-five years of Harvard Educa- and transportation policies maintain minority
tional Review publication. During these decades, poverty in urban neighborhoods, and thereby
many K–12 policies have been written and create environments that overwhelm the poten-
implemented by federal, state, and local govern- tial of educational policy to create systemic,
ments. Some of these have aimed at improving sustained improvements in the schools. For
education in America’s cities and are my primary example, policies such as minimum wage statutes
focus. Over the years, dominant strategies called that yield full-time pay below the poverty level,
upon to improve urban schools have included and affordable housing and transportation
curricular, administrative, and funding reforms, policies that segregate low-income workers of
as well as increases in educational opportunity color in urban areas but industrial and other job
and district/school accountability. development in far-flung suburbs where public
A historical examination of policies can transit routes do not reach, are all culpable.
inform decisions we make today. Policy failures, In order to solve the systemic problems of
for example, may demonstrate that we need to urban education, then, I argue in the book—
rethink strategies we choose in our long-term and will argue here—that we need not only
attempts to solve the problems of school and better schools but also the reform of these public
student achievement in urban districts. Indeed, policies. Rules and regulations regarding
I will argue that the quality of education in city teaching, curriculum, and assessment certainly
are important, but policies to eliminate poverty- in city schools. Head Start in 1965, Follow
wage work and housing segregation (for Through in 1967, and, to a lesser extent, Title IX,
example) should be part of the educational policy which banned sex discrimination in 1972,
panoply as well, for these have consequences for brought and instigated new curricula and pro-
urban education at least as profound as curri- grams into city districts.1 These policies were
culum, pedagogy, and testing. intended to increase student access and/or
In the sections that follow I describe major achievement by upgrading curricular resources
K–12 education policies that have been imple- and experiences.
mented over the years to attempt to improve Other federal K–12 policies have aimed
urban education, and then discuss several federal specifically at increasing educational equity. The
and metro-area policies and practices that limit 1954 Brown decision (which committed the
the potential and success of these strategies. I federal government to desegregation as a policy
also report hopeful new research suggesting that stance), the Elementary and Secondary Educa-
even modest income and other family supports tion Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Bilingual Act in
typically improve low-income students’ acade- 1968, Title IX in 1972, and the Education for All
mic achievement. I end by arguing that, given Handicapped Children Act in 1975 opened
this power of economic access to influence edu- doors to academic experiences for previously
cational outcomes, strategies to support econo- under-served K–12 students. These policies are
mic opportunity and development for urban generally thought to have expanded urban
residents and neighborhoods should be among students’ educational opportunities.
the policies we consider in our attempts to More recent federal education policies to
improve urban schools and districts. Just as in improve schooling—with urban students and
affluent suburban districts where economic teachers often a target—have called for increased
strength is the engine of educational reform, so academic standards and requirements, standard-
it would be in urban districts where resident and ized testing, and professional development of
neighborhood affluence would support and teachers. These policies were recommended
retool the schools. I begin with an overview of by the influential report A Nation at Risk, com-
education policy as typically conceived. missioned by President Ronald Reagan and
published in 1983. The emphasis on increased
academic standards was part of an effort to sup-
Education Policies
port business needs for well-prepared workers
Over the last seventy-five years or so, federal and employees. The report’s recommendations
policies have attempted various strategies to for higher standards and increased testing were
improve city education. The first federal policy introduced as policy in 1994 and 1996 as part of
aimed at working-class populations was the the Goals 2000 legislation. In 2001 these goals
Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which provided were instantiated as federal mandates in the No
funds to prepare students in industrialized areas Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Privatization of
for working-class jobs through vocational pro- education via nonpublic providers when K–12
grams. Variants of this policy continued through- schools fail is a subtextual education policy in
out the twentieth century, in the Vocational NCLB (Conley, 2003; Cross, 2004; Stein, 2004).
Education Acts of 1963, 1984, and 1998, and in It is important to note that federal education
the School-to-Work Opportunity Act of 1994 policies intended to improve urban schools did
and the later federal legislation in which it was not take aim at the economic arrangements and
subsumed. practices that themselves produced the poverty
Some federal education policies have attemp- in which city schools were embedded. Despite
ted to improve urban education by making increases in educational opportunity, the effects
funding available for increased curriculum of almost a century of educational policies on
materials and libraries, early childhood classes, urban school and student achievement have, by
and various types of programmatic innovations most accounts, been disappointing.
The first state policies regarding the education Gary Plan to prepare students for the industrial
of America’s urban (and rural) poor emerged experience, increased access to high school,
earlier than federal ones. What has counted as organized educational opportunities for immi-
state education policy regarding poor students grant parents, and sometimes fed, bathed, and
can be said to have begun with mid- to late-nine- clothed poor children. During the decade of the
teenth century insertions into state constitutions Great Depression, most large cities retrenched
of the right of all students to a free, “thorough,” and severely cut educational social service
“efficient,” or “useful” education (Odden & and academic programs, as local tax receipts
Picus, 1992). Following these insertions and plummeted and banks that offered loans
until the 1970s, however, most state education demanded broad cuts in education. During the
policies did not focus specifically on urban 1960s, many urban districts were weakened
education. State mandates typically set regula- further as most remaining businesses and jobs
tions and requirements for school systems, moved to the suburbs, decimating the urban pro-
teacher and administrator preparation, and perty tax base (Anyon, 1997; Ravitch, 2000;
school funding (through property taxes). During Tyack, 1974; Wrigley, 1982).
the 1970s and 1980s, lawsuits challenging state Since the 1970s, in response to federal, judi-
education funding systems brought increased cial, and state mandates, urban districts have
attention to city schools and districts. State bused students to meet racial integration guide-
urban education policy in these decades involved lines, decentralized authority to increase commu-
various kinds of efforts, including school-based nity participation, and created magnet schools to
management and basic skills mandates. In the attempt to attract middle-class parents. Other
1990s, state policies attempted to align education local policies that have been attempted to
standards and regulations with federal ones, improve achievement are a multitude of reform
mandated curriculum and teacher licensure programs or “school improvement projects,”
reform, and closely monitored urban districts. student retention services, privatization of
As legal challenges to state systems have led to educational offerings, vouchers and magnets,
increased funding of city schools, states have mayoral control, small schools, and curriculum
imposed stricter academic and graduation standardization and evaluation through test-
requirements, as well as multigrade and multi- ing. The social context of these policies has
subject standardized testing. Quasi-privatization included pressure to be accountable in the wake
policies supporting charter schools, vouchers, of increased funding, as well as community and
and other school choice programs have also been corporate demands for better schools. None of
a state strategy to attempt to improve the the local policies has focused on the poverty
education of urban children by offering them a of families or neighborhoods.
choice of schools to attend (Conley, 2003). One way to evaluate this long run of educa-
Over the decades, federal and state policies tion policy is to compare the achievement of
codified an increasing number of requirements urban students at the beginning of the twentieth
that urban schools and districts must meet. and twenty-first centuries. Although achieve-
Local governments and educational bureaucra- ment is higher now in that larger percentages
cies have undertaken a plethora of programs to of students remain in school past the elemen-
attempt to meet those guidelines. Local districts tary years than in 1900, I would argue that the
have also mounted school reform projects in improvement is relative and illusory. That is,
response to local social conditions and political while in the early twentieth century relatively
pressure from parents and communities. Most few urban poor students went beyond fifth
local initiatives have been curricular, pedagog- grade, the vast majority did not require further
ical, and administrative. education to find employment in industries
During the Progressive Era, cities consol- that could lead to middle-class income (Anyon,
idated and professionalized their school systems 1997; Ayres, 1909). Currently, relatively few
and personnel, introduced programs like the urban poor students go past ninth grade: The
graduation rates in large comprehensive inner- U.S. cities, the political leverage of urban par-
city high schools are abysmally low. In fourteen ents has not been sufficient to force the funding
such New York City schools, for example, only necessary to overcome outdated buildings,
10 percent to 20 percent of ninth graders in 1996 broken computer labs, and overcrowded class-
graduated four years later (Fine, 2001; Greene, rooms.
2001; Miao & Haney, 2004).2 Despite the fact These economic and political conditions are
that low-income individuals desperately need the building blocks of formidable barriers to
a college degree to find decent employment, systemic, sustainable school quality. Indeed,
only 7 percent obtain a bachelor’s degree by age even when urban school reform succeeds, it
twenty-six (Education Trust, 2001; Mishel, fails—when there are no decent jobs a diploma
Bernstein, & Schmitt, 2001). So, in relation to from a successfully reformed school or district
the needs of low-income students, urban districts will attract, and there is no government or
fail their students with more egregious conse- familial funding sufficient for the vast majority
quences now than in the early twentieth century. of low-income graduates of even good urban
Given the plethora of federal, state, and high schools to obtain a bachelors degree.
local education policies aimed at urban schools Individual and neighborhood poverty builds
and the current widely acknowledged necessity walls around schools and classrooms that edu-
of high-quality education for all, why have cation policy does not penetrate or scale. In the
most urban schools and districts not been able following section I describe some of the federal
to provide such an education for their students? and metro-area policies and arrangements that
sustain these barriers.
Barriers to High-Quality Public
Education in Cities Federal Policy
There are multiple causes of low-quality school- Analysts typically do not link federal policies to
ing in urban areas, and education policies as the maintenance of poverty, to the lack of jobs
heretofore conceived address only a few. Educa- that bedevils American workers, or to the
tion policy has not addressed the neighborhood increasingly large portion of employment that
poverty that surrounds and invades urban schools pays poverty and near-poverty wages. Yet federal
with low expectations and cynicism. Education policy is determinative. To take a blatant
policy has not addressed the unemployment and example, Congress set the first minimum wage
joblessness of families who will have few if any in 1938 at $3.05 (in 2000 dollars); it stands in
resources for the further education of their 2005 at $5.15—a mere two dollars more. (Yearly
children, even if they excel in K–12 classes. income at this wage is $10,712.) This sum
And education policy—even in response to ensures that full-time, year-round, minimum-
state financial challenges—has not addressed wage work will not raise people out of poverty
the political economy that largely determines (Mishel, Bernstein, & Boushey, 2003). Analysis
low levels of city district funding. Taxes on in 2004 found that minimum-wage standards
wealthy families and corporations are among directly affect the wages of 8.9 percent of the
the lowest on record (Phillips, 2002). Business workforce (9.9 million workers); when we
and government investment in affluent subur- include those making one dollar more an hour
ban job centers rather than urban areas con- than the minimum wage, this legislation affects
tinues to deprive poor neighborhoods of the wages of as much as 18 percent of the work-
entry-level jobs and a tax base, and residents’ force (Economic Policy Institute, 2004). Con-
poverty wages further diminish available trary to the claims of those who oppose raising
funding sources (Anyon, 2005; Orfield, 2002; the minimum wage (that an increase will force
Rusk, 1999). These political-economic con- employers to fire, or hire fewer of those affected
straints on quality schooling are not challenged by the increase), studies of the 1990–1991 and
by current or past education policy. In most 1996–1997 minimum-wage increases failed to
find any systematic, significant job losses problems: There are not enough jobs for poor
associated with the increases and found no evid- families who need them; low-income families of
ence of negative employment effects on small color are concentrated in low-resourced urban
businesses (Economic Policy Institute, 2004). neighborhoods; and when the wealthy do not
Almost half the workforce earns what some contribute equitably to public expenses, funding
economists call poverty-zone wages (and what I for services like education declines and the
define as up to and including 125% of the official quality of the services tends to be low.
poverty level; Anyon, 2005). I analyzed figures The effects of these policies are compounded
provided by the Economic Policy Institute to by harsh union laws and lack of federal protec-
calculate the overall percentage of people who tion for labor organizing; Federal Reserve Bank
work full-time year round yet make wages up to pronouncements that ignore the portion of its
and including 125 percent of the official poverty mandate to maintain a high level of employ-
threshold needed to support a family of four at ment; and free-trade agreements that send
the poverty level. The analysis demonstrates that thousands of corporations, and their job oppor-
in 1999, during a very strong economy, almost tunities, to other countries. These policies hurt
half of the people at work in the United States workers of all colors—and in most sectors of the
(41.3%) earned poverty-zone wages—in 1999, economy—as existing jobs disappear and those
$10.24/hour ($21,299/ year) or less, working full- remaining pay lower wages, in part because they
time year round (Mishel et al., 2001). Two years are not unionized (Anyon, 2005; Citizens for Tax
later, in 2001, 38.4 percent earned poverty-zone Justice, 2002; Economic Policy Institute, 2002,
wages working full-time year round (in 2001, 2004; Galbraith, 1998; Lafer, 2002; Mishel et al.,
125% of the poverty line was a $10.88 hourly 2001).
wage; Mishel et al., 2003). This suggests that the However, there are federal policies we could
federal minimum-wage policy is an important create that would lower poverty by important
determinant of poverty for many millions of margins—including a significantly raised mini-
U.S. families. mum wage, comparable worth laws, and policies
There are other macroeconomic policies that to enforce existing regulations that outlaw
produce hardship. These especially penalize discrimination in hiring. A raise in the minimum
Blacks and Latinos, the majority of whom live in wage that brought workers above poverty would
segregated, low-income urban neighborhoods. improve the lives of at least a fifth of U.S. workers
These policies include the following: job training (Economic Policy Institute, 2004). Paying
as a predominant federal antipoverty policy women the same amount men are paid for com-
when there have been too few jobs for graduates; parable work would, according to one analysis,
ineffective federal implementation of policies reduce poverty by 40 percent, as such a large
that outlaw racial discrimination in hiring percentage of poor people are women in low-
and housing; regressive income taxes that charge wage jobs (Lafer, 2002). And requiring employ-
wealthy individuals less than half the rate ers to hire without discriminating against Blacks
charged the rich during most of the first sixty and Latinos would further open opportunities
years of the twentieth century, yet substantially currently denied.
raise the payroll taxes paid by the working poor In addition, policies that worked against U.S.
and middle class; and corporate tax policies in poverty in the past could be reinstated: U.S. gov-
recent years that allow 60 percent of large U.S. ernment regulation of the minimum wage, which
corporations to pay no federal taxes at all (and kept low-paid workers’ income at the median
in some cases to obtain millions in rebates; of highly paid unionized workers in the decades
Citizens for Tax Justice, 2002; Lafer, 2002; after World War II; federal support for union
Orfield, 2002; Rusk, 1999). organizing; a federal program of job creation in
These federal policies and practices contrib- cities, as during the Great Depression of the
ute to personal, neighborhood, and educational 1930s; and federal programs for urban youth that
poverty because they lead to the following would support further education, as such policies
did for eight million men and women after to enforce antiracial discrimination statutes in
World War II (Anyon, 2005; Galbraith, 1998). housing confines most Blacks and Latinos to
These national policies were important supports housing sites in central cities and segregated sub-
of the widespread prosperity of the United States’ urbs. Finally, even though federal and state taxes
working and middle classes in the quarter century are paid by residents throughout metro regions
following 1945 (Galbraith, 1998). (including inner cities), most tax-supported
development takes place in the affluent suburbs
rather than in low-income areas. Thus, few jobs
Metropolitan Policy and Practice
exist in most low-income urban neighborhoods
Like current federal mandates, there are metro- (Anyon, 2005; Dreier et al., 2001; Orfield, 2002;
area policies and practices that increase the Rusk, 1999). These inequitable regional arrange-
problems of urban residents and neighbor- ments and policies exacerbate federal wage and
hoods. Metro areas are shaped by regional job mandates and contribute in important ways
markets—for jobs, housing, investment, and to joblessness and poverty in cities and urbanized
production. Metro areas account for over 80 per- suburbs, and to the low quality of investment in
cent of national output and drive the economic services such as education there.
performance of the nation as a whole. Each
metro area is anchored by one or more cities
Poverty
(Dreier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstrom, 2001).
Today, metropolitan regions are characterized One consequence of federal and regional policies
by population growth, extensive inequality, and regarding work, wages, housing segregation,
segregation (Orfield, 2002; Rusk, 1999). The and transportation is that the numbers of poor
percentage of racial minorities in large metro people approach the figures of 1959—before
areas who live in the suburbs jumped from 19 massive urban poverty became a national issue.
percent to 27 percent during the 1990s. How- Although the percentages are lower now, the
ever, a growing share of these families lives in numbers are still staggering: There were about as
fiscally stressed suburbs, with an increasing num- many people officially poor in 1993 (39.2 mil-
ber of neighborhoods having poverty levels over lion) as in 1959 (39.4 million; Harrington,
30 percent (Kingsley & Petit, 2003; Orfield, 1963). And in 2003, 35.8 million were officially
2002). As in areas of concentrated poverty in poor, only 3.5 million fewer than in 1959
the central city, low levels of taxable resources (Mishel et al., 2003).
in these “urbanized” segregated suburbs leave A more realistic measure of poverty than
services like education lacking in funds. federal guidelines is that those earning incomes
U.S. metropolitan areas are characterized up to 200 percent of the official levels are con-
by the following problems, all of which dis- sidered poor (Bernstein, Brocht, & Spade-
advantage urban minority families and commu- Aguilar, 2000; Citro & Michael, 1995; Short,
nities: Most entry-level jobs for which adults Iceland, & Garner, 1999). This revised threshold
with low to moderate education levels are quali- is used by increasing numbers of social scientists.
fied are increasingly located in suburbs, rather A calculation of the individuals who earned less
than in central cities, but public transit systems than 200 percent of the poverty level in 2001
do not connect these suburban job centers to ($17.40/hour, or $36,192/year), demonstrates a
urban areas, where most low-income minorities much larger percentage of poor employees than
live—thus preventing them from access to jobs is commonly acknowledged: 84 percent of
there. State-allowed local zoning on the basis of Hispanic workers, 80 percent of Black workers,
income prevents affordable housing in most and 64.3 percent of White workers made wages
suburbs where entry-level jobs are located, at or under 200 percent of the official poverty line
which means there is little if any housing for (Mishel et al., 2001).
low-income families near the suburban job A calculation of families living with earnings
centers. Indeed, as I have mentioned, the failure up to 200 percent of the poverty line reveals
that Black and Latino families face the greatest —almost 12 million—lived below the official
financial hurdles. More than 50 percent of federal poverty line in 2001. Almost half of those
Black and Latino families earn less than 200 children (44%, or a little over 5 million) lived
percent of the poverty level, compared to only in extreme poverty (less than half the poverty
20.3 percent of White families, even though line, or $7,400 for a family of three in 2001)
White families constitute a slight majority —including nearly a million African Ameri-
(50.5%) of families that fall below 200 percent can children. This was a 17 percent increase in
of the poverty level (Mishel et al., 2001). In the number of children in extreme poverty
sum, poverty in the United States is higher from 2000, at the end of the economic boom
than commonly perceived and is maintained in (Cauthen & Lu, 2001; Dillon, 2003; Lu, 2003).
urban areas by federal and metro-area policies When the more appropriate alternative
and distributions. poverty threshold criterion is applied, however,
a full 38 percent of American children are iden-
tified as poor—27 million who lived in families
Effects of Poverty on Urban
with income up to 200 percent of the official
Students
poverty line. These children live in poverty as
Macroeconomic policies that set wages below well—although official statistics do not designate
poverty levels, that train inner-city hopefuls for them as such. However, these families experi-
jobs that do not exist, that do not extract from ence hardships that are almost as severe as those
the wealthy a fair share of social expenses, and who are officially poor (Cauthen & Lu 2001;
that rarely enforce laws that would substanti- Lu, 2003). By the revised measure—200 percent
ally decrease the economic discrimination of of the official poverty cutoff—a full 57 percent of
people of color all support persistent poverty and African American children, 64 percent of Latino,
near-poverty among minority urban popula- and 34 percent of White children were poor in the
tions. This economic and social distress can United States in 2001 (Lu, 2003; Mishel et al.,
prevent children from developing their full 2003).
potential and can certainly dampen the It is only in the 1990s that empirical studies
enthusiasm, effort, and expectations with which focused on why and how poverty affects cognitive
urban children and their families approach K-12 development and school achievement. Research-
education. ers began to document the specific effects of
As I will report, a recent national study poverty environments on children’s develop-
of young children confirms the potential of ment (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Leventhal, &
impoverished circumstances to prevent stu- Aber, 1997; Goering & Feins, 2003; Sampson,
dents’ full cognitive growth before they enroll in Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). This body
kindergarten. Of countervailing power, however, of work documents the correlations between low
is research demonstrating that when parents income, child development, and educational
obtain better financial resources or better living achievement (see Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,
conditions, the educational achievement of the 1997, for an overview of studies). For example,
children typically improves significantly. These poverty has been found to have consistently
findings empirically support the argument that negative effects on children’s cognitive develop-
for the urban poor, even with the right educa- ment (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan,
tional policies in place, school achievement Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd,
may await a family’s economic access. 1998). Longitudinal studies that have been
I already presented adult poverty figures at carried out also demonstrate that “family in-
the official threshold and noted the alarming come consistently predicts children’s academic
increase in numbers when a more realistic and cognitive performance, even when other
assessment is made. The same disparities exist family characteristics are taken into account”
between federal and alternative counts of poor (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Persistent and
children. Sixteen percent of American children extreme poverty has been shown to be more
detrimental to children than temporary poverty (p. 603). Many studies have shown that
(Bolger & Patterson, 1995; Duncan et al., 1994). children raised in low-income families score
Family income may influence children through lower than children from more affluent
both lack of resources and parental emotional families do on assessments of health, cog-
stress (Bradley, 1984; McLoyd & Jartayne, 1994; nitive development, and positive behavior.
Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; “In general, the better the measure of family
Sugland, Zaslow, Brooks-Gunn, & Moore, 1995). income and the longer the period over
Poor children have more health and behavior which it is measured, the stronger the asso-
difficulties than those from more affluent families, ciation between the family’s economic well-
which mitigates against educational success being and children’s outcomes” (p. 14).
(Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Houser, Brown,
& Prosser, 1997; Klerman, 1991/2003; Korenman It is important to understand that these find-
& Miller, 1997). Studies collected by Duncan and ings do not suggest that poor students are of low
Brooks-Gunn teased out some of the variables intelligence; rather, the studies point to the
within the effects of income. In summarizing power of the economy—and of economic hard-
research reported in their 1997 volume Conse- ship—to place extremely high hurdles to full
quences of Growing up Poor, they point out the development in front of children who are poor.
following: It is of course possible—although it is not the
norm—that education over time mitigates the
1. Income matters for the cognitive devel- effects of SES (Hout, 1988; Jencks & Phillips,
opment of preschoolers “because it is asso- 1998).
ciated with the provision of a richer learning In 2002, Valerie Lee and David Burkham
environment” (p. 601). This is true in part published the results of a large-sample assess-
because family income is a “significant ment of the effects of poverty on cognitive
determinant of child care environments, development. They utilized data from the United
including center-based childcare (p. 601). States Department of Education’s early child-
. . . Income allows parents to provide their hood longitudinal kindergarten cohort, which is
children with safer, more stimulating home a comprehensive dataset that provides a nation-
environments; to live in communities with ally representative portrait of kindergarten
better schools, parks, and libraries and more students. Lee and Burkham (2002) explored dif-
challenging peers; to afford tuition and other ferences in young children’s achievement scores
expenses associated with higher education; in literacy and mathematics by race, ethnicity,
to purchase or otherwise gain access to and socioeconomic status (SES) as they began
higher-quality health care; and in many kindergarten. They also analyzed differences by
other ways to buy the things that promote social background in an array of children’s
the health and development of their chil- homes and family activities.
dren” (p. 14). The study demonstrates that inequalities in
2. “A variety of income measures—income children’s cognitive ability by SES are substantial
[relative to needs] . . . income loss, the ratio even before children begin kindergarten and that
of debts to assets, and unstable work—are poverty has a detrimental impact on early intel-
associated with family economic pressure” lectual achievement. Importantly, it demon-
(p. 602). Economic pressure has been found strates that the disadvantages of being poor
to be associated with depression (and stress) outweigh by far the race or family structure of
in parents, which can affect parenting, and children as causes of the cognitive disadvantages.
thus school achievement. Details of the national assessment include the
3. “Family income is usually a stronger predic- following:
tor of ability and achievement outcomes
than are measures of parental schooling or 1. Before children enter kindergarten, the
family structure [e.g., single parenthood]” average cognitive scores of children in the
highest SES group are 60 percent above the indeed lead to increased educational achieve-
scores of the lowest SES group. ment in children.
2. Cognitive skills are much less closely related
to race/ethnicity after accounting for SES.
After taking racial differences into account, Evidence That Familial Supports
children from different SES groups achieve Raise Educational Achievement
at different levels—before they begin I have been examining relationships among
kindergarten. education policy, the economy, and achieve-
3. The impact of family structure on cognitive ment in urban schools. First, I critiqued
skills (e.g., being in a single-parent family) education policy for its lack of attention to urban
is much less than either race or SES. poverty, which, I argued, is maintained by
4. Socioeconomic status is very strongly policies and decisions made at the federal and
related to cognitive skills; SES accounts metropolitan levels. I provided evidence of
for more of the variation in cognitive scores some of the egregious consequences of federal
than any other factor by far. and regional policies and practices for urban
families, neighborhoods, students, and schools.
Lee and Burkham (2002) also found that In particular, I demonstrated that child poverty
disadvantaged children not only enter kinder- creates obstacles to full development and
garten with significantly lower cognitive skills educational achievement, especially when low-
than their advantaged peers, but also that low- income minority children attend low-resourced
SES children begin school (kindergarten) in schools—which most do. In this section I pro-
systematically lower-quality elementary schools vide indirect and direct research evidence
than their more advantaged counterparts. “How- that increased family supports such as financial
ever school quality is defined—in terms of higher resources and less segregated neighborhoods raise
student achievement, more school resources, educational achievement.
more qualified teachers, more positive teacher Indirect evidence is present in a longitudinal
attitudes, better neighborhood or school con- study completed in 2003 that found that
ditions, private vs. public schools—the least improving family income reduces the negative
advantaged United States children begin their (aggressive) social behavior of children, which in
formal schooling in consistently lower-quality turn is likely to lead to better school behavior and
schools. This reinforces the inequalities that performance. For eight years, researchers studied
develop even before children reach school age” a representative population sample of 1,420
(p. 3; see also Entwistle & Alexander, 1997; children ages nine to thirteen in rural North
Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klevanov, & Carolina. A quarter of the children were from a
Crane, 1998; Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998; Cherokee reservation. Psychological tests were
Stipic & Ryan, 1997; White, 1982). given at the start of the study and repeated each
In their review of studies of poverty’s effects year (Costello, Compton, Keeler, & Angold,
on individual development, Duncan and Brooks- 2003; O’Connor, 2003).
Gunn (1997) conclude, “Taken together, [these When the study began, 68 percent of the
studies] suggest that programs that raise the children were living below the official poverty
incomes of poor families will enhance the line. On average, the poorer children engaged in
cognitive development of children and may more vandalism, stealing, bullying, stubborn-
improve their chance of success in [education ness, and outbursts of anger than those who were
and] the labor market during adulthood. Most not poor. But halfway through the study, a local
important appears to be the elimination of deep casino began distributing a percentage of its
and persistent poverty during a child’s early profits to tribal families. Given to each tribal
years” (p. 608). I now turn to research suggesting member over eighteen and put in a trust fund for
that familial financial and other supports do younger members, the payment increased slightly
each year, reaching about $6,000 per person for income supplements, earnings disregards (rules
the year 2001. Psychiatric tests administered by that allow working welfare recipients to keep
researchers for the four years that the funds were more of their income when they go to work),
being distributed demonstrated that the negative subsidized health care, employment services,
behaviors of children in families who were no counseling, supervised afterschool activities for
longer poor dropped to the same levels found children and youth, and informal get-togethers
among children whose families had never been with project staff.
poor (decreasing by 40%). Parents who moved MDRC’s review of the studies found that even
out of poverty reported having more time to relatively small income supplements to working
spend with their children, and researchers parents (amounting to about $4,000 per year)
identified better parenting behavior. Researchers improved children’s elementary school achieve-
also identified the psychological benefits of not ment by about 10 to 15 percent of the average
being poor as important to both parents and variation in the control groups. These improve-
children. Poverty puts stress on families, which ments were seen on test scores as well as on
can increase the likelihood of children develop- ratings by parents and/or teachers. The earning
ing behavioral problems. One parent in the study supplements had “consistently positive impacts
told researchers that “the jobs [produced by the on children’s [school] achievement” (Morris
casino] give people the chance to pull themselves et al., 2001, p. 63). The positive effects were
up by their bootstraps and get out of poverty. small, but were statistically significant.
That carries over into less juvenile crime, less Longitudinal studies have found that the
domestic violence, and an overall better living achievement and behavior problems of young
experience for families” (O’Connor, 2003, p. 2). children can have important implications for
Other research demonstrates that urban low- their well-being in adolescence and adulthood
income parents are also able to practice more (Caspi, Wright, Moffit, & Silva, 1998; Masten &
effective parenting strategies when some of the Coatsworth, 1995). Moreover, even small differ-
stress of poverty is eased by a higher income. And ences between children in school achievement
the reduction in stress in turn may positively early on can translate into larger differences
affect the behavior and achievement of low- later (Entwistle & Alexander, 1997). Therefore,
income children (see information below; also as the authors of the research synthesis state,
Jackson, Brooks-Gunn, Huang, & Glassman, “a program’s effects on children, even if the
2000; Jeremiah, 2003; Seitz, Rosenbaum, & effects are small, may continue to have implica-
Apfel, 1985). tions over the course of their lives” (Caspi et al.,
Direct evidence that income supports im- 1998, p. 25).
proved educational achievement is also avail- The earning supplements provided by four
able. In March 2001, the Manpower Demon- of these programs did not, however, bring the
stration Research Corporation (MDRC) families above the poverty level. The improve-
published a synthesis of research on how wel- ments in children’s school achievement and
fare and work policies affect the children of behavior from even these relatively meager cash
single mothers (Morris, Huston, Duncan, supplements for working families suggest that if
Crosby, & Bos, 2001). This synthesis reviewed we were to increase family resources substan-
data from evaluations of five programs that tially, we could probably improve educational
provided income supplements to poverty-wage and social outcomes for children substantially.
workers (Florida’s Family Transition Program, Indeed, one program that did provide an
the Minnesota Family Investment Program, the earning supplement that brought the families
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strat- above poverty level showed particularly im-
egies, Milwaukee’s New Hope for Families and pressive results for children’s behavior and
Children Program, and the Self-Sufficiency achievement. New Hope for Families and Chil-
Project). These programs offered supports of dren was run between 1994 and 1998 in two
differing kinds to poverty-wage workers— inner-city areas in Milwaukee. Candidates had
to live in one of two targeted areas, be eighteen and stabilizing rent and other payments. Parents
or older, be willing and able to work at least thirty in New Hope also reported better physical
hours per week, and have a household income health and fewer symptoms associated with
at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty depression than did parents in the control group.
level (Huston et al., 2001). Almost 90 percent At the two-year point, New Hope parents
of the adults in the sample were single or reported reduced stress, increased feelings of
separated mothers with children when they social support, and increased time pressure. The
entered the study, and 80 percent were receiving ethnographic study found that many parents
public assistance. The program was conceived by had children with disabilities or behavioral
a nonprofit community-based organization and difficulties; New Hope helped the parents
provided several benefits: the earnings supple- achieve a difficult balance among work, services,
ment, subsidized health insurance, and subsidized and parenting. . . . The New Hope parents did
child care. The program offered help in obtaining report fewer problems controlling their children,
a job and provided a community-service job for and parents of adolescents reported more
up to one year for those not able to find work effective management (better control and less
elsewhere; the advice and support of project staff need for punishment). (p. 9)
were made available. The annual cost of
providing these benefits was $5,300 per family. New Hope improved children’s school
New Hope was evaluated at two-year and performance. “At both the two-year and the five-
five-year intervals using a random assignment year points, children in the program performed
research design. After conducting outreach in better than control group children on several
the communities to identify eligible people, measures of academic achievement, particularly
the study enrolled over 1,300 low-income on reading and literacy tests. After five years,
adults. Half the applicants were randomly they scored higher on a standardized test of
assigned to a program group that received reading skills and their parents reported that they
New Hope’s benefits, and the other half were got higher grades in reading skills” (Huston et al.,
randomly assigned to a control group that was 2001, p. 13). These effects were slightly more
not eligible for the benefits. pronounced for boys than for girls. Compared
Both evaluations showed positive results with their control group counterparts, boys
(Bos, Huston, Duncan, Brock, & McLoyd, 1996; in New Hope also received higher ratings of
Huston et al., 2001). Financial supplements in academic performance from their teachers and
the New Hope program did reduce the number were more likely to expect to attend college at
of families in poverty, but both program both the two-year and the five-year assess-
and control groups reported similar levels of ments. “New Hope adolescents reported more
hardship, such as food insecurity and financial engagement with schools, feelings of efficacy,
insufficiency. Yet the program had positive and expectations to finish college than did their
effects on parents’ well-being and coping skills. control group counterparts” (pp. 13–14). New
As Huston et al. (2003) explain: Hope’s effects are consistent with the results of
other programs that have improved children’s
Parents in the New Hope group were more aware outcomes by providing wage supplements and
of available “helping” resources in the commu- subsidized child care (Michalopoulos et al.,
nity, such as where to find assistance with 2002; Morris et al., 2001).
energy costs or housing problems. More of them Indeed, the New Hope findings are in line
also knew about the [Earned Income Tax Credit] with the increased educational achievement of
and its support, an important source of support for students that has been identified in large-scale
low-income workers. Ethnographic data suggest programs that assist low-income minority
that a significant number of families intentionally families by helping them move from inner-city
used the Earned Income Tax Credits as a savings neighborhoods to more affluent and/or less
plan for making major purchases, reducing debt, segregated metropolitan areas. The first of these
“mobility programs” was the Gautreaux program levels; they also received counseling assistance in
in the Chicago metropolitan area. finding private rental units. A second group was
As a result of a victorious lawsuit charging the given Section 8 certificates with no special
Chicago Housing Authority with segregation in restrictions on where they were to move, and no
public housing, the court ordered the housing counseling (Section 8-only group). An in-place
authority to move families who wanted to live control group continued to receive housing
in less segregated areas of the city and suburbs. project assistance in the inner-city neighbor-
The Gautreaux program moved over 7,000 hoods where they lived. The families in all three
families to higher-income areas of the Chicago groups of the MTO program tended to be
metropolitan region between 1976 and 1998 young single mothers (under age 35), African
(Rubinowitz & Rosenbaum, 2002). Although American, with a median income of $8,200.
at first a disproportionate number of the chil- Most stated that their main reason for wanting
dren who moved were placed in classes for the to move was fear of gangs and violence in the
learning disabled by their suburban schools, neighborhoods in which they lived.
they ultimately were significantly more likely Social scientists conducted research at all five
than their urban counterparts to be in college- sites, using HUD data, baseline surveys, follow-
bound tracks, in four-year colleges, and were up surveys of families, qualitative interviews, and
subsequently more likely to be employed in jobs data on juvenile crime, labor-market outcomes,
with higher pay and with benefits than chil- and school performance. Among their findings
dren who stayed in the city (Rubinowitz & are the following.
Rosenbaum, 2002). One to three years after the families in the
The success of the Gautreaux program led to experimental group moved, they lived in
more than fifty other mobility programs, includ- significantly more affluent and more racially
ing the Moving To Opportunity program (MTO) mixed communities than families in the other
begun by the U.S. Department of Housing and two groups. In addition, those who were in the
Urban Development (HUD) in 1994. The Hous- experimental group had median incomes that
ing and Community Development Act of 1992 were 73 percent higher than the median incomes
authorized HUD to “assist very low-income for the control group and 53 percent higher than
families with children who reside in public the Section 8-only group. In 1997, three years
housing or housing receiving project-based after the program began, the MTO experimental
assistance under Section 8 of the Housing and group families in all five metropolitan areas lived
Community Development Act of 1937 to move in less-segregated neighborhoods than either of
out of areas with high concentrations of persons the other two groups.
living in poverty (40% or more) to areas with low Studies of adults in the experimental groups
concentrations of such persons (less than 10% in in New York and Boston reported significantly
poverty)” (Goering & Feins, 2003, p. 6). Moving better health and emotional well-being than the
To Opportunity projects were carried out in five Section 8-only and control groups in those cities.
cities: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Mothers in both the experimental groups were
and New York. Congress stipulated that HUD much less likely to report being depressed or
conduct evaluations of the program to determine stressed. The parents provided more structure for
its effects (Goering & Feins, 2003). their children’s activities and used less restrictive
Overall, roughly 5,300 families volunteered to parenting styles. By the third year, 10 percent
move within the metropolitan area of the city in fewer of the experimental group in New York
which they lived. In total, 4,608 families were City were receiving welfare. In Boston, public
eligible. They were divided into three groups: the assistance for MTO families dropped by half, and
MTO “treatment” or experimental group, which employment in all MTO sites increased from
received Section 8 certificates or vouchers that 27 percent at the beginning of the program to
could only be used in areas where 10 percent or 43 percent three years later. Employment in
less of the residents lived below official poverty Boston increased by more than one-half.
The outcomes for children in these experi- same period. Furthermore, there was a 50 percent
mental groups were also encouraging. They reduction in the proportion of juveniles in the
attended schools that had higher pass rates, experimental group who were arrested for violent
more affluent student bodies, and more resources offenses. For example, in a given quarter, 3 per-
than the schools attended by control group cent of adolescents in the control group were
children. Ludwig, Duncan, and Ladd (2003) arrested for violent crimes, compared with only
hypothesize that the peer groups in the new 1.4 percent among the experimental group
schools had more positive attitudes toward school (Ludwig et al., 2003).
than in the inner city, and this may also have Research in the Boston MTO found sig-
contributed to good outcomes for the children. nificantly fewer behavioral and mental health
Ludwig, Duncan, and Ladd report that young problems among boys in both the experimen-
children in the experimental and Section 8-only tal and Section 8-only groups, and experimental-
groups “achieved higher test scores than the group children were less likely to be injured or
controls, and experienced fewer arrests for to experience asthma attacks. Among children
violent criminal behavior” (2003, p. 164). The with asthma, the number of attacks requiring
authors report in some detail the assessments in medical attention fell significantly (Goering
Baltimore, and state that they are “largely & Feins, 2003). Additionally, the children in the
consistent with evidence from the other MTO experimental group in Boston were less likely to
sites” (p. 163). Young children in the experi- engage in antisocial behavior (Ludwig et al.,
mental and Section 8-only groups had Compre- 2003).
hensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) reading In sum, these results are in general agree-
scores that were on average six to seven percent- ment with evaluations of other mobility pro-
age points higher than those in the control group grams, which have generally led to “substantial
(i.e., in low-income urban schools). “This large improvements in . . . neighborhood conditions,
effect is equal to around one-quarter of the physical and mental health, safety, housing con-
control group mean of 25 percentile points and ditions, adult labor-market outcomes (although
one-quarter of a standard deviation in the the findings here are mixed)” (Johnson, Ladd, &
national CTBS math distribution” (p. 165). Ludwig, 2002, p. 185) and improvements in the
Children in the experimental group also raised children’s behavior and educational outcomes of
their CTBS math scores about the same amount, families who moved.
and their pass rates on the Maryland Functional The success of even small family supports and
Tests’ (MFT) reading test were almost double of a move to places of increased opportunity
those in the inner-city schools. suggests that we should provide a financial
High school students in the Baltimore experi- and opportunity base for urban families. This in
mental group had a more difficult transition. In itself will lay the foundation for fuller child
the first three years of MTO, they had higher rates development and educational achievement.
of grade retention, disciplinary action, and school
dropout rates than the children of families in the
A New Education Policy Paradigm
other two groups. The authors suggest that these
differences may be due to the enforcement of I have outlined a number of federal and regional
higher behavioral and/or educational standards policies and practices that undermine urban
in more affluent schools (Ludwig et al, 2003). school quality and potential by maintaining large
However, teens who moved from high- poverty populations in urban neighborhoods.
to low-poverty neighborhoods were arrested less I have also provided evidence that this poverty
often than teens in the other groups. For works against the development and achievement
example, 2.7 percent of control group adoles- of urban students. Importantly, however, we also
cents were arrested during an average three- see that even modest financial and social supports
month period, compared with only 1.4 percent for poor families enable the children to achieve
of teens in the experimental group during the at higher levels in school. This suggests that
policies to counter the devastating effects of be filled in order to provide opportunities to learn
macroeconomic and regional mandates and at high levels. Educational accountability would
practices should “count” as policies we call on to be conceived as a public undertaking, centrally
create equity and quality in urban districts and involving families, communities, and students, in
schools. consultation with district and government
As education policymakers and practitioners, officials.
we can acknowledge and act on the power of In this approach to urban school reform,
urban poverty, low-wage work, and housing “policy alignment” would not refer to the fit
segregation to dwarf most curricular, pedagogical, between education mandates issued by various
and other educational reforms. The effects of levels of government and bureaucracy. The fit we
macroeconomic policies continually trump the would seek is between neighborhood, family, and
effects of education policies. student needs and the potential of education
To remove economic barriers to school policies to contribute to their fulfillment.
quality and consequence, we can legislate a sig- However, economic strength and political
nificantly higher living wage; we can create jobs leverage is not all that is required to transform
in cities that offer career ladders and prepare low- urban education. Good schools require not only
income residents to fill them. And, like a num- good neighborhoods, but—as equity-seeking
ber of European countries, we can tax wealthy educational reforms have promised—also the
families and corporations to pay for these and detracking of minority and working-class youth,
other investments. We should enforce federal a culture responsive to students, and assistance
antidiscrimination measures to integrate segre- to teachers in their struggle to surmount the wall
gated housing and create public transit routes of resignation and defiance that separates many
so low-income urban residents without cars are students from the educational enterprise.
not denied access to jobs in the suburbs. Policies A new paradigm of education policy is
like these would create a social foundation possible—one that promotes equity-seeking
on which high-quality schooling would rest. As school change and that includes strategies to
has been the case in affluent suburbs, economic create conditions that will allow the educational
access creates the financial and political con- improvements to take root, grow, and bear fruit
ditions in families and communities for in students’ lives.
educational commitment and reward.
In this new paradigm, education policies for Notes
which we press would take on the larger issues: 1. The 1958 National Defense Education Act
Education funding reform would include the (NDEA) funded and promoted curriculum
companion need for financing neighborhood materials, primarily in science, math, and foreign
jobs and decent wages. New small schools would languages (e.g., the “New Math”), and some of
be created as an important part of coordinated these probably found their way into city districts
and classrooms. But the NDEA was aimed at
efforts at neighborhood revitalization for low- increasing the security and technological prowess
income residents. Vocational offerings in high of the United States, not at improving urban
school would link to living-wage campaigns and schools.
employers who support them. College gradu- 2. Graduation rates in large urban high schools are
ation would be understood as a continuation of lower than is commonly believed. Jay P. Greene,
senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy
government’s financial responsibility for public Research, calculated graduation rates in all states
education. And lawsuits to racially integrate and large cities for major racial groups. For this
districts would acknowledge housing segregation calculation he first identified the eighth-grade
as fundamental and target legal challenges public school enrollment for each jurisdiction and
accordingly. for each subgroup from the 1993 fall semester,
adjusting for student movement into or out of an
Policies that set the standards schools must area. He then obtained counts of the number of
meet would identify the money, materials, teach- regular high school diplomas awarded in the
ers, courses, and neighborhood needs that must spring of 1998 when the eighth graders should
have been graduating. (In calculating the 1998 poverty and reform welfare. New York: Manpower
graduation rate, he did not include later GED Demonstration Research Corporation.
or other alternative diplomas, as the federal Caspi, A., Wright, B., Moffit, E., & Silva, T. (1998).
government does.) He found that the national Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and
graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71 per- adolescent predictors of unemployment in the
cent. For White students the rate was 78 percent, transition to adulthood. American Sociological
for African American students it was 56 percent, Review, 63, 424–451.
and for Latinos, 54 percent. In fifteen of forty-five Cauthen, N., & Lu, H. (2001, August). Living on the
large (mostly urban) districts for which there were edge: Employment alone is not enough for America’s
data, fewer than 50 percent of African American low-income children and families (Research Brief
students graduated; and in twenty-one of thirty- No. 1, Mailman School of Public Health, National
six large, mostly urban districts for which there Center for Children in Poverty). New York:
were data, fewer than 50 percent of Latino Columbia University.
students graduated (Greene, 2001, pp. 1–5). Citizens for Tax Justice. (2002). Surge in corporate
tax welfare drives corporate tax payments down to
near record low. Washington, DC: Author.
References Citro, C., & Michael, R. (Eds.). (1995). Measuring
poverty: A new approach. Washington, DC:
Anyon, J. (1979). Ideology and U.S. history textbooks. National Academy Press.
Harvard Educational Review, 49, 361–386. Conley, D. (2003). Who governs our schools? Changing
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden roles and responsibilities. New York: Teachers
curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162, 7–92. College Press.
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Costello, J., Compton, S., Keeler, G., & Angold, A.
Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3–42. (2003). Relationships between poverty and
Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class, and educational psychopathology: A natural experiment. Journal
reform in an inner city school. Teachers College of the American Medical Association, 290, 2023–
Record, 97, 69–94. 2029.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy Cross, C. (2004). Political education: National policy
of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers comes of age. New York: Teachers College Press.
College Press. Dillon, S. (2003, April 30). Report finds number of
Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, black children in deep poverty rising. New York
urban education, and a new social movement. New Times, p. 18A.
York: Routledge.
Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2001).
Ayres, L. (1909). Laggards in our schools: A study of
Place matters: Metropolitics for the 21st century.
retardation and elimination in city school systems. New
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
York: Russell Sage.
Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997).
Bernstein, J., Brocht, C., & Spade-Aguilar, M.
(2000). How much is enough? Basic family budgets for Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell
working families. Washington, DC: Economic Sage.
Policy Institute. Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1994).
Bolger, K., & Patterson, C. (1995). Psychosocial Economic deprivation and early childhood devel-
adjustment among children experiencing per- opment. Child Development, 65, 296–318.
sistent and intermittent family economic hardship. Economic Policy Institute. (2002). Economic snapshots.
Child Development, 66, 1107–1129. Washington, DC: Author.
Bradley, R. (1984). One hundred, seventy-four Economic Policy Institute. (2004). EPI issue guide:
children: A study of the relation between the home Minimum wage. Washington, DC: Author.
environment and early cognitive development in Education Trust. (2001). The funding gap: Low-income
the first 5 years. In A. Gottfried (Ed.), The home and minority students receive fewer dollars. Wash-
environment and early cognitive development ington, DC: Author.
(pp. 5–56). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Entwistle, D., & Alexander, K. (1997). Children,
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Leventhal, T., & schools, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview
Aber, L. (1997). Lessons learned and future Press.
directions for research on the neighborhoods Fine, M. (2001, May). Comparative analysis of the
in which children live. In J. Brooks-Gunn, organization of high schools 1996–97, NYC Board
G. Duncan, & L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood of Education. Findings presented at the Spencer
poverty, volume 1: Contexts and consequences for Conference, New York. Document available at
children (pp. 279–298). New York: Russell Sage. www.nysed.gov.80/emsc/docs4-99NYStrategy.
Bos, J., Huston, A. C., Duncan, G. J., Brock, T., & ppt.3.
McLoyd, V. (1996). New hope for people with low Galbraith, J. (1998). Created unequal: The crisis in
incomes: Two-year results of a program to reduce American pay. New York: Free Press.
Goering, J., & Feins, J. (Eds.). (2003). Choosing a G. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences
better life? Evaluating the Moving To Opportunity of growing up poor (pp. 70–99). New York: Russell
social experiment. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Sage.
Press. Lafer, G. (2002). The job training charade. Ithaca, NY:
Greene, J. (2001). High school graduation rates in the Cornell University Press.
United States. Washington, DC: Black Alliance Lee, V., & Burkham, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting
for Educational Options and the Manhattan gate: Social background and achievement at kinder-
Institute. garten entry. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Harrington, M. (1963). The other America: Poverty in Institute.
the United States. Baltimore: Penguin. Lu, H. (2003). Low-income children in the United States.
Houser, R. M., Brown, B. V., & Prosser, W. R. (1998). New York: Columbia University, Mailman School
Indicators of children’s well-being. New York: Russell of Public Health.
Sage. Ludwig, J., Duncan, G., & Ladd, H. (2003). The
Hout, M. (1988). More universalism, less structural effects of moving to opportunity on children and
mobility: The American occupational structure parents in Baltimore. In J. Goering & J. Feins
in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 93, (Eds.), Choosing a better life? (pp. 153–177).
1358–1400. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Huston, A. C., Duncan, G. J., Granger, R., Bos, J., Masten, A., & Coatsworth, D. (1995). The structure
McLoyd, V. C., Mistry, R., Crosby, D. A., Gibson, and coherence of competence from childhood
C., Magnuson, K., Romich, J., & Ventura, A. through adolescence. Child Development, 66,
(2001). Work-based anti-poverty programs for 1635–1659.
parents can enhance the school performance McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage
and social behavior of children. Child Development, and child development. American Psychologist, 53,
72, 318–336. 185–204.
Huston, A. C., Miller, C., Richburg-Hayes, L., McLoyd, V., & Jartayne, T. (1994). Unemployment
Duncan, G. J., Eldred, C. A., Weisner, T. S., Lowe, and work interruption among African-American
E., McLoyd, V. C., Crosby, D. A., Ripke, M. N., single mothers: Effects on parenting and adolescent
& Redcross, C. (2003). Summary report, New socio-emotional functioning. Child Development,
Hope for families and children: Five-year results of 65, 562–589.
a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare. Miao, J., & Haney, W. (2004). High school graduation
New York: Manpower Demonstration Research rates: Alternative methods and implications.
Corporation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(55).
Jackson, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., Huang, C., & Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/
Glassman, M. (2000) Single mothers in low-wage v12n55.
jobs: Financial strain, parenting, and preschoolers’ Michalopoulos, C., Tattri, D., Miller, C., Robins,
outcomes. Child Development, 71, 1409–1423. P. K., Morris, P., Gyarmati, D., Redcross, C., Foley,
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998) The Black/White test K., & Ford, R. (2002). Making work pay: Final report
score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution on the self-sufficiency project for long-term welfare
Press. recipients. New York: Manpower Demonstration
Jeremiah, L. (2003). Family support programs and Research Corporation.
academic achievement: Lessons for Seattle. Unpub- Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Boushey, H. (2003). The
lished manuscript. Available online at www.evans. state of working America: 2002/2003. Ithaca, NY:
washington.edu/research/psclinic/pdf/02-03dp/ Cornell University Press.
Jeremiahdp.pdf. Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Schmitt, J. (2001). The
Johnson, M., Ladd, H., & Ludwig, J. (2002). The state of working America: 2000/2001. Ithaca,
benefits and costs of residential mobility programs. NY: Cornell University Press.
Housing Studies, 17, 125–138. Morris, P., Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., Crosby, D., &
Kingsley, T., & Petit, K. (2003). Concentrated poverty? Bos, J. (2001). How welfare and work policies
A change in course. Neighborhood change in affect children: A synthesis of research. Washington,
urban America series. Washington, DC: Urban DC: Manpower Demonstration Research Corpora-
Institute. tion.
Klerman, L. (1991; 2003 Reprint edition). The health O’Connor, A. (2003, October 21). Rise in income
of poor children: Problems and programs. In improves children’s behavior. New York Times,
A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children and poverty: Child p. F5.
development and public policy (pp. 136–157). New Odden, A., & Picus, L. (1992). School finance: A policy
York: Cambridge University Press. perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Korenman, S., & Miller, J. (1997). Effects of Orfield, M. (2002). American metropolitics: The new
long-term poverty on physical health of children sub-urban reality. Washington, DC: Brookings
in the national longitudinal survey of youth. In Institute.
Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy: A political Short, K., Iceland, J., & Garner, T. (1999). Experi-
history of the American rich. New York: Broadway mental poverty measures: 1998. Washington, DC:
Books. U.S. Census Bureau.
Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klevanov, Smith, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1997).
P., & Crane, J. (1998). Family background, parent- Consequences of living in poverty for young
ing practices, and the Black/White test score gap. children’s cognitive and verbal ability and early
In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black/White school achievement. In G. Duncan & J. Brooks-
test score gap (pp. 103–145). Washington, DC: Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp.
Brookings Institution Press. 132–189). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the Stein, S. (2004). The culture of educational policy. New
Black/White test score gap widen after children York: Teachers College Press.
enter school? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), Stipic, D., & Ryan, R. (1997). Economically disadvan-
The Black/White test score gap (pp. 229–272). Wash- taged preschoolers: Ready to learn but further to
ington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. go. Developmental Psychology, 33, 711–723.
Ravitch, D. (2000). The great school wars: A history of Sugland, B., Zaslow, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995).
the New York City public schools. Baltimore: Johns The early childhood HOME inventory and
Hopkins University Press. HOME short form in differing socio-cultural
Rubinowitz, L., & Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Crossing the groups: Are there differences in underlying
class and color line: From public housing to White structure, internal consistency of subcases, and
suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. patterns of prediction? Journal of Family Issues, 16,
Rusk, D. (1999). Inside game/outside game: Winning 632–663.
strategies for saving urban America. Washington, Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of
DC: Brookings Institution. American urban education. Cambridge, MA:
Sampson, R., Morenoff, J., & Gannon-Rowley, T. Harvard University Press.
(2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social White, K. (1982). The relationship between socio-
processes and new directions in research. Annual economic status and academic achievement.
Review of Sociology, 28, 443–478. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 46–81.
Seitz, V., Rosenbaum L., & Apfel, N. (1985). Effects Wrigley, J. (1982). Class politics and public schools:
of family support intervention: A ten-year follow- Chicago 1900–1950. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
up. Child Development 56, 376–391. University Press.
3 The History of Education
Our discussion of the history of education in the United States begins with the introduction of
schooling in colonial America when Europeans settled in the colonies and began to devise
systematic and deliberate forms of education for their children. Other forms of education existed
in North America prior to European settlement. Native Americans educated their children within
the structure of their communities and acculturated them into the rituals, obligations, and roles
necessary for the maintenance and continuity of community life. Although such forms of education
were extremely important, the development of U.S. schooling was heavily influenced by the
European colonists as they adapted to life in North America.
There are many interpretations as to why education was so important to the early settlers and
why it continues to be an important issue in contemporary society. Historians, such as Bernard
Bailyn (1960), have attributed the use of the school to the failure of particular institutions such
as the family, church, and community to provide the necessary tools demanded by the conditions
of the new emerging society. Historian Merle Curti (1959/1971) attributed the use of formal
schooling to the interests of the colonists in protecting freedoms such as thought, religion, and
press—freedoms necessary for the maintenance of a democratic society. Regardless of the motives
and intentions, it is important to look at the early versions of schools in order to understand how
the present-day school evolved. What will become increasingly apparent are three ideas:
1. From its very inception, the school was charged with assuming roles that once were the
province of family, church, and community.
2. The school continues to serve as a focal point in larger issues of societal needs.
3. There is little consensus on the motives for school reforms.
Old World and New World Education: The Colonial Era

Our discussion of the history of U.S. education begins with the settlers who brought their ideas
about education to the New World. In general, the society of the Old World was highly stratified,
and the view most Europeans held was that only the sons of the rich required an education since
they would be the future ruling class. Thus, early affluent settlers such as planters and townsmen,
particularly in the southern colonies, hired tutors for their sons and sent their sons back to England,
if they could afford it, for their university educations.
It is interesting to note, however, that many of the wealthy colonists’ sons did remain in
the United States for their higher education, since nine institutions of higher learning were
founded prior to the American Revolution. These were Harvard University (1636), College of
William and Mary (1693), Yale University (1701), University of Pennsylvania (1740), Princeton
University (1746), Columbia University (1754), Brown University (1764), Rutgers University
(1766), and Dartmouth College (1769). However, the colleges themselves were not at all
revolutionary. They taught most of the same subjects found at Oxford or Cambridge, and Greek
and Latin were required subjects.
What becomes increasingly apparent in the history of U.S. education is that even before
education began to formalize and acquire certain specific patterns, there emerged distinctly different
themes regarding the purpose of education. For example, as just noted, the upper-class planter
aristocracy and wealthy merchants saw education as a means of perpetuating the ruling class.
Religious, utilitarian, and civic motives also emerged over time.
The religious impetus to formalize instruction can best be exemplified by the Puritans in
New England who, early in 1642 and 1647, passed school laws commonly referred to as the
Old Deluder Laws. The first law chastised parents for not attending to their children’s “ability to
read and understand the principles of religion and capital laws of this country” and fined them
for their children’s “wanton” and “immodest” behavior. Thus, the first law pointed to a problem
among the young to which the parents failed to attend.
The second law was far more specific regarding formalized schooling. To keep the “old deluder”
Satan away, the Massachusetts School Law of 1647 provided that every town that had
“50 household” would appoint one person to teach all children, regardless of gender, to read and
write. Furthermore, the town was required to pay the wages of the teacher. Towns that numbered
“100 families or household” had to set up a grammar school (equivalent to a secondary school
today) to prepare students for university studies. Towns that failed to comply were subject to fines.
Thus, early in the nation’s history, the theme of literacy as a means of teaching a Christian life
was articulated.
The Old Deluder Law was not very popular throughout New England. Often, towns simply
neglected to provide the education for their youth as dictated by law. However, it remains a
landmark in the history of U.S. education, for it established a precedent for public responsibility
for education.
The theme of utilitarianism as the purpose of education can best be seen through an exam-
ination of the ideas of Benjamin Franklin, who, in 1749, published “Proposals Related to the
Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.” Franklin called for an education for youth based on secular
and utilitarian courses of study rather than on the traditional studies of religion and classics.
However, as Bailyn (1960) pointed out, Franklin did not define education along narrowly defined
utilitarian principles. Rather, Franklin believed that “the purpose of schooling was to provide in
systematic form what he had extemporized, haphazardly feeling his way” (p. 35). Thus, Franklin
believed that students should pursue a course of study that would allow them mastery of process
rather than rote learning. Reading, writing, public speaking, and art as a means of understanding
creative expression would be integral components of the curriculum.
Utilitarian components of the curriculum would be practical aspects of mathematics, such as
accounting and natural history (biology). Additionally, students would study history, geography,
and political studies. Languages such as Latin and Greek would be available to students who wished
to enter the ministry. Others, who sought commerce and trade as careers, might study more modern
languages such as French, Italian, German, and Spanish.
Perhaps because of his own life experience, Benjamin Franklin fervently believed in the ability
of people to better themselves. His faith in self-improvement through education and in an
education that reflected practical concerns was not explored again until the nineteenth century.
Franklin’s proposal for an academy became the prototype for private secondary education in the
United States. It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century, however, that public
support for Franklin’s ideas became a reality.
The civic motive for education is best illustrated through the ideas of the prominent American
statesman, Thomas Jefferson, who fervently believed that the best safeguard for democracy was
a literate population. It was Jefferson who proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779, a “Bill
for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,” which would provide free education to all children
for the first three years of elementary school. Jefferson, a product of enlightenment thinking, was
optimistic enough to think that if citizens possessed enough education to read newspapers and
thus inform themselves of pressing public issues, they would make intelligent, informed decisions
at the polls.
Jefferson’s bill also provided for a limited meritocracy within the educational structure. After
the initial three years of reading, writing, and “common arithmetic,” all students could advance
to 1 of 20 grammar schools within the state of Virginia, contingent on their payment of tuition.
However, Jefferson proposed that each elementary school send one scholarship student to a
grammar school. After two to three years of rigorous, classical studies (Latin, Greek, English
grammar, geography, mathematics), the most promising scholarship student from among this group
of 20 students would be selected for another funded four years of study, while the remaining group
would be dismissed.
Finally, each grammar school would have the task of selecting 10 of its best students who would
receive three-year scholarships to the College of William and Mary. Thus, Jefferson set forth in
his bill a proposal for an aristocracy of talent, which would be nurtured and supported through
a statewide educational structure. Unfortunately, Jefferson was ahead of his time; the majority of
the state legislators agreed that the state should not be involved in educating its inhabitants and
that, in any event, Jefferson’s proposal required funds far beyond those possessed by the state of
Virginia at that time.
The schools that were established in the United States during the colonial period varied greatly
in the quality of instruction. In Puritan New England, often an elderly housewife (usually a widow)
heard lessons, which consisted of recitations. These schools became known as dame schools.
Elementary education, in the New England town school, established by the Old Deluder Law,
consisted of such basic subjects as reading, writing, and religion. Students were taught by learning
the alphabet: letters first, syllables and words next, and then sentences. There were few supplies
and textbooks, except for the famous New England Primer. This book, sometimes referred to as
the “Little Bible of New England,” combined the teaching of reading with religious education,
obedience, and citizenship. For example, in teaching the first letter of the alphabet, children would
be treated to an illustration of Adam and Eve, the latter holding an apple given to her by a serpent,
wrapped around a tree that was separating the couple, with the accompanying words: “A: In Adam’s
Fall/We Sinned, All.” This book, which appeared about 1690, sold more than 3 million copies
during the 1700s (Gutek, 1991).
Students were taught content mastery through memorization. They were taught writing skills
by copying directly from the printed page or by taking dictation from the schoolmaster. Classes
were ungraded; all students were housed in the same room and taught by a teacher who might
have been an indentured servant, a divinity student, or a village preacher. Strict disciplinary
methods prevailed, which might be considered overly harsh by today’s standards, perhaps
influenced by the Puritan predilection to the “authoritarian temperament” of leadership (Button
& Provenzano, 1989).
Secondary education, as it evolved in New England, was not coeducational, as was the
elementary school; rather, it was for the sons of the elite who were usually tutored at home rather
than receiving their primary schooling at the local town school. This school was called the Latin
Grammar School, as the curriculum emphasized the teaching of Latin and Greek—languages of
the educated elite in Europe. Ultimately, it served as a sorting device through which the newly
formed Puritan elite in the United States could reproduce itself. Male students entered the Latin
Grammar School at eight years of age and studied there for another eight years. They read classical
texts such as Cicero and Caesar in Latin and Homer and Hesiod in Greek. Clearly, the emphasis
here was not on a utilitarian education as later articulated by Franklin; rather, students were being
“taught by example” from classical literature, which hopefully would enable them to function
effectively as leaders in the Puritan oligarchy.
Education in the middle colonies was far more diverse than in Puritan New England, as the
schools that emerged there reflected the vast religious and cultural differences of the region.
Generally, education was the province of the colonies’ numerous religious denominations, such
as Dutch Reformed, Quaker, Roman Catholic, and Jewish. New York was dominated by the Dutch
Reformed Church, which, like the Puritans, espoused the importance of literate congregations.
When the English took over New York, they established charity schools, which were controlled
by the Anglican Church. These schools emphasized reading, writing, arithmetic, catechism, and
religion. In Pennsylvania, where English Quakers dominated the political and economic life of
the colony, they also controlled education. However, in keeping with their humane attitude toward
human life, the Quakers rejected the harsh treatment of children prevalent in the other colonies
and paid more attention to individual children as they mastered reading, writing, arithmetic, and
religion (Gutek, 1991).
Education in the South was largely confined to the upper class and took place at home on the
plantation, since the vastness of these economic units made the construction of formal schools
virtually impossible. Education was provided by tutors who might have been indentured servants,
divinity students, impoverished second sons of European aristocrats, or convicts. Indeed, before
the American Revolution, one observer reported that “two-thirds of the schoolmasters in Maryland
were either indentured servants or convicts” (Wright, 1957, p. 101).
Both male and female children were educated on an aristocratic model: Classical studies were
emphasized for boys, whereas dancing and music lessons were emphasized for girls. Although some
Southern women may have shared their brothers’ tutors, learning to master the social graces took
precedence over Caesar in aristocratic Southern households. Occasionally, boys were sent away
to school, most likely to England. Plantation management was learned by both sexes according
to gender-specific roles. Girls were expected to master the domestic side of plantation management
from their mothers, while boys learned the practical aspects from their fathers. Southern planters
often sent their sons north to colonial colleges or to Europe to complete their education. However,
by 1817, Jefferson wrote the “Rockfish Gap Report,” the report of the Commission to establish a
public university in Virginia, leading to the establishment of the University of Virginia in
Charlottesville. The university was based on Jefferson’s model of a natural aristocracy based on
talent, or what later was called a meritocracy.
On the eve of the American Revolution, almost all of the black population of one-half million
were slaves. As Gutek (1991) observed,
In being uprooted from their native Africa, the blacks were torn from their own culture and thrust into
an environment not merely inhospitable, but completely alien. As slaves the African blacks were
undergoing induction into a society vastly different from that of their homeland. (p. 10)
Few members of this group could read or write. Those who could, more often than not, had received
their instruction outside of existing formal schools, for “it appears that only a handful attended
school along with the whites” (Cremin, 1972, pp. 194–195). Schools that did exist for blacks
were usually sponsored by church groups, in particular Anglicans and Quakers (Button &
Provenzano, 1989). Few slave owners were willing to support formal education for their slaves,
since literacy was not directly connected to their work. Moreover, many feared that literate slaves
would be more likely to lead insurrections. Although blacks were kept illiterate as part of their
subordinate position both on plantations and in the cities, some managed to learn skills as artisans,
working as carpenters, coopers, wainwrights, farriers, coachmen, and skilled domestics.
Formal schooling for Native Americans was largely confined to missionary activities. In Virginia,
the colonists at first attempted to establish “friendly” relations with their Native American neigh-
bors. However, after hostilities broke out in 1622, they decided that “the way of conquering them
is much more easy than of civilizing them by fair means” (Cremin, 1972, p. 194). There were some
mildly successful educative endeavors in New England, particularly in Cambridge and Roxbury,
which were directed by individual schoolmasters to prepare Native Americans for the Indian
College that was established at Harvard University in approximately 1653. This Indian College,
as Wright (1957) noted, was brought about largely due to the misguided belief held by some
educated whites that “Indians were merely awaiting the opportunity to embrace classical scholar-
ship and learn Cicero’s orations” (p. 116). Ultimately, this experiment resulted in failure and was
the first example of attempting to educate Native Americans by assimilating them into European
culture. As in the case of blacks, this period represents the beginning of the marginalization of
Native Americans with respect to formal schooling.
The Age of Reform: The Rise of the Common School

Historians point to the period from 1820 to 1860 in the United States as one in which enormous
changes took place with unprecedented speed. The Industrial Revolution, which began in the
textile industry in England, crossed the Atlantic Ocean and brought its factory system with its
new machinery to urban areas, particularly in the North. Urban clusters grew more dense as
migrants from agricultural areas and immigrants from Europe flocked to the factories, looking for
work. By 1850, these immigrants included a significant group of Roman Catholics who were
escaping starvation in Ireland. Westward expansion, aided in part by the revolution in trans-
portation and in part by the land hunger of pioneers, extended to settlements in Oregon and
California by 1850.
By 1828, when Andrew Jackson was elected president, all men (except slaves and emotionally
disturbed persons) had obtained the right to vote. Thus, the founding fathers’ visions of a political
democracy were increasingly becoming a reality.
In the decades following 1815, groups of reformers—quite different from such archetypes of
rationalism as Franklin and Jefferson—emerged. These men and women often lacked higher
education and did not hold public office but often articulated their ideas with the fervor of
evangelical Christianity. However, their ultimate goals were secular in nature. America, once seen
as the New Jerusalem by the Puritans, would become a secular paradise created by the new reformers.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, a New England essayist and philosopher, wrote of this age, “We are
all a little wild here with numberless projects of social reform.” Although the reform movement
attempted to address such diverse societal problems as slavery, mental illness, intemperance, and
pacifism, many reformers generally believed that the road to secular paradise was through edu-
cation.
By 1820, it had become evident to those interested in education that the schools that had
been established by the pre-war generation were not functioning effectively. Webster’s New England
Primer had been secularized so that the first line “In Adam’s Fall/We Sinned, All” was replaced
by “A was an Apple Pie made by the Cook” (Malone & Rauch, 1960, p. 491), but few children
had access to the reader. The vast majority of Americans were, not surprisingly, illiterate. Even
in New England, with its laws specifying common schools, towns neglected or evaded their duties.
In other parts of the country, charity schools provided the only opportunities for disadvantaged
children to obtain an education.
The struggle for free public education was led by Horace Mann of Massachusetts. Abandoning
a successful career as a lawyer, Mann lobbied for a state board of education, and when the
Massachusetts legislature created one in 1837, Horace Mann became its first secretary, an office
he occupied for 11 years. His annual reports served as models for public school reforms throughout
the nation, and, partly due to Mann’s efforts, the first state normal school (from the French école
normale), or teacher training school, was established in Lexington, Massachusetts, in 1839.
Mann’s arguments for the establishment of the common school, or free publicly funded
elementary schools, reflect both the concern for stability and order and the concern for social
mobility—both of which were to be addressed through free public education. Admittedly, Mann
could not have been immune to the waves of different immigrant groups that were changing the
cultural composition of the cities. Nor could he fail to be immune to the goals of his audiences,
often the wealthy factory owners, who had to be convinced to support public education. Thus,
he spoke of school as a preparation for citizenship as well as the “balance wheel”—“the great
equalizer of the conditions of men.”
Although many historians, particularly liberals and conservatives, view Mann as one of
America’s greatest educational reformers, radicals take issue with his arguments, pointing to the
common school as a pernicious device for teaching skills such as hygiene, punctuality, and
rudimentary skills that would create docile, willing workers. Whatever interpretation one chooses,
Mann’s belief that schools can change the social order and that education can foster social mobility
are beliefs responsible for the faith and support many people give to U.S. public schools.
Opposition to Public Education

Not all groups subscribed to the idea of the common school. The same arguments made today by
people without children or people who send their children to private schools in opposition to
public support of schools were articulated against the common school Horace Mann envisioned.
For example, taxation for public education was viewed as “unjust” by nonrecipients. Roman
Catholics, who viewed the common school as dominated by a Protestant ethos, founded their
own schools. However, by 1860, public support of elementary schools was becoming prevalent
throughout the United States. Education beyond the elementary level, however, was primarily a
province of private academies. Nonetheless, in 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act, which
authorized the use of public money to establish public land grant universities, resulting in the
establishment of large state universities, especially in the Midwest.
Education for Women and Blacks

Traditionally, the role of a woman in Western society has been that of helpmate or homemaker
to the male, who assumed the role of provider. This role for women was vividly described by Jean-
Jacques Rousseau in Émile, written in the eighteenth century. Rousseau, in his tract on education,
created the female character, Sophie, who was to be the companion of the central male character,
Émile, the recipient of a nontraditional but rigorous education. Sophie was encouraged to eat
sweets, learn womanly arts, and be a supportive, loving helpmate to Émile.
This prescriptive role for women held sway throughout the nineteenth century and, for some,
into the twentieth century as well. Generally, education for women was viewed as biologically
harmful or too stressful. Thus, through the first half of the nineteenth century, educational
opportunities for women were severely limited. Few females achieved an education other than
rudimentary literacy and numeracy.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, a significant number of girls attended ele-
mentary schools and many were admitted to private academies, which functioned as secondary
schools. By 1820, the movement for education for women in the United States was making
important inroads.
In 1821, Emma Hart Willard opened the Troy Female Seminary in Troy, New York. The curri-
culum at this female seminary included so-called serious subjects of study, such as mathematics,
science, history, and geography. Modeled on the curriculum of single-sex male academies, Troy
Female Seminary sought to deliver an education to females that was similar to that of their male
counterparts. In subsequent years, other female reformers dedicated to education for women, such
as Catharine Esther Beecher and Mary Lyon, opened schools for females. A pioneer in
postsecondary education for women, Mary Lyon founded Mount Holyoke Seminary in 1837. Entry
requirements (with the exception of a foreign language) and level of instruction were the same
for women as for men at their institutions of higher learning.
Higher education for women did not remain the exclusive domain of Eastern reformers; the
movement for female education spread quickly through the Midwest. In 1833, Oberlin Collegiate
Institute in Ohio opened its doors to women as well as blacks. In 1856, the University of Iowa
became the first state university to admit women. In 1865, Vassar College, the first of the Seven
Sisters women’s colleges, was founded in Poughkeepsie, New York. Shortly after, Wellesley College
and Smith Colleges in Massachusetts were founded, and Mount Holyoke and Bryn Mawr
Seminaries became colleges.
Although educational opportunities for women were expanding during the period preceding
the Civil War, education for blacks was severely limited. After Nat Turner’s Revolt in 1831,
Southerners believed more than ever that literacy bred both insubordination and revolution. Thus,
they forbade the teaching of reading and writing to the slave population. In the North, education
for blacks was usually of inferior quality and separate from the mainstream public school, if provided
at all by the public.
This dismal picture of schooling for blacks prompted black Benjamin Roberts to file a legal
suit in Boston in 1846 over the requirement that his daughter attend a segregated school. In a
precedent-setting case, Roberts v. City of Boston, the court ruled that the local school committee
had the right to establish separate educational facilities for whites and blacks. As a result of this
ruling, blacks were encouraged to establish their own schools. These were usually administered
by their churches and aided in part through funds from abolitionists. During the Civil War,
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which announced
the end of slavery in all states in rebellion against the Union. In 1865, several months after the
end of the Civil War, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which
freed four million slaves. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified,
giving full citizenship to ex-slaves. Although this amendment and the Freedman’s Bureau
attempted to reconstruct the South’s economy and include blacks as full citizens, the Ku Klux
Klan continued to spread racial hatred, and Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes in the South
continued discrimination against Blacks. Its equal protection clause, however, has been applied
to important legal decisions regarding education. In 1868, the Freedman’s Bureau helped to
establish historically Black Colleges, including Howard University in Washington, D.C., and
Hampton Institute in Virginia. However, the problem of equality of opportunity, in general,
and school segregation, in particular, continued to be a significant issue throughout the remainder
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Anderson, 1988; Butchart, 2013; Fairclough,
2002).
Urbanization and the Progressive Impetus

The beginning of the nineteenth century ushered in the First Industrial Revolution—immigration
and urbanization of unprecedented proportions. Accordingly, the conditions created by these
events were met with responses from social reformers whose concerns were far reaching and who
attempted to address and redress the evils in U.S. life.
If the beginning of the nineteenth century seemed problematic to Americans, the close of the
century must have been even more so. Again, there was a revolution in industry, referred to as
the Second Industrial Revolution, this time involving steam-driven and electric-powered
machinery. Factories had given way to gigantic corporations, under the control of such captains
of industry as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. Significantly,

immigrant labor played an essential role in this revolution.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the largest number of immigrants to the United
States came from the northwestern part of Europe—namely, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany,
and the Netherlands. After 1890, an increasingly large number of immigrants came from southern
and eastern Europe. These immigrants’ languages, customs, and living styles were dramatically
different from those of the previous group. They settled in closely crowded substandard living
quarters in urban areas and found work in factories. Thus, by the turn of the century, U.S. cities
contained enormous concentrations of both wealth and poverty. Indeed, the gap between rich
and poor had never been as great as it was at the close of the nineteenth century.
Thus far in this chapter, we have argued that the purpose of education has been seen in a
variety of ways: religious, utilitarian, civic, and, with Mann, social mobility. The common school
was born of an age of reform in this country that was unprecedented until the period between
1900 and 1914 in which a new reform movement, the Progressive Movement, would sweep the
country. Progressive reformers insisted on government regulation of industry and commerce, as
well as government regulation and conservation of the nation’s natural resources. Moreover,
progressive reformers insisted that government at national, state, and local levels be responsive
to the welfare of its citizens rather than to the welfare of corporations. Significantly, progressive
reforms had a sweeping agenda, ranging from secret ballot to schooling. As reformers, such as
Horace Mann, in the nineteenth century had looked to schools as a means of addressing social
problems, so reformers once again looked to schools as a means of preserving and promoting
democracy within the new social order.
An important U.S. philosopher whose influence on schooling is still very much with us today
was John Dewey (1859–1952). Dewey was a contemporary of such reformers as “Fighting Bob La
Follette,” governor of Wisconsin and architect of the “Wisconsin Idea,” which harnessed the
expertise of university professors to the mechanics of state government; settlement workers, such
as Jane Addams and Lillian Wald; and municipal reformers and labor leaders, such as Henry Bruere
and John Golden. Thus, progressive education, the movement with which John Dewey has become
associated, can best be understood, as both historians Lawrence Cremin and Richard Hofstadter
remind us, as part of “a broader program of social and political reform called the Progressive
Movement” (Cremin, 1961, p. 88).
Just as the schools today are undergoing a transformation due in part to rapidly changing
technology, altered life-styles, and new, massive waves of immigrants, it could be argued that the
schools at the turn of the twentieth century were undergoing a similar transformation in their
time. In 1909, for example, 57.8 percent of the children in schools in 37 of the largest cities in
the United States were foreign born (Cremin, 1961, p. 72). Suddenly, teachers were faced with
problems of putative uncleanliness (bathing became part of the school curriculum in certain
districts), and teachers began to teach basic socialization skills. Just how these socialization skills
have come to be interpreted, whether malevolently by radical historians or benevolently by liberal
and conservative historians, is of little concern here. What is important is to consider how Dewey
proposed to meet these challenges through education and how his ideas were interpreted by
progressive disciples in such a way as to alter the course of schooling in this country.
John Dewey was born and raised in Vermont. By 1894, he had become thoroughly enmeshed
in the problems of urbanization as a resident of Chicago and Chair of the Department of
Philosophy, Psychology, and Pedagogy at the University of Chicago. Distressed with the abrupt
dislocation of families from rural to urban environments, concerned with the loss of traditional
ways of understanding the maintenance of civilization, and anxious about the effects unleashed
individualism and rampant materialism would have on a democratic society, Dewey sought answers
in pedagogic practice (see Westbrook, 1991, for an in-depth biography).
Dewey argued in My Pedagogic Creed (1897), The School and Society (1899), and The Child and
the Curriculum (1902) for a restructuring of schools along the lines of “embryonic communities.”
He advocated the creation of a curriculum that would allow for the child’s interests and
developmental level while introducing the child to “the point of departure from which the child
can trace and follow the progress of mankind in history, getting an insight also into the materials
used and the mechanical principles involved” (Dworkin, M.S., 1959, p. 43).
Dewey believed that the result of education was growth, which was firmly posited within a
democratic society. Thus, school for Dewey was “that form of community life in which all
those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the
inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends” (Dworkin, M.S., 1959,
p. 22).
To implement his ideas, Dewey created the Laboratory School at the University of Chicago.
There, children studied basic subjects in an integrated curriculum, since, according to Dewey,
“the child’s life is an integral, a total one” and therefore the school should reflect the “completeness”
and “unity” of “the child’s own world” (Dworkin, M.S., 1959, p. 93). Dewey advocated active
learning, starting with the needs and interests of the child; he emphasized the role of experience
in education and introduced the notion of teacher as facilitator of learning rather than the font
from which all knowledge flows. The school, according to Dewey, was a “miniature community,
an embryonic society” (Dworkin, M.S., 1959, p. 41) and discipline was a tool that would develop
“a spirit of social cooperation and community life” (Dworkin, M.S., 1959, p. 40).
That John Dewey made important contributions to both philosophy of education and
pedagogic practice is undisputable, especially if one examines what happened to education in the
wake of Dewey’s early work. It is important to keep in mind just how rapidly education had
expanded in this period. For example, in 1870, about 6.5 million children from ages 5 through
18 attended school; in 1880, about 15.5 million children attended school—a significant increase,
indeed. No fewer than 31 states by 1900 had enacted compulsory education laws. Thus, what
occurred in schools throughout this nation was to influence large numbers of Americans.
Although few can dispute Dewey’s influence on educational reformers, many believe that Dewey
was often misread, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. Thus, Dewey’s emphasis on the child’s
impulses, feelings, and interests led to a form of progressive education that often became
synonymous with permissiveness, and his emphasis on vocations ultimately led the way for “life
adjustment” curriculum reformers.
Psychologists as well as philosophers became actively involved in educational reform. In fact,
two distinctly different approaches to progressive educational reforms became apparent: the
child-centered pedagogy of G. Stanley Hall and the social efficiency pedagogy of Edward L.
Thorndike.
G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), once referred to as “the Darwin of the mind” (Cremin, 1961,
p. 101), believed that children, in their development, reflected the stages of development of
civilization. Thus, according to Hall, schools should tailor their curriculums to the stages of child
development. Hall argued that traditional schools stifled the child’s natural impulses, and he
suggested that schools individualize instruction and attend to the needs and interests of the children
they educate. This strand of progressive reform became known as child-centered reform.
On the opposite side of child-centered reform was social engineering reform, proposed by Edward
L. Thorndike. Thorndike (1874–1949) placed his emphasis on the organism’s response to its
environment. Working with animals in the laboratory, he came to the conclusion that human
nature could be altered for better or worse, depending on the education to which it was subjected.
Ultimately, Thorndike came to believe that schools could change human beings in a positive way
and that the methods and aims of pedagogy to achieve this would be scientifically determined
(Cremin, 1961, p. 114).
Thorndike’s work, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s work in scientific management, and that of other
progressive thinkers encouraged educators to be “socially efficient” in the ways they went about
educating students. In particular, this thinking led to a belief that schools should be a meaningful
experience for students and that schools should prepare students to earn a living. It also suggested
that schools might begin to educate students based on their abilities or talents. In particular, a
leading proponent of this view was educational reformer Franklin Bobbitt. An issue of particular
importance, although never resolved, was Bobbitt’s scientific approach to curriculum design
(a curriculum designer, according to Bobbitt, was like a “great engineer”). The purpose of
curriculum design was to create a curriculum that would include the full range of human experience
and prepare students for life.
Education for All: The Emergence of the Public High School

Prior to 1875, fewer than 25,000 students were enrolled in public high schools. Most adolescents
who were engaged in some form of secondary education attended private academies that were
either traditional, college preparatory schools, or vocational schools (such as Franklin had proposed
a century earlier). These academies taught not only academic subjects but also vocational ones.
Yet, between 1880 and 1920, 2,382,542 students attended public high schools (Gutek, 1991,
p. 122), probably outnumbering those who attended academies, and by 1940, about 6.5 million
students attended public high school (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1989b, p. 45). In a scant 40 years or so, a structure for the high school had
to be put in place and debates had to be resolved regarding the purpose of secondary education.
One of the great changes that has affected high school attendance is that “whereas once it was
altogether voluntary, and for this reason quite selective, it is now, at least for those sixteen and
under, compulsory and unselective” (Hofstadter, 1966, p. 326). Compulsory school laws grew
steadily. In 1890, 27 states had them; by 1918, all states followed suit, encouraged by court cases,
such as the one in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 1874, which paved the way for the school districts’
right to levy taxes to support public high schools.
In examining the evolution of the high school, what becomes immediately apparent is the
tension in society over the meaning and purpose of education—a debate that began with the
ideas of Jefferson and Franklin, that was augmented by the arguments of Horace Mann, and that
was made even more complex with the ideas of progressive educators.
Historian Diane Ravitch has pointed to four themes in particular that were troubling high
school educators at the turn of the century. The first was the tension between classical subjects,
such as Latin and Greek, and modern subjects, such as science, English literature, and foreign
languages. The second was the problem of meeting college entrance requirements, since different
colleges required different courses of study. The third involved educators who believed that students
should study subjects that would prepare them for life, as opposed to traditional academic subjects.
And the fourth, inextricably linked to the other three, was whether all students should pursue
the same course of study or whether the course of study should be determined by the interests
and abilities of the students (Ravitch, 1983, pp. 136–137).
In order to address the reality that by the 1890s “the high school curriculum had begun to
resemble a species of academic jungle creeper, spreading thickly and quickly in many directions
at once” (cited in Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985, p. 240) and to clarify the purpose of a high
school education, a Committee of Ten was formed by the National Education Association, headed
by Harvard University President Charles Eliot. The committee issued its report in 1893,
supporting the academic purpose of secondary education and dismissing curricula differentiation.
It argued that the purpose of secondary education was to prepare students for “the duties of life”
(quoted in Ravitch, 1983, p. 138). Furthermore, the committee recommended that modern
academic subjects be awarded the same stature as traditional ones. It proposed five model curricula,
including classical and modern languages, English, mathematics, history, and science—in essence,
a liberal arts curriculum. Finally, the committee recommended that all students should be taught
in the same manner; it was conspicuously silent on the subject of vocational education.
The Committee of Ten’s recommendations were subsequently reinforced in two ways. The
first was through the National Education Association’s (NEA’s) newly established committee
on college entrance requirements, which recommended that all high school students study a core
of academic subjects. The second was through the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching’s adoption of the same core courses, which became known as Carnegie units and which
were implemented in high schools throughout the country.
Not to be ignored was the progressive response to the Committee of Ten. In 1918, the NEA’s
Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Schools made its report, which became known
as the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. These principles, harkening back to the work of
men such as G. Stanley Hall and supported by the “neutral measurement” work of Edward F.
Thorndike, opened the door to a curriculum less academically demanding and far more utilitarian
than the one proposed by Charles Eliot’s Committee of Ten. Essentially, the Cardinal Principles,
or the main goals of secondary education, were:
1. Health
2. Command of fundamental processes
3. Worthy home-membership
4. Vocation
5. Citizenship
6. Worthy use of leisure
7. Ethical character (Ravitch, 1983, p. 146)
For many educators, these Cardinal Principles helped to resolve the difficulty of educating students
who were not college bound (at this time, only a small group of students in U.S. high schools
expected to attend college). Educational historian David Cohen stated, “Americans quickly
built a system around the assumption that most students didn’t have what it took to be serious
about the great issues of human life, and that even if they had the wit, they had neither the will
nor the futures that would support heavy-duty study” (cited in Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985,
p. 245).
The final curriculum reform and a logical conclusion to the direction educational reform took
during the period preceding the Second World War was the “Education for Life Adjustment”
movement, first proposed in a lecture at Harvard University by Charles Prosser in 1939.
Concerned with the failure of educators to enact any meaningful changes during the Depression
years, Prosser proposed a curriculum for the nation’s high schools, which addressed the practical
concerns of daily living. Prosser’s ideas were not entirely new; in fact, they could be said to be
the logical conclusion of educators who believed, in the final analysis, that not all students were
able to master serious academic subject matter.
However, Prosser and his apostles sought life adjustment courses, not just for those at the bottom
of the educational ladder but for all high school students. As Hofstadter (1966) aptly observed,
“American utility and American democracy would now be realized in the education of all youth”
(p. 353). Students who once studied chemistry might study “the testing of detergents; not physics,
but how to drive and service a car; not history, but the operation of the local gas works” (p. 356).
As historians, Richard Hofstadter and David Cohen are quick to point out that this phase in
educational reform exemplifies both the unbridled faith Americans have in education and the
ambivalent feelings they harbor toward the life of the mind.
The Post-World War II Equity Era: 1945–1980

During the post-World War II period, the patterns that emerged during the Progressive Era were
continued. First, the debate about the goals of education (i.e., academic, social, or both) and
whether all children should receive the same education remained an important one. Second, the
demand for the expansion of educational opportunity became perhaps the most prominent feature
of educational reform. Whereas the Common School era opened access to elementary education
and the Progressive Era to secondary education, the post-World War II years were concerned with
expanding opportunities to the post-secondary level. They were also directed at finding ways to
translate these expanded opportunities into more equal educational outcomes at all levels of
education. As in the first half of the twentieth century, so too in the second half, the compatibility
of expanded educational opportunity with the maintenance of educational standards would create
significant problems. Thus, the tensions between equity and excellence became crucial in the
debates of this period.
Cycles of Reform: Progressive and Traditional

The post-World War II years witnessed the continuation of the processes that defined the
development of the comprehensive high school. The debates over academic issues, begun at
the turn of the twentieth century, may be defined as the movement between pedagogical progressiv-
ism and pedagogical traditionalism. This movement focuses not only on the process of education
but on its goals. At the center of these debates are the questions regarding the type of education
children should receive and whether all children should receive the same education. Although
many of these debates focused on curriculum and method, they ultimately were associated with
the question of equity versus excellence.
Perhaps these debates can be best understood by examining reform cycles of the twentieth
century that revolved between progressive and traditional visions of schooling. On one hand,
traditionalists believed in knowledge-centered education, a traditional subject-centered curri-
culum, teacher-centered education, discipline and authority, and the defense of academic
standards in the name of excellence. On the other hand, progressives believed in experiential
education, a curriculum that responded to both the needs of students and the times, child-centered
education, freedom and individualism, and the relativism of academic standards in the name of
equity. Although these poles and educational practices rarely were in only one direction, the
conflicts over educational policies and practices seemed to move back and forth between these
two extremes. From 1945 to 1955, the progressive education of the previous decades was critically
attacked.
These critics, including Mortimer Smith, Robert Hutchins, and Arthur Bestor, assailed
progressive education for its sacrificing of intellectual goals to social ones. They argued that the
life adjustment education of the period, combined with an increasingly anti-intellectual curriculum,
destroyed the traditional academic functions of schooling. Arthur Bestor, a respected historian
and a graduate of the Lincoln School (one of the early progressive schools in New York City)
argued that it was “regressive education,” not progressive education, that had eliminated the
school’s primary role in teaching children to think (Ravitch, 1983, p. 76). Bestor, like the other
critics, assailed the schools for destroying the democratic vision that all students should receive
an education that was once reserved for the elite. He suggested that the social and vocational
emphasis of the schools indicated a belief that all students could not learn academic material. In
an ironic sense, many of the conservative critics were agreeing with the radical critique that the
Progressive Era distorted the ideals of democratic education by tracking poor and working-class
children into nonacademic vocational programs.
Throughout the 1950s, the debate between progressives who defended the social basis of the
curriculum and critics who demanded a more academic curriculum raged on. What was often
referred to as “the great debate” (Ravitch, 1983, p. 79) ended with the Soviet launching of the
space satellite Sputnik. The idea that the Soviets would win the race for space resulted in a national
commitment to improve educational standards in general and to increase mathematical and
scientific literacy in particular. From 1957 through the mid-1960s, the emphasis shifted to the
pursuit of excellence, and curriculum reformers attempted to redesign the curricula in ways that
would lead to the return of academic standards (although many doubted that such a romantic
age ever existed).
By the mid-1960s, however, the shift in educational priorities moved again toward the
progressive side. This occurred in two distinct but overlapping ways. First, the Civil Rights move-
ment, as we will discuss, led to an emphasis on equity issues. Thus, federal legislation, such as the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, emphasized the education of disadvantaged
children. Second, in the context of the antiwar movement of the times, the general criticism of
U.S. society, and the persistent failure of the schools to ameliorate problems of poverty and
of racial minorities, a “new progressivism” developed that linked the failure of the schools
to the problems in society. Ushered in by the publication of A. S. Neill’s Summerhill in 1960—
a book about an English boarding school with few, if any, rules and that was dedicated to the
happiness of the child—the new progressivism provided an intellectual and pedagogical assault
on the putative sins of traditional education, its authoritarianism, its racism, its misplaced values
of intellectualism, and its failure to meet the emotional and psychological needs of children.
The new progressivism developed during one of the most turbulent decades in American history
(Cavallo, 1999). Colleges and universities became sites of protests by the anti-Vietnam War and
Civil Rights movements. In 1964, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radical group of
students headed by Tom Hayden at the University of Michigan, issued the Port Huron Statement,
a radical critique of U.S. society and a call for action by U.S. students. In the same year, the
University of California, Berkeley, Free Speech Movement, led by Mario Savio, protested university
rules limiting assembly and demonstrations on campus. In 1968, black students went on strike at
San Francisco State University, resulting in the resignation of its president. Its new president,
S. I. Hiyakawa, a law and order advocate, threatened to suspend anyone who interfered with the
college. The strike ended after a number of months, with each side declaring victory. At the same
time, black students took over Willard Straight Hall at Cornell University. Faced with threats to
take over the entire university by the African-American Society (AAS) and SDS, President James
Perkins agreed to consider their demands without reprimands. Downstate, New York City police
were called in to end a takeover of the Columbia University library. SDS-led students protesting
the Vietnam War and the university’s plan to build a gymnasium in the neighboring Morningside
Heights section of Harlem were removed forcefully. Finally, on May 4, 1970, four students at
Kent State University, protesting the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, were killed by the Ohio National
Guard called in by Governor James Rhodes after protestors burned down the Army ROTC building.
These killings, memorialized by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s haunting words, “four dead in
Ohio, four dead in Ohio” in their song Ohio, resulted in mass demonstrations at colleges and
universities throughout the United States, but also in the beginning of the end of the antiwar
movement. When students recognized that the government would kill them, the protests began
to slowly subside.
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, a variety of books provided scathing criticism of
U.S. education. These included Jonathon Kozol’s Death at an Early Age (1967), which assailed
the racist practices of the Boston public schools; Herbert Kohl’s 36 Children (1967), which
demonstrated the pedagogical possibilities of open education; and Charles S. Silberman’s
Crisis in the Classroom (1969), which attacked the bureaucratic, stultifying mindlessness of
U.S. education. These books, along with a series of articles by Joseph Featherstone, and Beatrice
and Ronald Gross on British progressive education (or open education), resulted in significant
experimentation in some schools. Emphasis on individualism and relevant education, along
with the challenge to the unquestioned authority of the teacher, resulted in alternative, free (or
open) education—schooling that once again shifted attention away from knowledge (product)
to process.
Although there is little evidence to suggest that the open classroom was a national phenomenon,
and as the historian Larry Cuban noted in his history of teaching, How Teachers Taught (1984),
there was surprisingly little variation in teaching methods during the twentieth century—that is,
despite the cycles of debate and reform, most secondary teachers still lectured more than they
involved students. Nonetheless, the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s was a time of
great turmoil in the educational arena. The time was marked by two simultaneous processes:
(1) the challenge to traditional schooling and (2) the attempt to provide educational opportunity
for the disadvantaged. In order to understand the latter, one must look back to the origins of the
concerns for equity.
Equality of Opportunity
The demand for equality of opportunity, as we have noted, has been a central feature of U.S.
history. From the Jeffersonian belief in a meritocratic elite, to Mann’s vision of schooling as a
“great equalizer,” to Dewey’s notion that the schools would be a “lever of social progress,” U.S.
reformers have pointed to the schools as capable of solving problems of inequality. More
importantly, as Lawrence Cremin (1990) pointed out, Americans have expected their schools to
solve social, political, and economic problems, and have placed on the schools “all kinds of
millennial hopes and expectations” (p. 92). While this has been true throughout America’s history,
the translation of this view into concrete policy has defined the postwar years and has helped
explain the increasing politicization of the educational conflicts.
Immediately following the Second World War, the issue of access to educational opportunity
became an important one. The GI Bill of Rights offered 16 million servicemen and women the
opportunity to pursue higher education. Ravitch (1983, pp. 12–13) pointed out that the GI Bill
was the subject of considerable controversy over the question of access and excellence. On one
hand, veterans’ groups, Congress, and other supporters believed the bill provided both a just reward
for national service and a way to avoid massive unemployment in the postwar economy. Further,
although aimed at veterans, it was part of the growing policy to provide access to higher education
to those who, because of economic disadvantage and/or poor elementary and secondary preparation,
had heretofore been denied the opportunity to attend college. On the other hand, critics such as
Robert Maynard Hutchins, chancellor at the University of Chicago, and James Conant, president
of Harvard University, feared that the policy would threaten the traditional meritocratic selection
process and result in the lowering of academic standards (Ravitch, 1983, p. 13).
Despite these criticisms, the GI Bill, according to Ravitch (1983), was “the most ambitious
venture in mass higher education that had ever been attempted by any society” (p. 14). Further-
more, she noted that the evidence does not suggest a decline in academic standards but rather a
refreshing opening of the elite postsecondary education system. Historians and policy makers may
disagree about the success of the GI Bill, but it is clear that it represented a building block in the
post-World War II educational expansion. This expansion was similar to previous expansions,
first in the Common School Era to compulsory elementary education, second in the Progressive
Era to the high school, and in the post-World War II years to postsecondary education. The same
types of questions left unresolved, especially from the Progressive Era, as to whether mass public
education was possible, would become central points of controversy in the coming years.
Although the GI Bill set an important precedent, the issue of educational inequality for the
poor and disadvantaged, in general, and for blacks in particular, became the focus of national
attention and debate during this period. From the years immediately following the Second World
War to the present, the questions of equality of opportunity at all levels have been signifi-
cant areas of concern. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the relationships between race and education,
and the question of school segregation were at the forefront of political, educational, and moral
conflicts.
Race, as much as any other single issue in U.S. history, has challenged the democratic ethos
of the American dream. The ideals of equality of opportunity and justice have been contradicted
by the actual practices concerning blacks and other minorities. Although legally guaranteed equal
protection by the Fourteenth Amendment, blacks continue to experience vast inequities.
Nowhere was this more evident than in education.
The post-Civil War Reconstruction period, despite the constitutional amendments enacted to
guarantee equality of treatment before the law, had little positive effect on blacks, especially in
the South. During the latter years of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court successfully
blocked civil rights legislation. In the famous 1896 decision relating to education, Plessy v. Ferguson,
the Court upheld a Louisiana law that segregated railway passengers by race. In what is commonly
referred to as its “separate but equal” doctrine, the Court upheld the constitutionality of segre-
gated facilities. In his famous dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan stated:
In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling
class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color blind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is
the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings
or of his color when his civil rights guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved . . . (cited
in Ravitch, 1983, p. 120)
Despite Justice Harlan’s interpretation that the Constitution guaranteed a colorblind treatment
of all citizens, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision remained the precedent through the first half of the
twentieth century. In the 1930s and 1940s, the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) initiated a campaign to overthrow the law, with school segregation a
major component of its strategy.
The proper education of blacks became a controversial subject for black leaders. In 1895,
Alabama Tuskegee Institute’s Booker T. Washington gave his “Atlanta Compromise Speech” at
the Atlanta Exposition, arguing that blacks should be more thrifty and industrious, and should
pursue vocational education to prepare them for work in the new Southern industrial economy.
In 1903, W. E. B. DuBois, a Harvard Ph.D. and professor at Atlanta University, published The
Souls of Black Folk, which criticized Booker T. Washington’s vocational approach to education
as assimilationist. DuBois called for academic education and Civil Rights protest against
institutional racism.
The unequal and separate education of blacks in the South became a focal point of the civil
rights movements of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Although the Plessy decision supported separate
and equal, it was apparent to civil rights advocates that the schools were anything but equal.
Furthermore, in terms of both educational opportunities and results, blacks in both the North
and South received nothing approximating equal treatment.
After a series of victories, the advocates of civil rights won their major victory on May 17,
1954, when, in its landmark decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, the Supreme Court
ruled that state-imposed segregation of schools was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren
wrote,
It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity
of education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must
be made available to all on equal terms. (cited in Ravitch, 1983, p. 127)
Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the “separate but equal” doctrine enshrined in the Plessy case,
and stated that separate educational institutions are unequal in and of themselves.
Although there would be considerable conflict in the implementation of the ruling, and
although many legal scholars criticized both the basis and scope of the decision, the Brown decision
marked both a symbolic and concrete affirmation of the ethos of democratic schooling. Although
a compelling victory, Brown served to underscore the vast discrepancies between what Myrdal
(1944) pointed to as the American belief in equality and the American reality of inequality. In
the coming years, the fight for equality of opportunity for blacks and other minorities would be
a salient feature of educational reform. The Brown decision may have provided the legal foundation
for equality, but the unequal results of schooling in the United States did not magically change
in response to the law.
In the years following the 1955 Brown II decision, which ordered desegregation “with all
deliberate speed,” the battle for equality of opportunity was fought on a number of fronts with
considerable conflict and resistance. The attempt to desegregate schools in the South first, and
later in the North, resulted in confrontation and, at times, violence. For example, in Little Rock,
Arkansas, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce desegregation in 1957. When
Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus responded to the Supreme Court’s refusal to delay desegregation
by closing Little Rock’s high schools, the federal courts declared the Arkansas school closing laws
unconstitutional. Thus, events in Little Rock made it clear that the federal government would
not tolerate continued school segregation. Although protests continued in the South into the
1960s, it was apparent that the segregationists would lose their battle to defend a Southern tradition.
The issue of school desegregation, however, was not an exclusively Southern matter. In the
Northern cities and metropolitan area suburbs, where housing patterns resulted in segregated
schools, the issue of de jure (segregation by law) segregation was often less clear. Where de facto
segregation existed (that is, the schools were not segregated intentionally by law but by
neighborhood housing patterns), the constitutional precedent for desegregation under Brown was
shaky. Nonetheless, the evidence in the North of unequal educational opportunities based on
race was clear. Thus, civil rights advocates pressed for the improvement of urban schools and for
their desegregation.
The desegregation conflicts in Boston, every bit as embittered as in the South, demonstrated
the degree to which the issue divided its citizens. As recently as the 1970s and early 1980s, the
Boston School Committee was under judicial mandate to desegregate its schools. Judge Arthur
Garrity ruled that the school committee knowingly, over a long period of time, conspired to keep
schools segregated and thus limited the educational opportunity of black children. For a period
of over five years, the citizens of Boston were torn apart by the Garrity desegregation order. Groups
of white parents opposed, sometimes violently, the forced busing that was imposed. As J. Anthony
Lukas, in his Pulitzer prize-winning account Common Ground (1986) noted, the Boston situation
became a symbol of frustration as it signified how a group of families, all committed to the best
education for their children, could have such significantly different visions of what that meant.
Judge Garrity stood resolute in his interpretation of the Constitution. Over time, the violence
subsided. Many white Bostonians who could afford to do so either sent their children to private
schools or moved to the suburbs. Thus, the Boston school system moved into an uneasy “cease-
fire” and committed, at least publicly, to the improvement of education for all.
The Boston desegregation wars, like the conflicts a decade earlier in the South, revealed that
U.S. society, although moving to ameliorate problems of racial inequality, was nonetheless a society
in which racist attitudes changed slowly. Moreover, the Boston schools were a microcosm of the
U.S. educational system—a system in which inequalities of race and class were salient features.
The educational reforms of the 1960s and 1970s were directed at their elimination.
An important concurrent theme was the question of unequal educational outcomes based on
socioeconomic position. From the late 1950s, the findings of social scientists, including James
Coleman, author of the 1966 report Equality of Educational Opportunity, focused national attention
on the relationship between socioeconomic position and unequal educational outcomes.
Furthermore, as part of the social programs of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines
Johnson, Americans were sensitized to the idea of ameliorating poverty. Since schools were, in
Horace Mann’s vision, the lever of social reform, it was only natural that schools once again became
the focal point.
During the 1960s and 1970s, a series of reform efforts were directed at providing equality of
opportunity and increased access at all levels of education. Based on the Coleman report findings
that unequal minority student educational achievement was caused more by family background
than differences in the quality of schools attended, federally funded programs, such as Project
Head Start, were aimed at providing early preschool educational opportunities for the
disadvantaged. Although many radicals criticized the assumption of cultural deprivation implicit
in these efforts, many reform efforts were aimed at the family and the school rather than the
school itself.
In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 vote in Milliken v. Bradley ruled that the Detroit
interdistrict city-suburb busing plan was unconstitutional. Based on this ruling and continuing
opposition to forced busing for desegregation, educational reformers shifted their attention to
improving education for often segregated inner-city school districts. From the 1970s on, school
finance litigation attempted to equalize spending between high-income suburban and low-income
urban and rural districts. In 1971, in Serrano v. Priest, the California Supreme Court ruled the
state’s system of unequal funding unconstitutional. However, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled 5–4 in San Antonio (Texas) Independent School District v. Rodriguez that there was no
constitutional guarantee to an equal education. In subsequent years, school finance cases had to
be filed at the state level based on individual state constitutional provisions for equal education.
Examples of successful cases are Robinson v. Cahill (1973) and Abbott v. Burke (1990) in New
Jersey, The Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. New York State (2004), and Williams v. The State of
California (2004). The Kentucky Education Reform Act (1988) represented one of the landmark
legislative reforms to provide equal education.
Although these cases provided increased funding for low-income students, they did little to
eliminate the de facto segregation in most Northern urban districts, which by the fiftieth
anniversary of Brown in 2004 were almost as segregated as Southern districts before desegregation
(Orfield & Lee, 2004; Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2004). Furthermore, court decisions such as
the long-standing Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg (NC) School District (2002), which ruled that
busing was no longer necessary to achieve racial balance, resulted in the resegregation of many
formerly integrated districts (Frankenberg & Lee, 2002; Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003;
Mickelson, 2002). Paul Tractenberg, founder of the Education Law Center in Newark, New Jersey,
which has represented the state’s low-income children in Robinson and in Abbott, noted that Abbott
is more consistent with the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy than the separate but never equal
doctrine of Brown (Tractenberg et al., 2002).
The fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education in 2004 was marked by disagreements
over whether the decision should be celebrated or commemorated. Advocates of celebration argued
that the decision ended legally sanctioned segregation, marked the end of Jim Crow, and ushered
in the Civil Rights movement. Advocates of commemoration argued that U.S. schools are still
overwhelmingly segregated and that the continuing black–white achievement gap indicates that
the decision never lived up to its promise. Further, Supreme Court decisions on desegregation in
Charlotte Mecklenburg, Seattle, and Louisville ruled that these districts had accomplished their
goals for desegregation and were now termed “unified.” In the Seattle case, in particular, the court
ruled that school placement could not be based on race (see UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012,
for details of these cases). The result of these and other housing patterns in both cities and suburbs
has been an ongoing resegregation of U.S. schools (Reardon and Bischoff, 2011; Reardon and
Rhodes, 2011; Reardon et al., 2012; UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012).
Nowhere was the conflict over these liberal reforms more clearly demonstrated than in the
area of higher education. During the 1960s, educational reformers placed significant emphasis on
the need to open access to postsecondary education to students who were traditionally
underrepresented at colleges and universities—namely, minority groups and the disadvantaged.
Arguing that college was a key to social mobility and success, reformers concluded that college
was a right rather than a privilege for all (see Lavin, Alba, & Silberstein, 1981). Defenders of the
traditional admissions standards argued that postsecondary education would be destroyed if
admissions standards were relaxed (see Sadovnik, 1994).
By the late 1960s, many colleges and universities adopted the policy of open enrollment. The
City University of New York, long a symbol of quality education for the working class and poor,
guaranteed a place for all graduating New York City high school students in either its four-
year colleges (for students with high school averages of 80 and above) or its community college
system (for students with averages below 80). Similar open admissions systems were intro-
duced in other public university systems. Furthermore, federal financial aid funds were appropriated
for students from low-income families. The results were a dramatic increase in the numbers of
students participating in U.S. higher education and a growing debate over the efficacy of such
liberal reforms.
Conservatives bemoaned the decline of standards and warned of the collapse of the intellectual
foundations of Western civilization. Radicals suggested that more often than not students were
given “false hopes and shattered dreams” as they were sometimes underprepared, given their
unequal educational backgrounds, for the rigors of college education. Liberals, agreeing that the
new students were often underprepared, suggested that it was now the role of the college to provide
remedial services to turn access into success (see Sadovnik, 1994).
During the 1970s, colleges took on the task, however reluctantly, of providing remediation
for the vast number of underprepared students, many of whom were first-generation college
students. The City University of New York (CUNY) became perhaps the largest experiment in
compensatory higher education. Its efforts symbolized both the hopes and frustrations of
ameliorating unequal educational achievement. Although there is significant disagreement as to
the success of these higher-education reforms (which we will examine more closely later in this
book), it is important to recognize that this period did result in the significant expansion of higher
education. By the late 1990s, CUNY abolished remediation at its four-year colleges, thus ending
open admissions. Chancellor Matthew Goldstein argued that remediation should occur at two-
year colleges and that this represented the necessary first step in restoring CUNY’s reputation as
an elite public university system, which provided meritocratic access to generations of low-income
students. Critics argued that the end of open admissions would have a deleterious effect on access
for these students in general and black and Hispanic students in particular (Attewell & Lavin,
2008). A recent New York Times article indicated that while the academic profiles in terms of
selectivity of incoming students at CUNY’s five selective four-year colleges continues to rise, the
number of black and Hispanic students continues to decline (Perez-Pena, 2012).
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the coeducation movement at elite colleges and
universities began. In 1969, all-male Ivy League Universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia,
Brown, Pennsylvania, and Dartmouth) began to admit women. In response, in 1970, Vassar College
became coeducational, leading to other women’s colleges such as Connecticut College for Women
and Skidmore College admitting men. Coeducation became the rule, with only some of the elite
Seven Sisters (Smith, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, and Bryn Mawr) and a few others still women’s
colleges in the early twenty-first century (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, 2006).
We have looked at two related processes that define the post-World War II history of education.
The first is the continued debate between progressives and traditionalists about the proper aims,
content, and methods of schooling. The second is the struggle for equality of opportunity and the
opening of access to higher education. The educational history of the 1980s and 1990s, as you
will see, was characterized by the perceived failure of the reforms of this period, most particularly
those of the 1960s and 1970s.
Educational Reaction and Reform and the Standards Era: 1980s–2016

By the late 1970s, conservative critics began to react to the educational reforms of the 1960s and
1970s. They argued that liberal reforms in pedagogy and curriculum, and in the arena of educational
opportunity had resulted in the decline of authority and standards. Furthermore, the critics argued
that the preoccupation with using the schools to ameliorate social problems, however well-
intended, not only failed to do this but was part of an overall process that resulted in mass medio-
crity. What was needed was nothing less than a complete overhaul of the U.S. educational system.
While radical critics also pointed to the failure of the schools to ameliorate problems of poverty,
they located the problem not so much in the schools but in the society at large. Liberals defended
the reforms of the period by suggesting that social improvement takes a long time, and a decade
and a half was scarcely sufficient to turn things around.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence (1983), founded by President Reagan’s
Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, issued its now famous report, A Nation at Risk. This report
provided a serious indictment of U.S. education and cited high rates of adult illiteracy, declining
SAT scores, and low scores on international comparisons of knowledge by U.S. students as
examples of the decline of literacy and standards. The committee stated that “the educational
foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens
our very future as a Nation and a people” (p. 5). As solutions, the commission offered five
recommendations: (1) that all students graduating from high school complete what was termed
the “new basics”—four years of English, three years of mathematics, three years of science, three
years of social studies, and a half year of computer science; (2) that schools at all levels expect
higher achievement from their students and that four-year colleges and universities raise their
admissions requirements; (3) that more time be devoted to teaching the new basics; (4) that the
preparation of teachers be strengthened and that teaching be made a more respected and rewarded
profession; and (5) that citizens require their elected representatives to support and fund these
reforms (cited in Cremin, 1990, p. 31).
The years following this report were characterized by scores of other reports that both supported
the criticism and called for reform. During the 1980s and 1990s, and into the twenty-first century,
significant attention was given to the improvement of curriculum, the tightening of standards,
and a move toward the setting of academic goals and their assessment. A coalition of U.S. governors
took on a leading role in setting a reform agenda; business leaders stressed the need to improve
the nation’s schools and proposed partnership programs; the federal government, through its
Secretary of Education (under Ronald Reagan), William Bennett, took an active and critical role
but continued to argue that it was not the federal government’s role to fund such reform; and
educators, at all levels, struggled to have a say in determining the nature of the reforms.
As we have pointed out in Chapter 2, the politics of the reform movement were complex and
multidimensional. Conservatives wanted to restore both standards and the traditional curriculum;
liberals demanded that the new drive for excellence not ignore the goals for equity; radicals believed
it was another pendulum swing doomed to failure (one that sought to reestablish excellence as a
code word for elitism).
In the 1990s and in the early part of the twenty-first century, the reforms initiated in the 1980s
continued and expanded (see Tyack & Cuban, 1995). There are a number of reforms, including
President Clinton’s Goals 2000 in 1994, President G. W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
in 2001, President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) in 2009 and the Every Child Succeeds
Act in 2016, that have the most visibility. Although they all purport to balance equity and
excellence as their goal, it is not clear how effective they have been. In Chapter 10, we will discuss
them more fully; in this section, we will describe them briefly.
First, the school choice movement seeks to give parents the right to choose the public school
to which they send their children, rather than the traditional method in which one’s school was
based on neighborhood zoning patterns (Cookson, 1994; Fuller, Elmore, & Orfield, 1996; Wells,
1993a, 1993b; Tractenberg, Sadovnik, & Liss, 2004; Sadovnik, 2011b). The choice movement
is divided into those who support public school choice only (that is, giving parents the right to
choose from public schools) to those who would include intersectional choice policies, including
private schools. Such an intersectional choice program has been employed in Milwaukee where
low-income parents receive tuition vouchers to send their children to private schools. There has
been significant controversy over this plan, with supporters stating it is the key to equity and
critics arguing that it means the death of public education. The most important reform in this
area is charter schools, which are independent of local district control, but receive public funding.
By 1998, 33 states passed charter school legislation, resulting in more than 1,000 charter schools
(Wells et al., 1998, p. 6). As of 2012, 41 states had charter school legislation, resulting in more
than 5,700 charter schools (Consoletti, 2012), and by 2013–2014 the total number increased to
6500 or 6.6% of the total number of public schools (National Center for Education Statistics,
2015). Second, Race to the Top, while enlarging the federal support of charter schools, has also
enhanced NCLB’s accountability mechanisms. In this regard, RTT has supported Value Added
Models (VAM) of teacher quality linked to standardized tests of student achievement and negative
sanctions, including school closings (B. Baker, 2012). In addition, the Obama Administration
provided waivers from NCLB to numerous states if they provided alternatives consistent with
RTT and afterward ESSA. With the election of the billionaire President Donald J. Trump in
2016 and the approval of school choice advocate the billionaire Betsy DeVos as Secretary of
Education it is not clear how far the federal government will go in pushing school choice.
Ms. DeVos has been an ardent supporter of unregulated charter schools and private school
vouchers.
It is perhaps too early to assess these reforms, but it is apparent that they are part of the recurring
debate in U.S. educational history about the efficacy of mass public education and the compatibility
of excellence and equity. Throughout history, these themes have been crucial as the preceding
historical discussion delineates; the answer to the questions is a matter of both historical inter-
pretation and empirical investigation.
Understanding the History of U.S. Education: Different Historical

Interpretations
The history of education in the United States, as we have illustrated, has been one of conflict,
struggle, and disagreement. It has also been marked by a somewhat ironic pattern of cycles of
reform about the aims, goals, and purpose of education on one hand, and little change in actual
classroom practice on the other (Cuban, 1984). Moreover, as we pointed out in Chapter 2, one’s
view of U.S. educational history and the effectiveness of the schools in meeting their democratic
aspirations depends on one’s interpretation of the historical trends and events. In the following
sections, we outline the different schools of historical interpretation.
The different interpretations of U.S. educational history revolve around the tensions between
equity and excellence, between the social and intellectual functions of schooling, and over differing
responses to the questions, Education in whose interests? Education for whom? The U.S. school
system has expanded to serve more students for longer periods of time than any other system in
the modern world. This occurred, first, by extending primary school to all through compulsory
education laws during the Common School Era; second, by extending high school education to
the majority of adolescents by the end of the Progressive Era; and third, by extending postsecondary
education to the largest number of high school graduates in the world by the 1990s. However,
historians and sociologists of education disagree about whether this pattern of increased access
means a pattern of educational success. Moreover, these disagreements concern the questions of
the causes of educational expansion (that is, who supported the reforms), who benefited from
them, and which types of goals have been met and/or sacrificed.
The Democratic-Liberal School

Democratic-liberals believe that the history of U.S. education involves the progressive evolu-
tion, albeit flawed, of a school system committed to providing equality of opportunity for all.
Democratic-liberal historians suggest that each period of educational expansion involved the
attempts of liberal reformers to expand educational opportunities to larger segments of the popu-
lation and to reject the conservative view of schools as elite institutions for the meritorious (which
usually meant the privileged). Historians such as Ellwood Cubberly, Merle Curti, and Lawrence
A. Cremin are representative of this view. Both Cubberly (1934) and Curti (1959/1971) have
portrayed the Common School Era as a victory for democratic movements and the first step in
opening U.S education to all. Furthermore, both historians, in varying degrees, portray the early
school reformers such as Horace Mann and Henry Barnard as reformers dedicated to egalitarian
principles (Curti is more critical than Cubberly).
Lawrence A. Cremin, in his three-volume history of U.S. education (1972, 1980, 1988) and
in a study of the Progressive Era (1961), portrays the evolution of U.S. education in terms of two
related processes: popularization and multitudinousness (Cremin, 1988). For Cremin, educational
history in the United States involved the expansion both of opportunity and purpose. That is, as
more students from diverse backgrounds went to school for longer periods of time, the goals
of education became more diverse, with social goals often becoming as important as or more
important than intellectual ones. Although Cremin does not deny the educational problems and
conflicts, and he notes the discrepancies between opportunity and results—particularly for the
economically disadvantaged—he never relinquished his vision that the genius of U.S. education
lies with its commitment to popularization and multitudinousness. In his final book, Popular
Education and Its Discontents (1990), Cremin summarized this democratic liberal perspective as
follows: “That kind of organization [referring to U.S. higher education] is part of the genius of
American education—it provides a place for everyone who wishes one, and in the end yields one
of the most educated populations in the world” (p. 46).
Although democratic-liberals tend to interpret U.S. educational history optimistically, the
evolution of the nation’s schools has been a flawed, often conflictual march toward increased
opportunities. Thus, historians such as Cremin do not see equity and excellence as inevitably
irreconcilable, but rather see them as being in tension, resulting in necessary compromises. The
ideals of equality and excellence are just that: ideals. Democratic-liberals believe that the U.S.
educational system must continue to move closer to each, without sacrificing one or the other
too dramatically.
The Radical-Revisionist School

Beginning in the 1960s, the optimistic vision of the democratic-liberal historians began to be
challenged by radical historians, sociologists, and political economists of education. The radical-
revisionist historians of education, as they have come to be called, revised the history of education
in a more critical direction. These historians, including Michael Katz (1968), Joel Spring (1972),
and Clarence Karier (1976), argue that the history of U.S. education is the story of expanded
success for very different reasons and with very different results. Radical historians do not deny
that the educational system has expanded; rather, they believe it expanded to meet the needs of
the elites in society for the control of the working class and immigrants, and for economic efficiency
and productivity. In addition, radicals suggest that expanded opportunity did not translate into
more egalitarian results. Rather, they point out that each period of educational reform (the
Common School Era, the Progressive Era, the post-World War II Era) led to increasing strati-
fication within the educational system, with working-class, poor, and minority students getting
the short end of the stick.
Let us examine the radical view on educational expansion and the question of whose interests
it served. Michael Katz (1968) argued that it was the economic interests of nineteenth-century
capitalists that more fully explain the expansion of schooling and that educational reformers
stressed the ability of schools to train factory workers, to socialize immigrants into U.S. values,
and to create stability in the newly expanding urban environments. Likewise, historians Joel Spring
(1972) and Clarence Karier (1976) both advanced the thesis that the expansion of the schools
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was done more in the interests of social control
than in the interests of equity. Spring argued that this perspective
advances the idea that schools were shaped as instruments of the corporate liberal state for main streaming
social control. . . . The public schools were seen as an important instrument used by the government
to aid in the rationalization and minimization of conflict by selecting and training students for their
future positions in the economy and by imbuing the population with a sense of cooperation and national
spirit. (1986, p. 154)
One of the problems with this view, pointed out by radicals who generally agree with this
interpretation, is that it views the expansion of education as imposed on the poor and working
class from above and often against their will. Other radical historians, including David Hogan
(1978) and Julia Wrigley (1982), suggest that the working class and labor unions actively supported
the expansion of public education for their own interests. Thus, the explanation of educational
expansion is a more conflictual one rather than a simplistic tale of elite domination.
Despite these historiographical disagreements, radical historians agree that the results of educa-
tional expansion rarely met their putative democratic aspirations. They suggest that each new
expansion increased stratification of working-class and disadvantaged students within the system,
with these students less likely to succeed educationally. For example, political economists Samuel
Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1976) noted that the expansion of the high school resulted in a
comprehensive secondary system that tracked students into vocational and academic curriculums
with placement, more often than not, determined by social class background and race. Furthermore,
the expansion of higher education in the post-World War II period often resulted in the
stratification between community colleges that stressed vocational education and four-year colleges
and universities that stressed the liberal arts and sciences. Once again, radicals argue that placement
in the higher education system is based on social class and race. Studies by Kevin Dougherty
(1987, 1994) and Steven Brint and Jerome Karabel (1989) give ample evidence to support the
view that the expansion of higher education has not resulted in equality of opportunity.
Thus, the radical interpretation of U.S. educational history is a more pessimistic one. While
acknowledging educational expansion, they suggest that this process has benefited the elites more
than the masses, and has not produced either equality of opportunity or results. Further, they view
the debates about equity and excellence as a chimera, with those who bemoan the decline of
standards seeking to reimpose excellence with little regard for equality.
Conservative Perspectives
In the 1980s, as we noted in Chapter 2, a rising tide of conservative criticism swept education
circles. Although much of this criticism was political and, at times, ahistorical, it did have an
implicit historical critique of the schools. Arguing that U.S. students knew very little and that
U.S. schools were mediocre, the conservative critics such as William Bennett, Chester Finn, Jr.,
Diane Ravitch, E. D. Hirsch, Jr., and Allan Bloom all pointed to the failure of so-called progressive
education to fulfill its lofty social goals without sacrificing academic quality. Although critics such
as Ravitch and Hirsch supported the democratic-liberal goal of equality of opportunity and mobility
through education, they believed that the historical pursuit of social and political objectives resulted
in significant harm to the traditional academic goals of schooling. The conservative educational
reformers have continued through today and have played an important role in demanding
educational change (Laats, 2015).
Diane Ravitch (1977) provided a passionate critique of the radical-revisionist perspective and
a defense of the democratic-liberal position. Yet, in the 1980s, Ravitch moved from this centrist
position to a more conservative stance. In a series of essays and books, including The Troubled
Crusade (1983), Ravitch argued that the preoccupation with using education to solve social
problems has not solved these problems and, simultaneously, has led to the erosion of educational
excellence. Although Ravitch remains faithful to the democratic-liberal belief that schools have
expanded opportunities to countless numbers of the disadvantaged and immigrants, she has argued
that the adjustment of the traditional curriculum to meet the needs of all of these groups has been
a violation of the fundamental function of schooling, which is to develop the powers of intelligence
(1985, p. 40). According to Ravitch, the progressive reforms of the twentieth century denigrated
the traditional role of schools in passing on a common culture and produced a generation of students
who know little, if anything, about their Western heritage. Although she believes the curriculum
ought to be fair and nonracist, she has also argued that efforts at multiculturalism are often
historically incorrect and neglect the fact that the heritage of our civilization, from a conservative
vantage point, is Western. Since 2010, Ravitch has again moved back to a more liberal position,
as she has provided a scathing critique of neo-liberal education reforms, like charter schools,
vouchers, privatization, and standardized testing. Ravitch has argued that these reforms that she
once supported have resulted in a corporate takeover of public schooling and threaten the demo-
cratic nature of public schooling (Ravitch, 2010, 2013).
Ravitch’s perspective over the past three decades has been far more complex than that of other
conservative critics such as Bennett, Bloom, Finn, and Hirsch. Where these authors, like Bloom
in The Closing of the American Mind (1987) and Hirsch in Cultural Literacy (1987), never fully
capture the complex relationship between educational reform and social and political milieu,
Ravitch’s The Troubled Crusade (1983) points to the putative decline of educational standards
within the context of political movements to move us closer to a fair and just society. In fact,
Ravitch has argued that the belief that all students learn a rigorous curriculum is not conservative,
but rather consistent with her earlier liberal belief that all students be given an equal opportunity
to succeed (Ravitch, 1994). Ravitch understands the conflictual nature of U.S. educational history
and simultaneously praises the schools for being a part of large-scale social improvement while
damning them for losing their academic standards in the process. Bloom blames the universities
for watering down their curriculums; Hirsch blames the public schools for valuing skills over
content; and Bennett, in his role as Secretary of Education during the Reagan administration,
called for a return to a traditional Western curriculum. None of these conservatives has analyzed,
as Ravitch has (perhaps because she is the only historian among them), the historical tensions
between equity and excellence that are crucial to understanding the problem. Nonetheless,
what they all have in common is the vision that the evolution of U.S. education has resulted in
the dilution of academic excellence. Over the past few years, Ravitch has passionately argued
that the conservative and neo-liberal pursuit of academic excellence has neither improved the
schools nor moved us closer to a fair and just society. In fact, she accuses conservatives and neo-
liberals of ignoring the pernicious effects of poverty on student achievement, a position closer
to liberals, if not radicals.
Conclusion
As students of educational history, you may well be perplexed by the different interpretations of
the history of U.S. education. How is it possible, you may ask, that given the same evidence,
historians reach such vastly different conclusions? As we pointed out in Chapter 2, the inter-
pretation of educational issues, including the interpretation of its history, depends to a large extent
on one’s perspective. Thus, each school of historical interpretation sees the events, data, and
conflicts in different ways. We do not propose that there is one unified theory of the history of
education, nor do we believe that the historical and sociological data support only one theory.
Rather, we believe that there are patterns in the history of education and that the foundations
perspective is a lens for looking at these patterns.
The history of U.S. education has involved a number of related patterns. First, it has been
defined by the expansion of schooling to increasingly larger numbers of children for longer periods
of time. Second, with this expansion has come the demand for equality of opportunity and ways
to decrease inequality of results. Third is the conflict over goals, curriculum, and method, and
the politicization of these issues. Fourth is the conflict between education for a common culture,
or a “distinctively American paideia, or self-conscious culture” (Cremin, 1990, p. 107) and edu-
cation for the diversity of a pluralistic society. And fifth are the tensions between popularization
and educational excellence. All of these processes speak to the fact that Americans have always
asked a great deal, perhaps too much, from their schools, and that conflict and controversy are
the definitive features of the evolution of the school.
The history of U.S. education is a complex story of conflict, compromise, and struggle (see
Table 3.1). The disagreements over this history are summed up well by Diane Ravitch, defending
the democratic-liberal tradition, and David Nassaw, arguing for a more radical interpretation.
Ravitch (1977) stated:
Education in a liberal society must sustain and balance ideals that exist in tension: equity and excellence.
While different generations have emphasized one or the other, in response to the climate of the times,
schools cannot make either ideal a reality, though they contribute to both. The schools are limited
institutions which have certain general responsibilities and certain specific capacities; sometimes they
have failed to meet realistic expectations, and at other times they have succeeded beyond realistic
expectations in dispersing intelligence and opportunity throughout the community. In order to judge
them by reasonable standards and in order to have any chance of improving their future perform-
ance, it is necessary to abandon the simplistic search for heroes and devils, scapegoats and panaceas.
(p. 173)
Text continues on page 96.

Table 3.1 Timeline of Historical Events in U.S. Education
Date Event
1636 The first college in the American colonies, Harvard College, is founded in Newtown (later
renamed Cambridge, MA). Its dual function was educating civic leaders and preparing a learned
clergy.
1779 Thomas Jefferson writes his Bill for a More General Diffusion of Knowledge, outlining his views on the
popularization of elementary and grammar school education.
1789 The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for public education and delegates
authority to the states. This has resulted in the absence of a national system of education or
national curriculum, as exists in many other liberal-democratic societies.
1817 Thomas Jefferson writes the “Rockfish Gap Report,” the report of the Commission to establish a
public university in Virginia, leading to the establishment of the University of Virginia in
Charlottesville. The university is based on Jefferson’s model of a natural aristocracy based on
talent, or what later was called a meritocracy.
1821 Troy Female Seminary in New York is founded by Emma Willard.
1833 Oberlin College in Ohio admits women, becoming the first coeducational college in the United
States.
1837 Horace Mann becomes Secretary to the Massachusetts Board of Education, ushering in the
Common School Era of compulsory primary education.
1837 Mount Holyoke Female Seminary (later, Mount Holyoke College) in Massachusetts is founded by
Mary Lyon.
1848 Horace Mann, in his Twelfth (and final) Report to the Massachusetts Board of Education, states
that “education is the great equalizer of the conditions of men . . . the balance wheel of the social
machinery,” which becomes the basis of an American democratic ideology of education.
1862 The Morrill Act is passed, authorizing the use of public money to establish public land grant
universities, resulting in the establishment of large public universities, especially in the Midwest.
1863 During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation,
announcing the end of slavery in all states in rebellion against the Union.
1865 Several months after the end of the Civil War, Congress passes the Thirteenth Amendment to
the Constitution, which freed four million slaves.
1865 Vassar College, the first of the Seven Sisters women’s colleges, is founded in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Shortly after, Wellesley College and Smith College in Massachusetts are founded, and Mount
Holyoke and Bryn Mawr (PA) Seminaries become colleges.
1868 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, giving full citizenship to ex-slaves.
Although this amendment and the Freedman’s Bureau attempted to reconstruct the South’s
economy and include Blacks as full citizens, the Ku Klux Klan continued to spread racial hatred,
and Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes in the South continued discrimination against Blacks. Its
equal protection clause has been applied to important legal decisions regarding education.
1868 The Freedman’s Bureau helps establish historically Black Colleges, including Howard University in
Washington, D.C., and Hampton Institute in Virginia.
1891 Jane Addams founds Hull House in Chicago, a settlement house that provided cultural and
educational programs for Chicago’s immigrants and poor.
1893 The National Education Association’s Committee of Ten, chaired by Harvard University President
Charles Eliot, issues its report on secondary education, which reasserts the college-preparatory
function of the high school. Eliot is to become one of the leaders of the social efficiency strand of
progressive education.
1895 Alabama Tuskegee Institute’s Booker T. Washington gives his “Atlanta Compromise Speech”
at the Atlanta Exposition, arguing that Blacks should be more thrifty and industrious and should
pursue vocational education to prepare them for work in the new southern industrial economy.
1896 The Laboratory School at the University of Chicago is founded by John and Alice Chipman
Dewey, ushering in the child-centered, developmental democratic strand of progressive education.
Continued
Date Event
1896 In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that separate but equal facilities are
constitutional. Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone dissenter, argued that the Constitution is
color blind and that all citizens are equal before the law.
1903 W. E. B. DuBois, a Harvard Ph.D. and professor at Atlanta University, publishes The Souls of Black
Folk, which criticizes Booker T. Washington’s vocational approach to education as assimilationist.
DuBois called for academic education and Civil Rights protest against institutional racism.
1918 The NEA’s Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education argues for the broadening of the functions of
the high school to include civic, vocational, and social responsibilities ushering in the life-
adjustment period of U.S. education.
1920 The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, giving women the right to vote.
1931 Jane Addams is the first woman recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for her work, including
founding the Women’s Peace Party in 1915 and the Women’s International League for Peace and
Freedom in 1919.
1945 The GI Bill of Rights is passed, authorizing college tuition assistance for soldiers.
1950 After two years, Superintendent Willard Goslin is fired by the Pasadena (CA) School Board, after
conservative forces protest his progressive policies and accuse him of being a Communist. The
Goslin firing was part of the larger attack on “subversives” during the McCarthy Era, named after
Wisconsin Joseph McCarthy, who led a congressional investigation of alleged Communists that
resulted in blacklisting.
1950 In Sweatt v. Painter and in McLaurin v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the U.S.
Supreme Court rules that blacks must be admitted to segregated state law schools in Texas and
Oklahoma, respectively.
1954 In Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that separate but equal
schools for black and white children is unconstitutional. The case consisted of separate cases
in four states, Briggs v. Elliot (South Carolina), Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Kansas),
Davis v. School Board of Prince Edward County (Virginia), Belton v. Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart
(Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (District of Columbia).
1956 Critics of progressive education, historians Arthur Bestor and Mortimer Smith establish the
Council for Basic Education, committed to making intellectual training the primary focus of public
education and the elimination of separating students by ability into different tracks.
1957 Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus sends in the state National Guard to prevent the desegregation
of Little Rock Central High School; President Dwight D. Eisenhower sends in federal troops to
implement the court order.
1957 The Soviet Union launches the first space satellite, Sputnik, resulting in U.S. efforts to improve
mathematics and science education.
1958 The National Defense Education Act is passed, authorizing millions of dollars to mathematics,
science, and gifted education.
1960 A. S. Neill’s Summerhill, about a progressive English boarding school, begins the revival of child-
centered progressive education in the United States.
1964 Congress passes the Civil Rights Act.
1964 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) issue the Port Huron Statement, a radical critique of U.S.
society and a call for action by U.S. students.
1964 The University of California, Berkeley, Free Speech Movement, led by Mario Savio, protests
university rules limiting assembly and demonstrations on campus.
1965 The Elementary and Secondary School Act is passed.
1967 Criticism of schools, and urban schools in particular, reaches a crescendo, with the publication of
Jonathan Kozol’s Death at an Early Age and Herbert Kohl’s 36 Children.
1968 Black students go on strike at San Francisco State University, resulting in the resignation of its
president. Its new president, S. I. Hiyakawa, a law and order advocate, threatened to suspend
anyone who interfered with the college. The strike ended after a number of months, with each
side declaring victory.
Date Event
1968 Black students take over Willard Straight Hall at Cornell University. Faced with threats to take
over the entire university by the African-American Society (AAS) and SDS, President James
Perkins agrees to consider their demands without reprimands.
1968 New York City police are called in to end the takeover of the Columbia University library.
SDS-led students protesting the Vietnam War and the university’s plan to build a gymnasium in
the neighboring Morningside Heights section of Harlem are removed forcefully.
1969 City University of New York (CUNY) adopts its Open Admissions Policy, which offers a place
for all New York City high school graduates in one of its senior colleges (for students with a high
school average of above 80) or community colleges (for students with a high school average
below 80). This policy results in the development of the largest remediation effort in U.S. higher
education. Critics argue that it represents the downfall of the meritocratic ideal of higher
education; proponents argue it represents higher education for all and the triumph of the
democratic ideal of higher education.
1969 All-male Ivy League universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Pennsylvania and
Dartmouth) begin to admit women.
1970 Charles Silberman publishes Crisis in the Classroom, a radical critique of U.S. public schools as “grim,
joyless places,” preoccupied with “order and control” and characterized by “banality and triviality.”
1970 On May 4, four students at Kent State University, protesting the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, are
killed by the Ohio National Guard called in by Governor James Rhodes after protestors burned
down the Army ROTC building.
1970 Vassar College becomes coeducational, leading to other women’s colleges such as Connecticut
College for Women and Skidmore College admitting men. Coeducation will become the rule,
with only some of the elite Seven Sisters (Smith, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, and Bryn Mawr) and
a few others remaining women’s colleges in the year 2017.
1974 U.S. Federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity rules Boston School Committee is in violation of Brown v.
Board, resulting in Boston school desegregation wars.
1975 During the New York City fiscal crisis, City University of New York initiates tuition, ending its
more than century-long policy of free tuition.
1983 The National Commission for Excellence in Education, headed by U.S. Secretary of Education Terel
Bell, releases A Nation at Risk, which argues that U.S. education is mediocre. The report results in
the beginning of the education excellence movement and a repudiation of progressive education.
1986 National Governors Conference, headed by Governors Clinton of Arkansas, Alexander of
Tennessee, and Riley of South Carolina, issues its report A Time for Results, calling for higher state
standards in education.
1987 Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch’s What Do Our Seventeen Year Olds Know? and E. D. Hirsch, Jr.’s
Cultural Literacy provide a critique of U.S. students’ lack of liberal arts and sciences knowledge and
propose the Core Curriculum movement.
1988 Minnesota becomes the first state to pass school choice legislation. As of 2016, 44 states and the
Distrcit of Columbia have passed choice legislation and have public charter schools.
1992 California becomes the second state (after Minnesota) to pass charter school legislation, allowing
for state funding of schools independent of the public school system. By 1998, it has over 50,000
students in charter schools—the most in the nation—and the second most charter schools (130),
second only to Arizona (241).
1994 President William Jefferson Clinton’s Goals 2000: Educate America Act becomes law, establishing
national goals for content and performance; opportunity to learn standards; school-to-work
opportunities; school, parent, and community support; teacher professional development; and safe
and drug-free schools.
1995 Social psychologists David Berliner and Bruce D. Biddle publish The Manufactured Crisis, which argues
that the empirical evidence does not support the conservative attack on U.S. public schools.
1998 The New Jersey Supreme Court issues the fifth of its historic decisions in Abbott v. Burke (1990),
a landmark state school finance case.
Continued
Date Event
2002 President George W. Bush signs into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, aimed at eliminating
student achievement gaps by 2014.
2002 In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution does not prohibit
public funding of religious schools, at least in the form of Cleveland’s school voucher program.
2003 In Grutter v. Bollinger, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the University of Michigan Law School’s
use of racial preferences in student admissions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court
adopts the same standard and finds that the university’s undergraduate admissions system used
race too mechanically and therefore did violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2004 In Williams v. State of California, the plaintiffs argue that the state has failed to provide a minimally adequate
education for low-income children. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger settles the four-year-old case
by agreeing to provide new state standards to ensure an adequate education for all children.
2004 A three-member panel appointed by New York Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse recommends
that the New York State legislature provide an additional $5.6 billion per year to the New York City
public schools. As part of the final ruling in the decade-long Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, the
Court rules that the state’s funding formulas discriminated against New York City.
2007 In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court rules
that districts cannot assign students to public schools for the sole purpose of racial integration.
2008 Barack Obama is elected 44th President of the United States. He is the country's first black
president. President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top initiative is included in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The initiative awards funding to states that demonstrate
plans to adopt high academic standards, build data systems to improve assessment, recruit and
retain quality school staff, and turn around low-achieving schools.
2011 President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan begin to grant NCLB waivers
to states that propose acceptable alternatives to specific provisions of the No Child Left Behind
Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
2015 President Obama's Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is passed by Congress, replacing No Child
Left Behind as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
2017 President Donald J. Trump takes office as the 45th President of the United States. He nominates
Betsy DeVos, a radical school choice advocate as his Secretary of Education. She is confirmed by
the Senate after Vice President Mike Pence breaks a 50–50 tie.
Nassaw (1979), in a very different vein, stated:
The public schools emerge in the end compromised by reform and resistance. They do not belong to
the corporations and the state, but neither do they belong to their communities. They remain “contested”
institutions with several agendas and several purposes. The reformers have not in the past made them
into efficient agencies for social channeling and control. Their opponents will not, on the other hand,
turn them into truly egalitarian institutions without at the same time effecting radical changes in the
state and society that support them. The public schools will, in short, continue to be the social arena
where the tension is reflected and the contest played out between the promise of democracy and the
rights of class division. (p. 243)
Thus, from their very different vantage points, Ravitch and Nassaw agree that schools are
imperfect institutions with conflicting goals that have been the center of struggle throughout our
history. There have been no easy answers to the complex questions we have examined. As teachers,
you will become a part of this ongoing history, and we believe only through reflective consideration
of the issues will you be able to understand the many conflicts of which you will be a part, let
alone resolve these conflicts and make a difference.
In order to evaluate the issues raised in this chapter, one must look at empirical evidence,
including, but not limited to, the historical record. That is, to analyze the extent to which schools
have provided opportunity and mobility or the extent to which standards have fallen requires
data. As you will see, the sociological approach to education has been central to this endeavor.
In the next chapter, we will explore this sociological approach in depth.
The following articles illustrate some of the major historical periods, writers, and reforms discussed
in this chapter. The first selection, “Empowerment and Education: Civil Rights, Expert Advocates,
and Parent Politics in Head Start, 1964–1980” written by law professor Josh Kagan provides a
historical analysis of the implementation of the early childhood Head Start policy and debates
among conservatives, liberals and radicals about its continuation.
The second selection, “Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict, and Educational Change,” by
radical political economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, provides a radical-revisionist
interpretation of the history of American education, one that is quite different than Cremin’s.
Empowerment and Education: Civil

Rights, Expert-Advocates, and Parent
Politics in Head Start, 1964–1980
Josh Kagan
Introduction: The Unasked “Baby Corps,” hoping that the word “corps”
Questions of Head Start Literature would imply grassroots political activism.1
In late 1964, Lyndon Johnson and his anti- Academics, operating from the premise that poor
poverty czar Sargent Shriver convened a com- families exhibited parenting skill deficits that
mittee of academics and civil rights activists to allowed middle-class children to get ahead of
plan an intensive program for low-income three- their impoverished peers, preferred “Head Start.”
and four-year-old children. The Economic The debate over the program’s name (which
Opportunity Act had granted the executive the academics won) encapsulated key debates
branch great leeway in designing antipoverty pro- surrounding Head Start. Should the program
grams, and the Johnson administration eagerly empower parents or educate them? How can
wanted to create a program to reach poor Head Start’s model help poor children enjoy the
children when they were still young. Civil rights same opportunities as affluent children in
activists sought to provide an alternative to suburban schools? From Head Start’s inception
existing education and social service agencies that through its first major crisis under President
generally disrespected black communities. Psy- Richard Nixon and through the 1970s, a strong
chologists, pediatricians, and sociologists hoped coalition of interest groups emerged from the
to design a program that would help children Great Society to support the program, despite
overcome deprivation caused by poverty. As their different general outlooks on politics and
the committee members planned the program, policy. Civil rights activists and academics
they debated its name. Civil rights activists united behind Head Start, both hoping that it
committed to the ideal of empowering poor would lead to some kind of reform of public
communities suggested “Kiddie Corps” and education and involve parents more productively
than typical public schools. Their alliance came more Head Start literature than have civil
about despite their conflicts over the role of par- rights workers; expert-advocates, who typically
ents in the program. After debating the issue for work in a university setting, also likely feel a
three-and-a-half decades, neither side can claim professional pressure to publish. Thus far, no
complete victory, and neither fully explains history exists that fully explores the interaction
Head Start’s survival. Parents were empowered between these two perspectives.
and became a crucial element of the Head Start Johnson and Shriver used the Office of Eco-
coalition, but they did not behave as either civil nomic Opportunity (OEO) to establish Head
rights activists or expert-advocates expected. Start. The program began with an eight-week
The history of this coalition demands telling summer program for children about to enter
because, despite Head Start’s remarkable politi- public schools in June of 1965 and provided
cal popularity, politicians and activists often preschool classes, medical care, dental care, and
ignore or misunderstand its origins. Most not- mental health services for children living below
ably, President George W. Bush has frequently the poverty line. It served more than 500,000
claimed that he will “return Head Start to its children that first summer, and its funding
original purpose,” children’s cognitive (especially increased in 1966 and 1967. Like all other
beginning literacy) development.2 Similarly, a OEO programs, Head Start was legally obligated
December 2000 report by the conservative to foster the “maximum feasible participation”
Fordham Foundation, Education 2001, referred to of the people it served. This clause of the 1964
Head Start’s “loss of focus” from its original goal Economic Opportunity Act (which established
of cognitive development.3 Both assertions the OEO) excited civil rights activists. To
appear more grounded in political motives than them, it indicated that poor people, especially
historical accuracy: While children’s cognitive poor blacks, would finally exert control over
development has always been a primary goal of social services. Blacks would run the Community
Head Start’s, the program’s purpose was never so Action Programs, OEO-funded agencies separate
clear and was multifaceted from its inception. from racist, established political, economic, and
Indeed, these statements illustrate political educational structures.
tensions that have surrounded Head Start It did not take long for civil rights activists to
throughout its history. write about Head Start. Nowhere were the civil
Nor have academic studies told the full rights implications of Head Start more clear than
history of Head Start. In the thirty-four years in Mississippi, where by the end of 1967, the
since its inception, a wide body of literature on Child Development Group of Mississippi
Head Start has emerged, most of which takes the (the CDGM was the largest Head Start grantee
side of civil rights activists or expert-advocates. in that state) had been born, served thousands
Most authors have concerned themselves with of children, gained national attention (positive
the policy questions of whether Head Start is and negative), and died. By 1969, one of its
effective, how to judge its effectiveness, and leaders, Polly Greenberg, published a 704-page
whether Congress should increase or eliminate account of its brief life, The Devil Has Slippery
its funding. The resulting discourse has blurred Shoes: A Biased Biography of the Child Develop-
the lines between academic objectivity and ment Group of Mississippi. As the title indicates,
political action. Most of the literature can be Greenberg does not pretend to write an objective
classified according to whether it was written by history. Rather, she celebrates the high levels
civil rights activists or by expert-advocates, with of involvement of the families of children served
each group articulating different standards for by CDGM and mourns the opposition to
judging Head Start but united in support for the CDGM from conservative white politicians.4
program. Although the civil rights movement’s She and other civil rights activists focus on par-
intensity has faded since 1964, expert-advocates ent involvement in Head Start as a means of
have continued to play a crucial role in crafting empowering disenfranchised poor minorities to
public policy. Accordingly, they have produced work to overcome racism and poverty.
Greenberg saw the administration of Head Start. A year later, he expanded his argument in
Start as a battle between good guys and bad Head Start and Beyond: A National Plan for
guys, between activists who sought to empower Extended Childhood Intervention, which called for
parents and entrenched powers who feared the grand changes in the United States’ child care
results or lacked the courage necessary to sup- and educational systems following the model of
port the work of CDGM. However, the goals of Head Start.
those politicians and policy makers went beyond Zigler’s analysis shows a keen understand-
opposition to civil rights activism. Some were ing of the politics surrounding Head Start.
racist, but most simply held an alternative However, his explanation of its survival is based
vision for Head Start that focused more on on his familiarity with several individuals within
children’s cognitive development and the educa- the executive branch. Nixon’s Secretary of
tion of parents and not on parent empowerment. Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Elliot
It follows that much of the literature that takes Richardson (Zigler’s boss when he was direc-
the perspective of political and policy elites tor of the OCD) convinced Nixon not to axe
focuses on the intellectual and political climate Head Start.5 Similarly, Zigler credits Caspar
of decisions affecting Head Start and ignores Weinberger, who served as Secretary of HEW
most of what happened at local Head Start under Presidents Nixon and Ford, with keeping
centers. Head Start alive in the 1980s, when he served
Much of this type of Head Start literature as President Reagan’s Secretary of Defense.6
comes from expert-advocates—university pro- Zigler’s analysis is understandably limited to the
fessors who have studied some element of child White House—that is where he had his only
development and advocated for programs like government experience. He does not discuss
Head Start. It is natural for professors to write congressional or local politics in any depth. Nor
about Head Start because many were integral to does he explain how constituencies in strong
its planning and implementation. In late 1964, support of Head Start developed and affected
Shriver and Johnson convened a Planning policy or why different groups of various political
Committee made up of pediatricians, psycholo- ideologies united in support of Head Start. With
gists, educators, and social workers to design the his stories of West Wing debates and decisions,
as-yet-unnamed children’s program. Many of Zigler makes a crucial contribution to our
these individuals and their colleagues continued understanding of Head Start’s survival, but his
to research Head Start and advocate on its behalf interpretation indicates that he left the historical
once they left their official positions. work unfinished.
The most prolific of these academics has been The incomplete nature of Zigler’s analysis
Edward Zigler, professor of psychology and should come as no surprise because he did not
director of the Child Study Center at Yale Uni- intend to write a comprehensive history of Head
versity. Zigler served on the Planning Committee Start. Zigler is not an ordinary academic; he is a
in 1964 and 1965 and as Director of the Office public figure with much invested in the success
of Child Development (OCD), which admin- of the program that he helped to develop. One
istered Head Start under President Nixon. He of his primary goals is to advocate for Head Start
began publishing articles on the effectiveness of and for similar early childhood programs and his
Head Start in psychological journals in the early primary audience is people who would support
1970s, but his writing became more political similar policies. The cover of Head Start: The
by 1979, when he edited Project Head Start: A Inside Story boasts the endorsement of Children’s
Legacy of the War on Poverty, which began with Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman
his essay on the history of the program. He and liberal Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.
continued in that vein with Head Start: The The book “is dedicated to Sargent Shriver,
Inside Story of America’s Most Successful Educa- Robert Cooke, Julius Richmond and Jule
tional Experiment, a 1992 book chronicling the Sugarman, the brilliant individuals who made
behind-the-scenes political history of Head Head Start happen.”7 Zigler’s office is decorated
with photographs of Lyndon Johnson, Lady Bird unfit to serve.10 Demographic pressure on public
Johnson, Shriver, and other supporters of Head schools created by the baby boom amplified
Start, and his history celebrates the role that calls for greater federal support of education.11 As
these individuals played. When Daniel Patrick early as 1962, prominent politicians called for
Moynihan referred to the “professionalization of massive education programs for poor children.12
reform,”8 he had individuals like Zigler in Although differences existed, liberal education
mind—experts turned advocates during the policies enjoyed wide, bipartisan support. A post-
War on Poverty. When these expert-advocates World War II liberal consensus peaked, but
wrote histories of programs that they designed, deeper tensions festered. While feminist activists
they did not provide a completely objective and student protesters began to challenge
analysis. The most recent book on Head Start, accepted social norms, an increasingly militant
Something Better for My Children by journalist Kay civil rights movement clamored for more radical
Mills,9 is similarly flawed. Also bragging a cover change than most politicians would support.
endorsement from Wright Edelman, Mills’ text These trends provided the background for
reports the positive effects of Head Start that she Lyndon Johnson’s inheritance of the presidency
witnessed, and little else. in 1963. Following the assassination of John
This paper seeks to go beyond the boundaries Kennedy, politicians sought to enact the
of debate in existing Head Start literature Kennedy agenda, however unclear, and Johnson
and will not debate either the effectiveness of enjoyed broad popularity and the freedom to
Head Start, the criteria with which to judge it, define certain elements of Kennedy’s legacy.
nor what policy changes are appropriate in the Johnson also sought to “transcend conflict,” to
present time. This paper asks, instead, how unite Americans under his leadership by pleasing
Head Start survived when other Great Society all sides of a debate.13 Kennedy had spoken out
programs did not and examines the development against racial injustice but made only vague
of the tense but effective coalition of civil rights policy proposals to combat it. Johnson turned
activists, expert-advocates and parents. This those vague suggestions into the compromise
paper focuses on the first decade and a half of Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most notable
Head Start’s life, before an overwhelming laws in American history.
number of positive research results silenced most Bolstered by the passage of the Civil Rights
potential critics. Finally, this paper describes the Act and his resounding election over Barry
Head Start coalition’s reaction to current Goldwater in 1964 (Johnson won sixty-one
political debates surrounding the program. percent of the vote), Johnson made antipoverty
initiatives the keystone of his domestic agenda.
Kennedy had visited impoverished areas of the
The Rise and Fall of a Liberal
nation and spoke passionately about the need
“Consensus”: Political
to fight poverty, but had relatively few accom-
Background of Head Start
plishments to show for it. In 1965–66 Congress
Optimism pervaded America during the early passed a tremendous number of important laws,
and middle 1960s. In the midst of an unprece- including the Voting Rights Act, the Elementary
dented economic boom, energetic and popular and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and laws
politicians convinced the nation that govern- establishing Medicare and Medicaid and funding
ment could solve deep-rooted social problems, mass transit and urban renewal.14 These laws
such as racism and poverty. Americans shared a followed Johnson’s declaration of the “War on
growing concern about poverty and education, Poverty,” in which he cited Kennedy’s legacy in
some of which owed to the Cold War. The asking Americans to unite behind the Economic
Sputnik-induced fear of falling behind the Soviets Opportunity Act of 1964.
educationally was still fresh and was renewed by Rallying the country to this cause was no
a 1963 report that labeled one half of all men easy task; while most people agreed that govern-
drafted by the military as physically or mentally ment could fight poverty, sharp disagreements
remained over the basic causes of poverty and the Commission; and Dorothy Goldberg, wife of
most effective means with which to fight it. Some a Supreme Court justice; among others all
thought that poor people’s behavior caused helped recruit local agencies to administer
their poverty and should be altered through Head Start and sorted through the ensuing grant
social services. Others thought that poor people applications. Jule Sugarman, a member of the
needed political empowerment to fight existing Head Start Planning Committee, convinced
economic structures. Race underscored all more than one hundred federal government
antipoverty debates, whether or not politicians interns in the summer of 1965 to help set up
discussed civil rights. The resulting antipoverty beginning programs around the country.19 These
programs enacted by Johnson often incorporated and other volunteers managed to sort through
philosophies of different constituencies together more than 3,300 applications in six weeks.
with his personal stamp and that of and his Locally, many civic groups, businesses, and
closest aides. Head Start was no exception. individuals contributed. YMCAs, Kiwanis Clubs,
Personal interests of key members of the Lions Clubs, National Farmers Unions, Girl
Kennedy and Johnson administrations helped Scouts, Boy Scouts, Future Nurses of America,
create Head Start. The Kennedy family had a Future Homemakers, Future Farmers of America,
great interest in child development because of and other similar organizations all sponsored
the retardation of a family member. Robert Head Starts or contributed money, materials,
Cooke, a pediatrician and the chairman of the or time to local programs. The OEO reported
Head Start Planning Committee, cared for that that 250,000 people (about half of whom were
family member and built a relationship with the Head Start parents) volunteered in Head Start
Kennedy family, especially with Shriver, who classrooms during the initial 1965 summer
was a brother-in-law of the president and program.20 Health professionals donated their
oversaw Head Start as director of the OEO.15 services, providing children with the medical
The personal connection to early education care required under Head Start guidelines. For
continued in the Johnson administration. Both instance, the American Optometric Association
Shriver and Johnson had early professional established Volunteers for Vision to treat Head
experiences in education. Shriver had served as Start children. (That group also had a personal
president of the Chicago Board of Education for connection to the administration: Luci Baines
five years,16 and Johnson had begun his career in Johnson, the president’s daughter, directed the
1928 as a teacher in rural Texas, serving a large Austin branch of Volunteers for Vision.21)
number of impoverished children and Chicano All of this local assistance was encouraged,
children, an experience he often cited in indeed mandated, by the Office of Economic
speeches.17 For both of these men, their experi- Opportunity. The OEO funded local nonprofit
ence in public schools and their belief in the groups to administer Head Start but required all
liberal consensus gave them the faith that edu- Head Start grantees to obtain twenty percent of
cation could solve social ills and that they could the total cost whether from monetary donations
unite various constituencies behind their or in-kind contributions. (In-kind contributions
education agenda. They confidently declared could include volunteer hours, giving Head Start
that they could “virtually eliminate” poverty centers an added incentive to encourage parent
without “set[ting] one group against another.”18 activity in centers.) This requirement resulted
The optimism sparked by Head Start was not in local Head Start programs building networks
limited to the White House. Lady Bird Johnson of supporters in their local area and thus
served as honorary chairperson of Head Start, expanded the number of people with a stake in
and she and members of the Head Start planning the future of Head Start.22 The national Head
committee recruited other political wives to Start office helped to coordinate these efforts,
donate time to the cause. Lindy Boggs, wife of a contacting groups for assistance and issuing
Louisiana congressman; Sherri Henry, wife of the volunteer recruitment posters.23 OEO officials
commissioner of the Federal Communications also solicited donations for Head Start and
other programs. For instance, the director of accusing Shriver of fomenting class struggle by
the Maine OEO convinced two labor unions in granting poor people control of public funds
Maine to donate wood blocks, cardboard, felt, without the consent of City Hall.28 The Johnson
and other classroom materials for all Head Start administration knew well how local officials
centers in the state.24 would react and acquiesced to their demands.
Head Start’s success in attracting various Unwilling to burst the illusion of a national
forms of support from professionals and middle- consensus, Johnson refused to insist that poor
class volunteers indicated the high level of the people have control of CAPs. As Daniel Patrick
program’s support outside of the communities it Moynihan later wrote, “It was taken as a matter
targeted. Private corporations attempted to tap beneath notice that such programs would be
into this support by marketing toys, books, and dominated by the local political structure.”29
other products for children as “official” Head This unstated understanding soon became
Start products. In 1966, Head Start directors obvious to supporters of community control. By
warned advertisers to cease this practice because January 1965, liberal activist and intellectual
it was misleading (Head Start printed lists of Saul Alinsky referred to the War on Poverty as
“suitable” materials, but insisted that no items “political pornography” because of the absence
were official or required). Despite this warning, of real control by poor people.30 A 1968 study
the Head Start appeal was hard to resist: called maximum feasible participation “a
Advertisers continued to use this tactic, leading charade.”31 Civil rights activists felt betrayed
to a sterner warning a year later requesting local when they realized that blacks (who constituted
agencies to report any offending advertisements a disproportionately high number of poor people)
to OEO attorneys.25 would not have significant control over CAPs.
The popularity of Head Start and the In 1967, Stokely Carmichael mocked the
idealism of volunteers could not free the OEO as an attempt to gloss over festering prob-
War on Poverty from controversy. Part of the lems: “Some token money from the Office of
War on Poverty’s appeal was that it promised Economic Opportunity may be promised and
a democratization of power: Rather than the then everybody either prays for rain to cool off
heavy hand of the federal government restructur- tempers and vacate the streets or for an early
ing society from on high, change would come autumn.” By 1967, as the liberal consensus began
from the communities affected by government to splinter, observers referred to the War on
programs, especially poor communities that Poverty as “the failure of American liberalism.”32
had been shut out of power throughout history. The example of New Haven, Connecticut, is
The Economic Opportunity Act required all instructive. Under Mayor Richard Lee, New
OEO programs to be “Community Action Haven was one of the most active cities in
Programs” (CAPs) and to allow the “maximum establishing social service programs, even before
feasible participation” of people they served. Johnson declared the War on Poverty. The city
The ideal of community participation had of New Haven channeled millions of dollars
grown throughout the 1960s and had gained to programs through Community Progress, Inc.
a foothold in policy circles. For instance, the (CPI), a nonprofit initially funded in 1962 by a
1962 President’s Commission on Juvenile and $2.5 million Ford Foundation grant written by
Youth Crime concluded that social services two aides to the mayor.33 By 1964, before the
required neighborhood-based organization and Economic Opportunity Act was written, CPI
democratic control to work.26 However, power- had established a preschool program including
ful forces resisted such calls, especially local classroom activities for parents for more than two
politicians eager to use OEO funds for patronage hundred three- and four-year-old children.
and established welfare agencies (and their Other cities took note. One CPI leader left
mostly white, middle-class leaders) accustomed New Haven to advise New York City Mayor
to controlling social services.27 The National John Lindsay on his antipoverty programs.
Council of Mayors entertained a resolution Officials in New York and other cities would
routinely “make pilgrimages to New Haven to children. As Shriver wrote in 1979, “There is a
see how it’s done.”34 Other CPI and city officials bias against helping adults. But there’s a contrary
also toured cities and universities around the bias in favor of helping children.”41 That,
country to lecture on the benefits of their coupled with Head Start’s record of involving
policies.35 Once Congress established the OEO, families better than other CAPs (explored
CPI greatly expanded, using both federal and below), resulted in Head Start quickly becoming
foundation funds, and the scope of its programs the biggest CAP, accounting for forty percent of
reached unprecedented proportions. By 1967, all OEO funds by the end of 1967.42
CPI employed more than three hundred people,
and it spent about $7,700 for every New Haven
“Compensatory Education for
family with an income less than $4,000.
Cultural Deprivation”: Intellectual
The racial politics of the War on Poverty were
Background of Head Start
clearly evident in New Haven—CPI employed
large numbers of blacks, and its programs served Along with the rest of the nation, academics
mostly black residents. Lee and his allies used rediscovered poverty in the late 1950s and 1960s
CPI to gain the favor of black politicians and produced a wealth of literature attempting
throughout the city. This strategy worked, to explain how poverty continued to exist in
avoiding a serious militant black challenge to the United States and to propose policies
Lee’s hold on power (Republicans ceased to be designed to eradicate poverty.43 As the rhetoric
political players in New Haven in the 1950s). of John Kennedy and books such as Michael
When Fred Harris, a black third-party candidate, Harrington’s The Other America44 changed public
ran for state legislature against a Lee-endorsed attitudes, scholarly attitudes similarly evolved.
Democrat in 1968, he won only five percent of For the first time since the New Deal, American
the vote.36 Yet CPI attracted its share of critic- intellectuals and policy makers sought to address
ism, even from blacks. Its board of directors poverty, but they advocated much different
included representatives from Yale University, solutions. Where the New Deal had public works
the Community Council, the United Fund, programs and economic regulation, the Great
the New Haven Board of Education, and the Society expanded existing social programs and
New Haven Foundation—all organizations created new ones.
dominated by white professionals. No poor Intellectuals in the burgeoning fields of
blacks were board members.37 By 1967, the Ford psychology and child development identified
Foundation, CPI’s initial sponsor, issued a stin- children, rather than families, as appropriate
ging evaluation, concluding that “residents are subjects for study and as the logical targets of
not consulted and do not participate meaning- public policy. The focus, then, was on individual
fully” in CPI programs.38 New Haven’s Congress- children; the goal was for society to help them,
man Robert Giaimo attacked CPI for being “an while families were presumed to be part of the
overly centralized, paternalistic, big brother problem, at least poor and minority families. This
institution, manned by planner-administrators line of thinking follows the generalization of
who believe they know what is best for every- childhood historian Hugh Cunningham: In the
one.”39 Outside of formal structures, a group second half of the twentieth century, Western
called Angry Black Men asserted that CPI was societies exhibited growing distrust toward
“failing to meet the needs of the people” and families and thus granted children more legal
demanded (unsuccessfully) the resignation of rights and viewed childhood as a proper arena for
CPI’s executive director.40 state intervention.45
Critics spared Head Start their wrath. Local Many intellectuals focused on the education
politicians could argue against other social system as a crucial element of any solution to
programs as wasteful or contrary to the American poverty. An ideal education system would serve
work ethic, but it was harder to argue against as a natural source of social mobility, but studies
giving money to a program serving young found that poorer children and minority children
(especially blacks) did not perform as well in not indicate a critique of black culture.53 Other
school as their white and middle-class counter- scholars, however, did not heed Bloom’s call.
parts and that performance deficits existed from Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his famous
the point when children entered public schools report on “The Negro Family: The Case for
at age five or six. A number of academics sought National Action” in 1965, which concluded
to explain this difference without resorting to the “the deterioration of the Negro family . . . is the
social Darwinist arguments of previous decades. fundamental source of weakness in the Negro
Out of this climate emerged several social community at the present time.”54 Moynihan
scientists who claimed that intervention early served as a close advisor to Lyndon Johnson and
in children’s life can have a permanent impact inserted similar ideas into Johnson’s speeches.
on their development. J. McVicker Hunt (in For instance, a 1965 speech proclaimed: “Unless
Intelligence and Experience46) and Benjamin we work to strengthen the family, to create
Bloom (in Stability and Change in Human conditions under which most parents will stay
Characteristics47) made the two most famous together, all the rest—schools, and playgrounds
claims. Both agreed that the first five years of life and public assistance, and private concern—will
were critical in terms of later development and never be enough to cut completely the circle of
that environmental factors had a huge impact despair and deprivation.”55 The following year,
during those years. To the question “nature E. Franklin Frazier released an updated edition of
or nurture,” they answered with the latter.48 The Negro Family in the United States, which
Intelligence, they argued, was not fixed at birth argued that urban blacks had lost significant
but, rather, was shaped by environmental forces. contact with their African heritage and were, in
Bloom, a psychology professor at the University essence, cultureless.56 Such intellectuals cer-
of Chicago, claimed that one-half of a person’s tainly had their critics—the Moynihan report, in
intelligence was determined by age five and that particular, generated much opposition—but
intelligence gradually became more fixed by age their ideas maintained their influence within the
eighteen.49 social sciences. One study from this era con-
If the problem was that poor children and cluded that growing up with “impoverished
minority children were not as smart as white and modes of speech” had a negative impact on chil-
middle-class children, then those children were dren’s cognitive abilities—essentially blaming
being raised poorly. Hunt and Bloom both ebonics for black children’s failures in school.57
identified the quality of parenting, particularly Other academics interested in child develop-
mothering, as the most crucial factor in child ment and poverty established pilot programs to
development.50 Urie Bronfrenbrenner, another prove that public policy could overcome cultural
respected psychologist of the era who later deprivation. These expert-advocates did not
served on the Head Start Planning Committee, write for a narrow university audience; rather,
identified a broader range of environmental they sought to influence politicians with their
factors but agreed that children’s parents had the results. One book that included essays on
largest impact on their lives.51 Thus the public research results and essays by civil rights leaders
policy solution would be to make poor and such as Stokely Carmichael featured this
minority women better mothers or somehow preamble: “We dedicate this book to the children
compensate for their poor parenting. Bloom of the poor in the hope that it will in some small
called this approach “compensatory education measure help to alter their destiny in the
for cultural deprivation” in his 1965 book of that schools.”58 Indeed, experts had more political
name.52 clout in the decades after World War II than
Bloom cautioned readers not to equate in most historical periods. “Thinker-doers”59
“cultural deprivation” with race— disproportion- emerged from academia to dominate foreign
ally high numbers of black children were poor, policy. As historian Elaine Tyler May wrote,
performed poorly in school, and, by implication, “postwar America was the era of the expert.”
were deprived by their parents, but that should Self-appointed experts became influential on a
given field of life: Benjamin Spock on child improving his environment” and that doing so
rearing, Alfred Kinsey on sex, and the myriad of will eliminate the child’s need for welfare and
men who brought America everything from other social services later in life.65 Individuals
linoleum floors and washing machines to fighter who designed Head Start shared similar beliefs.
planes and the hydrogen bomb.60 For instance, Robert Cooke, the Kennedy
Such experts conducted several studies that friend and pediatrician who chaired the Head
shaped the destiny of Head Start. These studies Start Planning Committee, followed studies
built on the compensatory education hypothesis linking poor nutrition of pregnant women to
and most incorporated two crucial factors: developmental problems in their children and
They focused on black children and determined insisted that Head Start encourage sound
success through cognitive gains measured by nutrition practices in children. Gray’s study had
standardized tests, especially IQ tests. The most a particular impact on Sargent Shriver. Although
influential of these studies came from Susan Gray studied children with disabilities who
Gray’s Early Training Project (funded by the would only make up a small portion of Head
Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation) at George Start children, Shriver was convinced that
Peabody Teachers College (which later joined Head Start would increase children’s IQs. He
Vanderbilt University). Sixty black children went so far as to tell Jule Sugarman, who served
with mental disabilities children were admitted on the Head Start Planning Committee and later
to a program designed to prevent “progressive served under Shriver as director of Head Start,
retardation.” Gray concluded that her pro- “Now, I want to prove this program is valuable.
gram raised the IQ of the children involved In fact, I’d like to say how many IQ points are
by ten or fifteen points.61 Similar projects began gained for every dollar invested.” Not everyone
in the early 1960s in Syracuse and New York was pleased with this mandate. For instance,
City. Another project begun in 1963 in New Martin Deutsch resigned his seat on the Head
Haven, Connecticut, was funded by the Ford Start advisory commission because powerful
Foundation through Community Progress In- members of the Johnson administration exagger-
corporated (CPI), offering a ten-week summer ated the benefits of Head Start, making it
program for four-year-old children living in appear as a “miracle cure” while neglecting to
poverty.62 The state of California established explain the comprehensive nature of a program
similar programs with the McAteer Act, which that included medical, dental, and mental health
contained language taken directly from Bloom: care and that sought to foster social develop-
That law’s introduction called for “compensatory ment as much as cognitive development in
education programs to aid culturally dis- children.66
advantaged children.”63 Despite such objections, many studies in the
Just as these studies and pilot programs first three years of Head Start’s existence looked
filtered the ideas of Hunt and Bloom, the only at children’s IQ changes, and the Johnson
politicians and bureaucrats who designed Head administration did exactly as Shriver wanted. In
Start filtered information from these studies and 1966, Shriver testified to Congress that the first
pilot programs. The Head Start Newsletter, Head Start summer program in 1965 raised
published by the OEO, endorsed the concept of children’s IQs by eight to ten points in just eight
cultural deprivation, instructing Head Start weeks.67 Lady Bird Johnson, the honorary
volunteers and teachers how to address the “style chairperson of Head Start from 1965 until
of living among the disorganized families of the Nixon’s inauguration in 1969, cited a similar
lower-lower class in which unemployment, figure in all her public statements about Head
separation, desertion, divorce, abandonment Start and spoke of Head Start “opening the door
and neglect of children and dependency upon leading from the darkness of poverty into the
public aid are most frequent.”64 A later edition sunlight of hope and opportunity.”68 Lyndon
of the newsletter cited several IQ-based studies, Johnson predicted in 1965 that Head Start
concluding that “a child’s IQ can be improved by would ensure that the lives of children served
“will be spent productively and rewardingly, support for Head Start. Black culture, they
rather than wasted in tax-supported institutions believed, should be validated by social service
or in welfare-supported lethargy”69 and claimed programs, not vilified by people like Moynihan.
in 1968 that Head Start had “raised the IQ of Consequently, blacks should have actual control
hundreds of thousands of children.”70 over such programs, which should target
Head Start was the first preschool program structural inequalities rather than attributes of
evaluated by university professors using black families. These beliefs identified civil
quantitative tests, distinguishing it from early rights activists as a group and the activists who
education initiatives at previous points in focused on young children’s issues. One black
history.71 Rather than locally based initiatives author, John Dill, urged policy makers to avoid
existing beyond the recognition of academics, integrating preschools because integration would
Head Start was a large federal program enacted prevent blacks from controlling those schools
with the participation, support, and influence of and force them into the same fate as CAPs.
expert-advocates. American education had Further, Dill attacked the “deprivation concept”
established a sharp focus on quantitative testing of scholars like Hunt and Bloom as offensive to
from 1957. Ever since the Soviet Sputnik launch, blacks.74 The Black Child Development
policy elites criticized the “whole child” Institute, a Washington-based advocacy group,
approach of public schools in favor of a skills- called for the creation of “child development
oriented pedagogy that would create a citizenry centers,” controlled by blacks, that would spark
educated to fight the Cold War. That goal, and development of entire communities.75 Despite
the pressure to achieve it as soon as possible, led attacks on War on Poverty programs and deficit
to tests that would display dramatic, quick, and theorists who designed Head Start, civil rights
cost-effective results from education programs.72 activists strongly supported Head Start.
Both Dill and the Black Child Development
Institute cited Head Start as a program they
Civil Rights and Head Start
supported. The key point in Head Start’s favor
Freedom is never given or granted—it is won. was its record of parent involvement.76 Parents
Freedom is founded on choice. Choice, in turn, of Head Start children often volunteered in
rests upon trained, truth-seeking intelligence and classrooms, became teachers and other Head
a profound awareness of real alternatives. These Start employees, and exercised some control
qualities depend to a frightening extent upon the over program decisions; Head Start resembled
success or failure of the much talked about the ideal of “maximum feasible participation”
preschool program, Operation Head Start. . . . If more than most CAPs. Civil rights advocates
the operation in the slums gets out of political insisted that Head Start maintain its focus on
hands and into the hands of the people, America community action and opposed any change to
must brace itself for a genuine Negro renaissance the program that threatened parent involve-
and/or a real Negro revolution in the 1980s that ment. The best example of this position occurred
will make the movements of the 1920s, 1940s in 1978, when Head Start was thirteen years old
and 1960s seem pale by comparison. If the and had survived the most severe threats to its
operation fails, if it represents nothing more than existence. In that year, President Jimmy Carter
half-hearted “compensatory education for cul- proposed moving Head Start from the Depart-
tural deprivation” and a misguided effort by white ment of Health, Education and Welfare to
men to make Negroes over into their own ugly the newly created Department of Education. A
image, then I don’t want to be around to face the coalition of civil rights leaders, including Coretta
consequences. Scott King, Vernon Jordan, Jesse Jackson,
Charles Keil, Urban Blues, 196673 Marian Wright Edelman and Joseph Lowery,
lobbied Congress to scuttle the plan, arguing that
Charles Keil hit on several paradoxical the Department of Education would put Head
themes that marked civil rights73a activists’ Start in the hands of local school districts, which
did not have a strong record of listening to black children, find classroom supplies and transport
voices. Once congressional opposition mounted children to centers. All these services were
and the success of activist efforts became clear, provided for free by poor parents and community
Carter removed the proposal.77 Civil rights members, whereas most Head Start agencies
advocates felt that they held a large stake in Head relied on their own funds or the volunteer work
Start that would be lost if its parent involvement of middle-class individuals and organizations.82
component was altered in any way. CDGM also encouraged parents and employees
Civil rights activists dramatically articulated to participate in political activism; its employ-
this position through the Child Development ment applications called for applicants to list
Group of Mississippi, which administered Head their involvement in “community activity, civil
Start in black areas of that state and which rights activities and political, social and commu-
became a lightning rod for the debate over the nity groups.”83 CDGM administrators’ view of
connection among Head Start, civil rights, and community action meant turning Head Start
community action. (One of the activists who parents into political activists.
later led the effort to keep Head Start out of This activism created the controversy that
the Department of Education, Marian Wright eventually killed CDGM. Head Start, like so
Edelman, turned to children’s advocacy and much of the War on Poverty, was seen as con-
founded the Children’s Defense Fund after her nected to civil rights activism, and it thus
involvement with Head Start. After graduating generated much of the same opposition. The Ku
from Yale Law School and working as a civil Klux Klan burned crosses in front of one CDGM
rights lawyer in the deep South, she, along with site and an intoxicated white man fired shots at
other civil rights activists including Fannie Lou another.84 Police, Klansmen, and other con-
Hamer,78 worked for the CDGM.) Mississippi servative whites routinely harassed CDGM staff
was a logical location for this debate: Not only members.85 Mississippi Governor Paul Johnson
were fierce civil rights battles fought there condemned CDGM as “an effort on the part of
throughout the 1960s, but also those battles extremists and agitators to subvert lawful
included fronts in preschools. The Student authority in Mississippi and to create division
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee focused and dissent between the races.”86 The Jackson
its black voter registration efforts on Mississippi Daily News published an editorial in 1965
and captured the nation’s attention when about arguing that Head Start would lead to the
1,000 northern college students traveled to “ultimate mongrelization” of the nation.87
Mississippi in 1964 for “Freedom Summer.”79 Other opponents used less racist rhetoric.
Many of those activists coordinated Freedom Mississippi Senator John Stennis, the powerful
Schools in 1964 for black children.80 The goal of chairman of the Senate Appropriations Com-
CDGM was identical to that of the Freedom mittee, charged CDGM with mismanaging
Schools: racial uplift. Polly Greenberg, a CDGM federal funds, specifically using OEO money to
board member, dedicated her 1969 book The fund some Delta Ministry, SNCC, and
Devil Has Slippery Shoes: A Biased Biography of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party civil
CDGM to “the 13,000 little children who will rights activism. Greenberg responded that
one day make Mississippi a state fit for black folks CDGM merely rented space from civil rights
to live in.”81 organizations to train teachers.88 Regardless of
CDGM involved parents like no other Head the validity of Stennis’ claim, OEO leadership
Start program. Before its first grant was even echoed it and, in December 1967, refused to
approved, CDGM recruited parents of young renew CDGM’s grant and instead funded the
children and community activists who identified Mississippi Action for Progress, a group of
4,200 children and sixty sites for the first Head moderate civil rights activists with close ties to
Start summer program in 1965. In impoverished Lyndon Johnson and the Mississippi Democratic
rural Mississippi, parents worked together to Party (not the MDFP).89 The OEO gave its full
repair buildings for Head Start, cook meals for support to the new program, even lauding its
work when it was just several months old in the no problems but lack of money, why were we
national Head Start Newsletter.90 (Needless to say, doing the program? Why not just issue each
the newsletter never mentioned CDGM.) OEO family a check?97
was thus able to use politically acceptable lan- Ed Zigler, Head Start Planning Committee
guage about CDGM’s accounting to kill that Member, Director of the Office of Child
group rather than the racist rhetoric of Governor Development, 1970–1972
Johnson.
OEO and the Johnson administration had You know, when you’re raising children and
reason to distance themselves from CDGM. you’re just trying to get by, you’re not paying a lot
They had already aligned Head Start with civil of attention.
rights, refusing to grant segregated southern Tina Hunter, Head Start parent,
agencies any Head Start money, angering some 1965–1966, New Haven Head Start Parent
whites who only wanted Head Start to serve poor Involvement Coordinator, 1989–present98
white children.91 Head Start had attracted racist
opposition elsewhere; for instance, the KKK The politicians and bureaucrats in charge of
burned crosses in front of Head Start centers in Head Start sought to limit political activism from
Alabama and Florida, too.92 Shriver and Johnson Head Start grantees, and that view became
were unwilling to push the civil rights issue with dominant with the demise of CDGM. However,
Head Start any further. Shriver noted in 1979 the fears of Shriver, Bronfrenbrenner, and their
that he feared for the future of all of Head allies may have been exaggerated. Civil rights
Start and the OEO if politicians like Stennis activists supported Head Start nationally, but
could criticize programs for mismanaging they rarely had as much influence over individual
funds. This fear explained his support for the Head Start grantees as they did with CDGM.
decision not to renew CDGM’s funding.93 Civil rights activism did not play as large a role
Powerful members of Congress lobbied the in parent involvement outside of Mississippi, but
administration to rein in community action civil rights activists did pressure Head Start to
activists. Senator Russell Long, the chairman grant more control to parents. Some civil rights
of the Senate Finance Committee, asked Ed activists sharply criticized certain Head Start
Zigler, a member of the Head Start Planning programs; one wrote an essay in The New
Committee, “Why should I pay poor people to Republic claiming that “the Head Start program
stir up trouble when I can’t find anyone to iron I’ve watched marches under the dreary flags of
my shirts?”94 Another member of the planning the middle class.” That program, he argued,
committee, Urie Bronfrenbrenner, opposed focused on learning letters and numbers at the
CDGM because it represented “the danger that exclusion of building children’s pride in
the Head Start program might be exploited by themselves and their culture, and Head Start
civil rights extremists.”95 should reform by granting more power to poor
communities.99 The academics who designed the
program tended to view Head Start as a means
Missing the Point: The Debate
to make poor and minority people better parents.
over Parent Involvement
Civil rights activists saw Head Start as a means
The philosophy I found in social workers work- to empower poor parents politically. Neither
ing with a low-income population was almost side’s view accurately described how Head Start
patronizing, not one of encouraging self- parent involvement played out.
determination.96 Some points were not controversial. All
Bessie Draper, Head Start National policy makers agreed that Head Start should
Parent Program Specialist, 1966 employ as many parents as possible. Head Start
regulations required grantees to hire one teach-
If Head Start parents, whether black or white, er’s aide for every fifteen children and directed
had no educational or parenting skill deficits, and the grantees to hire aides without regard to
academic qualifications and by giving preference relation to the schools and nonprofit agencies
to parents.100 By the mid-1970s, seventeen that operated local programs. As a result, super-
percent of Head Start staff nationally had chil- intendents and nonprofit directors often came
dren enrolled in the program, and an additional into conflict with parent advisory boards. In this
fifteen percent of staff had children who had early test of the professionals and community
graduated from Head Start.101 However, because action advocates, the professionals won: In
Head Start necessarily offered a limited number 1966, the OEO ruled that the parent boards were
of positions, parents who became staff members purely “consultative” and that grantee directors
did not represent a particularly large group in maintained ultimate power.106 A 1967 OEO
comparison to all Head Start parents. Still, many study reported generally poor use of parent
parents were directly involved in the classroom: advisory boards; of centers surveyed, more than
In 1965, Head Start reported that about 125,000 half were labeled “deficient.” The following
parents had volunteered during the summer, complaint of a center director was typical of
when the program served a little more than “deficient” centers: “[My staff was] alienated by
500,000 children.102 the idea of giving parents any actual control over
Head Start, nationally and at local centers, what [we] conceive to be essentially an
was also able to implement parent education educational project.”107 Thus, in its first few years
programs. In its first two years of operation, Head of operation, the OEO did not articulate a
Start centers in Los Angeles offered seminars consistent message about parent involvement—
entitled “Child Growth and Development,” OEO criticized centers that did not involve
“Speech Development,” “Health Education parents much but would do little or nothing to
(Cleanliness, Clothing, Dental Health, Rest, force those centers to change.
Disease Prevention),” and “Nutrition and Conflicts continued and eventually forced
Purchasing Nutritious Foods and Low Cost.”103 Head Start to offer even more guidelines on
After it was discovered that one Head Start parent involvement. In 1970, Ed Zigler, who
center in Boston practiced corporal punishment, supervised Head Start as director of the Office of
national guidelines prohibited that practice in Child Development, after consulting with Head
Head Start, and grantees were encouraged to Start Parent Program Specialist Bessie Draper,
offer parent seminars on nonviolent discipline.104 issued “Head Start Policy Manual 70.2: The
The Head Start Newsletter published articles Parents” as an attempt to settle the issue. This
describing alternatives to spanking and celebrat- compromise statement emphasized the need to
ing parent seminars on nutrition and consumer involve parents in the education of their children
thriftiness presented by local Head Start centers. through volunteer work in the classroom and
Some descriptions of seminars were blatantly cited examples of both parent education and
patronizing. One article, entitled “Mothers parent control as proper forms of parent
Learn to Cook,” reported that “the women, involvement. The most innovative element of
whose cultural differences have made it difficult the new guidelines was the mandate to create
to prepare dishes using some of the staples, have Policy Councils, which parents would dominate
been eager to learn ways to improve their but would also include community members and
families’ diets.”105 It is hard to imagine parents Head Start staff. The committees would have
describing that seminar in the same manner. real power—they would make personnel
Clearly some Head Start programs sought to decisions and control all funds that related to
improve parenting skills (and not all patronized parent involvement. Any attempt at parent
parents), but despite this trend and despite education would have the Policy Council’s
national regulations, dissension over parent approval and would thus be less likely to
involvement marked the first few years of Head patronize parents. The most notable language of
Start’s life. The OEO required all Head Start the new guidelines warned Head Start admin-
grantees to form parent advisory boards but did istrators to make sure that Policy Councils had
not clearly define the power of such boards in real power:
Head Start staff must take care to avoid dominat- supported the idea and were anxious to tell their
ing meetings by force of their greater training and stories to Ames and Ellsworth.112 The executive
experience in the process of decision-making. At director disagreed and became agitated when the
these meetings, professionals may be tempted to Policy Council tried to overrule him. When he
do most of the talking. They must learn to ask failed to convince the Policy Council to change
parents for their ideas, and listen with attention, its mind, he personally called the authors to ask
patience and understanding.108 them not to do the study. The authors declined,
aligning themselves with parents and teachers
The creation of Policy Councils succeeded in against the administrators.113 The authors soon
diffusing national controversy over parent adopted the opinion of one mother they
involvement. Insiders in the Office of Child interviewed that the executive director “hates
Development report that the new directive was women, thinks they should all be little dollies at
designed to keep parent involvement as a crucial home.”114 This assertion conforms nicely with
component of Head Start, while preventing it their feminist critique of some Head Start
from becoming too radical to survive the services as paternalistic.
presidency of Richard Nixon.109 The com- Harvard Law professor Lucie White has a
promise satisfied most people calling for parent similar interest in Head Start Policy Councils.115
involvement and spared Head Start criticism She lauds the symbolism of Policy Councils,
from the Nixon administration aimed at most which allow poor parents to come to “the very
community action programs. The debate then heart lands of domination”—schools and
shifted to individual Head Start programs, where government agencies—and make important
parents and staff had to negotiate a new balance decisions using tools of the dominant culture
of power, because the federal government only such as Roberts’ Rules of Order.116 However, her
intervened in rare situations. In two cases, the observations of a Head Start in North Carolina
federal government refused to renew the grant of led her to conclude that, in practice, Head Start
local agencies that had not convened Policy parents exert little control over Policy Councils.
Councils,110 but most grantees implemented In contrast to the sexist and paternalistic
the 1970 directive without much federal super- executive director in Women Reformed, Women
vision. Empowered, White describes structures that
The 1970 guidelines ended most discussion of squelch poor people’s voices. Although commu-
the issue, but several academics studied it in the nity members and CAP staff sit on Policy
1990s. Lynda Ames and Jeanne Ellsworth, both Councils for years, parents have one-year terms
women’s studies professors, spent more than a (they are elected annually by their peers) and
year observing events and interviewing partici- often do not begin serving their term until
pants in North Country Head Start, which serves several months have already passed. Just as soon
rural New Yorkers in the northeastern part of the as they become comfortable with the structure of
state, before writing Women Reformed, Women Policy Councils, their term ends and they leave
Empowered: Poor Mothers and the Endangered without having made much of a mark.117
Promise of Head Start. Administrators of that Ames, Ellsworth, and White attempt to
program, they argue, neither respected parents restart the debate over parent involvement in
nor fully included them in decisions, as required Head Start by questioning the effectiveness of
by the 1970 guidelines. The Policy Council Policy Councils. However, their critique misses
served as a rubber stamp, approving resignations the larger point of how the great majority of
of people who had already left, approving the parents experienced Head Start. By the nature
hiring of people who had already begun working, of their structure, even Policy Councils that
and approving budgets written by the CAP follow the letter and the spirit of the 1970
executive director and board of directors.111 guidelines involved a small number of parents.
Tensions erupted when the authors proposed Most Head Start parents did not work for the
their study. Parents, they reported, heartily program and most did not participate in planning
decisions. Ames and Ellsworth effectively argue, Head Start’s effects were readily noticed, and it
“the joke was on the deficit theorists” who sought was noticed by parents because they were
to instill their values in lower-class families; involved. And a lot of it was self-esteem, because
parents did not experience Head Start as the a lot of parents went in and volunteered in the
expert-advocates expected.118 But the joke was classroom and a lot of the parents worked in the
also on the civil rights activists calling for greater neighborhood, and we got to know each other
parental control of Head Start. They thought and learn about our children.120
parent involvement would make versions of
themselves out of Head Start parents—people Laverne Jenkins, whose children were enrolled
who would identify large power structures that in New Haven Head Start from 1966–1967 and
oppressed them and who would then overthrow from 1968–1969, recalled a similar phenomenon:
those structures. Charles Keil’s prediction of “a
The parents really began to network with each
genuine Negro renaissance, and/or a real Negro
other, you know, for example, babysit. If someone
revolution in the 1980s” spurred by Head Start
was taking classes for their GED, we’d take care
did not come true.
of child care duties. We definitely made friend-
Head Start parents did have significant
ships there, otherwise people would often just
involvement with the program—by and large,
stay to themselves.121
they felt that Head Start valued their opinions
and efforts, and they bonded with other parents
Karen Sheaffer, who taught at a Cambridge,
through Head Start programs, bonds which
Massachusetts, Head Start from 1966–1967
empowered them to demand a greater voice in
and returned as director of the center from
and in behalf of the program. Consequently,
1981–1985, witnessed that development as she
parents have formed the most loyal group of worked with staff and parents to ensure they had
Head Start supporters and successfully lobbied on access to services they needed:
the program’s behalf.
Head Start helped create a stronger sense of There was this building that had a Head Start and
community among poor parents, especially poor another day care in it. It was not a very good
mothers, and much of that effect emerged space—had a leaky roof and lots of other
from the structure of the program. Many Head maintenance problems. I helped organize them
Start centers included parent rooms, where to call the public works department directly. And
mothers could meet and claim a sense of owner- when they made their calls, it got results. What
ship over the program—a sense that was rare changed is parents would begin talking about
among poor people in social service programs. what services they wanted for their children.
Nationwide, Head Start encouraged parents to There was much less of the old attitude, “oh,
volunteer in the classroom and ordered teachers government, you can’t do anything about it.”122
and other staff to respect parents who did so.
Ames and Ellsworth argue that this element Sociologist Barbara Peters described a similar
of Head Start helped boost the confidence of phenomenon among Head Start mothers she
mothers because it granted them the chance to studied in the late 1990s.123 Interviewing a set of
show off their parenting skills—the very skills mothers of children attending one Head Start
derided by politicians and deficit theorists. Even center, Peters notes that women entered the
in parent education programs, seminars designed program feeling the stigma of being “welfare
to teach Head Start parents certain skills, mothers” and left with greater self-confidence,
parents had the opportunity to meet and form reporting that they felt they were better mothers.
personal bonds.119 Tina Hunter, who now serves “Head Start seems to give the mothers new
as New Haven Head Start’s Parent Involvement options and new ways of defining themselves as
Coordinator and was a Head Start parent from mothers.”124
1965–1966, described the sense of community Many Head Start teachers and staff members
built by Head Start: went out of their way to support Head Start
parents faced with problems unrelated to the those activities were “very helpful,” “helpful,”
classroom. The New York Times profiled one such “occasionally helpful,“ or a “waste of time.” The
example in New York City. Blanca Vazquez, a most popular element was the most basic, talking
parent of a child about to finish Head Start, was with Head Start teachers informally at the end
forced to move because her apartment building of the school day or when parents volunteered in
in the East Twenties of Manhattan was slated for the classroom. The least popular activity was
demolition in an urban renewal project. Vazquez parent education programs; for instance, more
wanted to remain in that neighborhood and than half of parents surveyed did not answer the
hoped her children would be able to attend question about homemaking skills workshops,
the community elementary school, but she and more than half who did wrote that they were
had difficulty finding an affordable apartment. “occasionally helpful.” So, although parent
Head Start officials stepped in, locating an apart- education did not strongly endear parents
ment and a housing subsidy to help her stay in to Head Start, it did not engender parental
the neighborhood.125 (To this day, The New opposition. No parent reported that any element
York Times publishes similar stories semiregularly of Head Start was a “waste of time.” The survey
in their series “The Neediest Cases,” which often also had a final category, asking parents if any
highlights a New York Head Start program unmentioned activity was particularly helpful.
supported by The New York Times Neediest More than two-thirds of parents surveyed
Cases Fund. These articles indicate Head answered yes, and all of those said that the
Start’s continued support of parents on issues unnamed element of Head Start was “very
outside of the classroom.126) New Haven Head helpful.”130 Thus, parents were attracted to
Start centers provided similar services to most some hard-to-classify quality of Head Start. A
parents. Staff helped connect parents to social survey of New Haven parents yielded similar
services for which they were eligible, ranging results: Less than half of those surveyed had
from welfare and food stamps to job training.127 attended the parent education seminars, but
Understanding the financial pressures facing every parent surveyed had favorable reactions to
Head Start families, the program organized bus the program as a whole and reported that Head
trips to flea markets and discount stores as far Start had helped their child.131
away as Philadelphia, especially around the Parental support regularly took on political
holidays in December.128 importance whenever Head Start appeared
Strong parental support for Head Start threatened by politicians in Washington. In
resulted from these efforts. Scores of studies 1968, several hundred New Haven Head Start
emerged in the first few years of Head Start, and parents signed a petition urging their Congres-
although they often had conflicting conclusions sional delegation to defeat a proposed move of
on the effectiveness of the program, they all Head Start to the Office of Education (the bill
agreed on the strength of parental support. The failed in the House); they argued that the move
1969 Westinghouse Report—a critical study would threaten parent involvement, “one of the
concluding that Head Start had no discernible most important aspects of Head Start.”132 A
cognitive effect on children—reported that smaller group of New Haven parents took a bus
ninety percent of parents believed that Head to Washington, D.C. to meet with Connecticut
Start had directly influenced their child for the Senators Lowell Weicker and Thomas Dodd,
better, eighty-seven percent of parents said both of whom voted in their favor.133 In 1978,
there was nothing about Head Start they Head Start parents mobilized to stop Carter’s
disliked, and fifty-three percent of parents had proposal to move the program to the Department
participated in Head Start classrooms.129 of Education. New Haven Head Start parents
A 1967 survey of parents in one Los Angeles- took a bus to Washington to lobby Connecticut
area Head Start program is also telling. The Senator Abraham Ribicoff, the sponsor of the
survey listed several parent involvement Department of Education bill in the Senate.
activities and asked parents to mark whether Similarly, Illinois parents visited Senator Charles
Percy, the ranking Republican on the committee lobby solely for Head Start was not a stretch.
that would vote on the bill. After these visits, NHSA membership swelled in 1978, as parents
Ribicoff moved to remove the bill’s provision joined the organization to lobby against Carter’s
regarding Head Start, and that motion passed Department of Education proposal, which “was
unanimously.134 the catalyst that made NHSA a much larger and
Throughout Head Start’s history, parents important organization.”137 Through private
did not solely focus on debates in Washington. donations and member dues, the NHSA lobbied
When national Head Start officials traveled on Head Start’s behalf with an annual budget of
around the country, parents followed them. less than $8,000, helping, in 1978, to win Head
Ed Zigler, in his 1992 book Head Start: The Inside Start’s first significant budget increase since
Story of America’s Most Successful Educatio- 1967.138 The remarkable development is how
nal Experiment, reported several occasions of parents became a potent political force during
parents heckling him during different speeches. Head Start’s first decade without central organ-
He directed the Office of Child Development ization. Their political power became institu-
in the Nixon administration, which was known tionalized in the NHSA, which helped manage
for cutting Great Society programs. Parents were future political efforts. Throughout the 1980s and
understandably concerned about the future of 1990s, the NHSA played a large role in organ-
Head Start, and they took it out on Zigler. When izing parents in political efforts—organizing
Zigler addressed the New England Association of letter-writing and petition-signing campaigns
Young Children in New Haven in 1970, thirty and, in certain cases, marches on Washington.
Head Start parents from Rhode Island bused To this day, the NHSA organizes parents and
themselves to Connecticut to protest Zigler. At Head Start staff to advocate for keeping Head
a stop in Marin City, California, 800 Head Start Start in the Department of Health and Human
parents confronted Zigler to tell him not to cut Services (HHS). President George W. Bush has
Head Start funds. In November, 500 parents advocated moving Head Start to the Department
welcomed Zigler to his Washington office with of Education as a symbolic establishment of
chants of “Zigler must go!”135 One would be hard- cognitive development as the program’s primary
pressed to find a stronger supporter of Head Start purpose but has put off a formal proposal until
than Zigler. However, these parental protests 2003, when Head Start is due to be reauthorized
should not be judged by the choice of target but by Congress. Echoed by the Children’s Defense
by the passion displayed and message sent to Fund, the NHSA employs a multifaceted
policy makers. Parents forcefully announced argument to support keeping Head Start in
their support for the program and promised loud HHS.139 Their most passionate claim is that
opposition to any politician who sought to cut Bush’s proposed move, coupled with various
Head Start funds. statements by him and his administration,
Most important, parents channeled their indicates an attack on poor families and,
support into a single-issue lobbying organization, implicitly, an attack on the active role families
building the National Head Start Association have had in Head Start. The NHSA points to
(NHSA). Head Start directors established the the role of parents as majority members of local
group in 1973, but parents soon became the Head Start agencies’ policy councils; according
largest group within the NHSA. From Head to Townley Mailler, the NHSA’s director of
Start’s inception, community action staff had government affairs, “I seriously doubt school
sought to educate Head Start parents about a boards are going to go for that [parent control]
range of political issues (and community action in the department of education. . . . Parents are
staff helped organize parents for many of the nervous—they might not have the say they had
political actions in Head Start’s first decade).136 before.” If Bush sticks with his proposed move,
At least when it came to political issues relating Mailler promises that parents “will be marching
to Head Start, they found a receptive audience, on Washington. . . . Some of what President
so asking parents to join an organization to Bush has said is offensive—like we need to teach
parents to read to their kids.” The NHSA reports help Head Start focus more on children’s cog-
that they have begun organizing parents to write nitive development.143 Bush has echoed these
letters to Congress and the President to prepare arguments.
for an all-out fight, if that is needed.140 Bush and his allies view the proposed move in
The NHSA’s emphasis on Policy Councils a fundamentally different light than the NHSA
and desire to defend the role of families and and Children’s Defense Fund. A desire to
services to families in Head Start have led some establish higher standards for Head Start
to ask who the NHSA truly represents, children’s cognitive development motivates
Head Start employees and parents in official Bush and expert-advocates like Finn, Manno,
roles—people with a stake, for better or worse, and Ravitch. Rather than a liberal versus
in the status quo—or all parents. This seems to conservative fight (as is occurring over budget
be the implicit critique, for instance, in the appropriations—Bush proposed a two percent
Fordham Foundation’s December 2000 report increase for Head Start, less than the rate of
that urged the President and Congress to “resist inflation), the fight over moving Head Start out
interest group pressures that are only focused on of HHS is reminiscent of arguments between
social services.”141 What evidence exists weighs civil rights activists and expert-advocates. In this
on the side of the NHSA. First, the Fordham most recent reincarnation, Bush and his allies
Foundation seems to ignore the NHSA’s many link the issue of higher standards to the switch
statements in favor of increased academic out of HHS. The NHSA and the Children’s
standards for Head Start and on efforts to train Defense Fund see standards as a separate issue
Head Start teachers to implement higher stand- and see keeping Head Start in HHS as an issue
ards. More important, the NHSA’s ability over over parent involvement. Indeed, the NHSA
almost three decades to organize and motivate has told the Bush administration that they “can
parents as a political force suggests the organ- be the President’s best friend in school reform
ization has a finger on the pulse of a significant and enhancing literacy, but none of that will
portion of Head Start parents. In terms of happen if they don’t take moving Head Start
current political debates, it seems likely that a to the Department of Education off the table.”144
loud outcry from parents would be heard if Bush As in the previous incarnation of this debate,
sticks with his proposed move. parent activism will likely play a crucial role.
The NHSA also makes a management point: Although Head Start parents have lobbied
HHS has administered Head Start for thirty-six extensively and effectively on the program’s
years and is used to administering programs that behalf throughout its history, their activism did
combine different social services, whereas the not spread to larger political movements. This
Department of Education does not have that point is noteworthy because of the grand political
experience. Considering the now numerous expectations that many civil rights activists and
studies confirming Head Start’s positive impact, CAP enthusiasts held for Head Start. Polly
why put the program under new management? Greenberg details the civil rights activism of
Zigler has made a similar argument, in the New Head Start parents in Mississippi. More recent
York Times shortly after Bush secured the authors, such as Ames, Ellsworth, and White,
presidency, noting that Head Start had a more focus on the role of the small minority of parents
impressive impact on children than Even Start, involved in formal political structures such as the
a similar program managed by the Department Policy Council. Ames and Ellsworth celebrate
of Education.142 the “empowerment” of one Head Start mother
Not all expert-advocates agree with Zigler. who served on the Policy Council and lobbied
The Fordham Foundation’s December 2000 the state government on behalf of causes other
report, by Chester Finn, Bruno Manno, and than Head Start. But she is the only parent in
Diane Ravitch, endorsed a move to the Depart- their study who did any such lobbying.145 The
ment of Education. They argue this move is parent who supported Head Start and lobbied for
“partly a symbolic shift” and imply it would it, but not for other causes, was more typical.
Laverne Jenkins, who enthusiastically signed mobility.149 During their years in school, black
petitions in support of increased funding for children fell even further behind white children:
Head Start, described her separation from Blacks in grade six were 1.6 years behind the
politics at large: national average, and, by grade twelve, blacks
were 3.3 years behind the national average.150
One of the things about being poor is that your Other calls for education reform demanded more
focus is on doing whatever you need to do to feed radical changes in the pedagogy of American
your family. Many people didn’t see voting as a schools, which were perceived as overly rigid. A
means of initiating change.146 1967 article in the journal Education concluded
that “the structure of education must be re-
The personal stake of parents in the program thought and, ultimately, revised.”151
sparked their activism. Brenda McDuffie, whose Civil rights activists latched onto these ideas.
daughter was enrolled in New Haven Head Start The Civil Rights Act of 1964 included a clause
in 1973–1974 and who later became a Head Start mandating a federal study of the relationship
teacher, put it bluntly: “I was concerned with between race and educational opportunity.152
getting funding because my daughter was in Some black academics sought to make schools,
Head Start, and after that I was a substitute and especially predominately black schools, focus on
I wanted to get paid.”147 enhancing the self-esteem of black children.
Building on the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education
decision, which criticized school segregation
The Unifying Factor: Education
for creating a sense of “inferiority” in black
Reform
children,153 a conference of black educators and
Civil rights activists and expert-advocates all education professors demanded that schools
strongly supported Head Start yet conceived of the cease “to develop conceptions of self in Negro
program differently. However, they all viewed children and youth which result in defeated
Head Start’s parental involvement as a mecha- behavior.”154 The Chicano nationalist manifesto
nism for achieving education reform. If public El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán declared, “education
schools involved parents, children would receive must be relative to our people” and called for
a more balanced education (as academics argued), “community control of our schools.”155
and poor and minority families would gain control These attitudes translated into strong civil
of institutions that had failed them (as civil rights support for Head Start. Polly Greenberg,
rights activists argued). Both sides feared that the discussing the Child Development Group of
benefits of Head Start would be erased by low- Mississippi, contrasted the “lovely loose program
quality public schools. Donald Cohen, who for children” for which she worked with “the
served as Special Assistant to Edward Zigler, then rigid public school programs.” Head Start could
the Director of the Office of Child Development, help blacks get ahead; very simply, “public
recalled that everyone directly involved in Head schools are a beast of another color.” Greenberg
Start shared a “distrust” of public schools and saw criticized those Head Start summer programs
Head Start as “a way to create an alternative that hired public school teachers for hiring
system.”148 These beliefs fell in line with the grow- employees from failed institutions.156 Civil
ing national concern over the ability of public rights activists fought to keep Head Start out of
education to provide equal opportunity to all the public school system and sometimes found
children. Many public intellectuals came to the themselves at odds with entrenched public
same conclusion as did Patricia Cayo Sexton’s schools interests. As discussed above, civil rights
1964 book Education and Income: The varying activists won that round and Head Start
levels of quality in public schools reinforced and remained in the Department of Health, Edu-
even expanded socioeconomic inequalities. Poor cation and Welfare, despite lobbying on behalf
children attended bad schools and graduated of the Department of Education by that National
without the skills necessary to achieve social Education Association.157
In a broader context, blacks, especially poorer school is like preparing a soldier for combat by
blacks living in inner cities, demanded more sending him on vacation to the French Riviera.”
control over their local schools. As education To minimize children’s exposure to battle,
historian David Tyack tells it, blacks no longer Mendelsohn suggested creating a separate school
consented to educators trying to fit their children system for Head Start graduates. Like Head Start,
into “the one best system” and “substituted self- that school system would feature significantly
determination as a goal instead of assimilation; more parent involvement than public schools.162
they rejected ‘equality’ if that meant Anglo- Mendelsohn presented his idea in testimony
conformity.”158 Embittered by the unfulfilled to Congress in 1969, where the chairman
promise of Brown, many black activists saw inte- of the House Committee on Education and
gration as a lower priority than gaining control Labor favorably received it, but no legislation
over their children’s schools and ensuring them emerged.163 However, policy makers did consider
a high-quality education. If white educators and enact other programs modeled in some way
could not be trusted to integrate public schools after Head Start. Lyndon Johnson worried that
or let black children attend good schools, then “substandard schools” might damage the positive
community control was the logical alternative.159 results of Head Start.164 Sargent Shriver (almost
The Head Start model of parental involvement certainly acting with Johnson’s approval) issued
naturally appealed to these civil rights activists. a six-point plan for “Project Keep Moving” to
The New York Times, using the language of Head help children maintain their gains from Head
Start’s academic advocates, endorsed the inher- Start in the public schools; the plan included a
ent class (and, by implication, racial) segregation call for parents to ‘be involved in the activities
of Head Start, editorializing against a plan to of every public school.”165 The Head Start News-
include middle-class children in the program: letter proudly cited examples of public schools
The “separation of rich and poor” was necessary following Head Start’s model of parent involve-
to afford “the kind of saturation services” that ment, including parent education seminars and
were the hallmark of compensatory education.160 opportunities for parents to volunteer regularly
Experts involved with Head Start also in the classroom.166 Other OEO publications
criticized public schools and sometimes called for claimed that public schools were less likely than
radical education reform. Poverty warriors in the past to involve parents, and “that this
consciously put Head Start under the auspices trend may be most easily reversed” by building
of the OEO, rather than include it in the 1965 connections between schools and parents before
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, children reach kindergarten.167
which gave funds directly to local school boards, In New Haven, Community Progress, Inc.,
thus separating Head Start from existing school held a Summer Institute for Teachers of the
structures. The most cogent criticism of Head Educationally Disadvantaged to spread their
Start was the claim by some researchers that its education agenda, which called for increased
effect faded out: By the third grade, one could parental involvement in public schools.168 CPI
not tell the difference between children who also attempted to reform public education
had attended Head Start and their peers who through Community Schools. CPI identified
had not.161 Academic supporters of Head Start seven New Haven schools as Community
blamed those results on the public schools, Schools and used those buildings for community
noting that Head Start children showed marked meetings and adult education and directed
improvement when they left the program and volunteers to tutor children at those schools, all
thus public schools must have “ruined” Head in an effort to break down barriers between
Start’s achievements. Robert Mendelsohn, who communities and schools.169 As one CPI director
managed the American Academy of Pediatrics’ described it, Community Schools would “help
contract to perform medical services for Head the people in these neighborhoods understand
Start children, asserted that “sending a child to that the school is a facility for good and not
Head Start and then putting him into a public necessarily for evil.”170
Many new programs did seek to infuse the separate schools for these children, they were not
public schools with the philosophy of Head Start. segregated from their peers). The ESEA sought
The attention to early education created by Head to involve parents of all public school children,
Start helped expand public kindergarten. In providing funds to help schools hire parents as
1965, only eighteen states funded universal teachers’ aides. By 1968, schools had hired
public kindergarten; by 1970, eighty percent 64,000 teacher’s aides with ESEA funds and
of five year olds attended public kindergarten 180,000 more aides volunteered their time; the
and, in 2000, all states now fund some sort majority of both sets were parents of students.
of kindergarten, with most funding universal The law also gave school districts incentives to
kindergarten.171 By 1998 twenty-eight states establish parent advisory committees along the
even funded some form of public prekindergarten lines of those in Head Start.177 When Zigler
education.172 Some of Head Start’s pedagogy directed Head Start, he sought to make it “the
reached a much larger audience when Sesame nation’s laboratory for quality programs for chil-
Street (a program that received some funding and dren” and spawned a series of Head Start spin-
expert advice from Head Start) was launched on offs, including Home Start (serving children at
public television in 1968.173 Head Start helped their homes), Health Start (providing health
professionalize and increase numbers of early care to children under five), Child and Family
childhood educators. In 1972, in conjunction Resource Program (helping connect families to
with the National Association for the Education available services, especially child care), and
of Young Children (a group dominated by Education for Parenthood (teaching teenagers
professional educators), Head Start began the parenting skills).178 Several Head Start Planning
Child Development Associate (CDA) program Committee members sat on a presidential task
to increase the quantity and quality of training force chaired by J. McVicker Hunt, charged with
received by teachers of young children. Although designing Parent and Child Centers to serve
not a degree like an associate’s or bachelor’s children zero to two years old.179 This effort, at
degree, a CDA provides minimal teacher least to a degree, was bipartisan; President
training.174 (Such a program had tremendous Nixon’s Secretary of Health, Education and
importance because child care was and is much Welfare Robert Finch lauded the use of ESEA
less regulated than public education, and few, if funds for programs similar to Head Start.180
any, requirements existed for teachers of young Expert-advocates who helped establish Head
children.) Head Start also provided an easy Start pressed their ideas in the broader world of
means for researchers to collect data on child public education, which continues to feel the
development and the effects of the program. By impact of Head Start, particularly its emphasis on
1975, 700 different studies had analyzed Head parent involvement and comprehensive services.
Start. By 1982, that number grew to 1,448. By For example, in 1987, under the leadership of
1982, enough studies concluded that Head Start Zigler, the Yale Bush Center developed the
had a positive effect on the cognitive develop- “school of the 21st century” model, which
ment of children that the entire early education features child care for all families, health care
field gained prestige.175 services for young children and their families,
Head Start’s public policy effect was assisted nutrition education for families, and home
by federal legislation and administrative visitations for children birth through three. By
decisions. Federal legislation helped public 2000, more than 400 “schools of the 21st
kindergartens expand—the 1965 Elementary century” operated in thirteen states.181 Expert-
and Secondary Education Act (passed after Head advocates like Zigler attempt to reform public
Start’s first summer) provided grant money to schools, rather than push Mendelsohn’s idea of
states to establish kindergarten.176 The ESEA an alternative school system. This helps explain
also provided money for Follow Through, which why contemporary movements to establish
served Head Start graduates who had reached public prekindergarten typically seek to attach
elementary school (despite Mendelsohn’s call for such services to existing public school systems.
Head Start’s involvement of parents has federal government, insist that schools test
been evoked in broader efforts to increase students regularly to measure their development
parental control over public school systems. The and set high standards to pass. Similarly, the era
charter school movement best exemplifies of different Head Start delegate agencies pro-
this phenomenon, often consciously seeking to viding vastly different services is coming to an
turn parents into advocates and build them as end. Beginning with the Clinton administration,
partners in education. Charter school advocates delegate agencies faced a real threat of losing
advise reformers establishing new charter schools funding if they did not perform up to expec-
to “build a strong, positive working relation- tations.187 Perhaps most remarkable, the 1998
ship between the school and family” and note law to reauthorize Head Start included pro-
that “parents also are an incredible source . . . visions requiring HHS to establish standards for
of advocacy,” a must in the often politically the cognitive development of children once they
charged arena of establishing and operating left Head Start. For the first time, the federal
charter schools.182 Although there is great government could hold delegate agencies to a set
variability from one charter school to another, of specific outcomes, like the expectation that
there is some evidence that charter schools children would leave Head Start able to recog-
involve families to a greater degree than other nize at least ten letters. Indeed, the disagreement
public schools.183 Before the charter school over moving Head Start out of HHS and Head
movement emerged, some of the nation’s largest Start budget appropriations has overshadowed
public school systems had sought to engage the high degree of agreement over setting high
parents and local communities as a means of standards for children’s cognitive development.
diminishing entrenched powers and making Some activists worry about what Bush means by
individual schools involve parents to a greater making Head Start a literacy program. For
degree. Employing the rhetoric of community instance, Helen Blank of the Children’s Defense
action and control, New York enacted a flawed Fund said, “I don’t even know what that means.
reform plan in 1969, creating a set of thirty-two It’s a comprehensive program, but that doesn’t
local school boards under the citywide board to mean it’s not a reading program.”188 Zigler wrote
govern local elementary and middle schools.184 in The New York Times, “I hope Mr. Bush learns
In 1988, Chicago enacted more effective reforms more about Head Start. At the level that is
that mandated “Local School Councils” with possible for children of 3 and 4, it is already a
parent majorities, reminiscent of Head Start’s reading program.”189 The most likely answer is a
Policy Councils with the added power of hiring continuation of policies designed to provide
and firing the school principal.185 Federal and stricter quality control of Head Start delegate
state governments approached the issue using the agencies and establish clear standards for
language of parent education when President children’s cognitive development. In fact, the
George Bush gathered state governors for an Head Start center pointed to by the Bush
education summit in 1989 to set “America 2000” administration as emblematic of their preferred
goals. Those goals included “by the year 2000, all approach merely implements the 1998 standards
children in America will start school ready to with great success.190
learn,” and one of the primary means of
achieving this was through parent training and
Head Start threatened
support.186
The education reform impact works both Head Start’s influence was not clear in the early
ways: Other education reform movements have 1970s. Most programs modeled after Head Start
affected Head Start, especially in recent years. were short lived or did not expand beyond the
The most notable example is the standards level of pilot programs. For instance, funds for
movement. More local and state governments, many of the ESEA grants were not renewed
and (following proposals from George W. Bush under President Richard Nixon. By 1979, only
and Congressional Democrats in 2001) the thirty-six Parent and Child Centers existed.191
The ascendancy of Nixon in 1968 threatened all When the final Westinghouse Report emerged
War on Poverty programs and led to the demise several months later, it contained a brief dis-
of many of them. After 1968, civil rights activists claimer that summarized the criticisms by Head
lost their audience in the White House and the Start activists of the study but soon moved on
academics who designed Head Start found to discuss the study’s conclusions. In sum,
themselves upstaged by researchers who chal- Westinghouse concluded that Head Start had no
lenged the assumptions of compensatory educa- lasting cognitive effect on children; by the
tion. As a result, legislative efforts on behalf of second grade, Head Start children were indis-
Head Start and its various spin-offs stalled. tinguishable from their peers who never enrolled
Nixon and the growing conservative move- in Head Start.194 Head Start activists pointed to
ment tapped into the “silent majority’s” resist- alternative studies that featured more positive
ance to some liberal social trends, including civil conclusions, and some condemned the study.195
rights activism. During Nixon’s presidency, this Stanford statistician William Madow ordered
political tactic translated into opposition to any Westinghouse to remove his name from the
new civil rights bills and vocal opposition to report because of his displeasure with its methods
many school desegregation orders issued by and results. Even Nixon’s Secretary of HEW
federal courts. Less prominently, Nixon sought Robert Finch called the study “sloppy.” But those
to roll back legislation funding community views did not win out within the administration,
action programs. Unlike his predecessor, Nixon and Westinghouse’s results kept Head Start
did not depend on the votes of blacks and felt advocates on the defensive.196
little pressure to listen to the issues of black Nixon took full advantage of the Westing-
activists.192 As a result, civil rights activists with house results to question the effectiveness of
a stake in Head Start lost their voice in the Head Start and, by implication, all similar
executive branch. programs that might be proposed. Nixon noted,
Expert-advocates in favor of Head Start fared “Head Start is still experimental” and asserted
better: They retained their official status but that “the preliminary reports on this program
lost much of their clout with the president. confirm what many have feared: the long term
Zigler became director of the new Office of Child effect of Head Start appears to be extremely
Development (which oversaw Head Start) in weak.”197 Nixon hedged his bets on Head Start
1969 but soon had to defend the program he by qualifying his language—the program
helped create from negative studies that emerged “appeared” to be ineffective—and stopped short,
from the federal government. In early 1969, the in 1969, of calling for its repeal. But it was clear
Nixon administration directed the Evaluation that he and his administration were not
Division of the Office of Economic Opportunity supporters of Head Start and accepted the
to study Head Start. The OEO complied and Westinghouse Report’s results, despite the
chose the Westinghouse Learning Corpora- criticisms of many academics. Daniel Patrick
tion to oversee the research. A crucial decision Moynihan, then a speechwriter and domestic
related to the nature of the research—the policy advisor to Nixon, defended the study in
administration demanded results as soon as pos- The New York Times and later wrote that Head
sible and thus instructed Westinghouse to study Start was a “dismal”198 program: “the children
Head Start graduates who were then in first, were getting their teeth fixed, but little else that
second, and third grades, rather than conduct a could be quantified.” Those who criticized the
longitudinal study, which would have taken study, according to Moynihan, were stubborn
longer but been more scientifically valid. This ideologues who failed “to face the finding of
decision, coupled with Nixon’s well-known failure when it appeared.”199
opposition to community action programs, made The Westinghouse Study also called atten-
Head Start activists nervous. Zigler and other tion to academic critics of compensatory
administrators urged the OEO to alter dramatic- education. Later in 1969, Arthur Jensen pub–
ally the shape of the study, but to no avail.193 lished his essay “How Much Can We Boost IQ
and Scholastic Achievement?” Jensen is best Although there was a new political climate
known for his argument that IQ is mostly fixed in the White House, less changed on Capitol
at birth and is racially linked. However, Jensen Hill, where lawmakers had already staked out
structured his argument as a critique of Hunt and positions on Head Start. Opponents sought
Bloom’s emphasis on raising children’s IQ and to attack Head Start at their first opportunity. In
the resulting programs like Head Start; his essay 1968, the Senate passed a bill killing Head
began, “Compensatory education has been tried Start and replacing it with block grants to the
and it apparently has failed.”200 Less inflamma- states. After numerous calls from Head Start
tory academics questioned the ability of social supporters (including many parents), the
programs to increase the IQs of children; books House rejected the bill, following the leadership
published in the mid-1960s routinely included of powerful Education and Labor Committee
the phrase “cultural deprivation” in their titles, Chairman Carl Perkins.207 Meanwhile, support-
but by the 1970s, “The Myth of the Deprived ers of Head Start sought rapid expansion of the
Child” was a more typical phrase.201 program. In 1969, the two most visible support-
The Coleman Report, mandated by the Civil ers, Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale and
Rights Act of 1964, played a crucial role in this Indiana Representative John Brademas (both
intellectual transition. The report, released in Democrats), proposed the Head Start Child
1966, concluded that “differences between Development Act, which would have tripled
schools account for only a small fraction of Head Start by 1974 and provided enough money
differences in pupil achievement,” and a child’s to open the program to families above the
socioeconomic background and exposure to poverty line, charging fees on a sliding scale. But
affluent peers in school were the most important Nixon indicated his opposition, and the bill did
variables.202 Daniel Patrick Moynihan later not pass either house of Congress.208
edited an anthology that generally praised and So the legislative balance of power led to
expanded Coleman’s conclusions. (Moynihan’s gridlock: Head Start opponents could not muster
contributors included many leading scholars of the votes to pass any bills, and Head Start
education and psychology but did not include J. supporters could not garner enough support to
McVicker Hunt, Benjamin Bloom, or any of fight a threatened veto. Head Start funding
their protégés.) Differences existed between remained level from 1967 to 1976 and barely
black and white schools, but those differences kept pace with inflation.209 Head Start advo-
were not sufficient to explain the disparity cates saw an opportunity to break the impasse
between black and white academic achieve- and pass a comprehensive bill in late 1970, when
ment.203 These results attacked the basic Nixon proposed a key element of his welfare
premises of compensatory education: If the reform agenda: The Family Assistance Plan,
quality of schooling had negligible effects, then which would have provided income subsidies
building new educational programs for poor to all low-income working families (the idea
children would only waste time and money. was to attack welfare dependency by providing
Christopher Jencks, a member of the Harvard a negative income tax and thus an incentive
faculty seminar, built on this theme in his 1972 for poor people to find work).210 If millions of
book Inequality, concluding, “educational poor people were to find work, someone would
compensation is usually of marginal value to the have to take care of their children, and Head
recipients.”204 In a political context, all such Start supporters used this reasoning to push
studies had the same impact: They validated the the Child Care Development Act of 1971
conservative opinion that, as stated by Barry (written by Mondale and Brademas). The bill
Goldwater during the 1964 campaign, “Most provided $2.1 billion for child care programs
people who have no skills have had no education modeled after Head Start and promised to set
for the same reason—low intelligence or low the “legislative framework” for universal child
ambition.”205 Federal social programs would do care for children three to five years old.211 Link-
nothing to change that.206 ing child care legislation to Nixon’s welfare
reform plan attracted the support of politicians Secretary Elliot Richardson) announced their
who had previously opposed Head Start: opposition.216
Moynihan called the bill “an essential element
of the President’s proposal,” and more than one-
How Head Start Survived and the
third of the bill’s cosponsors were Republican.212
Continuing Power of Its Coalition
Thus, Nixon’s welfare reform proposal provided
Head Start supporters the best chance yet of The inability to expand Head Start does not
extending the Head Start model to all poor indicate political failure. Rather, its survival
families and eventually of providing a Head and eventual growth, while other programs
Start-like child care system to serve all three- and (including those it influenced) died or remained
four-year-old children, separate from the public small, testifies to its political success. After
schools. Nixon’s Presidency, Head Start never faced
But the hopes of Head Start supporters were another threat to its survival. Ronald Reagan
short lived. By mid-1971, it was clear that identified it as one of the key elements of the
Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan did not have social safety net that he would not cut. Through-
enough support to pass, and bipartisan support out the 1990s and into 2000, Head Start’s budget
for the child care bill faded. Democrats inserted has continually grown, and calls for full funding
language requiring all child care programs funded (a code phrase for enough funding to serve all
by the bill to follow the model of community eligible children) have been hallmarks of
action programs—a sure way to earn Nixon’s congressional and presidential campaigns. In
opposition—as they passed the bill. At the January, 2000, The New York Times Magazine
same time, conservative activists flooded the reported that Head Start is “thought of as the one
White House with mail urging Nixon to veto Great Society program that really worked.”217
the child care bill. Nixon consented to con- Head Start survived because a coalition
servative wishes and instructed speech writer formed that had sufficient power to resist various
Pat Buchanan to “put in what the right wing threats to its existence. Lyndon Johnson, a
wants to hear” in the veto message.213 Nixon’s master coalition builder, consciously put together
December veto message attacked the “family- civil rights activists and expert-advocates to
weakening implications” of public child care design and implement Head Start. Those groups
and attacked Head Start for being a “manage- disagreed on many key issues but were united by
ment problem” because requirements to involve their desire to reform American education.
parents created an administrative headache.214 However, none of the policy makers foresaw the
Such stern rhetoric ended any chances for precise role of the third crucial part of the Head
bipartisan agreement on Head Start or child care Start coalition: Head Start parents. While
legislation. Mondale and Brademas tried to experts and activists argued over how to
reintroduce sections of the bill, but those bills incorporate parents into the program, parents
never emerged from committees.215 The old experienced Head Start in a way that neither side
balance of power remained: Head Start funding predicted, and that led to parents’ lasting and
could not be increased nor cut and its spin-offs effective political support.
could not get off the ground. This balance of Today, survival is not an issue. Coupled with
power was aptly demonstrated during the one its coalition, more than two decades’ worth of
overt effort to eliminate Head Start. In 1971, the positive research has kept Head Start alive
Office of Management and Budget summoned and earned it bipartisan support. The Head
Zigler to a meeting where they informed him of Start coalition—expert-advocates, civil rights
a new administration plan: to begin phasing out activists, and parents—remains, as is evident in
Head Start in fiscal year 1972. The White House its organization in reaction to President Bush’s
soon retracted that proposal after congressional proposals regarding the program. The coalition’s
leaders and even some administration officials inherent tensions continue, as does its remark-
(including Health, Education and Welfare able strength.
Reflections on Contemporary Century indicate that schools must focus on

Policy and Research Implications more than academics if we expect them to
Education reform is a political enterprise. Head effectively combat poverty. More broadly,
Start’s political history—how it was born, how members of the Head Start community and other
it grew, how it survived, and how it thrived over early childhood reformers should seek to create
time—has implications for contemporary reform institutions that can work with, not against,
efforts, especially efforts on behalf of young chil- public schools and, in doing so, help improve
dren, and academic research into those efforts. public schools and improve services to children
throughout their lives in school.219
The Federalism Question

The Role of Parents
In an era of big government, Head Start antici-
pated the local-national-private partnerships of Head Start implements a two-generational
many programs from this generation. By requir- approach to lifting families out of poverty. What
ing local delegate agencies to obtain a portion evidence exists indicates that Head Start has a
of their budget through local donations (cash or profound impact on parents of children enrolled
in-kind), Head Start centers were required to in the program. The challenge to policy makers
engage families and communities, as evidenced is to ensure that this impact on parents results in
by the outpouring of support from various civic increased support for the school success of their
organizations and the thousands of volunteers in children. Although scores of studies examine
Head Start centers. This success lends credence the impact of Head Start on children, relatively
to the idea that other federal programs such as few examine the impact on parents, and most of
AmeriCorps (which requires a budgetary match those rely on anecdotes from a small number of
from local organizations it funds) can mobilize, Head Start centers. This is clearly an area for
without burying in red tape, citizens’ energy, and further research. From what is known, policy
altruism. makers should realize that it makes little sense to
talk about children’s school readiness without
including their families. Involving families
Head Start and Public Schools should result in social bonds and increased self-
When children leave Head Start, they enter confidence among parents, both of which can
public elementary schools that face numerous help them support their children’s development
challenges and typically have poor records. This in school and lift their families out of poverty.
reality has caused tension since Head Start’s Current efforts to expand public early childhood
inception, tension which remains today even education programs should include family
though the idea of a separate school system for involvement components, especially in programs
Head Start children is long dead. Sarah Greene, serving low-income communities.
president of the NHSA recently complained,
“most of the schools our kids go to [after Head Building and Confronting Political
Start] are rated the lowest anywhere. They go Coalitions
into a situation with one teacher and 35 kids
after two teachers for 15 or 17.”218 First, this issue Any publicly funded program needs to contend
deserves further study. Do the public schools that with the reality of securing sustainable funding
children attend after Head Start impact their in times of budget surpluses and budget cuts.
development over their childhood? Second, Head Start built a coalition that ensured its
public schools can learn lessons from Head survival when similar programs fell to the bud-
Start’s success. Offering comprehensive services get ax. People interested in expanding early
to children and involving families could increase childhood education opportunities, increasing
children’s academic performance. Indeed, the parental control in education and broader educa-
success of efforts like Zigler’s Schools of the 21st tion reform should seek to build coalitions
among education experts, community activists, 8 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Mis-
and families of children served. An effective understanding (New York: The Free Press, 1969).
9 Kay Mills, Something Better for My Children (New
coalition that engages multiple constituencies York: Dutton, 1998).
can help ensure long-term survival and expan- 10 Zigler and Anderson, 5.
sion. Finally, politicians seeking to reform Head 11 Mills, 37.
Start and similar programs, such as politicians 12 The 1962 President’s Panel on Mental Retard-
from both parties seeking to increase academic ation called for preschool centers in all public
housing projects. See Zigler and Anderson, 12.
standards in Head Start, should take into 13 Chafe, 223.
account coalitions supporting those programs. 14 Chafe, 234–235.
Politicians should carefully choose their rhetoric 15 Steiner, 27.
and prioritize their proposals so they do not 16 Zigler and Anderson, 6.
arouse the distrust and opposition of coalitions. 17 Mills, 52; Chafe, 236.
18 Patterson, 169; Chafe, 238.
For instance, President George W. Bush could 19 Ames and Ellsworth, 27; Zigler and Muenchow, 33.
have great success enhancing academic standards 20 “Volunteers in the Head Start Program,” Head
of Head Start if he makes that effort a higher Start Newsletter (June 1966, Vol. 1, No. 3), 1. See
priority than moving Head Start out of HHS and also, “The Junior Volunteer” (April 1966, Vol. 1,
stops using rhetoric that implies the program No. 1), 6. The Head Start Newsletter was a
monthly publication of the OEO from 1966
does not currently prepare children for school. through 1969 and of the Office of Child Develop-
ment from 1969 through 1970. It contains the
Notes official view of the program’s mission and progress.
The author found copies of the newsletter at the
1 Harold Silver and Pamela Silver, An Educational Seely G. Mudd Government Documents Center
War on Poverty: American and British Policy-Making at Yale University.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 21 Mills, 33.
86. A note on sources: To supplement existing 22 Zigler and Muenchow, 36, 40.
Head Start literature and available primary sources, 23 “Poster of the Month,” Head Start Newsletter (June
I researched Head Start’s history in several cities, 1969, Vol. 4, No. 4), 1.
interviewing Head Start parents and staff involved 24 “Truckers Help Head Start” Head Start Newsletter
with the program from 1965–1970 and reading (October 1967, Vol. 2, No. 9), 2.
local newspaper accounts of Head Start and other 25 “No Advertising Endorsement by OEO,” Head
Great Society programs. Examples from local Start Newsletter (May 1966, Vol. 1, No. 2), 8;
Head Starts are interspersed throughout this paper. “A Warning,” Head Start Newsletter (July 1967,
2 “Education Policy of George W. Bush, Part 1: Vol. 2, No. 7), 8.
No Child Left Behind.” www.georgewbush. com/ 26 Zigler and Anderson, 6.
Media/PDFs/edu_nochildleftbehind.pdf. See also 27 Stoloff, David, “The Short Unhappy History of
Bush’s speech, “No Child Left Behind,” 2 Septem- Community Action Programs,” in Gettleman and
ber 1999, www.georgewbush.com/News.asp?Form Mermelstein, especially page 235.
Mode=SP&id=21. 28 Ames and Ellsworth, 25.
3 Finn, Chester E., Bruno Manno, and Diane 29 Moynihan, 87.
Ravitch, Education 2001: Getting the Job Done: 30 Stoloff, 235.
A Memorandum to the President-Elect and the 31 Kenneth B. Clark and Jeannette Hopkins, A
107th Congress (Fordham Foundation, December Relevant War Against Poverty: A Study of
2000), page 18. Community Action Programs and Observable Social
4 Polly Greenberg, The Devil Has Slippery Shoes: Change (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), vi.
A Biased Biography of the Child Development 32 Gettleman and Mermelstein’s anthology is called
Group of Mississippi (London: The MacMillan The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American
Company, 1969). Liberalism.
5 Edward Zigler and Susan Muenchow, Head Start: 33 See, generally, Raymond E. Wolfinger, The Politics
The Inside Story of America’s Most Successful of Progress. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Experiment (New York: Basic Books, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974), especially 1, and Allan
1992), 82–83. R. Talbot, The Mayor’s Game: Richard Lee of New
6 Edward Zigler, personal interview, 19 October Haven and the Politics of Change (New York: Harper
1999. & Row Publishers, 1967), especially 176–177.
7 Cooke, Richmond, and Sugarman served on the 34 “Antipoverty Expert Mitchell Sviridoff,” The New
Planning Committee with Zigler. York Times (14 June 1966), 25.
35 Howard Hallman, “New Haven’s Attack Upon 55 Marvin Gettleman and David Mermelstein,
Poverty” (Storrs, Conn.: Institute of Urban Editors, The Great Society Reader: The Failure of
Research, University of Connecticut, 1964). American Liberalism (New York: Random House,
This publication is the text of a paper presented 1967), 258. This collection of primary documents
by Hallman at the University of Connecticut includes several of Johnson’s speeches written by
outside of Hartford. Moynihan. As noted below, Moynihan later
36 Wolfinger, 198–201. became a critic of Head Start.
37 Talbot, 218. 56 E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro Family in the United
38 Zigler and Valentine, 295. Stated, revised and abridged Edition (Chicago:
39 James Mutrie, Jr., “Giaimo Calls CPI Failure; Raps University of Chicago Press, 1966).
Salaries, Expenses,” New Haven Register (2 57 Lynda J. Ames and Jeanne Ellsworth, Women
January 1968), 1. Reformed, Women Empowered: Poor Mothers and
40 Stephen Hand, “‘Black Men’ Attack CPI,” New the Endangered Promise of Head Start (Phila-
Haven Journal-Courier (3 October 1967), 1. delphia: Temple University Press, 1997), 28.
41 See Shriver’s comments in Zigler and Valentine, 58 Joe Frost and Glenn Hawkes, Editors, The
52. See also Patterson, 147. Disadvantaged Child: Issues and Innovations (New
42 Stoloff, 237. See also Sar Levitan and Robert York City: Houghton Mifflin, 1966).
Taggart, The Promise of Greatness (Cambridge, 59 This term was coined by David Halberstam in
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1976), The Best and The Brightest (New York: Ballantine
170. Books, 1969), 43.
43 James T. Patterson, America’s Struggle Against 60 Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American
Poverty, 1900–1980 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic
University Press, 1981), 99. Patterson identified Books, 1988), 26–28.
“the rediscovery of poverty” that shifted the 61 Zigler and Muenchow, 4–5; Mills, 46.
nation from the complacency of the 1950s. 62 Zigler and Muenchow, 9–10.
44 Michael Harrington, The Other America: Poverty 63 Harold Silver and Pamela Silver, An Educational
in the United States (New York: MacMillan, War on Poverty: American and British Policy-
1962). For a discussion of Harrington’s book and Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University
its effect on politics, see Paul S. Boyer, Promises to Press, 1991), 2.
Keep: The United States Since World War Two, 2d 64 “How Volunteers Can Help Disadvantaged
ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999), 198. Children,” Head Start Newsletter (July 1968,
45 Hugh Cunningham, Children and Childhood in Vol. 3, No. 4), 11.
Western Society Since 1500 (London: Longman, 65 “Some Screamed for Two Solid Hours a Day,”
1995), especially 152. Head Start Newsletter (July 1969, Vol. 4 No. 5),
46 Joseph McVicker Hunt, Intelligence and Experience 3–7.
(New York: Ronald Press Company, 1961). 66 Zigler and Muenchow, 7, 26.
47 Benjamin Bloom, Stability and Change in Human 67 Zigler and Muenchow, 51, 86.
Characteristics (New York: Wiley, 1964). 68 Lady Bird Johnson, in Zigler and Valentine,
48 Edward Zigler and Karen Anderson, “An Idea 47. See also, “A Message from Mrs. Lyndon
Whose Time Had Come,” Project Head Start: Johnson,” Head Start Newsletter (April 1966,
A Legacy of the War on Poverty, Ed. Edward Zigler Vol. 1, No. 1), 1.
and Jeannette Valentine (New York: The Free 69 Public Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon Johnson,
Press, 1979), 7. 1965, Book 1 (Washington, D.C.: United States
49 Bloom, see also Gilbert Steiner, The Children’s Government Printing Office, 1966), 556.
Cause (Washington: Brookings Institution, 70 Public Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon Johnson,
1976), 24. 1968–1969, Book 2 (Washington, D.C.: United
50 Zigler and Anderson, 7. States Government Printing Office, 1969),
51 Barbara Beatty, Preschool Education in America: 972–973.
The Culture of Young Children from the Colonial 71 Beatty, 194.
Era to the Present (New Haven: Yale University 72 For a critical discussion of this trend, see Zigler’s
Press, 1995), 193. comments in Zigler and Valentine, page 503.
52 Benjamin Bloom, Allison Davis, and Robert 73 Charles Keil, Urban Blues (Chicago: University
Hess, Compensatory Education for Cultural of Chicago Press, 1966), 193–194.
Deprivation (New York: Holt, Rinehard & 73a Although most of the civil rights debate related
Winston, Inc., 1965). to black Americans, it should be noted that
53 Bloom, Davis, and Hess, 5. activists from other ethnic groups supported
54 Moynihan, quoted in Charles A. Valentine, Cul- Head Start. For instance, the Johnson admin-
ture and Poverty: Critique and Counter-Proposals istration courted Chicano voters with Head
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). Start. In 1966, Sargent Shriver announced to
“500 cheering delegates to the G.I. Forum [the 105 “Mothers Learn to Cook,” Head Start Newsletter
largest national Chicano organization]” that (November 1966, Vol. 1, No. 7), 6. See also,
Frank Mansera, a Californian son of Mexican “Consumer Education Helps Stretch Dollars”
immigrants, would be the “National Head Start (March 1967, Vol. 2, No. 3), 1, and “Discipline
Child of the Year.” (Head Start Newsletter, Doesn’t Have to Hurt” (December 1967, Vol. 2
September 1966, Vol. 1 No. 5, 1.) No. 11), 4.
74 John Dill, “The Black Child and Child Care 106 Sar Levitan and Karen Clearly Alderman,
Issues,” Child Care — Who Cares?, Pamela Roby, Child Care and ABCs Too (Baltimore: Johns
Editor (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973), 274, Hopkins University Press, 1975), 83.
277. 107 “Too Many Cooks,” Head Start Newsletter
75 Black Child Development Institute, “Minority (January 1967, Vol. 2, No. 1), 4.
Involvement in Child Development Programs,” 108 “Head Start Policy Manual 70.2: The Parents,”
in Roby, 72. (10 August 1970 by the Department of Health,
76 Roby, 76, 278. Education and Welfare, Office of Child Develop-
77 Zigler and Muenchow, 181; Beatty, 199. ment), 7. See also, Zigler and Muenchow, 111;
78 Mills, 5, 70. Ames and Ellsworth, 127–135.
79 Doug McAdam, Freedom Summer (New York: 109 Donald Cohen, personal interview, 24 February,
Oxford University Press, 1988). 2000. Dr. Cohen, now the Director of the Yale
80 Greenberg, 27; Mills, 45. Child Study Center, served as Special Assistant
81 Greenberg, xi. to Edward Zigler in the Office of Child Develop-
82 Greenberg, 21–22. ment from 1970–1972.
83 Greenberg, 685. 110 Zigler and Muenchow, 111.
84 “Mississippian Guilty of Firing on Office,” The 111 Ames and Ellsworth, 137.
New York Times (18 June 1965), 13. 112 Ames and Ellsworth, 11.
85 Arthur Cooper, “Mississippi Gothic,” Newsweek 113 Ames and Ellsworth, 7.
(9 June 1969), 114B. 114 Ames and Ellsworth, 131.
86 Mills, 61, 66. 115 White is now writing a book on Head Start.
87 Greenberg, 56. She has published two chapters on the subject in
88 Greenberg, 260. legal anthologies.
89 Mills, 72. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic 116 Lucie White, “Ordering Voice: Rhetoric and
Party, a mostly black organization, challenged Democracy in Project Head Start,” The Rhetoric
the legitimacy of the established, mostly white, of Law, edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas
Mississippi Democratic Party, leading to a floor Kearns (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
fight at the 1964 Democratic Convention. For a Press, 1994), 216.
description of that fight, which the MDFP lost, 117 White develops this argument in two articles,
see McAdam, 77–82. “Ordering Voice” and “On the Vision and
90 Head Start Newsletter (April–May 1968), 8. Practice of Parent Participation in Project Head
91 Mills, 105. Start,” Law Stories, edited by Gary Bellow and
92 Zigler and Muenchow, 39. Martha Minow (Ann Arbor: The University of
93 Zigler and Valentine, 63. Michigan Press, 1996).
94 Zigler and Muenchow, 109. 118 Ames and Ellsworth, 43.
95 Zigler and Valentine, 81. 119 Ames and Ellsworth, 53–58.
96 Quoted in Zigler and Muenchow, 104. 120 Personal interview, 19 November 1999.
97 Zigler and Muenchow, 100. 121 Laverne Jenkins, personal interview, 6 December
98 Personal Interview, 19 November 1999. 1999.
99 Charles Smith, “Poor Head Start and Its 122 Karen Sheaffer, personal interview, 14 June 2001.
Children,” The New Republic (12 June 1969), 123 Barbara Peters, The Head Start Mother: Low-
11–13. Income Mothers’ Empowerment Through Partici-
100 Philip Robins and Samuel Weiner, Child Care and pation (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,
Public Policy: Studies of the Economic Issues 1998, especially pages 157–174.
(Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath & Co., 1978), 112. 124 Peters, 171.
101 Levitan and Taggart, 124. 125 Powledge, Fred. “Little Problems Are Big to
102 “Volunteers in the Head Start Program,” Head Agency,” The New York Times (18 July 1965), 36.
Start Newsletter (June 1966, Vol. 1 No. 3), 1. 126 See, for example, Rachel Ingber. “Preschool
Many of these volunteers likely spent a fairly Program Serves Whole Family’s Needs,” The
small amount of time in the classroom, but the New York Times (9 February 2000), B5; Stacey
size of the number is still impressive. Hersh, “Single Father Finds Work and a Home,”
103 Riley and Epps, 84–100. The New York Times (21 January 1997), B3.
104 Zigler and Muenchow, 41. 127 Jenkins, 6 December 1999.
128 Tina Hunter, personal interview, 19 November 155 Quoted in Alexander Bloom and Wini Breines,
1999. editors, Takin’ It to the Streets: A Sixties Reader
129 Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 182.
University, The Impact of Head Start: An 156 Greenberg, 138, 7.
Evaluation of the Effect of Head Start on Children’s 157 Zigler and Muenchow, 178.
Cognitive and Effective Development, Volume 158 David Tyack, The One Best System: A History of
One (Washington: U.S. Department of American Urban Education (Cambridge, Mass.:
Commerce, 1969), 112. Harvard University Press, 1974), 284.
130 Riley and Epps, 179. 159 See, generally, Tamar Jacoby, Someone Else’s
131 Community Progress (January 1966), 4. Commu- House: America’s Unfinished Struggle for Inte-
nity Progress was the newsletter of Community gration (New York: The Free Press, 1998).
Progress, Inc. 160 “Irrational Backlash,” The New York Times
132 “CPI Petitions Congress on Headstart Bill,” New (30 August 1970), E12.
Haven Register (31 July 1968), 72. This battle 161 For an example of such studies, see the
foreshadowed President Carter’s failed attempt to Westinghouse Report, discussed later.
move Head Start to the Department of Education 162 Robert Mendelsohn, “Is Head Start A Success or
in 1978. Failure,” Disadvantaged Child. Vol. 3, Jerome
133 Tina Hunter, personal interview, 19 November Hellmuth, Editor (New York: Brunner/Mazel
1999. Publishers, 1970), 448–449.
134 Mills, 224. 163 Curtis Wilkie, “Following Up on Head Start,”
135 Zigler and Muenchow, 79, 91, 97. The New Republic (12 April 1969), 8.
136 Sarah Greene, NHSA, President, personal 164 Public Papers of the President: Lyndon Johnson,
interview, 12 June 2001. 1967, Book 1 (Washington, D.C.: United States
137 Greg Powell, NHSA Director of Research and Government Printing Office, 1968), 337.
Evaluation, personal interview, 21 March 2000. 165 “Project Keep Moving,” Head Start Newsletter
138 Zigler and Muenchow, 123, 173. (December 1966, Vol. 1, No. 8), 4.
139 Helen Blank, Child Care Director, Children’s 166 “Education Workshops for Parents,” Head Start
Defense Fund, personal interview, 11 June 2001. Newsletter (January 1968, Vol. 2, No. 12), 4.
140 Townley Mailler, Director of Government 167 Project Head Start: Parents Are Needed
Affairs, National Head Start Association, (Washington, D.C.: Office of Economic
personal interview 7 June 2001. Opportunity, 1968), 4. Available at the Seely
141 Finn, Manno, and Ravitch, 20. Mudd Government Documents Center, Yale
142 Edward Zigler, “The Wrong Read on Head University.
Start,” The New York Times. (23 December 168 “Teachers Learn from the People,” Community
2000), A29. Progress (August 1966), 3–4.
143 Finn, Manno, and Ravitch, 20. 169 Jackie Trask Gay, “Volunteers Have Key Role in
144 Mailler, 7 June 2001. City’s Community Schools,” New Haven Register
145 Ames and Ellsworth, 83. (4 April 1965), 1.
146 Personal interview, 6 December 1999. 170 Gregory Farrell, “An Old Industrial City Wages
147 Personal interview, 13 January 2000. Dramatic War on Poverty,” Trenton Sun-Times
148 Personal interview, 24 February 2000. Advertiser (12 July 1964).
149 Gettleman and Mermelstein, 186. 171 Zigler and Muenchow, 30; recollections of James
150 James S. Coleman, Equality of Educational Hymes, Jr. In Zigler and Valentine, page 94;
Opportunity (Washington: Department of Christopher Jencks, Inequality: A Reassessment of
Health, Education and Welfare, 1966) 21. the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New
151 Larry Cuban, “Cardozo Project in Urban York: Basic Books, 1972).
Teaching,” Education (Vol. 88, 1967), 216–220. 172 Mills, 305.
152 The study yielded James Coleman’s Equality of 173 “Using ‘Sesame Street’ in the Early Childhood
Educational Opportunity, known popularly as the Classroom,” Head Start Newsletter (January 1970,
Coleman Report. The results of that study, Vol. 4, No. 9), 4.
discussed below, were not what many civil rights 174 Beatty, 198; Zigler and Muenchow, 150;
activists anticipated. and Edward Zigler, Sally Styfco, and Elizabeth
153 347 U.S. Supreme Court Reports 483. Gilman, “The National Head Start Program for
154 William Kvaraceus, John Gibson, Bradbury Disadvantaged Preschoolers,” Head Start and
Seasholes, and Jean Grambs, Negro Self- Beyond: A National Plan for Extended Childhood
Concept: Implications for School and Citizenship Intervention, edited by Edward Zigler and Sally
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Styfco (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1963), 1–2. 1993), 6–8.
175 Ruth Hubbell, A Review of Head Start Research 187 Zigler, 19 October 1999. Zigler lauds the Clinton
since 1970 and an Annotated Bibliography of the administration for this development: “What
Head Start Research since 1965 (Washington, would happen for years and years is that they’d
D.C.: Department of Health and Human threaten to close the center, so they’d call their
Services, 1982), 2–17. congressman and say, ‘they’re going to close us,
176 John Hughes and Anne Hughes, Equal Educa- we won’t have Head Start.’ And, of course, the
tion: A New National Strategy (Bloomington: congressman then calls the secretary, who might
Indiana University Press, 1972), 102. need that congressman’s vote down the tracks . . .
177 Hughes and Hughes, 112–113, 94. So that’s what happened for years and years.
178 Zigler, Styfco, and Gilman, 6–8; Zigler and Donna Shalala [Clinton’s Secretary of Health
Muenchow, 150. and Human Services] has been one of the
179 Zigler and Anderson, 100. greatest secretaries, very courageous, over the
180 “HEW Secretary Finch’s Statement of April 9,” past 35 years. She’s actually cut off grantees that
Head Start Newsletter (April–May 1969, Vol. 4, weren’t up to snuff.”
No. 2), 6. 188 Helen Blank, 11 June 2001.
181 “School of the 21st Century/Family Resource 189 Zigler, “The Wrong Read on Head Start.”
Centers.” Available at the Yale Bush Center, 310 190 Jacques Steinberg, “Bush’s Plan to Push Reading
Prospect Street, New Haven, Connecticut in ‘Head Start’ Stirs Debate,” The New York
06520. Times (10 February, 2001), 1. Steinberg’s article
182 Joe Nathan, Charter Schools: Creating Hope and describes the center, the Margaret H. Cone Head
Opportunity for American Education, San Start Center in Dallas, but makes its approach
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999, quoted appear more like drilling children than is accurate.
at pages 151 and 153. 191 Zigler and Anderson, 100.
183 Nathan, 152, citing H.J. Becker, K. Nakagawa, 192 See generally: Chafe, 432, and William Berman,
and R. Corwin, Parent Involvement contracts in America’s Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush
California’s Charter Schools: Strategy for Educatio- (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
nal Improvement or Method of Exclusion? Los 1994), especially 11.
Alamitos, Calif.: Southwest Regional laboratory, 193 Walter Williams, Social Policy Research and
1995, 8. See also, Louann Bierlein, “The Charter Analysis: The Experience in the Federal Social
School Movement,” New Schools for a New Agencies (New York: American Elsevier Pub-
Century: The Redesign of Urban Education, Diane lishing Company, 1971), 104–112.
Ravitch and Joseph Viteritti, editors (New 194 Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio
Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 53–54. University, 1–3.
184 David Tyack and Larry Cuban, Tinkering Toward 195 For example of alternative studies, see “The
Utopia: A Century of School Reform (Cambridge, Kirschner Report,” Head Start Newsletter
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995), pages (August, 1970, Vol. 5, No. 6), 1.
77–78. For a devastating portrait of the New York 196 Robert Semple, Jr., “White House and Advisers
City school administrative structure, see Diane Stand By Report Critical of Head Start,” The
Ravitch and Joseph Viteritti, “New York: The New York Times (27 April 1969), 44.
Obsolete Factory,” New Schools for a New 197 Williams, 104, 114.
Century: The Redesign of Urban Education, Diane 198 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, The Politics of a
Ravitch and Joseph Viteritti, editors (New Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and
Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), especially the Family Assistance Plan (New York: Random
27–29. House, 1973), 211.
185 Anthony Bryk, David Kerbow, and Sharon 199 Moynihan, 150–151.
Rollow, “Chicago School Reform,” New Schools 200 Arthur Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ
for a New Century: The Redesign of Urban and Scholastic Achievement?” Harvard
Education, Diane Ravitch and Joseph Viteritti, Educational Review (Vol. 39, No. 1, Winter
editors (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), 1–2. Jensen’s thesis is a forerunner to the
1997), 169–171. 1994 book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class
186 Maris Vinovskis, “School Readiness and Early Structure in American Life by Richard J.
Childhood Education,” Learning From the Past: Herrnstein and Charles Murray.
What History Teaches Us About School Reform, 201 Herbert Ginsburg, The Myth of the Deprived Child:
Diane Ravitch and Maris Vinovskis, editors Poor Children’s Intellect and Education (Englewood
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972).
1995), 243. Vinovskis’ essay also includes a dis- 202 Coleman, 22.
cussion of the various studies of Head Start’s 203 Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Frederick
effectiveness and ensuing debates. Mosteller, “A Pathbreaking Report,” On Equality
of Educational Opportunity: Papers Deriving from 207 Mills, 222; Zigler and Muenchow, 75.
the Harvard University Faculty Seminar on the 208 Steiner, 91; Zigler and Muenchow, 124.
Coleman Report, Mosteller and Moynihan, editors 209 Zigler and Muenchow, 173. See also Appendix:
(New York: Random House, 1972), 3–69, Head Start Appropriations and Enrollment,
especially 8–12. 1965–1990.
204 Christopher Jencks, Inequality: A Reassessment of 210 For a discussion of the FAP, see Moynihan, The
the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New Politics of a Guaranteed Income.
York: Basic Books, 1972), quoted at 255, see also 211 Beatty, 198; Zigler and Muenchow, 123; Levitan
7–8, and references to the Westinghouse Report and Cleary Alderman, 88.
at 53. 212 Moynihan, 199; Zigler and Muenchow, 136.
205 Mills, 44. 213 Zigler and Muenchow, 143–146.
206 The conservative political implications of the 214 Stevanne Auerbach, Confronting the Child Care
Coleman Report did not precisely mirror the Crisis (Boston: Beacon Press, 1979), 91–93.
policy recommendations of its authors, who did 215 Zigler and Muenchow, 147.
believe that government action could have a 216 Zigler and Muenchow, 80–85.
positive impact. Specifically, Coleman and those 217 James Traub, “What No School Can Do,” The
who followed supported efforts to integrate New York Times Magazine (16 January 2000), 55.
schools and thus expose more children to affluent 218 Sarah Greene, 12 June 2001.
peers (Coleman, 29). Jencks recommended 219 To underscore the importance of this point, see
massive income transfers to alleviate socio- Tyack and Cuban, 64.
economic inequality.
Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict,

and Educational Change
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis
Contradiction and Educational Capital accumulation has been the driving

Change: An Overview force behind the transformation and growth of
the U.S. economy. Labor is combined in pro-
. . . The whole battle with the slum is fought out duction with increasing amounts of machinery
around the public school . . . and other capital goods. At the same time, labor
(Jacob Riis, How the Other Half power is itself augmented by schooling and
Lives, 1902) training. Two important aspects of the process
of capital accumulation may be identified. The
The clash of cultures in the classroom is essentially a first is the expansion of the forces of production
class war, a socio-economic and racial warfare being with a consequent rapid and sustained increase
waged on the battleground of the schools . . . This is in the output of goods and services per worker.1
an uneven balance, particularly since, like most The second is an equally dramatic transform-
battles, it comes under the guise of righteousness. ation of the social relations of production. The
(Kenneth Clark, Dark Ghettos, 1965) sphere of capitalist control over production is
widened through the reduction of ever-
Our interpretation of the process of educa- increasing segments of the population to the
tional change is a straightforward extension of status of wage labor. At the same time, capitalist
our analysis of the capitalist economy. The role control has deepened through the gradual
of education in legitimizing the class structure extension and refinement of the hierarchical
and in fostering forms of consciousness consistent division of labor in the enterprise.
with its reproduction also figure prominently in The accumulation of capital and the asso-
our analysis. ciated extension of the wage-labor system are
essential aspects of the expanded reproduction sources of exploitation and alienation of the
of the capitalist system. The capitalist economy capitalist order. The expansion of mass edu-
and bicycle riding have this in common: stabil- cation, embodying each of the above means, has
ity requires forward motion. Yet the accumula- been a central element in resolving—at least
tion of capital and the widening of capitalist temporarily—the contradiction between accu-
control over production also undermines the mulation and reproduction.
reproduction of the capitalist order. It inevitably It is thus hardly accidental that many of
involves the creation of a growing class of wage the manifestations of this contradiction in the
laborers and the growth of a reserve army of U.S. economy have appeared in the state sector,
unemployed or marginally employed workers. and particularly in the educational system.
The antagonistic relationship between capital Reformers have consistently believed that our
and labor, and the increased potential for most pressing social problems could be solved,
working-class action against capital afforded or at least significantly attenuated, through
by the agglomeration of workers into large the benign offices of the state. Yet the types of
enterprises and urban areas have threatened the social distress which excite the reformers’
perpetuation of the capitalist system. We refer conscience result from the most basic workings
to this tension between growth and stability as of the capitalist economy. They are not readily
the contradiction between the accumulation of alleviated through a strategy of reforms which
capital and the reproduction of the capitalist leaves untouched the property and market
relations of production.2 This basic contra- institutions that characterize capitalism as a
diction has constituted one of the major system. The problem of inequality provides
underlying forces propelling U.S. history for the a telling example. The intervention of the state
past century and a half. in the income-distribution process—through
At times, the contradiction between accu- welfare assistance, social security, unemploy-
mulation and reproduction has been expressed ment insurance, and progressive taxation, for
in militant class struggle and other forms of example—has probably helped to forestall
political activity—examples are the mass strikes the outbreak of open class conflict in the eco-
which paralyzed the economy in the last quarter nomic sphere. Yet the problems to which they
of the nineteenth century and again following are addressed are not solved. Rather, we observe
the First World War, in the Populist revolt of the a welfare crisis, or a conflict over taxes; or a
1880s and 1890s, in the sit-down strikes and struggle within the school system over resource
mass labor organizing drives of the late 1930s, transfers. Increasingly, the classroom and the
and in the urban uprisings of the 1960s. Equally admissions office, as well as the factory floor and
important, however, is the fact that, through the office, are arenas in which basic social con-
much of U.S. history, dominant elites have flicts are fought out.
successfully confined class conflict to the isolated The reformers’ optimism has not been
daily struggles of workers in the factories, offices, rewarded: The problem of inequality is not
and shops across the country. The ever-present solved. Rather, its form is changed. But the
contradiction between accumulation and repro- reform strategy can hardly be considered a
duction has been submerged or channeled into failure from the standpoint of the capitalist
demands which could be contained within the class. The displacement of social problems into
outlines of capitalist society. The contradiction the state sector plays a central role in the repro-
has been temporarily resolved or suppressed in duction of the capitalist order. The form in
a variety of ways: through ameliorative social which a social problem manifests itself and the
reforms; through the coercive force of the state; arena in which the resulting conflicts are fought
through racist, sexist, ageist, credentialist, and out are matters of no small importance. Con-
other strategies used by employers to divide flicts within the state sector, even if bitter and
and rule; and through an ideological perspective enduring, appear to be much less threatening
which served to hide rather than clarify the to capital and less disruptive to profits than
those which take place on the shop floor or in manifested in the ever-changing social organ-
the office. The class nature of social problems ization of work in enterprises of the dynamic
is often obscured when the manifestations of the sectors of the economy. The system of class,
underlying contradictions are displaced into race, and sex relations which was continually
the state sector. shaped and reshaped by the evolving structure
The overarching role of the state in social of production plus the uneven development of
reproduction is a relatively recent development. the capitalist economy has been reflected in
Prior to the expansion of capitalist production the segmented, hierarchically structured, racist,
in the era of commercial capitalism extending sexist, and nativist structure of U.S. education.
into the early decades of the nineteenth century, The emergence and evolution of this educational
the nuclear family successfully unified the system, we contend, represented an outgrowth
functions of accumulation and reproduction. of the political and economic conflict arising
The demise of the family as the primary unit of from this continued widening and deepening of
production, the growing preponderance of wage capitalist control over production, and the
labor, and the evolution of large-scale business contradictions inherent in this process.
organizations posed problems which shattered The three turning points in U.S. educational
the unity of accumulation and reproduction. history which we have identified all corres-
Both the expansion of capitalist production and pond to particularly intense periods of struggle
the reproduction of the capitalist relations of pro- around the expansion of capitalist production
duction required a radically new nexus of social relations. Thus the decades prior to the Civil
institutions. The school was increasingly looked War—the era of the common school reform—
to by the capitalist class as an institution which was a period of labor militancy associated with
could enhance the labor power of working the rise of the factory system, growing economic
people and at the same time reproduce the social inequality, and the creation and vast expansion
conditions for the transformation of the fruits of of a permanent wage-labor force. The Progressive
labor into capitalist profits. We have attempted education movement—beginning at the turn of
to show that the main periods of educational the present century—grew out of the class con-
reform coincided with, or immediately followed, flicts associated with the joint rise of organized
periods of deep social unrest and political labor and corporate capital. At least as much so,
conflict. The major reform periods have been Progressive education was a response to the social
preceded by the opening up of a significant unrest and dislocation stemming from the
divergence between the ever-changing social integration of rural labor—both immigrant and
organization of production and the structure of native—into the burgeoning corporate wage-
education. Lastly, each major reform period has labor system. The particular concerns of the
been associated with the integration into the Progressives—efficiency, cooperation, internal-
dynamic capitalist wage-labor system of succes- ization of bureaucratic norms, and preparation
sive waves of workers. These workers have for variegated adult roles—reflect the changing
emerged from the relatively stagnant sectors of social organization of production in the giant
the economy or from abroad. More concretely, corporate enterprises. The Progressive reforms
the uneven expansion of the school system has represented in their implementation little more
played the role alternatively of recruiter and of than an echo of the corporate managers’ growing
gatekeeper—depending on the level of labor commitment to scientific-management and the
needs—of the dynamic sectors. Schools at once control of production and personnel.
supply labor to the dominant enterprises and The recent period of educational change and
reinforce the racial, ethnic, sexual, and class ferment—covering the Sixties to the present—
segmentation of the labor force. is, in large measure, a response to the post-
The evolving social relationships of the class- World-War-II integration of three major groups
room and school, too, were a response to the into the wage-labor system: uprooted Southern
pattern of capitalist development primarily as blacks, women, and the once-respectable, “solid”
members of the precorporate capitalist commu- contemporary research into these areas is at best
nity—the small business people, independent rudimentary. Our interpretation is necessarily
professionals, and other white-collar workers. somewhat tentative.
First, the economic and educational systems
possess fairly distinct and independent internal
The Process of Educational
dynamics of reproduction and development. The
Reform: Conflict and
process of incessant change within the economic
Accommodation
system is a basic characteristic of capitalism.
The educational system is rather less dynamic:
Education is the property of no one. It belongs to Our schools and colleges, foundations and
the people as a whole. And if education is not schools of education tend to promote a set of
given to the people, they will have to take it. cultural values and to support an educational
(Che Guevara, 1964) elite which reproduces and stabilizes these
institutions through time.
The idea that the dynamics of the capitalist Second, the independent internal dynamics
economy and the pattern of change in the edu- of the two systems present the ever-present
cational system are intimately related will not possibility of a significant mismatch arising
strike the reader as either novel or particularly between economy and education. We have seen
controversial. Nor will the proposition that in the previous three chapters that the educatio-
educational change is the product of intense nal system acquires its economic importance and
social conflict provoke adverse comment from contributes to the reproduction of the class
any but the most committed advocate of a con- structure through a correspondence of its
sensus view of history. A more likely reaction to social relationships with the social relations
our overview will be frustration. We have of economic life. Yet the historical dynamic of
described the process of educational change the capitalist economy involves continual
without identifying the mechanisms whereby change in the social relations of production and
economic interests are translated into edu- transformation of the class structure. Thus, the
cational programs. We turn now to this critical relatively static educational system periodically
last step in our interpretation. falls out of correspondence with the social
We have argued that the moving force relations of production and becomes a force
behind educational change is the contra- antithetical to capitalist development. This dis-
dictory nature of capital accumulation and the junction between an economic dynamic which
reproduction of the capitalist order. Conflicts in extends the wage-labor system and incessantly
the educational sphere often reflect muted or alters the organization of work and the class
open conflicts in the economic sphere. Thus, structure on the one hand, and the educational
analysis of the process of educational reform must system which tends to stabilize it in a given form
consider the shifting arenas of class conflict and on the other, is, we believe, an essential aspect
the mechanisms which the capitalist class has of the process of educational change.
developed to mediate and deflect class conflict. Third, the accommodation of the educational
This is a tall order. Indeed, a thorough treat- system to new economic conditions proceeds by
ment would require—as a bare minimum—an two distinct but parallel processes. One operates
extended investigation of the bureaucratization through the relatively uncoordinated pursuit of
and professionalization of education, the role of interests by millions of individuals and groups as
the major private foundations and quasi-public mediated by local school boards, the market
institutions, the composition of major public for private educational services, and other
decision-making bodies, the crucial process of decentralized decision-making arenas. This
educational finance and resource allocation, the process, which we shall call “pluralist accom-
impact of parental and student opinion, and the modation,” involves a more or less automatic
role of teachers’ associations. Historical and reorientation of educational perspectives in the
face of a changing economic reality. Historical of production. The evolution of the structure of
experience exhibits the strong tendency of production is governed by the pursuit of profit
educators, in periods of economic change, and class privilege by the small minority of
to alter their educational values and goals in capitalists and managers who dominate the
progressive directions—i.e., directions conform- dynamic sectors of the economy. The process of
ing to the new economic rationality emerging in pluralist accommodation thus operates within an
the social relations of production.3 Parents economic framework determined almost entirely
desirous of a secure economic future for their outside of the democratic political arena. Decen-
children often support moves toward a more tralized administration, democratically elected
“vocationally relevant education.”4 The several and representative school boards, and local
governmental inputs into the educational control over school finance thus do not inhibit
decision-making process seek to tailor education the process of establishing and continually re-
to the perceived needs of their various political establishing the correspondence between school
constituencies. These elements of pluralist structure and the social relations of production.
accommodation in education provide a strong It is only during the crisis periods—which
latent force for re-establishing a “natural” appear in retrospect as the major turning points
correspondence between the social relations in U.S. educational history—that control over
of education and production. Periodic financial the relevant decision-making institutions makes
crisis can play an important role in this process a major difference. It is here that our second
of educational rationalization. When budgets process of adjustment—concrete political
are ample and the demand by employers for struggle along the lines of class interest—comes
the products of the school system is high, to the fore. Particularly in periods of serious
educators have a relatively independent hand in disjuncture between the school system and the
developing new programs and approaches to economy—the 1840s and the 1850s, the first two
instruction. Students, also, are freer to pursue decades of the present century, and the 1960s
their own interests. This was certainly the case and early 1970s—the school system appears less
for higher education during the late 1960s. But as a cipher impartially recording and tallying the
a budget squeeze and the threat of unemploy- choices of millions of independent actors and
ment serve to weed out both the opportunity and more as an arena for struggle among major social
the student demand for educational experiences groups. The response of forward-looking capital-
that do not contribute directly to employability. ists to popular unrest is typically dual: material
Financial hardship thus operates in educational amelioration and educational expansion or
evolution somewhat as famine or drought does reform. Thus the response to the strikes of the
in Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” 1840s was higher wages for organized workers and
The day-to-day operations of these pluralist the consolidation of the common school. The
forces—the “free market” choices of students, the fruits of Populism as a political movement were
school bond-issue referenda, the deliberations of somewhat higher farm incomes and the
elected school boards and the like—reinforce the development of agricultural extension and
image of an educational system whose open and education. The response to the Civil Rights
decentralized structure defies control or even Movement and black urban rebellions of the
significant influence by an elite. Indeed, it is 1960s was an attempt to ameliorate the eco-
absolutely essential for the school system to nomic condition of blacks and a massive program
appear to be democratically controlled if it is in so-called compensatory education.
successfully to contribute to the legitimation and In each case, the capitalist class—through its
reproduction of the U.S. capitalist order. use of the police power of the state in suppressing
What is less often noted is that the accommo- anticapitalist alternatives, through more general-
dation by the educational system to a changing ized political power naturally attending its
economic reality, however pluralistic, is, in control over production and investment, and
essence, a process led by a changing structure through its extensive control over the financial
resources for educational research, innovation, has been the case with farmers in the 1840s,
and training—has been able to loosely define a workers’ organizations in the mid-nineteenth
feasible model of educational change, one which century, craft unions in the early twentieth cen-
has appeared reasonable and necessary in light tury, and the student movement of the 1960s.
of the “economic realities” of the day. Forces
for educational reform can coalesce only around
Conclusion
a common and forcefully articulated social
philosophy and program of action. Yet the ideo- By the infirmity of human nature, it happens that
logical framework for educational reform is the more skillful the workman, the more self-
determined in what, with embarrassing accuracy, willed and intractable he is apt to become, and
is called the “free marketplace in ideas.” In a of course the less fit a component of a mechanical
relatively decentralized decision-making frame- system in which . . . he may do great damage to
work, this preponderant control over informa- the whole.
tion, educational values, and the articulation of (Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of
programatic ideas—exercised by the capitalist Manufactures, 1835)
class in large measure through its foundations—
has played a crucial role in directing the process The development of mass education—now
of educational accommodation to economic extending up through the college level—was, in
change. many respects, a genuinely progressive develop-
In the absence of any clearly spelled out ment. A larger fraction of U.S. youth is now
alternative to the evolving capitalist system, enrolled in college than was enrolled in ele-
and lacking a political vehicle for the trans- mentary school 135 years ago. Illiteracy has been
formation of social life, those who have proposed virtually eliminated: In 1870, one-tenth of
school reforms which would have significantly whites and four-fifths of blacks could not read
undermined the profitability or stability of the or write.5 This massive expansion of schooling
economy have been more or less easily swept and the structural forms which it assumed
aside as Utopians. The only feasible counter- were not simply an imposition on the working
force to the capitalist domination of the edu- class, though workers and their children did
cational reform process would have been— sometimes resist attendance. Less still was it a
indeed is today—a party representing all working victory for the working class, though the benefits
people and articulating both concrete educa- of literacy, access to more advanced learning,
tional reforms and a general ideological and custodial care of children and the like are real
programatic alternative to capitalism. Only enough. Rather, the spread of mass education can
the Socialist Party during the second decade of best be seen as an outcome of class conflict, not
this century came remotely close to providing class domination. The impetus for educational
such a real alternative. In general, then, popular reform and expansion was provided by the
forces have had no recourse from the capitalist growing class consciousness and political
dominated strategy of educational reforms save militancy of working people. While working
chaos. people’s groups have, at least for the past
Partly as a result, the accommodation of work- hundred and fifty years, demanded more and
ing people’s educational objectives to changing better education for their children, demands for
economic conditions has tended to betray a economic reform and material betterment have
partially regressive character. Groups have been both more urgent and more strongly
struggled against a change in economic status— pressed. In supporting greater access to educa-
for instance, proletarianization—that they are tion, the progressive elements in the capitalist
more or less powerless to prevent, rather than class were not so much giving workers what they
against the system imposing the change. Thus wanted as giving what would minimize the
struggle has frequently taken the form of erosion of their power and privilege within the
attempts to restore the irretrievable past. Such structure of production. Educational change has
historically played the role not of a complement accumulation and reproduction, the school
to economic reform, but as a substitute for it. system has played an important role in preserving
The evolution of U.S. education over the last the capitalist order; within that order, it has also
century and a half was the result of a com- brought tangible, if limited, benefits to the
promise—granted an unequal one—between the working people of the United States.
capitalist class and the very social classes it had The expansion of schooling, like the
unintentionally but nonetheless inexorably expansion of the wage-labor system, has had
created. Though the business interests often consequences not only unanticipated by the
struck their compromise under severe duress, capitalist and professional elites, but unwanted
and—as we have seen in numerous cases—did as well. The schools have been used to smother
not always prevail, they were highly successful in discontent. By embracing potentially radical
maintaining ultimate control over the admin- elements in the society, the school system has
istration of educational reform. Working people helped to extract the political sting from
got more schooling, but the form and content of fundamental social conflicts. Yet the basis for
schooling was more often than not effectively out these conflicts continues in the underlying
of their hands. contradictions of the capitalist economy. Edu-
The liberal professionals and enlightened cational reformers have partially succeeded in
school reformers—from Horace Mann and displacing these conflicts out of the workplace
Henry Barnard, John Dewey and Ellwood and into the classroom. Thus, the contradictions
Cubberly to Clark Kerr and Charles Silberman— of capitalism frequently surface as contradictions
were essential mediators of this compromise. within the educational system. And what
These professional educators developed and Charles Silberman has labeled the “crisis in the
propagated its ideological rationale, articulated classroom” has opened up a host of educational
its objectives, and helped shape its programs. alternatives.
Always involved in the implementation of
educational change but never independent of its Notes
ultimate financial dependence on the business
elite, the educational elite has not been able to 1. James O’Connor develops a related, but not
identical, concept—the contradiction between
mount an independent and sustained movement accumulation and legitimation—in his Fiscal
for overall reform. Crisis of the State (New York: St. Martin’s Press,
The major actors with independent power in 1973).
the educational arena were, and continue to be, 2. Raymond Callahan, Education and the Cult of
labor and capital. We conclude that the structure Efficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1962); Joel H. Spring, Education and the Rise of the
and scope of the modern U.S. educational Corporate State (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972);
system cannot be explained without reference to Clarence J. Karier, “Ideology and Evaluation:
both the demands of working people—for In Quest of Meritocracy,” Wisconsin Conference
literacy, for the possibility of greater occupational on Education and Evaluation at Madison, April
mobility, for financial security, for personal 1973; Katz (1968), op. cit.; and Field (1973),
op. cit.
growth, for social respect—and to the imperative 3. Binstock (1970), op. cit.; Burton E. Rosenthal,
of the capitalist class to construct an institution “Educational Investments in Human Capital: The
which would both enhance the labor power of Significance of Stratification in the Labor
working people and help to reproduce the con- Market,” unpublished thesis, Harvard University,
ditions for its exploitation. To a major extent the 1972.
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of
schools did successfully weld together the the U.S.—Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington,
functions of accumulation and reproduction. By D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960).
obscuring the underlying contradiction between 5. Idem.
4 The Sociology of Education
Many years ago, the famous philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was asked, “Which is more
important, facts or ideas?” He reflected for a while and said, “Ideas about facts.” At its very core,
sociological inquiry is about ideas and how they shape people’s understandings of society. The
desire to know and to transform society is not unique to sociologists; in fact, social curiosity has
played a key role in humans’ adaptive capacity. In one sense, sociology is simply a method for
bringing social aspirations and fears into focus by forcing people to ask sharp and analytic questions
about the societies and cultures in which they live. The tools of sociology can be thought of as
empirical and conceptual. Sociology is empirical because most sociologists gather facts about
society. Facts, however, do not speak for themselves; without arranging them into meaningful
patterns, facts are virtually useless. Trying to uncover the underlying patterns that give larger
meaning to facts is the purpose of making social theories. Often, teachers think that social theories
are of little use in teaching children. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Without some idea of how the major elements in society fit together, teachers are at a loss in
understanding the relation between school and society, how their own profession has evolved,
and why students behave the way they do in school and outside of school. An understanding of
society is essential if teachers are to develop as reflective practitioners. In a society that is becoming
increasingly multiethnic and multiracial, the need for a sociological perspective among educators
is urgent. In this chapter, we will explore some of the main elements of the sociology of education;
these elements include theories about the relation between school and society, whether or not
schooling makes a significant difference in individuals’ lives, how schools influence social
inequalities, and an examination of how school processes affect the lives of children, teachers,
and other adults who are involved in the educational enterprise.
In her book Education and Inequality (1977), Persell provided a model for analyzing the
relationship between school and society through four interrelated levels of sociological analysis
(see Figure 4.1). The societal level includes the most general structures of a society, including its
political and economic systems, its level of development, and its system of social stratification (or
institutionalized levels of inequality). The institutional level includes a society’s major institutions,
such as the family, school, churches and synagogues, business and government, and the media,
all of which play an important role in socialization. The interpersonal level includes the processes,
symbols, and interactions that occur within such institutional settings. These include language,
dress, face-to-face interactions, gestures, and rituals, all of which comprise everyday life. The
intrapsychic level includes individual thoughts, beliefs, values, and feelings, which are to a large
degree shaped by the society’s institutions and interactions.
For sociologists, the issue of whether the individual actions are determined by external forces
(determinism, called behaviorism in psychology) or whether individuals are capable of freely shaping
the world (voluntarism, called existentialism in philosophy) is a crucial one. A sociological
perspective, while recognizing human capacity for free will, emphasizes the power that external
forces have on individual choices and how these are often related to group differences within the
social stratification system.
The Sociology of Education
I. SOCIETAL LEVEL II. INSTITUTIONAL III. INTERPERSONAL IV. INTRAPSYCHIC

LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL
Teachers’
Expectations
Structure of
Dominance in Educational Educational
Society Structures Outcomes
Educational
Interactions
Cognitive
Societal Educational
Ideologies, Noncognitive
Ideologies
Concepts
Figure 4.1 Theoretical Model of Relevant Variables and Their Interrelationships.

Source: Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, from
Education and Inequality: A Theoretical Empirical Synthesis by Caroline Hodges Persell. Copyright © 1977 by The Free
Press. All rights reserved.
As you will see, functionalism is concerned with the ways that societal and institutional forces
create, in Durkheim’s terms, a collective conscience (society internalized in the individual) based
on shared values. Conflict theory is concerned with the ways in which differences among groups
at the societal level produce conflict and domination that may lead to change.
The Uses of Sociology for Teachers

How can people create schools that are more effective environments in which children can grow
and learn? What is the relation between school and the larger society? Can schools produce more
social and economic equality? These questions and many more have sparked the imaginations of
generations of educators and those noneducators who have a deep interest in academic
achievement, the welfare of children, and a more just, more open society. The kind of answers
that are found to these questions will shape education and society for years. Without clear thinking,
good information, and honest assessments, education as an institution is bound to move into the
future like a ship without a rudder, floundering, directionless, and in danger of sinking. Before
better educational programs can be designed, educators must know what works and what does
not. The empirical and conceptual tools of sociology are ideally suited to this task because they
guide one toward systematic thinking and realism about what is actually possible. There are those
who would argue that sociology is not fully scientific, but compared to other ways of problem
solving, sociology utilizes the principles and methods of science and, moreover, sociologists are
self-critical. Because of the standards of the discipline, the work of sociologists must bear the
scrutiny of other sociologists and the public at large.
Sociologists, then, are in a good position to view schools with a dispassionate eye and a critical
awareness that simple solutions to complex educational problems are almost bound to fail and
can be counterproductive. From these observations, it should be evident that teachers can learn
a great deal from the sociology of education; for example, sociological research helps pinpoint the
characteristics of schools that enable them to become effective learning environments. These
characteristics include vigorous instructional leadership; a principal who makes clear, consistent,
and fair decisions; an emphasis on discipline and a safe and orderly environment; instructional
practices that focus on basic skills and academic achievement; collegiality among teachers who
believe that students can and will learn; and frequent review of student progress.
To take another example, it is known that interactions in the classroom shape the learning
experiences of the child. Sociologists have developed many techniques for understanding
classroom interactions. One of the best known is Ned Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Scale
(Amidon & Flanders, 1971). This method involves the use of observers who watch classroom
interactions and note these interactions on a standard scale. This process gives observers a thorough
and objective measure of what really goes on in classrooms. Flanders hypothesized that student
performance and learning is greatest when teacher influence is indirect—that is, when there are
other classroom interactions besides “teacher talk.” The hypothesis was upheld when observations
showed that students in indirect teacher classrooms learned more and were more independent
than students in classrooms where most, if not all, instructional activities were directed by the
teacher.
As teachers, sociology provides you with a special analytic lens on education and school that,
when you learn to use it, will give you greater insight and coherence in your approach to study-
ing education. We hope that this clarity will help you improve your pedagogical practices and
promote your professional growth. Part of becoming a professional is developing an intellectual
and experiential frame of reference that is sufficiently sophisticated. It is our belief that this
intellectual sophistication will help you integrate the world of education into its larger social
context. This last observation leads to our first major issue in exploring how sociology can help
us understand education in the “big picture.” What is the relation between school and society?
The Relation between School and Society

Have you ever wondered why schools are the way they are? Why do teachers teach what they
teach in the way they do? Can schools change society, or must society change if schools are to
become different? Obviously, there are no simple answers to these questions; yet struggling to find
answers, even for complex questions, is in itself a process of clarification. Sociologists of education
often ask big questions about the relation between school and society because they believe that
educators cannot really understand how schools operate, or why they operate as they do, without
a working idea of how schools and society interact. To help them in this complex intellectual
and empirical process, sociologists almost always have a theory about the organization of society
and how it shapes the education of children. In particular, sociologists take an interest in how
schools act as agents of cultural and social transmission.
Schools—as well as parents, churches and synagogues, and other groups—shape children’s
perceptions of the world by processes of socialization. That is, the values, beliefs, and norms of
society are internalized within children so that they come to think and act like other members
of society. In this sense, schools socially and culturally reproduce the existing society through the
systematic socialization of its youngest members. Think of such a simple ritual as pledging allegiance
to the flag. Through this culturally approved ritual, young children learn something about
citizenship and patriotism.
Socialization processes can shape children’s consciousness profoundly. Schools, for instance,
wittingly or unwittingly, promote gender definitions and stereotypes when they segregate learning
and extracurricular activities by gender, or when teachers allow boys to dominate class discussions
and activities. Not only do schools shape students’ perceptions and consciousness but they also
act as important, perhaps the most important, sorters and selectors of students. Schools, through
such practices as tracking, academically stratify students by curricular placement, which, in turn,
influences the long-term social, economic, and cultural destinies of children. In effect, schools
play a major role in determining who will get ahead in society and who will not.
How do schools select some students for educational mobility? Is it on the basis of merit or is
it primarily on the basis of students’ ascriptive characteristics, such as class, race, or gender?
Or is it a combination of merit and social position that explains who gets into the educational
“fast track” and who gets “cooled out”? The concept of equal educational opportunity is a key
element in the belief system that maintains that the United States is a land of opportunity where
hard work is rewarded. Is this belief based on real social facts or is it simply a myth that confuses
people and leads them to believe that their relative social and economic failure is caused by personal
inadequacies?
At an even deeper level, one might wonder why people study the subjects and materials they
do. Who selects what people teach and learn, and why? Is knowledge value free or socially
constructed? Can ideas ever be taken out of their contexts? For instance, history texts have
traditionally overlooked the role of minorities and women in shaping U.S. society. How has this
influenced people’s perceptions of what is really historically significant and what is not? Finally,
how has education developed in other countries and has there been a global pattern of education
(D. P. Baker, 2014)?
Theoretical Perspectives
From these remarks, it should be apparent to you that the sociology of education is a contentious
field and that the questions sociologists ask about the relation between school and society are
fundamental and complex. Because the scope of these questions is so large, sociologists usually
begin their studies with an overall picture of how society looks in its most basic form. This is
where theory comes in. A good definition of theory is “an integration of all known principles,
laws, and information pertaining to a specific area of study. This structure allows investigators to
offer explanations for relative phenomenon and to create solutions to unique problems” (Woolfolk,
1990, p. 585). Theory is like an X-ray machine; it allows one to see past the visible and obvious,
and examine the hidden structure. Unlike X-ray pictures, however, theoretical pictures of society
are seldom crystal clear or easy to interpret. Why is this? Partly this is because people are members
of society (i.e., people have been socialized by society) and it is very difficult to be objective or
disinterested in the analysis of people. Theoretical pictures of society are created by human beings
and interpreted by them. Thus, knowledge of the social world cannot be totally separated from
one’s personal and social situation. Still, should you let the fact that all knowledge is socially
generated and interpreted discourage you from exploring those issues that shape your life? Obviously
not. Without the struggle for objectivity and honesty, there is little hope that people can create
a productive and just society.
Theory, then, as inadequate as it is, is one’s best conceptual guide to understanding the relation
between school and society because it gives one the intellectual scaffolding from which to hang
empirical findings. Essentially, there are three major theories about the relation between school
and society: functional, conflict, and interactional (for a full discussion of these theories, see
Sadovnik, 2011b).
Functionalist Theories
Functionalist sociologists begin with a picture of society that stresses the interdependence of the
social system; these researchers often examine how well the parts are integrated with each other.
Functionalists view society as a kind of machine, where one part articulates with another to produce
the dynamic energy required to make society work. Perhaps the earliest sociologist to embrace a
functionalist point of view about the relation of school and society was Emile Durkheim
(1858–1917), who virtually invented the sociology of education in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. His major works include Moral Education (1962), The Evolution of Educational
Thought (1977), and Education and Sociology (1956). While Durkheim recognized that education
had taken different forms at different times and places, he believed that education, in virtually
all societies, was of critical importance in creating the moral unity necessary for social cohesion
and harmony. For Durkheim, moral values were the foundation of society.
Durkheim’s emphasis on values and cohesion set the tone for how present-day functionalists
approach the study of education. Functionalists tend to assume that consensus is the normal state
in society and that conflict represents a breakdown of shared values. In a highly integrated, well-
functioning society, schools socialize students into the appropriate values, and sort and select
students according to their abilities. Educational reform, then, from a functionalist point of view,
is supposed to create structures, programs, and curricula that are technically advanced, rational,
and encourage social unity. It should be evident that most U.S. educators and educational reformers
implicitly base their reform suggestions on functionalist theories of schooling. When, for example,
A Nation at Risk was released in 1983, the argument was made by the authors of the report that
schools were responsible for a whole host of social and economic problems. There was no suggestion
that perhaps education might not have the power to overcome deep, social, and economic problems
without changing other aspects of U.S. society.
Conflict Theories
Not all sociologists of education believe that society is held together by shared values alone. Some
sociologists argue that the social order is not based on some collective agreement, but on the
ability of dominant groups to impose their will on subordinate groups through force, cooptation,
and manipulation. In this view, the glue of society is economic, political, cultural, and military
power. Ideologies or intellectual justifications created by the powerful are designed to enhance
their position by legitimizing inequality and the unequal distribution of material and cultural goods
as an inevitable outcome of biology or history. Clearly, conflict sociologists do not see the relation
between school and society as unproblematic or straightforward. Whereas functionalists emphasize
cohesion in explaining social order, conflict sociologists emphasize struggle. From a conflict point
of view, schools are similar to social battlefields, where students struggle against teachers, teachers
against administrators, and so on. These antagonisms, however, are most often muted for two
reasons: the authority and power of the school and the achievement ideology. In effect, the achieve-
ment ideology convinces students and teachers that schools promote learning, and sort and select
students according to their abilities and not according to their social status. In this view, the
achievement ideology disguises the real power relations within the school, which, in turn, reflect
and correspond to the power relations within the larger society (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).
Although Karl Marx (1818–1883) did not write a great deal about education specifically, he
is the intellectual founder of the conflict school in the sociology of education. His analytic
imagination and moral outrage were sparked by the social conditions found in Europe in the
mid-nineteenth century. Industrialization and urbanization had produced a new class of workers—
the proletariat—who lived in poverty, worked up to 18 hours a day, and had little, if any, hope
of creating a better life for their children. Marx believed that the class system, which separated
owners from workers and workers from the benefits of their own labor, made class struggle
inevitable. He believed that, in the end, the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the capitalists,
and, in doing so, establish a new society where men and women would no longer be alienated
from their labor.
Marx’s powerful and often compelling critique of early capitalism has provided the intellectual
energy for subsequent generations of liberal and leftist thinkers who believe that the only way to
a more just and productive society is the abolition or modification of capitalism and the
introduction of socialism. Political economists Bowles and Gintis, in their book Schooling in
Capitalist America (1976), used a Marxist perspective for examining the growth of the U.S. public
school. To their minds, there is a direct correspondence between the organization of schools and
the organization of society, and, until society is fundamentally changed, there is little hope of
real school reform. It has been argued by other conflict sociologists of education, however, that
traditional Marxism is too deterministic and overlooks the power of culture and human agency
in promoting change.
An early conflict sociologist who took a slightly different theoretical orientation when viewing
society was Max Weber (1864–1920). Like Marx, Weber was convinced that power relations
between dominant and subordinate groups structured societies, but, unlike Marx, Weber believed
that class differences alone could not capture the complex ways human beings form hierarchies
and belief systems that make these hierarchies seem just and inevitable. Thus, Weber examined
status cultures as well as class position as an important sociological concept, because it alerts one
to the fact that people identify their group by what they consume and with whom they socialize.
Weber also recognized that political and military power could be exercised by the state, without
direct reference to the wishes of the dominant classes. Moreover, Weber had an acute and critical
awareness of how bureaucracy was becoming the dominant type of authority in the modern state
and how bureaucratic ways of thinking were bound to shape educational reforms. Weber made
the distinction between the “specialist” and the “cultivated” man. What should be the goal of
education—training individuals for employment or for thinking? Or are these two goals compatible?
The Weberian approach to studying the relation between school and society has developed
into a compelling and informative tradition of sociological research. Researchers in this tradition
tend to analyze school organizations and processes from the point of view of status competition
and organizational constraints. One of the first U.S. sociologists of education to use these concepts
was Willard Waller. In The Sociology of Teaching (1965), Waller portrayed schools as autocracies
in a state of “perilous equilibrium.” Without continuous vigilance, schools would erupt into anarchy
because students are essentially forced to go to school against their will. To Waller’s mind, rational
models of school organization only disguise the inherent tension that pervades the schooling
process. Waller’s perspective is shared by many contemporary conflict theorists who see schools
as oppressive and demeaning, and portray student noncompliance with school rules as a form of
resistance.
Another major research tradition that has emerged from the Weberian school of thought is
represented by Randall Collins (1971, 1979), who has maintained that educational expansion
is best explained by status group struggle. He argued that educational credentials, such as college
diplomas, are primarily status symbols rather than indicators of actual achievement. The rise
of credentialism does not indicate that society is becoming more expert, but that education is
increasingly used by dominant groups to secure more advantageous places for themselves and their
children within the occupation and social structure.
A variation of conflict theory that has captured the imagination of some U.S. sociologists began
in France and England during the 1960s. Unlike most Marxists who tend to emphasize the
economic structure of society, cultural reproduction theorists, such as Bourdieu and Passeron
(1977), examined how “cultural capital”—knowledge and experiences related to art, music, and
literature—and “social capital”—social networks and connections—are passed on by families and
schools. The concepts of cultural and social capital are important because they suggest that, in
understanding the transmission of inequalities, one ought to recognize that the cultural and social
characteristics of individuals and groups are significant indicators of status and class position. More
recently, Lareau (2003, 2011) provided an application of Bourdieu to the understanding of how
social class differences in social capital within family and their relationship to child rearing and
schooling contribute to the reproduction of social and educational inequalities. Finally, the work
of Basil Bernstein (1977, 1990, 1996) analyzed how communication, family, and educational codes
(patterns and processes that create meaning and understanding) also contribute to social and
educational inequalities.
A growing body of literature suggests that schools pass on to graduates specific social identities
that either enhance or hinder their life chances. For example, a graduate from an elite prep. school
has educational and social advantages over many public school graduates in terms of college
attendance and occupational mobility. This advantage has very little to do with what prep. school
students learn in school, and a great deal to do with the power of their schools’ reputations for
educating members of the upper class. The theories of Bourdieu and Passeron extend the work
of other sociologists who have argued persuasively that human culture cannot be understood as
an isolated and self-contained object of study but must be examined as part of a larger social and
cultural structure. To understand the impact of culture on the lives of individuals and groups, one
must understand the meanings that are attributed to cultural experiences by those who participate
in them (Mannheim, 1952).
The conflict perspective, then, offers important insights about the relation between school and
society. As you think about schools and education, we hope that you will utilize functional and
conflict theoretical perspectives as a way of organizing your readings and perceptions. Before we
turn from theory to more empirical issues about students and schools, there is a theoretical
perspective that ought not to be overlooked.
Interactionist Theories
Interactionist theories about the relation of school and society are primarily critiques and extensions
of the functionalist and conflict perspectives. The critique arises from the observation that func-
tionalist and conflict theories are very abstract, and emphasize structure and process at a very
general (macrosociological) level of analysis. Although this level of analysis helps in understanding
education in the “big picture,” macrosociological theories hardly provide an interpretable snapshot
of what schools are like on an everyday level. What do students and teachers actually do in school?
Interactionist theories attempt to make the commonplace strange by turning on their heads every-
day taken-for-granted behaviors and interactions between students and students, and between
students and teachers. It is exactly what one does not question that is most problematic at a deep
level. For example, the processes by which students are labeled gifted or learning disabled are,
from an interactional point of view, important to analyze, because such processes carry with them
many implicit assumptions about learning and children. By examining the microsociological or
the interactional aspects of school life, people are less likely to create theories that are logical
and eloquent, but without meaningful content.
Some of the sociology of education’s most brilliant theorists have attempted to synthesize the
macro- and microsociological approaches. Basil Bernstein (1990), for instance, has argued that
the structural aspects of the educational system and the interactional aspects of the system reflect
each other and must be viewed wholistically. He has examined how speech patterns reflect students’
social class backgrounds and how students from working-class backgrounds are at a disadvantage
in the school setting because schools are essentially middle-class organizations. Bernstein has
combined a class analysis with an interactionist analysis, which links language with educational
processes and outcomes.
In this section, we have tried to give you a sense of how theory can be used to explain the
relation between school and society. These theories provide background metaphors and analytic
focuses for the work of sociologists. We turn now to some specific areas of research that have
interested sociologists of education for many years.
Effects of Schooling on Individuals

Do schools matter? This provocative question is one that most people feel they have already
answered. It is safe to say that most Americans believe that schools have a significant impact on
learning and on social and economic mobility. In this section, we examine some of the effects of
schooling on individuals to see what the relative importance of schooling is in terms of what
people learn, employment, job performance, income, and mobility.
Knowledge and Attitudes

It may be surprising to learn that sociologists of education disagree strongly about the relative
importance of schooling in terms of what knowledge and attitudes young people acquire in school.
Nobody argues that schools have no impact on student development, but there are sharp divisions
among researchers about how significant school effects are, when taking into account students’
social class background. Generally, it is found that the higher the social class background of the
student, the higher his or her achievement level. According to such researchers as Coleman and
colleagues (1966) and Jencks and colleagues (1972), differences between schools account for very
little of the difference in student achievement. Is this true? Does this finding make sense of the
world as we know it? Does it make no difference whether a student attends a school in a wealthy
suburb or an underfinanced, overcrowded school in the inner city?
Actually, other research indicates that differences between schools in terms of their academic
programs and policies do make differences in student learning. One of the first researchers to show
that differences in schools are directly related to differences in student outcomes was Ron Edmonds
(1979a, 1979b), the pioneer of the effective schools movement. As mentioned earlier, the effective
schools research demonstrates that academically oriented schools do produce higher rates of
learning. More recent research, which compares public and private schools, also indicates that in
schools where students are compelled to take academic subjects and where there is consistent
discipline, student achievement levels go up. An important study by Heyns (1978) found that
sixth- and seventh-grade students who went to summer school, used the library, and read a great
deal in the summer made greater gains in knowledge than pupils who did not study in the summer.
Moreover, it has been found that the actual amount of time students spend in school is directly
related to how much they learn.
Other research has indicated that the more education individuals receive, the more likely they
are to read newspapers, books, and magazines, and to take part in politics and public affairs. More
highly educated people are also more likely to be liberal in their political and social attitudes.
Education is also related to individuals’ sense of well-being and self-esteem. Thus, it is clear that,
even taking into account the importance of individual social class background when evaluating
the impact of education, more years of schooling lead to greater knowledge and social participation.
Employment
Most students believe that graduating from college will lead to greater employment opportunities,
and they are right. In 1986, about 54 percent of the 8 million college graduates in the United
States entered professional and technical jobs. Research has shown that large organizations,
such as corporations, require high levels of education for white-collar, managerial, or administrative
jobs (Collins, 1971). In fact, as we discussed earlier, credential inflation has led to the expectation
among employers that their employees will have an ever-increasing amount of formal education.
But do well-educated employees actually do a better job? Surprisingly, most research has shown
that the amount of education is only weakly related to job performance. Berg (1970), for instance,
studied factory workers, maintenance workers, department store clerks, technicians, secretaries,
bank tellers, engineers, industrial research scientists, military personnel, and federal civil service
employees and found that the level of education was essentially unrelated to job performance.
From this evidence, it seems clear that schools act as gatekeepers in determining who will get
employed in high-status occupations, but schools do not provide significant job skills for their
graduates. People learn how to do their jobs by doing them, which is not so surprising.
The economic and social worth of an academic credential, however, cannot be fully measured
by examining its effects on job performance. Perhaps because academic credentials help individuals
to obtain higher-status jobs early in their careers, possession of a college degree is significantly
related to higher income. In 2015, high school graduates earned, on average, $34,256; college
graduates earned $59,124 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). Among household heads at all
levels of education, women earned less than men. Women with professional degrees, on average,
earned considerably less than men with college degrees. These differences are due to occupational
segregation by sex, pay discrimination, and the fact that women, more than men, take time off
or work part-time due to family commitments.
These general findings, however, mask a great deal of variation when examining the relation
between educational level and income level. According to some research, young black males who
are highly educated earn as much as their white male counterparts, but whether this remains true
across the life course remains to be seen. Many other factors besides education affect how much
income people earn in their lifetimes; these include type of employer, age, union membership,
and social class background. In fact, even the most thorough research cannot demonstrate that
more than one-third of income is directly attributable to level of education. So, getting a college
and professional degree is important for earning more money, but education alone does not fully
explain differences in levels of income.
Education and Mobility

The belief that occupational and social mobility begin at the schoolhouse door is a critical
component of the American ethos. As part of what might be termed civil religion, there is an
abiding faith among most Americans that education is the great equalizer in the “great status
race.” Of course, not everybody subscribes to this faith. In a fascinating study, MacLeod
(1995) found that working-class boys often reject the prevailing “attainment through education”
ethos by emphasizing their relative lack of economic and social mobility through cultural values
that glorify physical hardness, manual labor, and a certain sense of fatalism. In general, how-
ever, most Americans believe that more education leads to economic and social mobility;
individuals rise and fall based on their merit. Turner (1960) called this contest mobility. He
compared contest mobility in the United States to sponsored mobility in the United King-
dom, where students are selected at an early age for academic and university education and where
social class background is very important in determining who will receive academic or vocational
training.
In this regard, keep in mind another important distinction when thinking of education and
mobility. Hopper (1971) has made the point that there is a difference between educational amount
and educational route. That is, the number of years of education is one measure of educational
attainment, but where people go to school also affects their mobility. Private and public school
students may receive the same amount of education, but a private school diploma may act as a
“mobility escalator” because it represents a more prestigious educational route (Cookson & Persell,
1985).
The debate as to whether the public school is really the great equalizer has not been resolved.
For some groups, such as the middle class, increased education may be directly linked to upward
occupational mobility; for the poor and rich, education may have little to do with mobility. An
educational degree alone cannot lift many people out of poverty, and upper-class individuals do
not lose their social class position if they fail to achieve a high-status educational degree. In general,
the data do not support the belief that education alone provides individuals with great amounts
of economic and social mobility.
Rosenbaum (1976) has offered one suggestion as to why this may be the case. He likened
mobility to tournament selection, where winners are allowed to proceed to the next round of
competition, and losers are dropped from the competition. Players (students) can be eliminated,
but winners must still continue to compete. The problem with this tournament, however, is that
the criteria for winning and losing include a great many variables that are related to students’
social class, race, and gender characteristics, as well as merit variables, such as grade-point average
and SAT scores. The complex interplay between merit and privilege creates a tournament where
the rules are not entirely even-handed and not everyone has the opportunity to set the rules.
Without a doubt, the relation between education and mobility will continue to be debated among
scholars and policy makers. The popular belief that education opens the doors of opportunity,
however, is likely to remain firmly embedded in the American ethos.
Inside the Schools

How can the sociology of education help one to understand schools in terms of their objectives,
cultures, and how they shape students’ perceptions and expectations? In other words, how do
sociologists look at schools from an organizational point of view? How do such organizational
characteristics as curricula, teacher behaviors, and student peer groups shape learning and social
growth? Since most people are apt to think about learning and growth from a psychological
perspective, it is illuminating to stand back and speculate how school structures can also influence
student outcomes. Think of something as simple as school size. Larger schools can offer students
more in the way of facilities, but large schools are also more bureaucratic and may restrain initiative.
Smaller schools may allow more student and teacher freedom, but small schools often lack resources.
In general, schools are getting larger, if for no other reason than they are cost-effective. Whether
schools are large or small, however, the content of what they teach is a topic of important study.
Curriculum expresses culture. The question is, Whose culture? For some time, sociologists of
education have pointed out that curricula are not value free; they are expressions of certain
groups’ ideas, beliefs, and prejudices. Knowing something about the bias and viewpoints of those
who write curricula awakens one to the relativity of knowledge, and its social and cultural context.
As you know, not all students study the same curriculum. It is also a fact that curriculum
placement within schools has a direct impact on the probabilities of students attending college.
In 2000, approximately 47 percent of public high school students took what is called a college
preparatory course of study, which includes such subjects as English, history, science, math, and
foreign language; 10 percent took a vocational program and approximately 43 percent enrolled
in a general program, which combines such courses as English with accounting and clerical courses
(U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000a). In private
schools, virtually all students are enrolled in an academic curriculum. Research has shown that
curricular placement is the single biggest determinant of college attendance (Lee & Bryk, 1989;
Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993). For example, in 1992, there were significant differences among
white, black, Hispanic, and Asian high school students with regard to track placement. Some
46 percent of white students were in the college track, compared to 35 percent of black stu-
dents, 31 percent of Hispanic students, 51 percent of Asian students, and 23 percent of American-
Indian students. Some 11 percent of white students were in the vocational track; compared to
15 percent of black students, 13 percent of Hispanic students, 9 percent of Asian students, and
17 percent of American-Indian students. Some 43 percent of white students were in the general
track, compared to 49 percent of black students, 56 percent of Hispanic students, 40 percent of
Asian students, and 61 percent of American-Indian students (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Educational Statistics, 1997a). In 2010, 16.9 percent of all students in the
United States scored a 3 or higher on an AP exam; however, only 3.9 percent of black students
scored a 3 or higher on at least one AP exam (Collegeboard, 2012). In 2015, white students scored
an average of 1539 on the three parts of the SAT; black students scored an average of 1277;
Hispanic students scored an average of 1359; and Asians scored an average of 1654 (Digest of
Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The degree to which these
differences are a result of differences in curriculum is an important sociological question to be
examined later in the book. We will have a great deal to say about curriculum later in this book,
but for now, it may be useful to underscore the importance of curriculum when studying schools
from a sociological perspective, especially in terms of cultural transmission and the selective
channelling of opportunity.
Teacher Behavior
It may seem obvious, but teachers have a huge impact on student learning and behavior.
Jackson (1968) found that teachers have as many as 1,000 interpersonal contacts each day with
children in their classrooms. Teachers are extremely busy people; they must also wear many
different occupational hats: instructor, disciplinarian, bureaucrat, employer, friend, confidant,
educator, and so on. Ingersoll (2004) supports these findings. These various roles sometimes are
compatible with each other, and sometimes they are not. This can lead to role strain, where such
conflicting demands are placed on teachers that they cannot feel totally comfortable in any role.
Could this be a cause of teacher burnout?
Clearly, teachers are models for students and, as instructional leaders, teachers set standards
for students and influence student self-esteem and sense of efficacy. In a fascinating study conducted
by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), teachers’ expectations of students were found to directly
influence student achievement. The researchers told some teachers in a California elementary
school that children in their classes were likely to have a mental growth spurt that year. In reality,
the intelligence test that the children had taken revealed nothing about their potential
achievement level. The students had been placed in their classes randomly. At the end of the
year, the researchers returned to school and gave another test to see which children had improved.
Although all the children improved somewhat, those labeled “spurters” made significantly greater
achievement gains than other children, especially in the first and second grades. Thus, the labels
that teachers apply to children can influence actual performance. This form of self-fulfilling prophecy
indicates that teachers’ expectations play a major role in encouraging or discouraging students to
work to their full potential.
Persell (1977) found that when teachers demanded more from their students and praised them
more, students learned more and felt better about themselves. Research indicates that many
teachers have lower expectations for minority and working-class students; this suggests that these
students may be trapped within a vicious cycle of low expectation–low achievement–low
expectation. In part, this cycle of failure may be responsible for high dropout rates and failure to
achieve at grade level. Of course, teachers cannot be held responsible for all the failures of
education; there are many nonpedagogic reasons why U.S. schools are failing to educate so many
children. Teachers should not be scapegoated for society’s problems, but the findings on teacher
expectations do indicate that the attitudes of teachers toward their students may have a significant
influence on student achievement and perceptions of self. Also, it is important not to overlook
the fact that there are many outstanding teachers who are dedicated and inspirational, and who
have helped motivate students to do their best.
Student Peer Groups and Alienation

When you reflect on your high school and junior high experiences, you undoubtedly have strong
memories of your fellow students and the various social groups that they created. Almost nobody
wants to be labeled a “nerd,” and in most schools, the student culture idealizes athletic ability,
looks, and that detached style that indicates “coolness.” In a sense, the adult culture of the teachers
and administrators is in conflict with the student culture. This conflict can lead to alienation and
even violence.
Stinchcombe (1964) found, for instance, that students in vocational programs and headed toward
low-status jobs were the students most likely to join a rebellious subculture. In fact, student violence
continues to be a problem. Students are not only attacking each other in increasing numbers but
they are also assaulting teachers. The number of beatings, rapes, and even murders that are
perpetrated against teachers has become something of a national scandal, but compared to what
students do to each other, the danger for teachers is minimal. Some argue that school violence is
increasing because teachers are underpaid and classes are too large. This may explain some of the
violence, but it certainly does not explain all of it. A hundred years ago, teachers taught for little
money and had class sizes double or triple present-day standards and there was little school violence.
In today’s culture, violence is far more acceptable, even glorified in the popular media. Being “bad”
is misconstrued as being tough and smart. School children are bombarded with imaginary and actual
violence in their homes, in their schools, and on the streets. It has been estimated that by the time
the average child is 12 years old, he or she has been exposed to 18,000 television murders.
Student subcultures continue to be important after high school. There are four major types of
college students: careerists, intellectuals, strivers, and unconnected. Careerists generally came from
middle- and upper middle-class backgrounds, won few academic honors, lost confidence during
college, and were not intellectually motivated by their experience. Intellectuals usually came from
highly educated families, studied in the humanities, were politically involved, and earned many
academic honors. Strivers very often had a working-class background, came from ethnic or racial
minorities, worked hard, often did not have a high grade-point average, but graduated with a real
sense of accomplishment. The unconnected came from all backgrounds, participated in few
extracurricular activities, and were the least satisfied among all the groups with their college
experience.
It should be evident, then, that student cultures play an important role in shaping students’
educational experiences. We also hope that it is evident to you that looking within school from
a sociological perspective can be very illuminating. Schools are far more than mere collections
of individuals; they develop cultures, traditions, and restraints that profoundly influence those
who work and study within them. They socialize and sort and select students and, in doing so,
reproduce society. In the next section, we examine an issue of critical importance: How do schools
reproduce social, cultural, and economic inequalities?
Education and Inequality

Suppose we asked you to draw a picture of American society. How would it look? Like a circle?
A square? A shapeless blob? Let’s rephrase this question a bit. In terms of the distribution of income,
power, and property, would you say that the shape of American society is flat? Probably not. Most
of us know that income, power, and property are unevenly distributed in society. There are the
“haves” and the “have-nots.” Thinking figuratively again, most of us would agree that the economic
and social structure of the U.S. population resembles a triangle where most of the people can be
found at the base.
In the United States, there are essentially five classes: the upper class, with 1–3 percent of the
total U.S. population; the upper middle class, with 10–15 percent of the population; the lower middle
class, with 25 percent of the population; the working class, with 40 percent of the population; and
the lower or underclass, with 20 percent of the population. The distribution of income, power,
and property among these classes is highly uneven. The top fifth of the U.S. population owns
three-fourths of the nation’s wealth, whereas the remaining four-fifths own only one-fourth of
the wealth (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998, 2003a). The bottom fifth own less than 0.2 percent
of the nation’s wealth. In 1987, the top fifth of U.S. families earned 43.7 percent of all income,
whereas the bottom fifth earned 4.6 percent of the income. Moreover, by 1998, income differences
became wider and the United States increasingly became a bipolar society of great wealth, great
poverty, and an ever-shrinking middle class (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998, 2003a). In 2009,
the top fifth of U.S. families earned 50.3 percent of all income, whereas the bottom fifth earned
3.4 percent of the income (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2012). The degree of inequality has become
larger since the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent recovery, with the top 1% receiving
the largest portion of the wealth and income since the 1920s. With the election of a billionaire
president Donald J. Trump and his cabinet filled with billionaires and millionaires it may lead to
greater inequality, given their proposals to greatly cut taxes on the wealthy and businesses.
Social class differences are not only reflected in differences in income but in other social charac-
teristics such as education, family and child-rearing practices, occupation, place of residence,
political involvement, health, consumer behavior, and religious belief. In short, if you know a
family’s or individual’s class position, you have a good idea about their life-style and life chances.
Moreover, class influences what people think, by shaping the way in which they think. Class position
creates selective perception which, in turn, creates a world view that “explains” inequalities.
Ideology, then, grows out of the class system and reinforces the class system through beliefs that
justify or condemn the status quo. Those who are oppressed by the class system may resist and revolt,
and those who benefit usually cooperate with and defend the current form of social stratification.
People, however, are not just stratified by class; they are also stratified by race, ethnicity, age,
and gender. In short, Americans live in a hierarchical society where mobility is blocked because
of structural inequalities that have little or nothing to do with individuals’ merits or abilities.
For some time, sociologists have speculated and argued about whether schools mitigate social
inequalities by providing opportunities for those who would not normally have them. Can schools
create a more open society? This is a topic of immense importance and complexity. In later chapters,
we will examine this issue in depth; for now, however, it might be useful to review some of the
major ways that schools help transmit social and economic inequalities.
Inadequate Schools
Perhaps the most obvious way that schools reproduce inequalities is through inadequate schools.
We have already discussed the crisis in U.S. education and how numerous critics of contemporary
schooling have pointed out that the way in which children are educated today will not prepare them
for productive and fulfilling lives in the future. Urban education, in particular, has failed
to educate minority and poor children. Moreover, differences between schools and school systems
reinforce existing inequalities. Students who attend suburban schools and private schools get a better
educational experience than other children (Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982). Students who
attend the most elite private schools obtain substantial educational benefits, both in terms of their
actual educational experience and the social value of their diplomas (Cookson & Persell, 1985).
Tracking
There is compelling evidence that within-school tracking has a critical impact on student mobility
(Lucas, 2002; Oakes, 1985, 2005; Tyson, 2011). In principle, tracking refers to the placement of
students in curricular programs based on students’ abilities and inclinations. In reality, it has been
found in many thorough studies that tracking decisions are often based on other criteria, such as
students’ class or race. By and large, working-class students end up in vocational tracks and middle-
class students in academic tracks. Studies have shown that students placed in “high-ability” tracks
spend more time on actual teaching and learning activities; are able to use more interesting
materials; and consistently receive better teachers, better laboratory facilities, and more
extracurricular activities than do their lower-track peers (Oakes, 1985; Goodlad, 1984). Moreover,
track placement directly affects cognitive development (Rosenbaum, 1976). Students in lower
tracks experience more alienation and authoritarian teachers than high-track students.
De Facto Segregation
Another important way that schools reinforce (even create) inequalities, particularly racial and
ethnic inequalities, is through de facto segregation. In the previous chapter, we discussed in some
depth the effects of segregated schools on student achievement, not to mention the issue of basic
rights and equities. Although this issue is far from resolved, most of the evidence indicates that
racially mixed schools benefit minorities and do not suppress white achievement. One study found
that blacks from low-income communities who attended racially mixed schools were more likely
to graduate from high school and college than similar black children who attended segregated
schools. Moreover, black students who attended integrated schools were less likely to be arrested
by the police, more likely to live in desegregated neighborhoods, and women were less likely to
have a child before the age of 18. Thus, racial integration at the school level seems to be beneficial
to minority students, and there is no conclusive evidence that majority students are harmed by
integration.
The issue of segregation, or resegregation, will be with society for a long time, if for no other
reason than most people live in racially segregated neighborhoods. Groups and individuals
who believe that students should be allowed to choose the schools they wish to attend argue that
school choice will break down the barriers to integration created by racially segregated
neighborhoods. Whether school choice would really end segregation is still very debatable;
certainly, the historical evidence from the South during the 1960s and 1970s is not reassuring.
During this period, white families set up their own academies in order to avoid racially integrated
public schools. More recent evidence indicates that following a number of court decisions,
including Swan v. Charlotte Mecklenburg and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School
District No. 1, have resulted in significant resegregation, a pattern representative of the country
(UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012; Mickelson, Smith and Nelson, 2015). In addition, the evidence
on school choice indicates that it has often resulted in segregated rather than integrated schools
(UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012).
Gender
Another way that schools reproduce inequalities is through gender discrimination. Men and women
do not share equally in U.S. society. Men are frequently paid more than women for the same
work, and women, in general, have fewer occupational opportunities than men. Although this
gender gap has been somewhat reduced for middle- and upper-middle-class women in the last
decade, inequalities persist, particularly for working-class and lower-class women. How do schools
perpetuate this problem?
Although girls usually start school cognitively and socially ahead of boys, by the end of high
school, girls have lower self-esteem and lower aspirations than do boys. Somewhere during the
high school years, in particular, girls begin to show signs of not living up to their potential. Is it
the gender composition of the faculty and staff that influences girls to lower their aspirations?
Most teachers are female, whereas most administrators are male; could this be sending a
subliminal message to girls that they are somehow subordinate to men? Do teachers treat boys
and girls differently by stereotyping them by behavior? Are girls supposed to be “nice” and
“feminine” while boys are allowed to act out and gain the center of attention? Studies do show
that boys get more teacher attention (good and bad) than girls.
Traditionally, textbooks have been biased against women by ignoring their accomplishments
and social contributions. Until very recently, there was little discussion in textbooks of sexism or
gender bias. Discrimination need not always be overt. Often, gender bias is subtle; for instance,
women go to college at higher rates than men, but they often go to two-year colleges or to less
academically prestigious institutions.
Over the past two decades, however, the gender gap in academic achievement has all but
disappeared, with female students outperforming males in language arts and social studies, and
closing the gap significantly in mathematics, sciences, and having higher college attendance rates,
albeit much lower participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
disciplines (Arnot, David, & Weiner, 1999; Borman, Tyson, & Halperin, 2010; Buchmann, 2009;
Buchmann, DiPrete, & McDaniel, 2008; Legewie and DiPrete, 2014).
Thus, schools are active organizational agents in recreating gender inequalities. However, schools
alone should not be held accountable for gender discrimination. This form of social stratification
is rooted in the values and organization of society; schools in some ways only reflect these societal
problems. This is not to say that educators intend to reproduce class, ethnic, racial, and gender
inequalities, but the consequences of certain school policies and processes may reproduce these
inequalities. Moreover, there is some evidence that for middle-class students, schooling does provide
a “channel of attainment.” In the main, however, the best evidence indicates that schools, despite
educators’ best intentions, tend to reproduce social inequalities. A major aspect of any meaningful
reform movement must address this issue if schools are really to open doors to equal opportunity.
Sociology and the Current Educational Crisis

To grasp the magnitude of the current crisis in U.S. education, it is essential to recognize that at
least one-third of the nation’s children are at risk at failing in school, even before they enter
kindergarten. Demographer Harold Hodgkinson (1991) described the condition of U.S. children
in stark and poignant terms. Since 1987, one-fourth of all preschool children in the United States
live in poverty. In 1990, approximately 350,000 children were born to mothers who were addicted
to cocaine during pregnancy. Some 15 million children are being reared by single mothers whose
family income averages about $11,400 a year. At least 2 million school-age children have no adult
supervision after school, and every night between 50,000 and 200,000 children have no home.
In 2015, 43.5 million people lived in poverty, which represented 13.5% of the U.S. population
(United States Census Bureau, 2015). As of 2015, there were 15 million children from families
living in poverty and an additional 31.9 million children from low-income families. How can
schools help children to become productive and happy adults when so many children begin life
with such severe disadvantages?
The sociological imagination helps one understand what is and what can be when one tries
to imagine schools and school systems that meet the challenges that are facing today’s children
and young adults. The current educational crisis is complex, and solutions to the pressing problems
are difficult to find. But people should not despair; we need to begin the work of reconstructing
U.S. education. Sociologists ask the tough questions about schools and they search for answers
by collecting data. Sometimes the data support preconceived beliefs, sometimes they do not. In
either case, sociologists are committed to finding out the truth about the relationship between
school and society, and it is this truth-seeking activity that is most likely to lead to meeting the
challenges facing education today.
The following selections illustrate the sociological imagination applied to educational problems.
The articles address important issues concerning the relationship between school and society and
illustrate Persell’s model of the levels of sociological analysis. The first article, “The School Class
as a Social System: Some of Its Functions in American Society,” by the late sociologist Talcott
Parsons provides the classic statement of the functionalist theory of education.
The second selection, written by sociologist Ray C. Rist, “On Understanding the Processes of
Schooling: The Contributions of Labeling Theory,” provides an illustration of the interpretive
or interactionist perspective. Rist demonstrates how labeling theory provides a useful tool for
understanding what goes on inside schools. The interactionist perspective, as Rist suggests, is an
alternative to the more structural approaches of functionalism and conflict theory.
The third selection, “The Politics of Culture: Understanding Local Political Resistance to
Detracking in Racially Mixed Schools,” written by sociologists Amy Stuart Wells and Irene Serna,
examines how affluent parents resist detracking policies. This article illustrates the ways in which
conflict theory and interaction theory, used together, help us understand how power and privilege
affect school practices and policies.
The School Class as a Social System: Some

of Its Functions in American Society*
Talcott Parsons
This essay will attempt to outline, if only sketch- upper elementary grades, the pupil works on
ily, an analysis of the elementary and secondary different subjects under different teachers; here
school class as a social system, and the relation the complex of classes participated in by the same
of its structure to its primary functions in the pupil is the significant unit for our purposes.
society as an agency of socialization and allo-
cation. While it is important that the school class
The Problem: Socialization and
is normally part of the larger organization of a
Selection
school, the class rather than the whole school will
be the unit of analysis here, for it is recognized Our main interest, then, is in a dual problem: first
both by the school system and by the individual of how the school class functions to internal-
pupil as the place where the “business” of formal ize in its pupils both the commitments and
education actually takes place. In elementary capacities for successful performance of their
schools, pupils of one grade are typically placed future adult roles, and second of how it functions
in a single “class” under one main teacher, but in to allocate these human resources within the
the secondary school, and sometimes in the role-structure of the adult society. The primary
ways in which these two problems are inter- it is, from the point of view of the society, an
related will provide our main points of reference. agency of “manpower” allocation. It is well
First, from the functional point of view the known that in American society there is a very
school class can be treated as an agency of social- high, and probably increasing, correlation
ization. That is to say, it is an agency through between one’s status level in the society and
which individual personalities are trained to be one’s level of educational attainment. Both
motivationally and technically adequate to the social status and educational level are obviously
performance of adult roles. It is not the sole such related to the occupational status which is
agency; the family, informal “peer groups,” attained. Now, as a result of the general process
churches, and sundry voluntary organizations all of both educational and occupational upgrad-
play a part, as does actual on-the-job training. ing, completion of high school is increasingly
But, in the period extending from entry into first coming to be the norm for minimum satisfactory
grade until entry into the labor force or marriage, educational attainment, and the most significant
the school class may be regarded as the focal line for future occupational status has come to be
socializing agency. drawn between members of an age-cohort who
The socialization function may be summed up do and do not go to college.
as the development in individuals of the com- We are interested, then, in what it is about the
mitments and capacities which are essential school class in our society that determines the
prerequisites of their future role-performance. distinction between the contingents of the age-
Commitments may be broken down in turn into cohort which do and do not go to college.
two components: commitment to the imple- Because of a tradition of localism and a rather
mentation of the broad values of society, and pragmatic pluralism, there is apparently consider-
commitment to the performance of a specific type able variety among school systems of various cities
of role within the structure of society. Thus a and states. Although the situation in metro-
person in a relatively humble occupation politan Boston probably represents a more highly
may be a “solid citizen” in the sense of commit- structured pattern than in many other parts of the
ment to honest work in that occupation, without country, it is probably not so extreme as to be
an intensive and sophisticated concern with the misleading in its main features. There, though of
implementation of society’s higher-level values. course actual entry into college does not come
Or conversely, someone else might object to the until after graduation from high school, the
anchorage of the feminine role in marriage and main dividing line is between those who are and
the family on the grounds that such anchorage are not enrolled in the college preparatory course
keeps society’s total talent resources from being in high school; there is only a small amount of
distributed equitably to business, government, shifting either way after about the ninth grade
and so on. Capacities can also be broken down when the decision is normally made. Further-
into two components, the first being competence more, the evidence seems to be that by far the
or the skill to perform the tasks involved in the most important criterion of selection is the
individual’s roles, and the second being “role- record of school performance in elementary
responsibility” or the capacity to live up to other school. These records are evaluated by teachers
people’s expectations of the interpersonal and principals, and there are few cases of entering
behavior appropriate to these roles. Thus a the college preparatory course against their
mechanic as well as a doctor needs to have not advice. It is therefore not stretching the evidence
only the basic “skills of his trade,” but also the too far to say broadly that the primary selective
ability to behave responsibly toward those people process occurs through differential school
with whom he is brought into contact in his work. performance in elementary school, and that the
While on the one hand, the school class “seal” is put on it in junior high school.1
may be regarded as a primary agency by which The evidence also is that the selective pro-
these different components of commitments cess is genuinely assortative. As in virtually all
and capacities are generated, on the other hand, comparable processes, ascriptive as well as
achieved factors influence the outcome. In this is the child’s first major step out of primary
case, the ascriptive factor is the socio-economic involvement in his family of orientation. Within
status of the child’s family, and the factor under- the family certain foundations of his motivatio-
lying his opportunity for achievement is his nal system have been laid down. But the only
individual ability. In the study of 3,348 Boston characteristic fundamental to later roles which
high school boys on which these generalizations has clearly been “determined” and psycho-
are based, each of these factors was quite highly logically stamped in by that time is sex role. The
correlated with planning college. For example, postoedipal child enters the system of formal
the percentages planning college, by father’s education clearly categorized as boy or girl, but
occupation, were: 12 per cent for semi-skilled beyond that his role is not yet differentiated. The
and unskilled, 19 per cent for skilled, 26 per cent process of selection, by which persons will select
for minor white collar, 52 per cent for middle and be selected for categories of roles, is yet to
white collar, and 80 per cent for major white take place.
collar. Likewise, intentions varied by ability On grounds which cannot be gone into here,
(as measured by IQ), namely, 11 per cent for the it may be said that the most important single
lowest quintile, 17 per cent for the next, 24 per predispositional factor with which the child
cent for the middle, 30 per cent for the next enters the school is his level of independence. By
to the top, and 52 per cent for the highest. It this is meant his level of self-sufficiency relative
should be noted also that within any ability to guidance by adults, his capacity to take res-
quintile, the relationship of plans to father’s ponsibility and to make his own decisions in
occupation is seen. For example, within the very coping with new and varying situations. This,
important top quintile in ability as measured, the like his sex role, he has as a function of his
range in college intentions was from 29 per cent experience in the family.
for sons of laborers to 89 per cent for sons of The family is a collectivity within which the
major white collar persons.2 basic status-structure is ascribed in terms of
The essential points here seem to be that biological position, that is, by generation,
there is a relatively uniform criterion of selection sex, and age. There are inevitably differences
operating to differentiate between the college of performance relative to these, and they are
and the non-college contingents, and that for a rewarded and punished in ways that contribute
very important part of the cohort the operation to differential character formation. But these
of this criterion is not a “put-up job”—it is not differences are not given the sanction of insti-
simply a way of affirming a previously determined tutionalized social status. The school is the first
ascriptive status. To be sure, the high-status, socializing agency in the child’s experience
high-ability boy is very likely indeed to go to which institutionalizes a differentiation of status
college, and the low-status, low-ability boy is very on nonbiological bases. Moreover, this is not an
unlikely to go. But the “cross-pressured” group for ascribed but an achieved status; it is the status
whom these two factors do not coincide3 is of “earned” by differential performance of the
considerable importance. tasks set by the teacher, who is acting as an agent
Considerations like these lead me to conclude of the community’s school system. Let us look at
that the main process of differentiation (which the structure of this situation.
from another point of view is selection) that
occurs during elementary school takes place
The Structure of the Elementary
on a single main axis of achievement. Broadly,
School Class
moreover, the differentiation leads up through
high school to a bifurcation into college-goers In accord with the generally wide variability
and non-college-goers. of American institutions, and of course the
To assess the significance of this pattern, let basically local control of school systems, there
us look at its place in the socialization of the indi- is considerable variability of school situations,
vidual. Entering the system of formal education but broadly they have a single relatively well-
marked framework.4 Particularly in the primary important kind of variation is that between
part of the elementary grades, i.e., the first three relatively “traditional” schools and relatively
grades, the basic pattern includes one main “progressive” schools. The more traditional
teacher for the class, who teaches all subjects and schools put more emphasis on discrete units of
who is in charge of the class generally. Some- subject-matter, whereas the progressive type
times this early, and frequently in later grades, allows more “indirect” teaching through
other teachers are brought in for a few special “projects” and broader topical interests where
subjects, particularly gym, music, and art, but this more than one bird can be killed with a stone.
does not alter the central position of the main In progressive schools there is more emphasis on
teacher. This teacher is usually a woman.5 The groups of pupils working together, compared to
class is with this one teacher for the school year, the traditional direct relation of the individual
but usually no longer. pupil to the teacher. This is related to the pro-
The class, then, is composed of about 25 age- gressive emphasis on co-operation among the
peers of both sexes drawn from a relatively small pupils rather than direct competition, to greater
geographical area—the neighborhood. Except permissiveness as opposed to strictness of dis-
for sex in certain respects, there is initially no cipline, and to a de-emphasis on formal marking.6
formal basis for differentiation of status within In some schools one of these components will be
the school class. The main structural differ- more prominent, and in others, another. That
entiation develops gradually, on the single main it is, however, an important range of variation
axis indicated above as achievement. That the is clear. It has to do, I think, very largely with the
differentiation should occur on a single main independence-dependence training which is
axis is insured by four primary features of the so important to early socialization in the family.
situation. The first is the initial equalization My broad interpretation is that those people
of the “contestants’” status by age and by “family who emphasize independence training will tend
background,” the neighborhood being typically to be those who favor relatively progressive
much more homogeneous than is the whole education. The relation of support for progressive
society. The second circumstance is the imposi- education to relatively high socio-economic
tion of a common set of tasks which is, compared status and to “intellectual” interests and the like
to most other task-areas, strikingly undiffer- is well known. There is no contradiction between
entiated. The school situation is far more like a these emphases both on independence and on
race in this respect than most role-performance co-operation and group solidarity among pupils.
situations. Third, there is the sharp polarization In the first instance this is because the main focus
between the pupils in their initial equality and of the independence problem at these ages is
the single teacher who is an adult and “represents” vis-à-vis adults. However, it can also be said
the adult world. And fourth, there is a relatively that the peer group, which here is built into the
systematic process of evaluation of the pupils’ school class, is an indirect field of expression of
performances. From the point of view of a dependency needs, displaced from adults.
pupil, this evaluation, particularly (though not The second set of qualifications concerns the
exclusively) in the form of report card marks, “informal” aspects of the school class, which are
constitutes reward and/or punishment for past always somewhat at variance with the formal
performance; from the viewpoint of the school expectations. For instance, the formal pattern of
system acting as an allocating agency, it is a basis nondifferentiation between the sexes may be
of selection for future status in society. modified informally, for the very salience of the
Two important sets of qualifications need to one-sex peer group at this age period means that
be kept in mind in interpreting this structural there is bound to be considerable implicit recog-
pattern, but I think these do not destroy the signi- nition of it—for example, in the form of teachers’
ficance of its main outline. The first qualification encouraging group competition between boys and
is for variations in the formal organization and girls. Still, the fact of coeducation and the
procedures of the school class itself. Here the most attempt to treat both sexes alike in all the crucial
formal respects remain the most important. may, as was mentioned earlier, be broken down
Another problem raised by informal organization into two main components. One of these is the
is the question of how far teachers can and more purely “cognitive” learning of information,
do treat pupils particularistically in violation of skills, and frames of reference associated with
the universalistic expectations of the school. empirical knowledge and technological mastery.
When compared with other types of formal The written language and the early phases of
organizations, however, I think the extent of this mathematical thinking are clearly vital; they
discrepancy in elementary schools is seen to be involve cognitive skills at altogether new levels
not unusual. The school class is structured so that of generality and abstraction compared to those
opportunity for particularistic treatment is commanded by the pre-school child. With these
severely limited. Because there are so many more basic skills goes assimilation of much factual
children in a school class than in a family and they information about the world.
are concentrated in a much narrower age range, The second main component is what may
the teacher has much less chance than does a broadly be called a “moral” one. In earlier gener-
parent to grant particularistic favors. ations of schooling this was known as “deport-
Bearing in mind these two sets of quali- ment.” Somewhat more generally it might be
fications, it is still fair, I think, to conclude that called responsible citizenship in the school
the major characteristics of the elementary community. Such things as respect for the
school class in this country are such as have been teacher, consideration and co-operativeness in
outlined. It should be especially emphasized that relation to fellow-pupils, and good “work-habits”
more or less progressive schools, even with their are the fundamentals, leading on to capacity for
relative lack of emphasis on formal marking, do “leadership” and “initiative.”
not constitute a separate pattern, but rather a The striking fact about this achievement
variant tendency within the same pattern. A content is that in the elementary grades these
progressive teacher, like any other, will form two primary components are not clearly dif-
opinions about the different merits of her pupils ferentiated from each other. Rather, the pupil is
relative to the values and goals of the class and evaluated in diffusely general terms; a good pupil
will communicate these evaluations to them, is defined in terms of a fusion of the cognitive and
informally if not formally. It is my impression the moral components, in which varying weight
that the extremer cases of playing down relative is given to one or the other. Broadly speaking,
evaluation are confined to those upper-status then, we may say that the “high achievers” of the
schools where going to a “good” college is so fully elementary school are both the “bright” pupils,
taken for granted that for practical purposes it is who catch on easily to their more strictly
an ascribed status. In other words, in interpreting intellectual tasks, and the more “responsible”
these facts the selective function of the school pupils, who “behave well” and on whom the
class should be kept continually in the forefront teacher can “count” in her difficult problems of
of attention. Quite clearly its importance has not managing the class. One indication that this is
been decreasing; rather the contrary. the case is the fact that in elementary school the
purely intellectual tasks are relatively easy for the
pupil of high intellectual ability. In many such
The Nature of School Achievement
cases, it can be presumed that the primary
What, now, of the content of the “achievement” challenge to the pupil is not to his intellectual,
expected of elementary school children? Perhaps but to his “moral,” capacities. On the whole, the
the best broad characterization which can be progressive movement seems to have leaned in
given is that it involves the types of performance the direction of giving enhanced emphasis to this
which are, on the one hand, appropriate to the component, suggesting that of the two, it has
school situation and, on the other hand, are felt tended to become the more problematical.7
by adults to be important in themselves. This The essential point, then, seems to be that
vague and somewhat circular characterization the elementary school, regarded in the light of
its socialization function, is an agency which activities; and to the school, on the other hand,
differentiates the school class broadly along a in that play periods and going to and from school
single continuum of achievement, the content of provide occasions for informal association, even
which is relative excellence in living up to the though organized extracurricular activities are
expectations imposed by the teacher as an agent introduced only later. Ways of bringing some
of the adult society. The criteria of this achieve- of this activity under another sort of adult
ment are, generally speaking, undifferentiated supervision are found in such organizations as the
into the cognitive or technical component and boy and girl scouts.
the moral or “social” component. But with res- Two sociological characteristics of peer groups
pect to its bearing on societal values, it is broadly at this age are particularly striking. One is the
a differentiation of levels of capacity to act in fluidity of their boundaries, with individual
accord with these values. Though the relation is children drifting into and out of associations. This
far from neatly uniform, this differentiation element of “voluntary association” contrasts
underlies the processes of selection for levels of strikingly with the child’s ascribed membership
status and role in the adult society. in the family and the school class, over which he
Next, a few words should be said about the has no control. The second characteristic is the
out-of-school context in which this process goes peer group’s sharp segregation by sex. To a
on. Besides the school class, there are clearly two striking degree this is enforced by the children
primary social structures in which the child themselves rather than by adults.
participates: the family and the child’s informal The psychological functions of peer asso-
“peer group.” ciation are suggested by these two characteris-
tics. On the one hand, the peer group may be
regarded as a field for the exercise of inde-
Family and Peer Group in
pendence from adult control; hence it is not
Relation to the School Class
surprising that it is often a focus of behavior
The school age child, of course, continues to live which goes beyond independence from adults to
in the parental household and to be highly the range of adult-disapproved behavior; when
dependent, emotionally as well as instrument- this happens, it is the seed bed from which the
ally, on his parents. But he is now spending extremists go over into delinquency. But another
several hours a day away from home, subject to very important function is to provide the child
a discipline and a reward system which are a source of non-adult approval and acceptance.
essentially independent of that administered by These depend on “technical” and “moral”
the parents. Moreover, the range of this inde- criteria as diffuse as those required in the school
pendence gradually increases. As he grows older, situation. On the one hand, the peer group is a
he is permitted to range further territorially with field for acquiring and displaying various types of
neither parental nor school supervision, and to “prowess”; for boys this is especially the physical
do an increasing range of things. He often gets prowess which may later ripen into athletic
an allowance for personal spending and begins to achievement. On the other hand, it is a matter
earn some money of his own. Generally, how- of gaining acceptance from desirable peers as
ever, the emotional problem of dependence– “belonging” in the group, which later ripens into
independence continues to be a very salient one the conception of the popular teen-ager, the
through this period, frequently with manifest- “right guy.” Thus the adult parents are aug-
ations by the child of compulsive independence. mented by age-peers as a source of rewards for
Concomitantly with this, the area for asso- performance and of security in acceptance.
ciation with age-peers without detailed adult The importance of the peer group for
supervision expands. These associations are tied socialization in our type of society should be
to the family, on the one hand, in that the home clear. The motivational foundations of character
and yards of children who are neighbors and the are inevitably first laid down through identi-
adjacent streets serve as locations for their fication with parents, who are generation-
superiors, and the generation difference is a type to please the teacher (often backed by the
example of a hierarchical status difference. But parents) in the same sense in which a pre-oedipal
an immense part of the individual’s adult role child learns new skills in order to please his
performance will have to be in association with mother.
status-equals or near-equals. In this situation it In this connection I maintain that what is
is important to have a reorganization of the internalized through the process of identification
motivational structure so that the original is a reciprocal pattern of role-relationships.8
dominance of the hierarchical axis is modified to Unless there is a drastic failure of internalization
strengthen the egalitarian components. The peer altogether, not just one, but both sides of the
group plays a prominent part in this process. interaction will be internalized. There will,
Sex segregation of latency period peer groups however, be an emphasis on one or the other, so
may be regarded as a process of reinforcement that some children will more nearly identify with
of sex-role identification. Through intensive the socializing agent, and others will more
association with sex-peers and involvement in nearly identify with the opposite role. Thus, in
sex-typed activities, they strongly reinforce the pre-oedipal stage, the “independent” child
belongingness with other members of the same has identified more with the parent, and the
sex and contrast with the opposite sex. This is the “dependent” one with the child-role vis-à-vis
more important because in the coeducational the parent.
school a set of forces operates which specifically In school the teacher is institutionally defined
plays down sex-role differentiation. as superior to any pupil in knowledge of curri-
It is notable that the latency period sex-role culum subject-matter and in responsibility as a
pattern, instead of institutionalizing relations good citizen of the school. In so far as the school
to members of the opposite sex, is characterized class tends to be bifurcated (and of course the
by an avoidance of such relations, which only in dichotomization is far from absolute), it will
adolescence gives way to dating. This avoidance broadly be on the basis, on the one hand, of
is clearly associated with the process of reorgan- identification with the teacher, or acceptance of
ization of the erotic components of motivational her role as a model; and, on the other hand, of
structure. The pre-oedipal objects of erotic identification with the pupil peer group. This
attachment were both intra-familial and bifurcation of the class on the basis of identi-
generation-superior. In both respects there must fication with teacher or with peer group so
be a fundamental shift by the time the child strikingly corresponds with the bifurcation into
reaches adulthood. I would suggest that one of college-goers and non-college-goers that it would
the main functions of the avoidance pattern is to be hard to avoid the hypothesis that this
help cope with the psychological difficulty of structural dichotomization in the school system
overcoming the earlier incestuous attachments, is the primary source of the selective dicho-
and hence to prepare the child for assuming an tomization. Of course in detail the relationship
attachment to an age-mate of opposite sex later. is blurred, but certainly not more so than in a
Seen in this perspective, the socialization great many other fields of comparable analytical
function of the school class assumes a particular complexity.
significance. The socialization functions of the These considerations suggest an interpreta-
family by this time are relatively residual, though tion of some features of the elementary teacher
their importance should not be underestimated. role in American society. The first major step in
But the school remains adult-controlled and, socialization, beyond that in the family, takes
moreover, induces basically the same kind of place in the elementary school, so it seems
identification as was induced by the family in the reasonable to expect that the teacher-figure
child’s pre-oedipal stage. This is to say that the should be characterized by a combination of
learning of achievement-motivation is, psych- similarities to and differences from parental
ologically speaking, a process of identification figures. The teacher, then, is an adult, character-
with the teacher, of doing well in school in order ized by the generalized superiority, which a
parent also has, of adult status relative to chil- “mother” (and future wife), but that the feminine
dren. She is not, however, ascriptively related to role-personality is more complex than that.
her pupils, but is performing an occupational In this connection it may well be that there
role—a role, however, in which the recipients is a relation to the once-controversial issue of
of her services are tightly bound in solidarity to the marriage of women teachers. If the differ-
her and to each other. Furthermore, compared to entiation between what may be called the
a parent’s, her responsibility to them is much maternal and the occupational components of
more universalistic, this being reinforced, as we the feminine role is incomplete and insecure,
saw, by the size of the class; it is also much more confusion between them may be avoided by
oriented to performance rather than to solicitude insuring that both are not performed by the same
for the emotional “needs” of the children. She is persons. The “old maid” teacher of American
not entitled to suppress the distinction between tradition may thus be thought of as having
high and low achievers, just because not being renounced the maternal role in favor of the
able to be included among the high group would occupational.9 Recently, however, the highly
be too hard on little Johnny—however much affective concern over the issue of married
tendencies in this direction appear as deviant women’s teaching has conspicuously abated, and
patterns. A mother, on the other hand, must give their actual participation has greatly increased.
first priority to the needs of her child, regardless It may be suggested that this change is associated
of his capacities to achieve. with a change in the feminine role, the most
It is also significant for the parallel of the conspicuous feature of which is the general social
elementary school class with the family that the sanctioning of participation of women in the
teacher is normally a woman. As background it labor force, not only prior to marriage, but also
should be noted that in most European systems after marriage. This I should interpret as a process
until recently, and often today in our private of structural differentiation in that the same
parochial and non-sectarian schools, the sexes category of persons is permitted and even
have been segregated and each sex group has expected to engage in a more complex set of role-
been taught by teachers of their own sex. Given functions than before.
coeducation, however, the woman teacher The process of identification with the teacher
represents continuity with the role of the which has been postulated here is furthered
mother. Precisely the lack of differentiation in by the fact that in the elementary grades the
the elementary school “curriculum” between the child typically has one teacher, just as in the pre-
components of subject-matter competence and oedipal period he had one parent, the mother,
social responsibility fits in with the greater who was the focus of his object-relations. The
diffuseness of the feminine role. continuity between the two phases is also
But at the same time, it is essential that the favored by the fact that the teacher, like the
teacher is not a mother to her pupils, but must mother, is a woman. But, if she acted only like
insist on universalistic norms and the differential a mother, there would be no genuine reorgan-
reward of achievement. Above all she must be ization of the pupil’s personality system. This
the agent of bringing about and legitimizing a reorganization is furthered by the features of
differentiation of the school class on an achieve- the teacher role which differentiate it from the
ment axis. This aspect of her role is furthered by maternal. One further point is that while a
the fact that in American society the feminine child has one main teacher in each grade, he will
role is less confined to the familial context than usually have a new teacher when he progresses
in most other societies, but joins the masculine to the next higher grade. He is thus accustomed
in occupational and associational concerns, to the fact that teachers are, unlike mothers,
though still with a greater relative emphasis on “interchangeable” in a certain sense. The school
the family. Through identification with their year is long enough to form an important
teacher, children of both sexes learn that the relationship to a particular teacher, but not long
category “woman” is not co-extensive with enough for a highly particularistic attachment to
crystallize. More than in the parent–child relatively small. The underlying foundation of
relationship, in school the child must internalize support is given in the home, and as we have
his relation to the teacher’s role rather than her seen, an important supplement to it can be
particular personality; this is a major step in the provided by the informal peer associations of the
internalization of universalistic patterns. child. It may be suggested that the development
of extreme patterns of alienation from the
school is often related to inadequate support in
Socialization and Selection in the
these respects.
Elementary School
Third, there must be a process of selective
To conclude this discussion of the elementary rewarding of valued performance. Here the
school class, something should be said about the teacher is clearly the primary agent, though the
fundamental conditions underlying the process more progressive modes of education attempt to
which is, as we have seen, simultaneously (1) an enlist classmates more systematically than in the
emancipation of the child from primary traditional pattern. This is the process that is the
emotional attachment to his family, (2) an direct source of intra-class differentiation along
internalization of a level of societal values and the achievement axis.
norms that is a step higher than those he can The final condition is that this initial
learn in his family alone, (3) a differentiation of differentiation tends to bring about a status
the school class in terms both of actual system in the class, in which not only the
achievement and of differential valuation of immediate results of school work, but a whole
achievement, and (4) from society’s point of series of influences, converge to consolidate
view, a selection and allocation of its human different expectations which may be thought of
resources relative to the adult role system.10 as the children’s “levels of aspiration.” Generally
Probably the most fundamental condition some differentiation of friendship groups along
underlying this process is the sharing of common this line occurs, though it is important that it is
values by the two adult agencies involved—the by no means complete, and that children are
family and the school. In this case the core is sensitive to the attitudes not only of their own
the shared valuation of achievement. It includes, friends, but of others.
above all, recognition that it is fair to give Within this general discussion of processes
differential reward for different levels of achieve- and conditions, it is important to distinguish, as
ment, so long as there has been fair access to I have attempted to do all along, the socialization
opportunity, and fair that these rewards lead on of the individual from the selective allocation of
to higher-order opportunities for the successful. contingents to future roles. For the individual,
There is thus a basic sense in which the ele- the old familial identification is broken up (the
mentary school class is an embodiment of the family of orientation becomes, in Freudian
fundamental American value of equality of terms, a “lost object”) and a new identification
opportunity, in that it places value both on initial is gradually built up, providing the first-order
equality and on differential achievement. structure of the child’s identity apart from his
As a second condition, however, the rigor originally ascribed identity as son or daughter of
of this valuational pattern must be tempered the “Joneses.” He both transcends his familial
by allowance for the difficulties and needs of the identification in favor of a more independent one
young child. Here the quasi-motherliness of the and comes to occupy a differentiated status
woman teacher plays an important part. Through within the new system. His personal status is
her the school system, assisted by other agencies, inevitably a direct function of the position he
attempts to minimize the insecurity resulting achieves, primarily in the formal school class and
from the pressures to learn, by providing a certain secondarily in the informal peer group structure.
amount of emotional support defined in terms of In spite of the sense in which achievement-
what is due to a child of a given age level. In this ranking takes place along a continuum, I have
respect, however, the role of the school is put forward reasons to suggest that, with respect
to this status, there is an important differen- It is only within this framework of insti-
tiation into two broad, relatively distinct levels, tutionalized solidarity that the crucial selective
and that his position on one or the other enters process goes on through selective rewarding and
into the individual’s definition of his own the consolidation of its results into a status-
identity. To an important degree this process of differentiation within the school class. We have
differentiation is independent of the socio- called special attention to the impact of the
economic status of his family in the community, selective process on the children of relatively
which to the child is a prior ascribed status. high ability but low family status. Precisely in this
When we look at the same system as a selec- group, but pervading school classes generally, is
tive mechanism from the societal point of view, another parallel to what was found in the
some further considerations become important. studies of voting behavior.12 In the voting
First, it may be noted that the valuation of studies it was found that the “shifters”—those
achievement and its sharing by family and voters who were transferring their allegiance
school not only provides the appropriate values from one major party to the other—tended, on
for internalization by individuals, but also the one hand, to be the “cross-pressured” people,
performs a crucial integrative function for the who had multiple status characteristics and group
system. Differentiation of the class along the allegiances which predisposed them simultane-
achievement axis is inevitably a source of strain, ously to vote in opposite directions. The analogy
because it confers higher rewards and privileges in the school class is clearly to the children for
on one contingent than on another within the whom ability and family status do not coincide.
same system. This common valuation helps On the other hand, it was precisely in this group
make possible the acceptance of the crucial of cross-pressured voters that political “indif-
differentiation, especially by the losers in the ference” was most conspicuous. Non-voting was
competition. Here it is an essential point that particularly prevalent in this group, as was a
this common value on achievement is shared by generally cool emotional tone toward a cam-
units with different statuses in the system. It cuts paign. The suggestion is that some of the pupil
across the differentiation of families by socio- “indifference” to school performance may have
economic status. It is necessary that there be a similar origin. This is clearly a complex pheno-
realistic opportunity and that the teacher can be menon and cannot be further analyzed here. But
relied on to implement it by being “fair” and rather than suggesting, as is usual on common
rewarding achievement by whoever shows sense grounds, that indifference to school work
capacity for it. The fact is crucial that the represents an “alienation” from cultural and
distribution of abilities, though correlated with intellectual values, I would suggest exactly the
family status, clearly does not coincide with it. opposite: that an important component of such
There can then be a genuine selective process indifference, including in extreme cases overt
within a set of “rules of the game.” revolt against school discipline, is connected
This commitment to common values is not, with the fact that the stakes, as in politics, are
however, the sole integrative mechanism very high indeed. Those pupils who are exposed
counteracting the strain imposed by differen- to contradictory pressures are likely to be
tiation. Not only does the individual pupil enjoy ambivalent; at the same time, the personal stakes
familial support, but teachers also like and for them are higher than for the others, because
indeed “respect” pupils on bases independent of what happens in school may make much more of
achievement-status, and peer-group friendship a difference for their futures than for the others,
lines, though correlated with position on the in whom ability and family status point to the
achievement scale, again by no means coincide same expectations for the future. In particular for
with it, but cross-cut it. Thus there are cross- the upwardly mobile pupils, too much emphasis
cutting lines of solidarity which mitigate the on school success would pointedly suggest
strains generated by rewarding achievement “burning their bridges” of association with their
differentially.11 families and status peers. This phenomenon
seems to operate even in elementary school, persons near and below the margin will tend to
although it grows somewhat more conspicuous be pushed into an attitude of repudiation of these
later. In general I think that an important part expectations. Truancy and delinquency are ways
of the anti-intellectualism in American youth of expressing this repudiation. Thus the very
culture stems from the importance of the selective improvement of educational standards in the
process through the educational system rather society at large may well be a major factor in the
than the opposite. failure of the educational process for a growing
One further major point should be made in number at the lower end of the status and ability
this analysis. As we have noted, the general trend distribution. It should therefore not be too easily
of American society has been toward a rapid assumed that delinquency is a symptom of a
upgrading in the educational status of the general failure of the educational process.
population. This means that, relative to past
expectations, with each generation there is
Differentiation and Selection in
increased pressure to educational achievement,
the Secondary School
often associated with parents’ occupational,
ambitions for their children.13 To a sociologist It will not be possible to discuss the secondary
this is a more or less classical situation of school phase of education in nearly as much
anomic strain, and the youth-culture ideology detail as has been done for the elementary school
which plays down intellectual interests and phase, but it is worthwhile to sketch its main
school performance seems to fit in this context. outline in order to place the above analysis in a
The orientation of the youth culture is, in the wider context. Very broadly we may say that the
nature of the case, ambivalent, but for the elementary school phase is concerned with
reasons suggested, the anti-intellectual side of the the internalization in children of motivation to
ambivalence tends to be overtly stressed. One of achievement, and the selection of persons on the
the reasons for the dominance of the anti-school basis of differential capacity for achievement.
side of the ideology is that it provides a means of The focus is on the level of capacity. In the
protest against adults, who are at the opposite secondary school phase, on the other hand, the
pole in the socialization situation. In certain focus is on the differentiation of qualitative types
respects one would expect that the trend toward of achievement. As in the elementary school,
greater emphasis on independence, which we this differentiation cross-cuts sex role. I should
have associated with progressive education, also maintain that it cross-cuts the levels of
would accentuate the strain in this area and achievement which have been differentiated out
hence the tendency to decry adult expectations. in the elementary phase.
The whole problem should be subjected to a In approaching the question of the types of
thorough analysis in the light of what we know capacity differentiated, it should be kept in mind
about ideologies more generally. that secondary school is the principal spring-
The same general considerations are relevant board from which lower-status persons will
to the much-discussed problem of juvenile enter the labor force, whereas those achieving
delinquency. Both the general upgrading process higher status will continue their formal
and the pressure to enhanced independence education in college, and some of them beyond.
should be expected to increase strain on the Hence for the lower-status pupils the important
lower, most marginal groups. The analysis of this line of differentiation should be the one which
paper has been concerned with the line between will lead into broadly different categories of jobs;
college and non-college contingents; there is, for the higher-status pupils the differentiation
however, another line between those who will lead to broadly different roles in college.
achieve solid non-college educational status and My suggestion is that this differentiation
those for whom adaptation to educational expec- separates those two components of achievement
tations at any level is difficult. As the acceptable which we labelled “cognitive” and “moral” in
minimum of educational qualification rises, discussing the elementary phase. Those relatively
high in “cognitive” achievement will fit better exposed to a wider range of statuses than before,
in specific-function, more or less technical being thrown in with more age-peers whom he
roles; those relatively high in “moral” achieve- does not encounter in his neighborhood; it is less
ment will tend toward diffuser, more “socially” or likely that his parents will know the parents of
“humanly” oriented roles. In jobs not requiring any given child with whom he associates. It is
college training, the one category may be thus my impression that the transitions to junior
thought of as comprising the more impersonal high and senior high school are apt to mean a
and technical occupations, such as “operatives,” considerable reshuffling of friendships. Another
mechanics, or clerical workers; the other, as conspicuous difference between the elementary
occupations where “human relations” are and secondary levels is the great increase in high
prominent, such as salesmen and agents of vari- school of organized extracurricular activities.
ous sorts. At the college level, the differentiation Now, for the first time, organized athletics
certainly relates to concern, on the one hand, become important, as do a variety of clubs and
with the specifically intellectual curricular work associations which are school-sponsored and
of college and, on the other hand, with various supervised to varying degrees.
types of diffuser responsibility in human Two particularly important shifts in the
relations, such as leadership roles in student patterning of youth culture occur in this period.
government and extracurricular activities. One, of course, is the emergence of more positive
Again, candidates for post-graduate professional cross-sex relationships outside the classroom,
training will probably be drawn mainly from the through dances, dating, and the like. The other
first of these two groups. is the much sharper prestige-stratification of
In the structure of the school, there appears informal peer groupings, with indeed an element
to be a gradual transition from the earliest grades of snobbery which often exceeds that of the adult
through high school, with the changes timed community in which the school exists.15 Here it
differently in different school systems. The is important that though there is a broad corres-
structure emphasized in the first part of this pondence between the prestige of friendship
discussion is most clearly marked in the first three groups and the family status of their members,
“primary” grades. With progression to the higher this, like the achievement order of the element-
grades, there is greater frequency of plural ary school, is by no means a simple “mirroring”
teachers, though very generally still a single main of the community stratification scale, for a con-
teacher. In the sixth grade and sometimes in the siderable number of lower-status children get
fifth, a man as main teacher, though uncommon, accepted into groups including members with
is by no means unheard of. With junior high higher family status than themselves. This
school, however, the shift of pattern becomes stratified youth system operates as a genuine
more marked, and still more in senior high. assortative mechanism; it does not simply
By that time the pupil has several different reinforce ascribed status.
teachers of both sexes14 teaching him different The prominence of this youth culture in the
subjects, which are more or less formally organ- American secondary school is, in comparison
ized into different courses—college preparatory with other societies, one of the hallmarks of the
and others. Furthermore, with the choice of American educational system; it is much less
“elective” subjects, the members of the class prominent in most European systems. It may be
in one subject no longer need be exactly the said to constitute a kind of structural fusion
same as in another, so the pupil is much more between the school class and the peer-group
systematically exposed to association with structure of the elementary period. It seems
different people, both adults and age-peers, clear that what I have called the “human
in different contexts. Moreover, the school he relations” oriented contingent of the secondary
attends is likely to be substantially larger than school pupils are more active and prominent in
was his elementary school, and to draw from a extracurricular activities, and that this is one of
wider geographical area. Hence the child is the main foci of their differentiation from the
more impersonally- and technically-oriented undertones of much intensive same-sex

contingent. The personal qualities figuring most friendship, and of a certain “irresponsibility” in
prominently in the human relations contingent attitudes toward the opposite sex—e.g., the
can perhaps be summed up as the qualities that exploitative element in the attitudes of boys
make for “popularity.” I suggest that, from the toward girls. This, however, is by no means the
point of view of the secondary school’s selective whole story. The youth culture is also a field for
function, the youth culture helps to differentiate practicing the assumption of higher-order
between types of personalities which will, by and responsibilities, for conducting delicate human
large, play different kinds of roles as adults. relations without immediate supervision and
The stratification of youth groups has, as learning to accept the consequences. In this
noted, a selective function; it is a bridge between connection it is clearly of particular importance
the achievement order and the adult stratifi- to the contingent we have spoken of as
cation system of the community. But it also has specializing in “human relations.”
another function. It is a focus of prestige which We can, perhaps, distinguish three different
exists along side of, and is to a degree inde- levels of crystallization of these youth-culture
pendent of, the achievement order focussing on patterns. The middle one is that which may be
school work as such. The attainment of prestige considered age-appropriate without clear
in the informal youth group is itself a form of status-differentiation. The two keynotes here
valued achievement. Hence, among those seem to be “being a good fellow” in the sense of
individuals destined for higher status in society, general friendliness and being ready to take
one can discern two broad types: those whose responsibility in informal social situations where
school work is more or less outstanding and something needs to be done. Above this, we may
whose informal prestige is relatively satisfactory; speak of the higher level of “outstanding”
and vice versa, those whose informal prestige is popularity and qualities of “leadership” of the
outstanding, and school performance satis- person who is turned to where unusual respon-
factory. Falling below certain minima in either sibilities are required. And below the middle
respect would jeopardize the child’s claim to level are the youth patterns bordering on
belong in the upper group.16 It is an important delinquency, withdrawal, and generally un-
point here that those clearly headed for college acceptable behavior. Only this last level is
belong to peer groups which, while often clearly “regressive” relative to expectations
depreciative of intensive concern with studies, of appropriate behavior for the age grade. In
also take for granted and reinforce a level of judging these three levels, however, allowance
scholastic attainment which is necessary for should be made for a good many nuances. Most
admission to a good college. Pressure will be put adolescents do a certain amount of experiment-
on the individual who tends to fall below such a ing with the borderline of the unacceptable
standard. patterns; that they should do so is to be expected
In discussing the elementary school level it in view of the pressure toward independence
will be remembered that we emphasized that from· adults, and of the “collusion” which can
the peer group served as an object of emotional be expected in the reciprocal stimulation of
dependency displaced from the family. In rela- age-peers. The question is whether this regressive
tion to the pressure for school achievement, behavior comes to be confirmed into a major
therefore, it served at least partially as an expres- pattern for the personality as a whole. Seen in
sion of the lower-order motivational system out this perspective, it seems legitimate to maintain
of which the child was in process of being that the middle and the higher patterns indicated
socialized. On its own level, similar things can be are the major ones, and that only a minority of
said of the adolescent youth culture; it is in part adolescents comes to be confirmed in a truly
an expression of regressive motivations. This is unacceptable pattern of living. This minority
true of the emphasis on athletics despite its lack may well be a relatively constant proportion of
of relevance to adult roles, of the “homosexual” the age cohort, but apart from situations of
special social disorganization, the available Conclusion

evidence does not suggest that it has been a With the general cultural upgrading process in
progressively growing one in recent years. American society which has been going on for
The patterning of cross-sex relations in the more than a century, the educational system
youth culture dearly foreshadows future marriage has come to play an increasingly vital role. That
and family formation. That it figures so this should be the case is, in my opinion, a
prominently in school is related to the fact that consequence of the general trend to structural
in our society the element of ascription, differentiation in the society. Relatively speak-
including direct parental influence, in the choice ing, the school is a specialized agency. That it
of a marriage partner is strongly minimized. For should increasingly have become the principal
the girl, it has the very important significance channel of selection as well as agency of social-
of reminding her that her adult status is going ization is in line with what one would expect in
to be very much concerned with marriage and an increasingly differentiated and progressively
a family. This basic expectation for the girl more upgraded society. The legend of the “self-
stands in a certain tension to the school’s made man” has an element of nostalgic roman-
curricular coeducation with its relative lack of ticism and is destined to become increasingly
differentiation by sex. But the extent to which mythical, if by it is meant not just mobility from
the feminine role in American society continues humble origins to high status, which does indeed
to be anchored in marriage and the family should continue to occur, but that the high status was
not be allowed to obscure the importance of attained through the “school of hard knocks”
coeducation. In the first place, the contribution without the aid of formal education.
of women in various extra-familial occupations The structure of the public school system
and in community affairs has been rapidly and the analysis of the ways in which it contri-
increasing, and certainly higher levels of butes both to the socialization of individuals
education have served as a prerequisite to this and to their allocation to roles in society is,
contribution. At the same time, it is highly I feel, of vital concern to all students of Ameri-
important that the woman’s familial role can society. Notwithstanding the variegated
should not be regarded as drastically segregated elements in the situation, I think it has been
from the cultural concerns of the society as a possible to sketch out a few major structural
whole. The educated woman has important patterns of the public school system and at least
functions as wife and mother, particularly as an to suggest some ways in which they serve these
influence on her children in backing the schools important functions. What could be presented
and impressing on them the importance of in this paper is the merest outline of such an
education. It is, I think, broadly true that the analysis. It is, however, hoped that it has been
immediate responsibility of women for family carried far enough to suggest a field of vital
management has been increasing, though I am mutual interest for social scientists on the one
very skeptical of the alleged “abdication” of the hand and those concerned with the actual
American male. But precisely in the context of operation of the schools on the other.
women’s increased family responsibility, the
influence of the mother both as agent of social-
ization and as role model is a crucial one. This Notes
influence should be evaluated in the light of the * I am indebted to Mrs. Carolyn Cooper for
general upgrading process. It is very doubtful research assistance in the relevant literature
whether, apart from any other considerations, and for editorial work on the first draft of this
the motivational prerequisites of the general paper.
process could be sustained without sufficiently
1 The principal source for these statements is a study
high education of the women who, as mothers, of social mobility among boys in ten public high
influence their children. schools in the Boston metropolitan area, conducted
by Samuel A. Stouffer, Florence R. Kluckhohn, and
the present author. Unfortunately the material is 9 It is worth noting that the Catholic parochial
not available in published form. school system is in line with the more general
2 See table from this study in J. A. Kahl, The older American tradition, in that the typical
American Class Structure (New York: Rinehart & teacher is a nun. The only difference in this
Co., 1953), p. 283. Data from a nationwide sample respect is the sharp religious symbolization of the
of high school students, published by the Educa- difference between mother and teacher.
tional Testing Service, show similar patterns of 10 The following summary is adapted from T.
relationships. For example, the ETS study shows Parsons, R. F. Bales et al., Family, Socialization and
variation, by father’s occupation, in proportion Interaction Process (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press,
of high school seniors planning college, of from 1955). esp. chap. iv.
35 per cent to 80 per cent for boys and 27 per cent 11 In this, as in several other respects, there is a
to 79 per cent for girls. (From Background Factors parallel to other important allocative processes in
Related to College Plans and College Enrollment the society. A striking example is the voting
among High School Students [Princeton, N. J.: process by which political support is allocated
Educational Testing Service, 1957]). between party candidates. Here, the strain arises
3 There seem to be two main reasons why the high- from the fact that one candidate and his party
status, low-ability group is not so important as its will come to enjoy all the perquisites—above all
obverse. The first is that in a society of expanding the power—of office, while the other will be
educational and occupational opportunity the excluded for the time being from these. This strain
general trend is one of upgrading, and the social is mitigated, on the one hand, by the common
pressures to downward mobility are not as great as commitment to constitutional procedure, and, on
they would otherwise be. The second is that there the other hand, by the fact that the nonpolitical
are cushioning mechanisms which tend to protect bases of social solidarity, which figure so promi-
the high status boy who has difficulty “making the nently as determinants of voting behavior, still cut
grade.” He may be sent to a college with low across party lines. The average person is, in various
academic standards, he may go to schools where of his roles, associated with people whose political
the line between ability levels is not rigorously preference is different from his own; he therefore
drawn, etc. could not regard the opposite party as composed
4 This discussion refers to public schools. Only of unmitigated scoundrels without introducing a
about 13 per cent of all elementary and secondary rift within the groups to which he is attached. This
school pupils attend non-public schools, with this feature of the electorate’s structure is brought out
proportion ranging from about 22 per cent in the strongly in B. R. Berelson, P. F. Lazarsfeld and
Northeast to about 6 per cent in the South. U. S. W. N. McPhee, Voting (Chicago: University of
Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education Chicago Press, 1954). The conceptual analysis
in the United States, 1954–56 (Washington: U. S. of it is developed in my own paper, “‘Voting’ and
Government Printing Office, 1959), chap. ii, the Equilibrium of the American Political
“Statistics of State School Systems, l955–56,” System” in E. Burdick and A. J. Brodbeck (eds.),
Table 44, p. 114. American Voting Behavior (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free
5 In 1955–56, 13 per cent of the public elementary Press, 1959).
school instructional staff in the United States 12 Ibid.
were men. Ibid., p. 7. 13 J. A. Kahl, “Educational and Occupational
6 This summary of some contrasts between Aspirations of ‘Common Man’ Boys,” Harvard
traditional and progressive patterns is derived Educational Review, XXIII (Summer, 1953), pp.
from general reading in the literature rather than 186–203.
any single authoritative account. 14 Men make up about half (49 per cent) of the
7 This account of the two components of ele- public secondary school instructional staff.
mentary school achievement and their relation Biennial Survey of Education in the United States,
summarizes impressions gained from the literature, 1954–56, op. cit., chap. ii, p. 7.
rather than being based on the opinions of 15 See, for instance, C. W. Gordon, The Social
particular authorities. I have the impression that System of the High School: A Study in the Sociology
achievement in this sense corresponds closely to of Adolescence (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press,
what is meant by the term as used by McClelland 1957).
and his associates. Cf. D. C. McClelland et al., The 16 J. Riley, M. Riley, and M. Moore, “Adolescent
Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton- Values and the Riesman Typology” in S. M. Lipset
Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953). and L. Lowenthal (eds.), The Sociology of Culture
8 On the identification process in the family see my and the Analysis of Social Character (Glencoe, Ill.:
paper, “Social Structure and the Development of The Free Press, to be published in 1960).
Personality,” Psychiatry, XXI (November, 1958),
pp. 321–40.
On Understanding the Processes of

Schooling
The Contributions of Labeling Theory
Ray C. Rist
There have been few debates within American Lofland, 1969; Matza, 1964, 1969; Scheff,
education which have been argued with such 1966; Schur, 1971; Scott and Douglas, 1972; and
passion and intensity as that of positing causal Rubington and Weinberg, 1973.
explanations of success or failure in schools.1 One If the labeling perspective can be shown to be
explanation which has had considerable support a legitimate framework from which to analyze
in the past few years, particularly since the publi- social processes influencing the educational
cation of Pygmalion in the Classroom by Rosenthal experience and the contributions of such pro-
and Jacobson (1968), has been that of the “self- cesses to success or failure in school, there would
fulfilling prophecy.” Numerous studies have then be a viable interactionist perspective to
appeared seeking to explicate the mechanisms by counter both biological and cultural determinists’
which the teacher comes to hold certain expec- theories of educational outcomes. While the
tations of the students and how these are then latter two positions both place ultimate causal-
operationalized within the classroom so as to ity for success or failure outside the school, the
produce what the teacher had initially assumed. labeling approach allows for an examination of
The origins of teacher expectations have been what, in fact, is happening within schools. Thus,
attributed to such diverse variables as social class, labeling theory would call our attention for
physical appearance, contrived test scores, sex, example, to the various evaluative mechanisms
race language patterns, and school records. But (both formal and informal) operant in schools,
from the flurry of recent research endeavors, the ways in which schools nurture and support
there has emerged a hiatus between this grow- such mechanisms, how students react, what the
ing body of data and any larger theoretic outcomes are for interpersonal interaction
framework. The concept of the self-fulfilling based on how these mechanisms have evaluated
prophecy has remained simply that—a concept. individual students, and how, over time, the
The lack of a broader conceptual scheme has consequences of having a certain evaluative tag
meant that research in this area has become influence the options available to a student
theoretically stymied. Consequently, there has within a school. What follows first is a summary
evolved instead a growing concern over the of a number of the key aspects of labeling theory
refinement of minute methodological nuances. as it has been most fully developed in the socio-
The thrust of this [article] is to argue that logical literature; second is an attempt to inte-
there is a theoretical perspective developing in grate the research on the self-fulfilling prophecy
the social sciences which can break the with the conceptual framework of labeling
conceptual and methodological logjam building theory. Finally, the implications of this synthesis
up on the self-fulfilling prophecy. Specifically, are explored for both future research and
the emergence of labeling theory as an explanatory theoretical development.
framework for the study of social deviance
appears to be applicable to the study of education
I. Becoming Deviant: The
as well. Among the major contributions to the
Labeling Perspective
development of labeling theory are Becker,
1963, 1964; Broadhead, 1974; Lemert, 1951, Those who have used labeling theory have been
1972, 1974; Douglas, 1971, 1972; Kitsuse, 1964; concerned with the study of why people are
labeled, and who it is that labels them as some- example: Why do some individuals come to act
one who has committed one form or another of out norm-violating behavior? Rather, the
deviant behavior. In sharp contrast to the questions are of the following sort: Who applied
predominant approaches for the study of devi- the deviant label to whom? Whose rules shall
ance, there is little concern in labeling theory prevail and be enforced? Under what circum-
with the motivational and characterological stances is the deviant label successfully and
nature of the person who committed the act. unsuccessfully applied? How does a community
Deviance is understood, not as a quality of the decide what forms of conduct should be singled
person or as created by his actions, but instead as out for this kind of attention? What forms of
created by group definitions and reactions. It is behavior do persons in the social system consider
a social judgment imposed by a social audience. deviant, how do they interpret such behavior,
As Becker (1963:9) has argued: and what are the consequences of these inter-
pretations for their reactions to individuals who
The central fact of deviance is that it is created are seen as manifesting such behavior? (See
by society. I do not mean this in the way it is Akers, 1973.)
ordinarily understood, in which the causes of The labeling perspective rejects any
deviance are located in the social situation assumption that a clear consensus exists as to
of the deviant, or the social factors, which promp- what constitutes a norm violation—or for that
ted his action. I mean, rather, that social groups matter, what constitutes a norm—within a
create deviants by making the rules whose complex and highly heterogeneous society.
infraction constitute deviance, and by applying What comes to be determined as deviance and
those rules to particular people and labeling them who comes to be determined as a deviant is the
as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is result of a variety of social contingencies
not the quality of the act the person commits, but influenced by who has the power to enforce such
rather a consequence of the application by others of determinations. Deviance is thus problematic
rules and sanctions to an “offender.” This deviant is and subjectively given. The case for making the
one to whom the label has been successfully applied. societal reaction to rulebreaking a major
Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label. independent variable in studies of deviant
(emphasis added) behavior has been succinctly stated by Kitsuse
(1964:101):
The labeling approach is insistent on the need
for a shift in attention from an exclusive concern A sociological theory of deviance must focus
with the deviant individual to a major concern specifically upon the interactions which not only
with the process by which the deviant label is define behaviors as deviant, but also organize
applied. Again citing Becker (1964:2): and activate the application of sanctions by
individuals, groups, or agencies. For in modern
The labeling approach sees deviance always and society, the socially significant differentiation
everywhere as a process and interaction between of deviants from the nondeviant population is
at least two kinds of people: those who commit increasingly contingent upon circumstances of
(or who are said to have committed) a deviant situation, place social and personal biography,
act, and the rest of the society, perhaps divided and the bureaucratically organized activities of
into several groups itself. . . . One consequence agencies of social control.
is that we become much more interested in the
process by which deviants are defined by the rest Traditional notions of who is a deviant and
of the society, than in the nature of the deviant what are the causes for such deviance are
act itself. necessarily reworked. By emphasizing the
processual nature of deviance, any particular
The important questions, then, for Becker deviant is seen to be a product of being caught,
and others, are not of the genre to include, for defined, segregated, labeled, and stigmatized.
This is one of the major thrusts of the labeling is generated. There thus emerges on the part of
perspective—that forces of social control often the person so labeled a new view of himself
produce the unintended consequence of making some which is one of being irrevocably deviant.
persons defined as deviant even more confirmed as This movement from one who has violated
deviant because of the stigmatization of labeling. a norm to one who sees himself as a habitual
Thus, social reactions to deviance further deviant norm violator is what Lemert (1972:62) terms
careers. Erikson (1966) has even gone so far as to the transition from a primary to a secondary
argue that a society will strive to maintain a deviant. A primary deviant is one who holds
certain level of deviance within itself as deviance to socially accepted roles, views himself as a
is functional to clarifying group boundaries, nondeviant, and believes himself to be an
providing scapegoats, creating out-groups who insider. A primary deviant does not deny that
can be the source of furthering in-group he has violated some norm, and claims only that
solidarity, and the like. it is not characteristic of him as a person. A
The idea that social control may have the secondary deviant, on the other hand, is one
paradoxical effect of generating more of the very who has reorganized his social-psychological
behavior it is designed to eradicate was first characteristics around the deviant role. Lemert
elaborated upon by Tannenbaum. He noted (1972:62) writes:
(1938:21):
Secondary deviation refers to a special class
The first dramatization of the “evil” which of socially defined responses which people make
separates the child out of his group . . . plays a to problems created by the societal reaction to
greater role in making the criminal than perhaps their deviance. These problems . . . become
any other experience. . . . He now lives in a central facts of existence for those experiencing
different world. He has been tagged. . . . The them. . . . Actions, which have these roles
person becomes the thing he is described as and self-attitudes as their referents make up
being. secondary deviance. The secondary deviant . . .
is a person whose life and identity are organized
Likewise, Schur (1965:4) writes: around the facts of deviance.
The societal reaction to the deviant, then, is A person can commit repeated acts of primary
vital to an understanding of the deviance itself deviation and never come to view himself or
and a major element in—if not the cause of— have others come to view him as a secondary
the deviant behavior. deviant. Secondary deviation arises from the
feedback whereby misconduct or deviation initi-
The focus on outcomes of social control ates social reaction to the behavior which then
mechanisms has led labeling theorists to devote triggers further misconduct. Lemert (1951:77)
considerable attention to the workings of first described this process as follows:
organizations and agencies which function
ostensibly to rehabilitate the violator or in other The sequence of interaction leading to second-
ways draw him back into conformity. Their ary deviation is roughly as follows: 1) primary
critiques of prisons, mental hospitals, training deviation; 2) societal penalties; 3) further
schools, and other people-changing institu- primary deviation; 4) stronger penalties and
tions suggest that the results of such institutions rejections; 5) further deviations, perhaps with
are frequently nearly the opposite of what they hostilities and resentments beginning to focus
were theoretically designed to produce. These upon those doing the penalizing; 6) crisis reached
institutions are seen as mechanisms by which in the tolerance quotient, expressed in formal
opportunities to withdraw from deviance are action by the community stigmatizing of the
sealed off from the deviant, stigmatization deviant; 7) strengthening of the deviant conduct
occurs, and a new identity as a social “outsider” as a reaction to the stigmatizing and penalties;
and 8) ultimate acceptance of deviant social Further, even persons within the same profession
status and efforts at adjustment on the basis of the (therapists, for example) may make divergent use
associated role. of the same material in arriving at an evaluative
decision on the behavior of an individual.
Thus, when persons engage in deviant behavi- Among the sources of information available to
or they would not otherwise participate in and labelers, two appear primary: first-hand informa-
when they develop social roles they would not tion obtained from face-to-face interaction with
have developed save for the application of social the person they may ultimately label, and
control measures, the outcome is the emergence second-hand information obtained from other
of secondary deviance. The fact of having been than direct interaction.
apprehended and labeled is the critical element The corollary here to the activities of
in the subsequent construction of a deviant teachers should be apparent. Oftentimes, the
identity and pursuit of a deviant career. evaluation by teachers (which may lead to the
label of “bright,” “slow,” etc.) is based on first-
hand information gained through face-to-face
II. The Origins of Labeling:
interaction during the course of the time the
Teacher Expectations
teacher and student spent together in the
Labeling theory has significantly enhanced our classroom. But a goodly amount of information
understanding of the process of becoming about the student which informs the teacher’s
deviant by shifting our attention from the evaluation is second-hand information. For
deviant to the judges of deviance and the forces instance, comments from other teachers, test
that affect their judgment. Such judgments are scores, prior report cards, permanent records,
critical, for a recurrent decision made in all meetings with the parents, or evaluations from
societies, and particularly frequent in advanced welfare agencies and psychological clinics are all
industrial societies, is that an individual has or potential informational sources. In a variation of
has not mastered some body of information, the division between first-hand and second-hand
or perhaps more basically, has or has not the sources of information, Johnson (1973) has
capacity to master that information. These suggested that there are three key determinants
evaluations are made periodically as one moves of teacher evaluations: student’s prior perform-
through the institution of school and the ance, social status characteristics, and present
consequences directly affect the opportunities performance. Prior performance would include
to remain for an additional period. To be able to information from cumulative records (grades,
remain provides an option for mastering yet test scores, notes from past teachers or coun-
another body of information, and to be certified selors, and outside evaluators) while social status
as having done so. As Ivan Illich (1971) has and performance would be inferred and observed
noted, it is in industrial societies that being in the ongoing context of the classroom.
perceived as a legitimate judge of such mastery What has been particularly captivating about
has become restricted to those who carry the the work of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) in
occupational role of “teacher.” A major conse- this regard is their attempt to provide empirical
quence of the professionalization of the role of justification for a truism considered self-evident
teacher has been the ability to claim as a near by many in education: School achievement is
exclusive decision whether mastery of material not simply a matter of a child’s native ability,
has occurred. Such exclusionary decision-making but involves directly and inextricably the
enhances those in the role of “teacher” as they teacher as well. Described succinctly, their
alone come to possess the authority to provide research involved a situation where, at the end
certification for credentials (Edgar, 1974). of a school year, more than 500 students in a
Labeling theorists report that in making single elementary school were administered
judgments of deviance, persons may employ the “Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition.” In
information drawn from a variety of sources. actuality this test was a standardized, relatively
nonverbal test of intelligence, Flanagan’s (1960) Characteristics of children such as sex and
Test of General Ability (TOGA). The teachers race are immediately apparent to teachers.
were told that such a test would, with high Likewise, indications of status can be quickly
predictive reliability, sort out those students inferred from grooming, style of dress, need for
who gave strong indication of being intellec- free lunches, information on enrollment cards,
tual “spurters” or “bloomers” during the following discussion of family activities by children, and
academic year. Just before the beginning of visits to the school by parents. One intriguing
school the following fall, the teachers were given study recently reported in this area is that by two
lists with the names of between one and nine of sociologists, Clifford and Walster (1973:249).
their students. They were told that these students The substance of their study was described as
scored in the top twenty percent of the school on follows:
the test, though, of course, no factual basis for
such determinations existed. A twenty percent Our experiment was designed to determine what
subsample of the “special” students was selected effect a student’s physical attractiveness has on
for intensive analysis. Testing of the students at a teacher’s expectations of the child’s intellectual
the end of the school year offered some evidence and social behavior. Our hypothesis was that a
that these selected children did perform better child’s attractiveness strongly influences his
than the nonselected. The ensuing debate as to teachers’ judgments; the more attractive the
the validity and implications of the findings from child, the more biased in his favor we expect
the study will be discussed in the next section. the teachers to be. The design required to test
The findings of Deutsch, Fishman, Kogan, this hypothesis is a simple one: Teachers are
North, and Whiteman (1964); Gibson (1965): given a standardized report card and an attached
Goslin and Glass (1967); McPherson (1966); and photograph. The report card includes an assess-
Pequignot (1966) all demonstrate the influence ment of the child’s academic performance as well
of standardized tests of intelligence and achieve- as of his general social behavior. The attractive-
ment on teacher’s expectations. Goaldman ness of the photos is experimentally varied. On
(1971), in a review of the literature on the use of the basis of this information, teachers are asked
tests as a second-hand source of information for to state their expectations of the child’s
teachers, noted: “Although some of the research educational and social potential.
has been challenged, there is a basis for the belief
that teachers at all levels are prejudiced by Based on the responses of 404 fifth grade
information they receive about a student’s ability teachers within the state of Missouri, Clifford
or character.” Mehan (1971, 1974) has been and Walster concluded (1973:255):
concerned with the interaction between children
who take tests and the teachers who administer There is little question but that the physical
them. He posits that testing is not the objective appearance of a student affected the expecta-
use of a measurement instrument, but the tions of the teachers we studied. Regardless of
outcome of a set of interactional activities which whether the pupil is a boy or girl, the child’s
are influenced by a variety of contingencies physical attractiveness has an equally strong
which ultimately manifest themselves in a reified association with his teacher’s reactions to him.
“test score.” Mehan suggests (1971):
The variables of race and ethnicity have been
Standardized test performances are taken as an documented, by Brown (1968), Davidson and
unquestioned, non-problematic reflection of the Lang (1960), Jackson and Cosca (1974), and
child’s underlying ability. The authority of the Rubovits and Maehr (1973), among others, as
test to measure the child’s real ability is accepted powerful factors in generating the expectations
by both teachers and other school officials. Test teachers hold of children. It has also been
results are accepted without doubt as the correct documented that teachers expect less of lower-
and valid document of the child’s ability. class children than they do of middle-class
children (cf. Becker, 1952; Deutsch, 1963; the classroom. Thus, the placement of the
Leacock, 1969; Rist, 1970,1973; Stein, 1971; children came to reflect the social class distinc-
Warner, Havighurst, and Loeb, 1944; and tions in the room—the poor children from public
Wilson, 1963). Douglas (1964), in a large scale welfare families all sat at one table, the working
study of the tracking system used in British class children sat at another and the middle class
schools, found that children who were clean and at the third. I demonstrated how the teacher
neatly dressed in nice clothing, and who came operationalized her expectations of these differ-
from what the teachers perceived as “better” ent groups of children in terms of her differentials
homes, tended to be placed in higher tracks of teaching time, her use of praise and control,
than their measured ability would predict. and the extent of autonomy within the class-
Further, when placed there they tended to stay room. By following the same children through
and perform acceptably. Mackler (1969) studied first and second grade as well, I was able to show
schools in Harlem and found that children that the initial patterns established by the
tended to stay in the tracks in which they were kindergarten teacher came to be perpetuated
initially placed and that such placement was based year after year. By second grade, labels given by
on a variety of social considerations independent another teacher clearly reflected the reality each
of measured ability. Doyle, Hancock, and Kifer of the three groups experienced in the school.
(1971) and Palardy (1969) have shown teacher The top group was called the “Tigers,” the middle
expectations for high performance in elementary group the “Cardinals,” and the lowest group, the
grades to be stronger for girls than boys. “Clowns.” What had begun as a subjective
The on-going academic and interpersonal evaluation and labeling by the teacher took on
performance of the children may also serve as a objective dimensions as the school proceeded
potent source of expectations for teachers. Rowe to process the children on the basis of the
(1969) found that teachers would wait longer distinctions made when they first began.
for an answer from a student they believed to be Taken together, these studies strongly imply
a high achiever than for one from a student they that the notion of “teacher expectations” is multi-
believed to be a low achiever. Brophy and Good faceted and multi-dimensional. It appears that
(1970) found that teachers were more likely to when teachers generate expectations about their
give perceived high achieving students a second students, they do so not only for reasons of aca-
chance to respond to an initial incorrect answer, demic or cognitive performance, but for their
and further, that high achievers were praised classroom interactional patterns as well. Further-
more frequently for success and criticized less more, not only ascribed characteristics such as
for failure. race, sex, class, or ethnicity are highly salient,
There is evidence that the expectations interpersonal traits are also. Thus, the interrela-
teachers hold for their students can be generated tedness of the various attributes which ultimately
as early as the first few days of the school year and blend together to generate the evaluation a
then remain stable over the months to follow teacher makes as to what can be expected from
(Rist, 1970, 1972, 1973; Willis, 1972). For a particular student suggests the strength and
example, I found during my three-year longi- tenacity of such subsequent labels as “bright” or
tudinal and ethnographic study of a single, de “slow” or “trouble-maker” or “teacher’s little hel-
facto segregated elementary school in the black per.” It is to the outcomes of the student’s having
community of St. Louis, that after only eight days one or another of these labels that we now turn.
of kindergarten, the teacher made permanent
seating arrangements based on what she assumed
III. An Outcome of Labeling: The
were variations in academic capability. But no
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
formal evaluation of the children had taken
place. Instead, the assignments to the three tables W. I. Thomas, many years ago, set forth what has
were based on a number of socio-economic become a basic dictum of the social sciences
criteria as well as on early interaction patterns in when he observed, “If men define situations as
real, they are real in their consequences.” This takes this new understanding of himself into
is at the core of the self-fulfilling prophecy. An account when dealing with them. When this
expectation which defines a situation comes to happens, a social type has been ratified, and a
influence the actual behavior within the situ- person has been socially reconstructed.
ation so as to produce what was initially assumed
to be there. Merton (1968:477) has elaborated As noted, Rosenthal and Jacobson’s Pygmalion
on this concept and noted: “The self-fulfilling in the Classroom (1968) created wide interest in
phase is, in the beginning, a false definition of the the notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy as a
situation evoking a new behavior which makes concept to explain differential performance by
the originally false conception come true.” children in classrooms. Their findings suggested
(emphasis in the original) that the expectations teachers created about the
Here it is important to recall a basic tenet of children randomly selected as “intellectual
labeling theory—that an individual does not bloomers” somehow caused the teachers to treat
become deviant simply by the commission of them differently, with the result that the children
some act. As Becker (1963) stressed, deviance is really did perform better bythe end of the year.
not inherent in behavior per se, but in the appli- Though the critics of this particular research
cation by others of rules and sanctions against one (Snow, 1969; Taylor, 1970; Thorndike, 1968,
perceived as being an “offender.” Thus, the only 1969) and those who have been unsuccessful in
time one can accurately be termed a “deviant” is replicating the findings (Claiborn, 1969) have
after the successful application of a label by a leveled strong challenges to Rosenthal and
social audience. Thus, though many persons Jacobson, the disagreements are typically related
may commit norm violations, only select ones are to methodology, procedure, and analysis rather
subsequently labeled. The contingencies of race, than to the proposition that relations exist
class, sex, visibility of behavior, age, occupation, between expectations and behavior.
and who one’s friends are all influence the The current status of the debate and the
outcome as to whether one is or is not labeled. evidence accumulated in relation to it imply
Scheff (1966), for example, demonstrated the that teacher expectations are sometimes self-
impact of these contingencies upon the diagnosis fulfilling. The early and, I think, overenthusiastic
as to the severity of a patient’s mental illness. The accounts of Rosenthal and Jacobson have
higher one’s social status, the less the willingness obscured the issue. The gist of such accounts
to diagnose the same behavioral traits as have left the impression, as Good and Brophy
indicative of serious illness in comparison to the (1973:73) have noted, that the mere existence
diagnosis given to low status persons. of an expectation will automatically guarantee its
The crux of the labeling perspective lies not fulfillment. Rather, as they suggest:
in whether one’s norm violating behavior is
known, but in whether others decide to do The fact that teachers’ expectations can be self-
something about it. Further, if a label is applied fulfilling is simply a special case of the principle
to the individual, it is posited that this in fact that any expectations can be self-fulfilling. This
causes the individual to become that which he process is not confined to classrooms. Although
is labeled as being. Due to the reaction of society, it is not true that “wishing can make it so,” our
the change in the individual involves the expectations do affect the way we behave in
development of a new socialized self-concept and situations, and the way we behave affects how
social career centered around the deviant other people respond. In some instances, our
behavior. As Rubington and Weinberg (1973:7) expectations about people cause us to treat them
have written: in a way that makes them respond just as we
expect they would.
The person who has been typed, in turn, becomes
aware of the new definition that has been placed Such a position would be borne out by social psy-
upon him by members of his groups. He, too, chologists who have demonstrated that an
individual’s first impressions of another person and structure their lives. Such a perspective is
do influence subsequent interactions (Dailey, clearly within the framework of labeling theory,
1952; Newcomb, 1947) and that one’s self- where a major emphasis has been placed upon
expectations influence one’s subsequent beha- the role of institutions in sorting, labeling,
vior (Aronson and Carlsmith, 1962; Brock and tracking, and channeling persons along various
Edelman, 1965; and Zajonc and Brinkman, routes depending upon the assessment the
1969). institution has made of the individual.
The conditionality of expectations related to One pertinent example of the manner in
their fulfillment is strongly emphasized by which labeling theory has been applied to the
labeling theorists as well. Their emphasis upon study of social institutions and their impact
the influence of social contingencies on whether upon participants has been in an analysis of the
one is labeled, how strong the label, and if it can relation of schooling to juvenile delinquency.
be made to stick at all, points to a recognition There have been several works which suggest as
that there is a social process involved where a major line of argument that schools, through
individuals are negotiating, rejecting, accepting, and because of the manner in which they label
modifying, and reinterpreting the attempts at students, serve as a chief instrument in the
labeling. Such interaction is apparent in the creation of delinquency (Hirschi, 1969; Noblit
eight stages of the development of secondary and Polk, 1975; Polk 1969; Polk and Schafer,
deviance outlined above by Lemert. Likewise, 1972; Schafer and Olexa, 1971). For example,
Erikson (1964:17), in his comments on the act Noblit and Polk (1975:3) have noted:
of labeling as a rite of passage from one side of the
group boundary to the other, has noted: In as much as the school is the primary institu-
tion in the adolescent experience—one that
The common assumption that deviants are not promises not only the future status available to
often cured or reformed, then, may be based the adolescent, but also that gives or denies status
on a faulty premise, but this assumption is stated in adolescence itself—it can be expected that its
so frequently and with such conviction that it definitions are of particular significance for the
often creates the facts which later “prove” it to actions of youth. That is, the student who has
be correct. If the returning deviant has to face the been reported from success via the school has
community’s apprehensions often enough, it is little reason to conform to the often arbitrary and
understandable that he, too, may begin to paternalistic regulations and rules of the school.
wonder whether he has graduated from the In a very real sense, this student has no “rational
deviant role—and so respond to the uncertainty by constraints” against deviance. It is through the
resuming deviant activity. In some respects, this sorting mechanisms of the school, which are
may be the only way for the individual and his demanded by institutions of higher education
community to agree as to what kind of person he and the world of work, that youth are labeled and
really is, for it often happens that the community thus sorted into the situation where deviant
is only able to perceive his “true colors” when he behavior threatens little while providing some
lapses, momentarily into some form of deviant alternative forms of status.
performance. (emphasis added)
It is well to reiterate the point—interaction
Explicit in Erikson’s quote is the fact of the implies behavior and choices being made by both
individual’s being in interaction with the parties. The person facing the prospect of
“community” to achieve some sort of agreement receiving a new label imputing a systemic
on what the person is “really” like. Though change in the definition of his selfhood may
Erikson did not, in this instance, elaborate upon respond in any of a myriad number of ways to this
what he meant by “community,” it can be situation. Likewise, the institutional definition
inferred from elsewhere in his work that he sees of the person is neither finalized nor solidified
“community” as manifesting itself in the insti- until the end of the negotiation as to what
tutions persons create in order to help organize precisely that label should be. But, in the
context of a single student facing the authority prevent expectations from becoming self-
and vested interests of a school administration fulfilling by overcoming them or by resisting
and staff, the most likely outcome is that over them in a way that makes the teacher change
time, the student will increasingly move towards them.
conformity with the label the institution seeks
to establish. Good and Brophy (1973:75) have Yet, the critique of American education
elaborated upon this process within the class- offered by such scholars as Henry (1963), Katz
room as follows: (1971), Goodman (1964), or Reimer (1971)
suggests the struggle is unequal between the
1. The teacher expects specific behavior and teacher (and the institution a teacher represents)
achievement from particular students. and the student. The vulnerability of children
2. Because of these different expectations, to the dictates of adults in positions of power
the teacher behaves differently toward the over them leaves the negotiations as to what
different students. evaluative definition will be tagged on the
3. This teacher treatment tells each student children more often than not in the hands of the
what behavior and achievement the powerful. As Max Weber himself stated, to have
teacher expects from him and affects his power is to be able to achieve one’s ends, even
self-concept, achievement motivation, and in the face of resistance from others. When that
level of aspiration. resistance is manifested in school by children and
4. If this teacher treatment is consistent over is defined by teachers and administrators as
time, and if the student does not actively truancy, recalcitrance, unruliness, and hostility,
resist or change it in some way, it will tend or conversely defined as a lack of motivation,
to shape his achievement and behavior. intellectual apathy, sullenness, passivity, or
High-expectation students will be led to withdrawal, the process is ready to be repeated
achieve at high levels, while the achieve- and the options to escape further teacher
ment of low-expectations students will definitions are increasingly removed.
decline.
5. With time, the student’s achievement and Postscript: Beyond the Logjam
behavior will conform more and more
closely to that originally expected of him. This paper has argued that a fruitful convergence
can be effected between the research being
The fourth point in this sequence makes the conducted on the self-fulfilling prophecy as a
crucial observation that teacher expectations are consequence of teacher expectations and the
not automatically self-fulfilling. For the expecta- conceptual framework of labeling theory. The
tions of the teacher to become realized, both the analysis of the outcomes of teacher expectations
teacher and the student must move towards a produces results highly similar to those found in
pattern of interaction where expectations the study of social deviance. Labels are applied
are clearly communicated and the behavioral res- to individuals which fundamentally shift their
ponse is consonant with the expected patterns. definitions of self and which further reinforce the
But as Good and Brophy (1973:75) also note: behavior which had initially prompted the
social reaction. The impact of the self-fulfilling
This does not always happen. The teacher prophecy in educational research is comparable
may not have clear-cut expectations about a to that found in the analysis of mental health
particular student, or his expectations may con- clinics, asylums, prisons, juvenile homes, and
tinually change. Even when he has consistent other people-changing organizations. What
expectations, he may not necessarily commu- the labeling perspective can provide to the study
nicate them to the student through consistent of educational outcomes as a result of the
behavior. In this case, the expectation would operationalization of teacher expectations is a
not be self-fulfilling even if it turned out to be model for the study of the processes by which the
correct. Finally, the student himself might outcomes are produced. The detailing over time
of the interactional patterns which lead to outcomes of having done so. To be able to detail
changes in self-definition and behavior within the dynamics and influences within schools by
classrooms is sadly lacking in almost all of the which some children come to see themselves as
expectation research to date. A most glaring successful and act as though they were, and to
example of this omission is the study by detail how others come to see themselves as
Rosenthal and Jacobson themselves. Their failures and act accordingly, provides in the final
conclusions are based only on the analysis of a analysis an opportunity to intervene so as to
pre- and post-test. To posit that teacher expecta- expand the numbers of winners and diminish the
tions were the causal variable that produced numbers of losers. For that reason above all
changes in student performances was a leap from others, labeling theory merits our attention.
the data to speculation. They could offer only
suggestions as to how the measured changes in
Endnote
the children’s performance came about, since
they were not in the classrooms to observe how 1. The preparation of this paper has been aided by a
assumed teacher attitudes were translated into grant (GS-41522) from the National Science
Foundation—Sociology Program. The views
subsequent actual student behavior. expressed here are solely those of the author and
To extend the research on the educational no official endorsement by either the National
experiences of those students who are differen- Science Foundation or the National Institute of
tially labeled by teachers, what is needed is a Education is to be inferred.
theoretical framework which can clearly isolate
the influences and effects of certain kinds of References
teacher reactions on certain types of students,
producing, certain typical outcomes. The label- Akers, R. L. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning
ing perspective appears particularly well-suited Approach. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth, 1973.
Aronson, E., and Carlsmith, J. M. “Performance
for this expansion of both research and Expectancy as a Determinant of Actual Perform-
theoretical development on teacher expectations ance.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
by offering the basis for analysis at either a 65 (1962): 179–182.
specific or a more general level. With the Becker, H. S. “Social Class Variations in the Teacher-
former, for example, there are areas of investi- Pupil Relationship.” Journal of Educational Sociology
25 (1952):451–465.
gation related to 1) types of students perceived
Becker, H. S. Outsiders. New York: The Free Press,
by teachers as prone to success or failure; 2) the 1963.
kinds of reactions, based on their expectations, Becker, H. S. The Other Side. New York: The Free
teachers have to different students; and 3) the Press, 1964.
effects of specific teacher reactions on specific Broadhead, R. S. “A Theoretical Critique of the
student outcomes. At a more general level, Societal Reaction Approach to Deviance.” Pacific
Sociological Review 17 (1974):287–312.
fruitful lines of inquiry might include 1) the Brock, T. C., and Edelman, H. “Seven Studies
outcomes in the post-school world of having of Performance Expectancy as a Determinant of
received a negative vs. a positive label within the Actual Performance.” Journal of Experimental Social
school; 2) the influences of factors such as social Psychology 1 (1965):295–310.
class and race on the categories of expectations Brophy, J., and Good, T. “Teachers’ Communications
of Differential Expectations for Children’s Class-
teachers hold; 3) how and why labels do emerge room Performance: Some Behavioral Data.” Journal
in schools as well as the phenomenological and of Educational Psychology 61 (1970): 365–374.
structural meanings that are attached to them; Brown, B. The Assessment of Self-Concept among
and 4) whether there are means by which to Four Year Old Negro and White Children: A Com-
modify or minimize the effects of school labeling parative Study Using the Brown IDS Self-Concept
Reference Test. New York: Institute for Develop-
processes on students.
mental Studies, 1968.
Labeling theory provides a conceptual Claiborn, W. L. “Expectancy Effects in the Classroom:
framework by which to understand the processes A Failure to Replicate.” Journal of Educational
of transforming attitudes into behavior and the Psychology 60 (1969): 377–383.
Clifford, M. M., and Walster, E. “The Effect of rooms.” American Educational Research Journal
Physical Attractiveness on Teacher Expectations.” 11 (1974):219–229.
Sociology of Education 46 (1973):248–258. Johnson, J. On the Interface between Low-income
Dailey C. A. “The Effects of Premature Conclusion Urban Black Children and Their Teachers during the
upon the Acquisition of Understanding of a Early School Years: A Position Paper. San Francisco:
Person.” Journal of Psychology 33 (1952):133–152. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
Davidson, H. H., and Lang, G. “Children’s Percep- and Development, 1973.
tions of Teachers’ Feelings toward Them.” Journal Katz, M. Class, Bureaucracy and Schools. New York:
of Experimental Education 29 (1960): 107–118. Praeger, 1971.
Deutsch, M. “The Disadvantaged Child and the Kitsuse, J. “Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior:
Learning Process,” in Education in Depressed Problems of Theory and Method,” in The Other
Areas, edited by H. Passow. New York: Teachers Side, edited by H. S. Becker. New York: The Free
College Press, 1963. Press, 1964.
Deutsch, M.; Fishman, J. A.; Kogan, L.; North, R.; and Leacock, E. Teaching and Learning in City Schools. New
Whiteman, M. “Guidelines for Testing Minority York: Basic Books, 1969.
Group Children.” Journal of Social Issues 20 (1964): Lemert, E. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill,
129–145. 1951.
Douglas, J. The Home and the School. London: Lemert, E. Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social
MacGibbon and Kee, 1964. Control. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Douglas, J. The American Social Order. New York: The 1972.
Free Press, 1971. Lemert, E. “Beyond Mead: The Societal Reaction
Douglas, J. (ed.). Deviance and Respectability. New to Deviance.” Social Problems 21 (1974):457–468.
York: Basic Books, 1972. Lofland, J. Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs,
Doyle, W.; Hancock, G.; and Kifer, E. “Teachers’ N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Perceptions: Do They Make a Difference?” Paper Mackler, B. “Grouping in the Ghetto.” Education and
presented at the meeting of the American Edu- Urban Society 2 (1969):80–95.
cational Research Association, 1971. Matza, D. Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley,
Edgar, D. E. The Competent Teacher. Sydney, Aus- 1964.
tralia: Angus & Robertson, 1974. Matza, D. Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Erikson, K. T. “Note on the Sociology of Deviance,” Prentice-Hall, 1969.
in The Other Side, edited by H. S. Becker. New McPherson, G. H. The Role-set of the Elementary
York: The Free Press, 1964. School Teacher: A case study. Unpublished Ph.D.
Erikson, K. T. Wayward Puritans. New York: Wiley, dissertation, Columbia University, New York,
1966. 1966.
Flanagan, J. C. Test of General Ability: Technical Report. Mehan, H. B. Accomplishing Understanding in Educa-
Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1960. tional Settings. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Gibson, G. “Aptitude Tests.” Science 149 (1965):583. University of California, Santa Barbara, 1971.
Goaldman, L. “Counseling Methods and Tech- Mehan, H. B. Ethnomethodology and Education. Paper
niques: The Use of Tests,” in The Encyclopedia presented to the Sociology of Education Asso-
of Education, edited by L. C. Deighton. New York: ciation conference, Pacific Grove, California,
Macmillan, 1971. 1974.
Good, T., and Brophy, J. Looking in Classrooms. New Merton, R. K. “Social Problems and Social Theory,”
York: Harper and Row, 1973. in Contemporary Social Problems, edited by
Goodman, P. Compulsory Mis-Education. New York: R. Merton and R. Nisbet. New York: Harcourt,
Random House, 1964. Brace and World, 1968.
Goslin, D. A., and Glass, D. C. “The Social Effects Newcomb, T. M. “Autistic Hostility and Social
of Standardized Testing on American Elemen- Reality.” Human Relations 1 (1947):69–86.
tary Schools.” Sociology of Education 40 (1967): Noblit, G. W., and Polk, K. Institutional Constraints and
115–131. Labeling. Paper presented to the Southern
Henry, J. Culture Against Man. New York: Random Sociological Association meetings, Washington,
House, 1963. D.C., 1975.
Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University Palardy, J. M. “What Teachers Believe—What
of California Press, 1969. Children Achieve.” Elementary School Journal,
Illich, I. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and 1969, pp. 168–169 and 370–374.
Row, 1971. Pequignot, H. “L’équation Personnelle du Juge.” In
Jackson, G., and Cosca, C. “The Inequality of Edu- Semaine des Hopitaux (Paris), 1966.
cational Opportunity in the Southwest: An Polk, K. “Class, Strain, and Rebellion and Adoles-
Observational Study of Ethnically Mixed Class- cents.” Social Problems 17 (1969):214–224.
Polk, K., and Schafer, W. E. Schools and Delinquency. Scott, R. A., and Douglas, J. C. (eds.). Theoretical
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Basic Books,
Reimer, E. School Is Dead. New York: Doubleday, 1971. 1972.
Rist, R. C. “Student Social Class and Teachers’ Snow, R. E. “Unfinished Pygmalion.” Contemporary
Expectations: The Self-fulfilling Prophecy in Psychology 14 (1969):197–199.
Ghetto Education.” Harvard Educational Review Stein, A. “Strategies for Failure.” Harvard Educational
40 (1970):411–450. Review 41 (1971):158–204.
Rist, R. C. “Social Distance and Social Inequality Tannenbaum, F. Crime and the Community. New
in a Kindergarten Classroom: An Examination of York: Columbia University Press, 1938.
the ‘Cultural Gap’ Hypothesis.” Urban Education Taylor, C. “The Expectations of Pygmalion’s
7 (1972):241–260. Creators.” Educational Leadership 28 (1970):
Rist, R. C. The Urban School: A Factory for Failure. 161–164.
Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1973. Thorndike, R. L. “Review of Pygmalion in the Class-
Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. “Teachers’ Expec- room.” Educational Research Journal 5 (1968):
tancies: Determinants of Pupils’ IQ Gains.” 708–711.
Psychology Reports 19 (1966):115–118. Thorndike, R. L. “But Do You Have to Know How
Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Class- to Tell Time?” Educational Research Journal 6
room. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, (1969):692.
1968. Warner, W. L.; Havighurst, R.; and Loeb, M.B. Who
Rowe, M. “Science, Silence and Sanctions.” Science Shall be Educated? New York: Harper and Row,
and Children 6 (1969):11–13. 1944.
Rubington, E., and Weinberg, M. S. Deviance: The Willis, S. Formation of Teachers’ Expectations of Student
Interactionist Perspective. New York: Macmillan, Academic Performance. Unpublished Ph.D.
1973. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas,
Rubovits, P., and Maehr, M. L. “Pygmalion Black and 1972.
White.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Wilson, A. B. “Social Stratification and Academic
2 (1973):210–218. Achievement,” in Education in Depressed Areas,
Schafer, W. E., and Olexa, C. Tracking and Oppor- edited by H. Passow. New York: Teachers College
tunity. Scranton, Pa.: Chandler, 1971. Press, 1963.
Scheff, T. Being Mentally III. Chicago; Aldine, 1966. Zajonc, R. B., and Brinkman, P. “Expectancy and
Schur, E. Crimes without Victims. Englewood Cliffs, Feedback as Independent Factors in Task
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social
Schur, E. Labeling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper Psychology 11 (1969):148–150.
and Row, 1971.
The Politics of Culture

Understanding Local Political Resistance to Detracking in
Racially Mixed Schools
Amy Stuart Wells and Irene Serna
Research on tracking, or grouping students 1995). Furthermore, being placed in the low
into distinct classes for “fast” and “slow” learn- track often has long-lasting negative effects on
ers, has demonstrated that this educational these students, as they fall further and further
practice leads to racial and socioeconomic behind their peers and become increasingly
segregation within schools, with low-income, bored in school. Partly in response to this
African American, and Latino students fre- research and partly in response to their own
quently placed in the lowest level classes, even uneasiness with the separate and unequal
when they have equal or higher test scores or classrooms created by tracking, educators
grades (see Oakes, 1985; Oakes & Welner, across the country are beginning to respond by
testing alternatives to tracking, a reform we call society, Harrison (1993) notes that “the task is
“detracking.” not so much to look for the global correspon-
Over the last three years, our research team dences between culture and class, but to
studied ten racially and socioeconomically mixed reconstruct the peculiarly local and material
schools undergoing detracking reform, and micrologic of investments made in the intel-
attempted to capture the essence of the political lectual field” (p. 40). Accordingly, in our study,
struggles inherent in such efforts.1 We believe we particularize the political struggles and
that an important aspect of our qualitative, examine the specific ideologies articulated at
multiple case study is to help educators and each school site. Because we were studying ten
policymakers understand the various manifesta- schools in ten different cities and towns, we
tions of local political resistance to detracking— needed to contextualize each political struggle
not only who instigates it, but also the ideology over detracking reform within its local school
of opposition to such reforms and the political community. These local contexts are significant
practices employed (see Oakes & Wells, 1995). because the relations of power and domination
This article focuses on how forces outside the that affect people most directly are those shaping
school walls shaped the ability of educators to the social contexts within which they live out
implement “detracking reform”—to question their everyday lives: the home, the workplace,
existing track structures and promote greater the classroom, the peer group. As Thompson
access to challenging classes for all students. (1990) states, “These are the contexts within
More specifically, we look at those actors whom which individuals spend the bulk of their time,
we refer to as the “local elite”—those with a acting and interacting, speaking and listening,
combination of economic, political, and cultural pursuing their aims and following the aims of
capital that is highly valued within their parti- others” (p. 9).
cular school community.2 These elites are most Our research team used qualitative methods
likely to resist detracking reform because their to examine technical aspects of detracking—
children often enjoy privileged status in a school organization, grouping practices, and
tracked system. The capital of the elites enables classroom pedagogy—as well as cultural norms
them to engage in political practices that can and political practices that legitimize and support
circumvent detracking reform. tracking as a “commonsense” approach to
In order to understand the influence of local educating students (Oakes & Wells, 1995). Our
elites’ political practices on the tracking reform, research question was, What happens when
we examine their ideology of entitlement, or how someone with power in a totally mixed secondary
they make meaning of their privilege within the school decides to reduce tracking? Guided by this
educational system and how others come to see question, we selected ten sites–six high schools
such meanings as the way things “ought to be.” and four middle schools—from a pool of schools
According to Gramsci (cited in Boggs 1984), that were undergoing detracking reform and
insofar as ruling ideas emanating from elites are volunteered to be studied. We chose these
internalized by a majority of individuals within particular schools because of their diversity and
a given community, they become a defining demonstrated commitment to detracking. The
motif of everyday life and appear as “common schools we studied varied in size from more
sense”—that is, as the “traditional popular than three thousand to less than five hundred
conception of the world” (p. 161). students. One school was in the Northeast,
Yet we realize that the high-status cultural three were in the Midwest, one in the South,
capital—the valued tastes and consumption two in the Northwest, and three in various
patterns—of local elites and the resultant regions of California. Each school drew from
ideologies are easily affected by provincial social a racially and socioeconomically diverse commu-
contexts and the particular range of class, race, nity and served significant but varied mixes
and culture at those sites (Bourdieu, 1984). In a of White, African American, Latino, Native
study of social reproduction in postmodern American/Alaska Native, and/or Asian students.
We visited each school three times over a two- p. 188) employed to prevent structural change
year period. Data collection during our site visits that would challenge their status and privilege.
included in-depth, semi-structured tape-recorded Our intention is not to criticize these powerful
interviews with administrators, teachers, stu- parents in an unsympathetic manner. Yet, we
dents, parents, and community leaders, including believe that too often the cultural forces that
school board members. In total, more than four shape such parents’ agency as they try to do what
hundred participants across all ten schools were is best for their children remain hidden from view
interviewed at least once. We also observed and thus unquestioned. Our effort to unpack the
classrooms, as well as faculty, PTA, and school “knapsack” of elite privilege will expose the tight
board meetings. We reviewed documents and relationship between the “objective” criteria of
wrote field notes about our observations within the schools and the cultural forces of the elite
the schools and the communities. Data were (McIntosh, 1992).
compiled extensively from each school to form Detracking, or the process of moving schools
the basis of cross-case analysis. Our study ran toward a less rigid system of assigning students
from the spring of 1992 through the spring of to classes and academic programs, is a hotly
1995.3 contested educational reform. In racially mixed
schools, the controversy surrounding detracking
efforts is compounded by beliefs about the
Descriptions of “Local Elites”
relationship among race, culture, and academic
The struggles over tracking and detracking ability. In virtually all racially mixed secondary
reforms are, to a large extent, concerned with schools, tracking resegregates students, with
whose culture and life-style is valued, and, thus, mostly White and Asian students in the high
whose way of knowing is equated with “intelli- academic tracks and mostly African American
gence.” Traditional hierarchical track structures and Latino students in the low tracks (Oakes,
in schools have been validated by the conflation 1985; Oakes, Oraseth, Bell, & Camp, 1990). To
of culture and intelligence. When culturally the extent that elite parents have internalized
biased “truths” about ability and merit confront dominant, but often unspoken, beliefs about race
efforts to “detrack,” political practices are and intelligence, they may resist “desegregation”
employed either to maintain the status quo or within racially mixed schools—here defined as
to push toward new conceptions of ability that detracking—because they do not want their
would render a rigid and hierarchical track children in classes with Black and Latino
structure obsolete (see Oakes, Lipton, & Jones, students.
1995). Efforts to alter within-school racial segrega-
While we acknowledge that many agents tion via detracking, then, are generally threaten-
contribute to the maintenance of a rigid track ing to elites, in that they challenge their position
structure, this article examines the political at the top of the hierarchy. The perceived stakes,
practices of local elites in the school commu- from an elite parent’s perspective, are quite high.
nities we studied. The elites discussed here had They argue, for instance, that their children
children enrolled in the detracking schools and will not be well served in detracked classes. And
thus constitute the subgroup of local elites while these stakes are most frequently discussed
active in shaping school policies. Their practices in academic terms—for example, the dumbing
were aimed at maintaining a track structure, with down of the curriculum for smart students—the
separate and unequal educational opportunities real stakes, we argue, are generally not academics
for “deserving” elite students and “undeserving” at all, but, rather, status and power. For example,
or non-elite students. Our analysis of elite if a school does away with separate classes for
parents’ ideology of privilege and the result- students labeled “gifted” but teachers continue
ant political practices therefore includes an to challenge these students with the same
examination of “corresponding institutional curriculum in a detracked setting, the only
mechanisms” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, “losses” the students will incur are their label and
their separate and unequal status. Yet in a highly criteria of intelligence and achievement is
stratified society, such labels and privileged actually extremely biased toward the subjective
status confer power. experience and ways of knowing of elite students.
In looking at the ability of the upper strata of Similarly, Delpit (1995) describes the critical
society to maintain power and control, Bourdieu role that power plays in our society and edu-
(1977) argues that economic capital—that is, cational system, as the worldviews of those
income, wealth, and property—is not the only in privileged positions are “taken as the only
form of capital necessary for social reproduction. reality, while the worldviews of those less power-
He describes other forms of capital, including ful are dismissed as inconsequential” (p. xv). The
political, social, and cultural (Bourdieu & education system is the primary field in which
Wacquant, 1992). In our analysis of resistance to struggles over these cultural meanings take
detracking reforms, we focus on cultural capital place and where, more often than not, high-
and its relationship to dominant ideologies status cultural capital is translated into high-
within our school communities because of the status credentials, such as academic degrees from
explicit connections between cultural capital elite institutions (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
and educational achievement within Bourdieu’s Thus, socially valuable cultural capital—form
work. According to Bourdieu (1984), cultural and manner—is the property many upper class
capital consists of culturally valued tastes and and, to a lesser extent, middle-class families
consumption patterns, which are rewarded transmit to their offspring that substitutes for,
within the educational system. Bourdieu or supplements, the transmission of economic
discusses “culture” not in its restricted, normative capital as a means of maintaining class, status,
sense, but rather from a more anthropological and privilege across generations (Bourdieu,
perspective. Culture is elaborated in a “taste” for 1973). Academic qualifications and high-
refined objects, which is what distinguishes the status educational titles are to cultural capital
culture of the dominant class or upper social what money and property titles are to economic
status from that of the rest of society. In order for capital. The form and manner of academic
elites to employ their cultural capital to maintain qualifications are critical. Students cannot simply
power, emphasis must be placed on subtleties graduate from high school; they must graduate
of taste—for example, form over function, with the proper high-status qualifications that
manner over matter. Within the educational allow them access to the most selective univer-
system, Bourdieu argues, students are frequently sities and to the credentials those institutions
rewarded for their taste, and for the cultural confer.
knowledge that informs it. For instance, Through the educational system, elites use
elite students whose status offers them the their economic, political, and cultural capital
opportunity to travel to other cities, states, and to acquire symbolic capital—the most highly
countries on family vacations are often perceived valued capital in a given society or local
to be more “intelligent” than other students, community. Symbolic capital signifies culturally
simply because the knowledge they have gained important attributes, such as status, authority,
from these trips is reflected in what is valued prestige, and, by extension, a sense of honor. The
in schools. When high-status, elite students’ social construction of symbolic capital may
taste is seen as valued knowledge within the vary from one locality to another, but race and
educational system, other students’ taste and the social class consistently play a role, with White,
knowledge that informs it is devalued (Bourdieu wealthy, well-educated families most likely to be
& Passeron, 1979). In this way, high-status at the top of the social strata (Harrison, 1993).
culture is socially constructed as “intelligence”— Because the cultural capital of the elite is that
a dubious relationship that elites must strive to which is most valued and rewarded within the
conceal in order to legitimize their merit-based educational system, elite status plays a circular
claim to privileged status. In other words, role in the process of detracking reform: parents
what is commonly referred to as “objective” with high economic, political, and cultural
capital are most likely to have children in the White parents at Liberty noted that most of the
highest track and most prestigious classes, which Black and Latino students enrolled in the school
in turn gives them more symbolic capital in the came from very low-income families. Many of
community. The elite parents can then employ the people we interviewed said there was a sizable
their symbolic capital in the educational number of middle-class Black families in this
decision-making arena to maintain advantages community, but that they did not send their
for their children. Educational reforms that, like children to public schools. This school’s social
detracking, challenge the advantages bestowed class divide, which some educators and Black
upon children of the elite are resisted not only students argued was a caricature, allowed White
by the elites themselves, but also by educators parents to blame the school’s resegregation
and even other parents and community members through tracking on the “family backgrounds” of
who may revere the cultural capital of elite the students, rather than on racial prejudice.
families. The school and the community thus In the midwestern town of Plainview, the
bestow elite parents with the symbolic capital, or local White elites worked in private corporations
honor, that allows them political power. rather than universities. Here, the high-status
The status of the local elites in the ten school cultural capital was, in general, far more conser-
communities we studied derived in part from the vative, pragmatic, and less “intellectual” than at
prestige they and their children endowed to Liberty. Nonetheless, the elite parents here and
public schools simply by their presence. The elite at each of the schools we studied strove for the
are the most valued citizens, those the public same advantages that the elite parents at Liberty
schools do not want to lose, because the socially High demanded for their children.
constructed status of institutions such as schools The African American students in Plainview
is dependent upon the status of the individuals comprised two groups—those who lived in a
attending them. These are also the families most small, working-class Black neighborhood in the
likely to flee public schools if they are denied district and those who transferred into Plainview
what they want from them. For example, at from the “inner city” through an inter-district
Grant High School, an urban school in the desegregation plan. At this site, however, the
Northwest, the White, upper-middle-class par- social class distinctions between the two groups
ents who sent their children to public schools of Black students were blurred by many White
held tremendous power over the district respondents, particularly in their explanations of
administration. Many of them were highly edu- why Black students from both groups were
cated and possessed the economic means to send consistently found in the lowest track classes. For
their children to private schools if they so chose. instance, teachers could not tell us which Black
While the elites at each of the schools we students lived in Plainview and which rode the
studied held economic, social, and political bus in from the city. Some teachers also spoke of
capital, the specific combination of these varied Black students’—all Black students’—low levels
at each site in relation to the cultural capital of achievement as the result of their families
valued there. Thus, who the elites were and their culture of poverty, and not the result of what the
particular rationale for tracking varied among school offered them. Despite the relative
locations, based on the distinctive mix of race, economic advantages of many African American
class, and culture. For instance, at Liberty High students who lived in the Plainview district as
School, located in a West Coast city, many of the compared to those who lived in the city, all Black
White parents were professors at a nearby students in this mostly White, wealthy suburban
university. As “professional intellectuals,” they school were doing quite poorly. While African
strongly influenced the direction of Liberty Americans constituted 25 percent of the student
High; although they were generally not as population, less than 5 percent of the students in
wealthy as business executives, they were never- the highest level courses were Black. Further-
theless imbued with a great deal of high-status more, a district task force on Black achievement
cultural capital. Meanwhile, educators and found that more than half of the Black students
in the high school had received at least one D or groups, including Jamaican, Chinese, Armenian,
F over the course of one school year. Puerto Rican, African American, and various
In other schools, the interplay between race European ethnic groups. While we found it
and class was more complex, especially when the difficult to believe that there was no correlation
local elite sought to distinguish themselves from between race/ethnicity and income in the city
other, lower income Whites. For instance, in the with relatively poor African American and
small midwestern Bearfield School District, Latino communities, it is clear that not all of the
which is partly rural and partly suburban, local elites at King were White.
wealthy, well-educated, White suburban parents Thus, the layers of stratification in some
held the most power over the educational system schools were many, but the core of the power
because they possessed more economic and elite in all ten communities consisted of a group
highly valued cultural capital than rural Whites of parents who were more White, wealthy, and
or African Americans. When a desegregation well-educated relative to others in their commu-
plan was instituted in the 1970s, it was Black and nity. They were the members of the school
poor rural White children who were bused. As communities with the greatest economic and/or
the Bearfield Middle School principal explained, high-status cultural capital, which they have
“As our business manager/superintendent once passed on to their children. The schools, in turn,
told me, the power is neither Black nor White; greatly rewarded the children of these elite for
it’s green—as in money. And that’s where the their social distinctions, which were perceived to
power is. Rich people have clout. Poor people be distinctions of merit (DiMaggio, 1979).
don’t have clout.”
Still, the less wealthy and less educated rural
The Political Ideology of Tracking
Whites in Bearfield, while not as politically
and Detracking: “Deserving”
powerful as the suburban Whites, remained more
High-Track Students
influential than the African American families.
When the two middle schools in the district were Bourdieu’s concepts of domination and social
consolidated in 1987, Whites—both wealthy reproduction are particularly useful in under-
suburban and poor rural—were able to convince standing the education system, because educa-
the school board to close down the newly built tion is the field in which the elite both “records
middle school located in the African American and conceals” its own privilege. Elites “record”
community and keep open the older middle privilege through formal educational quali-
school on the White side of the town. fications, which then serve to “conceal” the
Although the interplay between class and inherited cultural capital needed to acquire
culture within a racially mixed community is them. According to Harrison (1993), “What is
generally defined along racial lines, we found usually referred to as equality of opportunity or
that was not always the case. For example, King meritocracy is, for Bourdieu, a ‘sociodicy’; that is,
Middle School, a magnet school in a large north- a sacred story that legitimates the dominant class’
eastern city, was designed to attract students of own privilege” (p. 43).
many racial groups and varied socioeconomic The political resistance of the local elite to de-
status. A teacher explained that the parents who tracking reforms cannot, therefore, be under-
are blue-collar workers do not understand what’s stood separately from the “sociodicy” or ideology
going on at the school, but the professional and employed to legitimize the privileged place
middle-class parents frequently call to ask for elites and their children hold in the educational
materials to help their children at home. system. Ideology, in a Gramscian sense, repre-
Educators at King insisted that middle-class and sents ideas, beliefs, cultural preferences, and even
professional parents were not all White, and that myths and superstitions, which possess a certain
there was very little correlation between income “material” reality of their own (Gramsci, 1971).
and race at the school, with its student body In education, societal ideas, beliefs, and cultural
composed of more than twenty racial/ethnic preferences of intelligence have found in
tracking structures their own material reality. here and we’re going for this country. And I think
Meanwhile, tracking reinforces and sustains their heart is in Mexico and they’re with that
those ideas, beliefs, and cultural preferences. culture still. It’s one thing to come over and
According to Thompson (1990), ideology bring your culture and to use it, but it’s another
refers to the ways in which meaning serves, in thing to get into that . . . and I’m calling it the
particular circumstances, to establish and sustain American ethic. They’re not into it and that’s
relations of power that are systematically why they end up so far behind. They get in
asymmetrical. Broadly speaking, ideology is school, and they are behind.
meaning in the service of power. Thompson suggests
that the study of ideology requires researchers to This construct of the “deserving minority”
investigate the ways in which meaning is denies the value of non-White students’ and
constructed and conveyed by symbolic forms of parents’ own culture or of their sometimes
various kinds, “from everyday linguistic penetrating critique of the American creed (see
utterances to complex images and texts; it Yonesawa, Williams, & Hirshberg, 1995), and
requires us to investigate the social contexts implies that only those students with the cultural
within which symbolic forms are employed and capital and underlying elite ideology deserve to
deployed” (p. 7). be rewarded in the educational system. Yet
The ideology of the local elites in the schools because the political arguments put forth by
we studied was often cloaked in the “symbolic powerful parents in the schools we studied
form” that Thompson describes. While the sounded so benign, so “American,” the cultural
symbols used by politically powerful people to racism that guided their perspective was rarely
express their resistance to detracking differed exposed. Consequently, both the racial segre-
from one site to the next, race consistently gation within the schools and the actions of
played a central, if not explicit, role. Although parents to maintain it were perceived as natural.
local elites expressed their dissatisfaction with We found many instances in which elite
detracking reform in overtly racial terms, their parents attempted to distance their children from
resistance was couched in more subtle expres- students they considered to be less deserving of
sions of the politics of culture that have clear special attention and services. For instance, at
racial implications. For example, they said they Rolling Hills Middle School, located in a south-
liked the concept of a racially mixed school, as eastern metropolitan area with a large, county-
long as the African American or Latino students wide desegregation plan, one wealthy White
acted like White, middle-class children, and parent said she and her husband purchased a
their parents were involved in the school and home in the nearby neighborhood because
bought into the American Dream. At Central Rolling Hills and its feeder high school are two
High, a predominately Latino school on the of the handful of schools in the district that offer
West Coast with a 23 percent White student an “advanced program.” She said several people
body, the local elite consisted of a relatively small had told her that in the advanced program the
middle class of mostly White and a few Latino curriculum was better, fewer behavior problems
families. No real upper middle class existed, occurred in the classes, and students received
and most of the Latino students came from very more individualized attention from teachers.
low-income families; many were recent immi- She also said that had her children not been
grants to the United States. A White parent accepted into the advanced program, she and her
whose sons were taking honors classes explained family would not have moved into this racially
her opposition to detracking efforts at Central, mixed school district, but would have purchased
exposing her sense of entitlement this way: a home in one of the Whiter suburbs east of the
county line. Interestingly enough, this parent
I think a lot of those Latinos come and they’re did not know whether or not the White sub-
still Mexicans at heart. They’re not American. I urban schools offered an advanced program.
don’t care what color you are, we’re in America Also of interest in this district is the creation
of the advanced program in the same year as the “assumed” that since the language arts depart-
implementation of the desegrega-tion plan. ment had made the honors and regular
The White, well-educated parents at Grant curriculum the same and allowed more students
High School often stated that the racial diversity to enroll in honors, the rigor of these classes
of the student body was one characteristic they had probably diminished, despite the teachers’
found most appealing about the school; They claims that standards had remained high.
said that such a racially mixed environment At Liberty High School, where the intel-
better prepared their children for life in “the real lectual elite were more “liberal” than the elite
world.” One parent noted that “the positive in most of the other schools, parents also
mixing of racial groups is important to learning frequently cited the racial diversity of the school
to live in society.” But some teachers argued that as an asset. For instance, one parent commented
while these parents found Grant’s diversity that it was the racial and cultural mix—“the real
acceptable—even advantageous—their approval range of people here”—that attracted her to
was conditioned by their understanding that Liberty High. She liked the fact that her
“their children [would] only encounter Black daughter was being exposed to people of different
students in the hallways and not in their cultures and different socioeconomic back-
classrooms.” Grant’s assistant principal noted grounds: “We took her out of private school,
that “many upper class, professional parents hold where there’s all these real upper middle-class
occupational positions in which they work White kids.” Yet, despite this espoused appre-
toward equity and democracy, but expect their ciation for diversity among White liberal parents
children to be given special treatment at Grant.” at Liberty, they strongly resisted efforts to dis-
This ideology of “diversity at a distance” is mantle the racially segregated track system.
often employed by White parents at strategic According to another White parent of a high-
moments when the privileged status of their track student at Liberty:
children appears to be threatened (Lareau,
1989). In our study, the parents of honors stu- I think the one thing that really works at Liberty
dents at Grant successfully protested the school High is the upper track. It does. And to me, I
effort to eliminate the “tennis shoe” registration guess my goal would be for us to find a way to
process by which students and teachers jointly make the rest of Liberty High work as well as the
negotiated access to classes.4 Some of the faculty upper track. But it’s crucial that we not destroy
had proposed that the school switch to a the upper track to do that, and that can happen
computer registration program that would . . . it really could. . . . I feel my daughter will get
guarantee Black and Latino students greater an excellent education if the program continues
access to high-track classes. The parents of the the way it is, if self-scheduling continues so that
honors students stated that they were not they aren’t all smoothed together.
protesting the registration change because they
were opposed to having their children in racially In all of the schools we studied, the most
mixed classes, but because “they [felt] that their interesting aspect of elites’ opposition to
children [would] learn more in an environment detracking is that they based their resistance
where all students are as motivated to learn as on the symbolic mixing of high “deserving”
they are—in a homogeneous ability classroom.” and low “undeserving” students, rather than
Respondents at Grant said that parents on information about what actually happens in
assumed that if any student was allowed into an detracked classrooms. For instance, an English
honors class, regardless of his or her prior track, teacher at Plainview High School who taught
it must not be a good class. The assumption here a heterogeneous American Studies course in
was that if there was no selectivity in placing which she academically challenged all her
students in particular classes, then the learning students said that the popularity of the Advanced
and instruction in those classes could not be Placement classes among the elite parents was in
good. Parents of the most advanced students part based upon a “myth” that “they’re the only
classes that offer high standards, that they’re the free, industrial societies where more coercive
only courses that are interesting and challenging. methods of domination are not allowed—entails
And the myth is that that’s where the best the rationalization of the symbolic. When
learning takes place. That’s a myth.” symbols of domination are rationalized, the
At Explorer Middle School, located in a mid- entitlement of the upper strata of society is
sized northwestern city, the identified gifted legitimized, and thus this impersonal domination
students—nearly all White, despite a school is seen as natural (Harrison, 1993, p. 42).
population that was 30 percent American In our study, we found that elite parents
Indian—were no longer segregated into special rationalized their children’s entitlement to
classes or teams. Rather, “gifted” students were better educational opportunities based upon the
offered extra “challenge” courses, which other resources that they themselves brought to the
“non-gifted” students could choose to take as system. For instance, parents from the White,
well. The day after a grueling meeting with wealthy side of Bearfield Middle School’s
parents of the “gifted” students, the designated attendance zone perceived that the African
gifted education teacher who works with these American students who attended the school and
and other students in the challenge classes was lived on the “other” side of town benefited from
upset by the way in which the parents had the large tax burden shouldered by the White
responded to her explanation of the new families. One White parent noted, “I don’t feel
challenge program and the rich educational that our school should have, you know, people
opportunities available in these classes: from that far away coming to our school. I don’t
think it’s right as far as the taxes we pay. . . . They
And they didn’t ask, “well what are our kids don’t pay the taxes that we pay, and they’re at our
learning in your classes?” Nobody asked that. I schools also. Um, I just don’t feel they belong
just found that real dismaying, and I was prepared here, no.” According to the superintendent of
to tell them what we do in class and here’s an the school district, this statement reflects the
example. I had course outlines. I send objectives widely held belief among Whites that they are
home with every class, and goals and work being taxed to pay for schools for Black students,
requirements, and nobody asked me anything “and therefore the White community . . . should
about that . . . like they, it’s . . . to me it’s like I’m make the decisions about the schools . . . because
dealing with their egos, you know, more than they are paying the bill.” These perspectives
what their kids really need educationally. explain in part why the consolidation of the
district’s two middle schools resulted in the
What this and other teachers in our study told closing of the mostly Black but much more
us is that many elite parents are more concerned recently built school, and favored the old,
about the labels placed on their children than dilapidated Bearfield building as the single
what actually goes on in the classroom. This is a middle school site.
powerful illustration of what Bourdieu (1984) At the same time, these parents balked at the
calls “form over function” and “manner over suggestion that their own social privilege and
matter.” much of their children’s advantages had less to
do with objective merit or intellectual ability
than it had to do with their families’ economic
Notions of Entitlement
and cultural capital. Harrison (1993) expands
Symbols of the “deserving,” high-track students upon Bourdieu’s notion that culture functions to
must be juxtaposed with conceptions of the deny or disavow the economic origins of capital
undeserving, low-track students in order for by gaining symbolic credit for the possessors of
strong protests against detracking to make sense economic and political capital. Harrison argues
in a society that advocates equal opportunity. that the seemingly legitimate and meritocratic
Bourdieu argues that “impersonal domination”— basis upon which students “earn” academic
the sociocultural form of domination found in credentials is an important aspect of the
dominant class’s denial of entitlement as a “managers and professionals” and that something
process in which inherited economic and else should be done for those kids who would
political power receives social consecration. In grow up to be “workers.”
other words, the elite parents must convince According to Harrison (1993), the elite seek
themselves and others that the privileges their to deny the arbitrary nature of the social order
children are given in the educational system were that culture does much to conceal. This process,
earned in a fair and meritocratic way, and are which he calls “masking,” occurs when what is
not simply a consequence of the parents’ own culturally arbitrary is “essentialized, absolutized
privileged place in society. “The demonstration or universalized” (p. 45). Masking is generally
that the belief of merit is a part of the process accomplished via symbols—culturally specific as
of social consecration in which the dominant opposed to materially specific symbols (Bourdieu
class’s power is both acknowledged and mis- & Wacquant, 1992). For example, standardized
recognized, is at the core of Bourdieu’s analysis test scores become cultural symbols of intelli-
of culture” (Harrison, 1993, p. 44). gence that are used to legitimize the track
There is strong evidence from the schools we structure in some instances while they are
studied that students frequently end up in “masked” in other instances.
particular tracks and classrooms more on the An example of this “masking” process was
basis of their parents’ privilege than of their own revealed to us at Grant High School, where elite
“ability.” A school board member in the district parents of the most advanced students approved
in which Rolling Hills Middle School is located of using test scores as a measure of students’
explained that students are placed in the intelligence and worthiness to enroll in the
advanced program depending on who their highest track classes. But when children of the
parents happen to know. Because the advanced elite who were identified as “highly able” in
program was implemented at the same time as elementary school did not make the test score
the countywide desegregation plan, it has cutoffs for high school honors classes, the parents
become a sophisticated form of resegregation found ways to get their children placed in these
within racially mixed schools supported by classes anyway, as if the tests in that particular
conceptions of “deserving” advanced students. instance were not valid. The educators usually
The school board member said that parents of gave in to these parents’ demands, and then cited
the advanced students are very much invested in such instances as evidence of a faulty system. The
labels that their children acquire at school. so-called faults within the system, however, did
When children are labeled “advanced” it means not lead to broad-based support among powerful
their parents are “advanced,” as well. In fact, said parents or educators to dismantle the track
the board member, some of these parents refer to structure.
themselves as the “advanced parents”: “There is Similarly, at Explorer Middle School, where
still an elitist aspect as far as I am concerned. I the wealthy White “gifted” students were all
also think it is an ego trip for parents. They love placed in regular classes and then offered separate
the double standard that their children are in challenge classes along with other students who
Advanced Placement programs.” chose to take such a class, the principal collected
Similarly, several elite parents of students in data on the achievement test scores for the
the advanced program at Grant High School identified gifted students and other students
expressed regret that the school had such a poor in the school. She found huge overlaps in the two
vocational education department for the “other” sets of scores with some identified “non-gifted”
students—those who were not advanced. Their students scoring in the 90th percentile and
lament for vocational education related to their above, and some “gifted” students ranking as
way of understanding the purpose of the high low as the 58th percentile. Yet, when the mostly
school in serving different students. One of these White parents of children identified by the
parents, for example, stated that the role of the district as “gifted” were presented with these
honors classes was to groom students to become data, they attributed the large number of low test
scores among the pool of gifted students to a by those parents whose children were in the
handful of non-White students participating Advanced Placement classes. According to this
in that program, although the number of non- teacher, “If you were raised under the system that
White “gifted” students was far lower than the said you were very intelligent and high
number of low test scores within the gifted achieving, you don’t want anyone questioning
program. The White parents simply would not that system, OK? That’s just the way it is.” She
admit that any of their children did not deserve said that what some of the parents were most
a special label (and the extra resources that threatened by was how this research on
come with it). According to the teacher of intelligence was going to be used and whether
the challenge classes, one of the most vocal and the high school was going to do away with
demanding “gifted” parents was the mother Advanced Placement classes. She recalled, “I
of a boy who was not even near the top of his used the word ‘track’ once and debated whether
class: “I still can’t figure out how he got in the I could weave that in because I knew the power
gifted program; he doesn’t perform in any way at of the word, and I didn’t want to shut everyone
that high a level. . . . She is carrying on and on down. It was very interesting.”
and on. . . .”
Despite evidence that the “gifted” label may
Political Practices: How the Local
be more a form of symbolic capital than a true
Elite Undermined Detracking
measure of innate student ability, the parents
of students who had been identified as gifted by The ideology and related symbols that legitimate
this school district maintained a strong sense of local elites’ sense of entitlement are critical to
entitlement. For instance, a Whiter upper educational policy and practice. As Harrison
middle-class father of two so-called gifted boys (1993) and Harker (1984) note, Bourdieu’s work
told us he was outraged that the “gifted and is ultimately focused on the strategic practices
talented” teacher at Explorer spent her time employed when conflicts emerge. In this way,
teaching challenge classes that were not Bourdieu identifies “practices”—actions that
exclusively for gifted students. This father was maintain or change the social structures—
adamant that the state’s special funding for gifted within strategically oriented forms of conflict.
and talented (G/T) programs should be spent These strategic actions must be rooted back into
exclusively on identified G/T students. He noted the logic or sense of entitlement that underlies
that at the other middle school in the district, the these practices. In other words, we examined
G/T teacher worked with a strictly G/T class, political practices that are intended to be
“whereas at Explorer, the G/T teacher works consistent with an ideology of “deserving” high-
with a class that is only 50 percent G/T.” In other track students. These practices were employed by
words, “precious” state resources for gifted and elite parents when educators posed a threat to the
talented students were being spent on “non- privileged status of their children by questioning
deserving” students—many of whom had higher the validity and objectivity of a rigid track
middle school achievement test scores than the structure (Useem, 1990).
students who had been identified by the school According to Bourdieu, when seemingly
district as gifted many years earlier. “objective” structures, such as tracking systems,
At Plainview High School, the English are faithfully reproduced in the dispositions or
teacher who created the heterogeneous Amer- ways of knowing of actors, then the “arbitrary”
ican Studies class began reading about the social nature of the existing structure can go completely
science research on intelligence, and concluded unrecognized (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).
that our society and education system do not For instance, no one questions the evidence of
really understand what intelligence is or how to the separate and unequal “gifted and talented” or
measure it. When the principal asked her to “highly advanced” program for children of the
present her research to parents at an open house, local elites, despite the fact that the supposedly
her message was not well received, particularly “objective” measures that legitimize these
programs—standardized tests scores—do not buy-in from the “not-quite elite,” and accepting
always support the somewhat “arbitrary” nature detracking bribes.
of student placement. This arbitrary placement
system is more sensitive to cultural capital than
Threatening Flight
academic “ability.”
In the case of tracking, so-called objective Perhaps nowhere in our study was the power of
and thus non-arbitrary standardized tests are the local elite and their ideology of entitlement
problematic on two levels. First, the tests more evident than when the topic of “elite flight”
themselves are culturally biased in favor of was broached, specifically when these parents
wealthy, White students, and therefore represent threatened to leave the school. Educators in the
a poor measure of “ability” or “intelligence.” ten schools we studied were acutely aware that
Second, scores on these exams tend to count their schools, like most institutions, gain their
more for some students than others. Elite status, or symbolic capital, from the social status
students who have low achievement test scores of the students who attend (Wells & Crain,
are placed in high tracks, while non-White and 1999). They know they must hold onto the local
non-wealthy students with high test scores are elites in order for their schools to remain
bound to the lower tracks (see Oakes et al., 1995; politically viable institutions that garner broad
Welner & Oakes, 1995). Still, test scores remain public support. As a result, the direct or indirect
an undisclosed and undisputed “objective” threat of elite flight can thwart de-tracking efforts
measure of student track placement and thus when local elite parents have other viable
a rationale for maintaining the track structure public or private school options.
in many schools. At Liberty High School, the liberal ideals and
When these undisclosed or undisputed parts principles that are the cornerstone of this
of the universe are questioned, conflicts arise community were challenged when local elites
that call for strategic political practices on the were asked to embrace reforms that they per-
part of elites. As Harrison (1993) states, “Where ceived to be removing advantages held by their
the fit can no longer be maintained and where, children. In fact, discussions and implemen-
therefore, the arbitrary nature of the objective tation of such reforms—for example, the creation
structure becomes evident, the dominant class of a heterogeneous ninth-grade English/social
must put into circulation a discourse in which studies core—caused elite parents to “put into
this arbitrary order is misrecognized as such” circulation a discourse” that legitimized their
(p. 41). When the arbitrary nature of the claim to something better than what other
“objective” tracking structure becomes evident, students received. Without this special attention
detracking efforts are initiated, often by for high-track students, elite parents said, they
educators who have come to realize the cultural had little reason to keep their children at
basis of the inequalities within our so-called Liberty. As one parent of a high-track student
meritocratic educational system. noted in discussing the local elite’s limits and
Within each of our ten schools, when edu- how much of the school’s equity-centered
cators penetrated the ideology that legitimizes detracking reforms they would tolerate before
the track structure (and the advantages that abandoning the school:
high-track students have within it), elite parents
felt that their privileges were threatened. We I think it happens to all of us; when you have
found that local elites employed four practices to children, you confront all your values in a
undermine and co-opt meaningful detracking totally different way. I mean, I did all this work
efforts in such a way that they and their children in education, I knew all these things about it, and
would continue to benefit disproportionately it’s very different when it’s your own child cause
from educational policies. These four overlap- when it’s your own child your real responsibility
ping and intertwined practices were threatening is to advocate for that child. I mean, I might make
flight, co-opting the institutional elites, soliciting somewhat different decisions about Liberty High,
though probably not terribly different, because as 1970s, shortly after the county-wide desegrega-
I say, I would always have in mind the danger of tion plan was implemented, the mother of two
losing a big chunk of kids, and with them the White boys in the program noted, “If I heard they
community support that makes this school work were going to eliminate the Advanced Program,
well. I would be very alarmed, and would seriously
consider if I could afford a private school.” She
The power of the threat of elite flight is indicated that she thought that most parents
evident in the history of the creation of track- of students at Rolling Hills felt this way.
ing structures in many of our schools, where At Central High School, White flight
advanced and gifted programs began to appear consistently paralleled the influx of Latino
and proliferate at the same time that the schools immigrant students into the school. Administra-
in these districts were becoming more racially tors said they hoped that the relocation of the
mixed, either through a desegregation plan or school to a new site in a more middle-class area
demographic shifts. This shift toward more of the district would allow Central to maintain
tracking as schools became increasingly racially its White population. But many educators said
mixed follows the long history of tracking in they felt that what keeps White students at
the U.S. educational system. Tracking became Central is the honors program, which would
more systematized at the turn of the century, as have been scaled back under detracking reform.
non-Anglo immigrant students enrolled in urban This reform effort has been almost completely
high schools (Oakes, 1985). At Grant High derailed by political roadblocks from both inside
School, which is located in a racially diverse the school and the surrounding community.
urban school district surrounded by separate Suburban, midwestern Plainview High
Whiter and more affluent districts, the highly School was the school in which we perhaps
advanced and “regular” advanced programs were noted the perceived threat of elite flight to be most
started shortly after desegregation at the insist- powerful. There, the concept of “community
ence of local elite parents who wanted separate stability” was foremost on the minds of the
classes for their children. One teacher noted that educators. Many of the teachers and admin-
the advanced programs were designed to respond istrators in the Plainview district, particularly at
to a segment of the White community that felt, the high school, came to Plainview from the
“Oh, we’ll send our kids to public school, but only nearby Hamilton School District, which
if there’s a special program for them.” experienced massive White flight two decades
At Grant, the chair of the language arts earlier. Essentially, the population of the
department, an instigator of detracking reforms Hamilton district shifted from mostly White,
efforts, said that the parents of the “advanced” upper middle class to all Black and poor in a
students run the school district: matter of ten years—roughly between 1968 and
1978. According to these educators and many
They scare those administrators the same way other respondents in Plainview, the status of the
they scare us. They’re the last vestiges of middle- Hamilton district and its sole high school
class people in the public schools in some sense. plummeted, as each incoming freshman class
And they know that. And they flaunt that became significantly darker and poorer. Once
sometimes. And they scare people with that. And regarded as the premier public high school in the
the local media would spit [the deputy super- metropolitan area, Hamilton suddenly served as
intendent] up in pieces if she did something to a reminder of the consequences of White flight.
drive these parents out of the school district. The large numbers of White residents and
So, yeah, I’m sure she’s nervous about anything educators who came to Plainview after fleeing
we’re doing. Hamilton kept the memory of White flight alive,
and used Hamilton as a symbol of this threat.
Similarly, at Rolling Hills Middle School, Of all the educators in the district, it was the
where the Advanced Program began in the late Plainview High School principal, Mr. Fredrick,
who appeared most fixated on issues of commu- tutional demands. This threat, and the fear it
nity “stability” and the role of the schools in creates in the hearts of educators, is related to
maintaining it: the way in which the “institutional elites”—that
is educators with power and authority within the
Here’s my problem, what I’m doing at Plainview educational system—become co-opted by the
High School is essentially trying to make it ideology of the local elites. Both Domhoff
stable enough so that other people can integrate (1983, 1990) and Mills (1956) write about
the neighborhood. Now if other people aren’t institutional elites as “high-level” employees
integrating the neighborhood, I’m not doing it in institutions (either private corporations or
either. I’m not out there working on that, I don’t governmental agencies, such as the U.S.
have time to be out there working on that, I’ve Treasury Department) who see their roles as
got to be making sure that what we’re doing in serving the upper, capitalist-based class. At a
Plainview High School is strong, we’re strong more micro or local level, we find that the
enough, and have the reputation of, so that as institutional elites are the educational admin-
we integrate, which I’m hoping is happening, istrators who see their roles as serving the needs
that Whites won’t get up and flee . . . when they and demands of the local elites. Indeed, in most
come in and say, I hope you’re here in eight situations, their professional success and even job
years, that is a commitment those White people security depend on their ability to play these
are gonna be there in eight years. roles.
For instance, in small-town Bearfield, the new
Fredrick argues that an academically strong superintendent, who is politically very popular
high school led by a principal who maintains a with elite parents and community members,
good relationship with the community will help has developed a less than positive impression
stabilize the whole community. As he explains, of detracking efforts at the middle school. Yet
“I believe we can keep stability in Plainview his view is based less on first-hand information
while still being out in front of education. Now about the reform through visits to the school or
that’s what I feel my job is.” Frederick’s goal of discussions with the teachers than on the input
maintaining racial stability in the community is he has received from White parents who have
noble in many respects, but we learned during placed their children in private schools. To him,
our visits to Plainview that his focus on White the educators at Bearfield Middle School have
flight has resulted in intense efforts to please the “let the academics slide just a little bit.” Because
elite White parents. These efforts to cater to of the superintendent’s sense of commitment
elite parents have consistently worked against to the powerful White, wealthy parents, the
detracking reform in the school. While some of principal of Bearfield indicated that he feels
the teachers and other administrators continued intense pressure to raise standardized test scores
to push for more innovative grouping and and prove that academics are not sliding at the
instructional strategies, Fredrick has advocated school. Thus, some degree of “teaching to the
more Advanced Placement courses and encour- test” has come at the expense of a more creative
aged more students to take these classes. In this and innovative curriculum that facilitates de-
way, the threat of White elite flight has helped tracking efforts by acknowledging, for example,
maintain the hierarchical track structure and an different ways of knowing material. In a sym-
Advanced Placement curriculum that many bolic move, the teaching staff has rearranged the
teachers, students, and less elite parents argue is Black History Month curriculum to accom-
not creative or instructionally sound. modate standardized test prepping in the month
of February.
The relationship among the institutional
Co-opting the Institutional Elites
elites at urban Grant High School, its school
The threat of flight is one of the ways in which district office, and the local elite parents, how-
local elites provoke responses to their insti- ever, demonstrates one of the most severe
instances of “co-optation” that we observed. At and get them upset “because they had the power
the district’s main office and at the high school, to do things at school.”
many of the educational administrators are At Grant, administrators at the district office
African American. Still, these administrators have historically been very responsive to the
frequently have failed to push for the kinds of concerns of White parents, and thus regularly
reforms that would benefit the mostly African implement policies designed to retain the White
American students in the lowest track classes. students. For instance, the district leadership
Several respondents noted that Black educators convened an all-White “highly capable parent
who have been advocates for democratic reform task force” to examine issues surrounding the
have not survived in this district, and that those educational advanced programs for “highly
who cater to the demands of powerful White capable” students. The task force strongly
parents have been promoted within the system. recommended self-contained classrooms for
At the end of the 1993–1994 school year, the advanced students, making detracking efforts
African American principal of Grant, Mr. across the district more problematic. According
Phillips, rejected the language arts department’s to one of the teachers at Grant, school board
proposal to detrack ninth-grade English by members would not talk about the elitism
putting “honors” and “regular” students together around this program because they were “feeling
in the same classes and offering honors as an under siege.”
extra credit option for all students. The principal At several schools in our study, educational
claimed that it was not fair to do away with administrators, especially principals, have lost
separate honors classes when the proposal had their jobs since detracking efforts began, in part
not been discussed with parents. His decision, he because they refused co-optation and advocated
explained, was based on frequent complaints he detracking. At Liberty High School, despite
received from the mostly White parents of high- the principal’s efforts to make de-tracking as
track students that changes were being made at politically acceptable to the elite parents as
the school, particularly in the language arts possible, in the end he was “done in” by the
department, without their prior knowledge or institutional elites at the district office who
consent. According to the language arts depart- would not give him the extra resources he needed
ment chair, when her department detracked to carry out detracking in a manner local elites
twelfth-grade electives, it “really pissed people would have considered acceptable.
off.” Also, when these elite parents were not
consulted about the proposal to change the
Buy-In of the “Not-Quite Elite”
school schedule to an alternative four-period
schedule, they protested and were successful in In an interesting article about the current
postponing the change. political popularity of decentralized school
Furthermore, a recent attempt by Grant’s governance and growth of school-site councils
history department to do away with separate with broad decision-making power, Beare (1993)
honors classes at the request of some students was writes that the middle class is a very willing
thwarted by the parents of honors students, who, accomplice in the strategy to create such councils
according to one teacher, “went through the and “empower” parents to make important
roof.” Some of the teachers in other departments decisions about how schools are run. He notes
indicated that they suspected the history that it is the middle-class parents who put them-
department’s move to eliminate honors classes selves forward for election to such governing
was not sincere, but rather a political tactic bodies. Yet he argues that in spite of this new-
designed to generate support among powerful found participatory role for middle-class parents,
elite parents for the honors program. In fact, they actually have little control over the course
the history department chair, who opposes of their children’s schools, because such courses
detracking, noted that his only recourse to stop are chartered by a larger power structure. As
the detracking reform was to go to the parents Beare states, “In one sense, then, participative
decision-making is a politically diversionary She did note, however, that there were “a lot
tactic, a means of keeping activist people of parents on the [district-wide] school board
distracted by their own self-inflicted, busy work. whose kids are in the Advanced Placement
The middle class are willing accomplices, for they classes.” Interestingly, in the Plainview school
think they are gaining access to the decision- district, the school board, and the central
making of the power structures” (p. 202). administration, and not the school-site councils
The ideology of the local elite’s entitlement such as the PTO advisory board, have the
is so pervasive and powerful that the elites do power to change curricular and instructional
not necessarily have to be directly involved programs—the areas most related to detracking
in the decision-making processes at schools, reform—in the schools.
although they often are. But between the local Furthermore, despite the past president’s
elites’ threats to flee, co-optation of institu- assertion that the Advanced Placement parents
tional elites, and ability to make their privilege do not run the PTO advisory board, the board
appear as “common sense,” such school-site members we interviewed told us they were
councils will most likely simply reflect, as Beare unwilling to challenge the pro-Advanced
(1993) points out, the broader power structure. Placement stance of the principal. Still, several
In this way, the “self-inflicted busy work” of of the PTO board members said they believed
the not-quite elites, which, depending on the there was too much emphasis on Advanced
context of the schools, tend to be the more Placement at Plainview, and that they were
middle- or working-class parents, is just that— at times uncomfortable with the principal’s
busy work that helps the schools maintain constant bragging about the number of
the existing power relations and a highly tracked Advanced Placement classes the school offers,
structure. This is what Gramsci (1971) would the number of students taking Advanced
refer to as the “consensual” basis of power, or the Placement exams, and the number of students
consensual side of politics in a civil society (see who receive 3’s, 4’s, or 5’s on these exams.
Boggs, 1984; Gramsci, 1971). Some of these parents said that, in their opinion,
We saw a clear example of how this co-opta- a heavy load of Advanced Placement classes is
tion plays out at Plainview High School, where too stressful for high school students; others said
a group of about thirty predominantly White the curriculum in the Advanced Placement
parents served on the advisory board for the most classes is boring rote memorization: But none
visible parent group, called the Parent-Teacher of these parents had ever challenged the
Organization, or PTO (even though there were principal in his effort to boost the number of
no teachers in this organization). The PTO Advanced Placement classes offered and stu-
advisory board met with the principal once a dents enrolling in them. According to one
month to act as his “sounding board” on import- mother on the PTO board:
ant school-site issues, particularly those regarding
discipline. We found through in-depth inter- I think parents have seen that there are so many
views with many of the parents on the PTO pressures in the world, they realize that this is a
Board that these parents were not the most high school and they’re fed up with all the
powerful or most elite parents in the one-high- competition. At the same time they know you
school district. In fact, as the former president of have to play the game, you know. . . . And again,
the advisory board and the mother of a not-quite- it’s hard to evaluate with some of the top,
high-track student explained, “The Advanced top students, you know, what’s appropriate. . . .
Placement parents don’t run the president of the I think a lot of this has to do with Plainview as a
PTO. As a matter of fact, I’m trying to think community, too. Now, for example, where I live
when the last time [was] we had a president of the right here is in Fillburn, and that is a more upscale
PTO whose kids were on the fast track in community [within the Plainview district]. Two
Advanced Placement. I don’t think we’ve had houses from me is the Doner school district,
one in quite a few years.” which is a community of wealthier homes,
wealthier people, many of whom have children you have a growing amount of dissatisfaction
in private schools. within the African American community about
these advanced programs that are lily White.”
During interviews, most of the not-quite-elite Despite his dissatisfaction, this father explained
parents at all of the schools in our study discussed that he is not against tracking per se. “I think
their awareness of the demands that families tracking has its merits. I just think they need to
with high economic and cultural capital placed be less rigid in their standards.”
on the schools. They cited these demands as Similarly, at Green Valley High School, a
reasons why they themselves did not challenge rural West Coast school with a 43 percent White
the push for more Advanced Placement or gifted and 57 percent Latino student population, a
classes and why they were not supporters of professional, middle-class Latino couple who
detracking efforts—even when they suspected had sent their children to private elementary and
that such changes might be beneficial for their middle schools before enrolling them in the
own children. For instance, at Grant High public high school said that the students at
School, the chair of the language arts department Green Valley should be divided into three
formed a parent support group to focus on groups: those at the top, those in the middle, and
issues of tracking and detracking. This group those at the bottom. The father added that those
consisted mostly of parents of students in the students in the middle should be given more of
regular and honors classes, with only a handful a tech prep education, and that an alternative
of parents of very advanced students in the school might be good for a lot of kids who won’t
highest track. The department chair said go to college.
she purposefully postponed “the fight” with more
of the advanced parents. “We thought if we could
Detracking Bribes
get a group of parents who are just as know-
ledgeable . . . as we were, they should be the ones Another political practice employed by local
that become the advocates with the other elites in schools that are attempting detracking
parents. So that’s probably our biggest accom- reforms is their use of symbolic capital to bribe
plishment this year is getting this group of the schools to give them some preferential
parents that we have together.” But one of the treatment in return for their willingness to
few parents of advanced students left the group allow some small degree of detracking to take
because she said her concerns were not being place. These detracking bribes tend to make de-
addressed and the advisory group disbanded the tracking reforms very expensive and impossible
following spring. to implement in a comprehensive fashion.
We saw other examples of “not-quite-elite” Bourdieu (in Harrison, 1993) would consider
buy-in at schools where middle-class minority such detracking bribes to be symbolic of the
parents had become advocates of tracking irreversible character of gift exchange. In
practices and opponents of detracking efforts, exchange for their political buy-in to the
despite their lament that their children were detracking efforts, elite parents must be assured
often the only children of color in the high-track that their children are still getting something
classes. For instance, a Black professional parent more than other children. In the process of gift
at Rolling Hills Middle School, whose two exchange, according to Bourdieu, gifts must be
children were in the advanced program, noted returned, but this return represents neither an
that a growing number of African American exchange of equivalents nor a case of cash on
parents in the district were upset with the racial delivery:
composition of the nearly all-White “advanced”
classes and the disproportionately Black What is returned must be both different in kind
“comprehensive” tracks within racially mixed and deferred in time. It is within this space
schools. He said, “So you have segregation in a opened up by these two elements of non-identity
supposedly desegregated setting. So what it is, [of the gifts] and temporality [deferred time] that
strategic actions can be deployed through which Hills is feasible when it affects only one of four
either one actor or another tries to accumulate sixth-grade teams, and that one team enrolls a
some kind of profit. The kind of profit disproportionate number of advanced students
accumulated is, of course, more likely to be either and is taught by the teachers whom the local elite
symbolic or social, rather than economic, (p. 39) consider to be the best. The generosity of the
“gifts” that the school gives the elite parents who
In the case of the detracking bribes, the elite agree to enroll their children in the heterogene-
parents tend to profit at the expense of broad- ous team are such that this team has become high
based reform and restructuring. Yet, detracking status itself. The “parent network” of local elites
bribes take on a different shape and character in at this school now promotes the heterogeneous
different schools, depending upon the bargaining team and advises elite mothers of incoming
power of the local elite parents and the school’s sixth-graders to choose that team. According to
resources. As Bourdieu notes, in the case of the one wealthy White parent, “the heterogeneous
gift exchange, it is the agent’s sense of honor that team is ‘hand-picked’.” Another White parent
regulates the moves that can be made in the whose daughter is on the heterogeneous team
game (Harrison, 1993). noted, “It’s also been good to know that it’s kind
For instance, at King Middle School, located of like a private school within a public school.
in a large northeastern city, the bribe is the And that’s kind of fair, I hate to say that, but it’s
school itself—a well-funded magnet program kind of a fair evaluation.”
with formal ties to a nearby college and a rich art Of course, Rolling Hills does not have enough
program that is integrated into the curriculum. of these “gifts” to bribe all of the local elite
Because King is a school of choice for parents parents to place their children on a heteroge-
who live in the surrounding area of the city, it is neous team. In other words, Rolling Hills will
in many ways automatically perceived to be never be able to detrack the entire school as long
“better than” regular neighborhood schools, as the cost of the bribe remains so high and the
where students end up by default. Still, an elite parental profit is so great. By definition, the
administrator noted that King must still work at “best” teachers at any given school are scarce;
getting elite parents to accept the heterogeneous there are not enough of them to go around. In
grouping within the school: “The thing is to addition, the number of Advanced Placement
convince the parents of the strong students that students in the school is too small to assure that
[heterogeneous grouping] is a good idea and not more heterogeneous teams could be created with
to have them pull children out to put them in a the same skewed proportion of advanced, honors,
gifted program. It is necessary to really offer them and comprehensive tracks.
a lot. You need parent education, along with At Grant High School, the bribe for detrack-
offering a rich program for the parents so that ing the marine science program consists of this
they don’t feel their children are being cheated.” unique science offering, coupled with the
At Rolling Hills Middle School, where school’s excellent science and math departments
African American students are bused to this and one of the two best music programs in the
otherwise White, wealthy school, the detracking city. These are commodities that elite parents
bribe comes in the form of the best sixth-grade cannot get in other schools—urban or suburban.
teachers and a “heterogeneous” team of students, As one teacher explained, “So what options do
which is skewed toward a disproportionate num- these parents have? Lift their kids out of Grant,
ber of advanced program students. For instance, which they love? They can’t get a science
the heterogeneous team is comprised of 50 per- program like this anywhere else in the city.”
cent “advanced” students, 25 percent “honors” Although the school itself is highly tracked,
students, and 25 percent “regular” students, while especially in the history department, the marine
the sixth grade as a whole is only about one-third science classes enroll students from all different
“advanced” students and about one-half tracks. A marine science teacher noted that
“regular” students. Thus, detracking at Rolling parents of the advanced students never request
that their kids be placed in separate classes creates an intense demand for it among those in
because curricula in this program are both their social strata. We also recognize the role that
advanced and unique. the educational system—especially the higher
Interestingly, the detracking bribe at Liberty education system—plays in shaping their actions
High, as the school moved toward the ninth- and their understanding of what they must do to
grade English/ social studies core classes, was to help their children succeed.
be smaller class sizes and ongoing staff develop- Still, we hope that this study of ten racially
ment. Unfortunately, the district administration mixed schools undertaking detracking reform is
withheld much of the promised funding to allow helpful to educators and policymakers who
the school to deliver these gifts to the parents of struggle to understand more clearly the political
high-track students. Whether or not these opposition to such reform efforts. Most import-
parents were ever committed to this bribe— antly, we have learned that in a democratic
whether they thought the school was offering society, the privilege, status, and advantage that
them enough in return–is not really clear. What elite students bring to school with them must be
we do know is that the principal who offered the carefully deconstructed by educators, parents,
gift was, as we mentioned, recently “let go” by the and students alike before meaningful detracking
district. His departure may have been the reforms can take place.
ultimate bribe with the local elites, because, as
Bourdieu (in Harrison, 1993) argues, the kind of
profit accumulated is, of course, more likely to be Endnotes
either symbolic or social, rather than economic. 1. Our three-year study of ten racially mixed
secondary schools that are detracking was funded
by the Lilly Endowment. Jeannie Oakes and Amy
Conclusions Stuart Wells were coprincipal investigators.
Research associates were Robert Cooper, Amanda
When our research team began this study in Datnow, Diane Hirshberg, Martin Lipton, Karen
1992, we initially focused on what was happen- Ray, Irene Serna, Estella Williams, and Susie
ing within the racially mixed schools we were to Yonezawa.
study. Yet as we visited these schools, it became 2. By “school community,” we mean the broad and
diverse network of students, parents, educators,
increasingly evident to us that the parents had a and other citizens who are connected to these
major impact on detracking reform efforts. Over schools as institutions.
the course of the last three years, we came to 3. For a full description of the study and its metho-
appreciate not only the power of this impact but dology, see Oakes & Wells (1995).
its subtleties as well. In turning to the literature 4. During the “tennis shoe” registration, teachers set
up tables in the gymnasium with registration
on elites and cultural capital, we gained a passes for each of the classes they will be offering.
deeper understanding of the barriers educators Students have an allocated time slot in which they
face in their efforts to detrack schools. are allowed into the gym to run from teacher to
As long as elite parents press the schools to teacher and ask for passes for classes they want.
perpetuate their status through the intergenera- Under this system, teachers are able to control
who gets into their classes, and the children of the
tional transmission of privilege that is based more elite, who hold more political power in the school,
on cultural capital than “merit,” educators will are more likely to get the high-track classes that
be forced to choose between equity-based they want.
reforms and the flight of elite parents from the
public school system.
References
The intent of this article is not simply to point
fingers at the powerful, elite parents or the Beare, H. (1993). Different ways of viewing school-
educators who accommodate them at the ten site councils: Whose paradigm is in use here? In
H. Beare & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Restructuring schools:
schools we studied. We understand that these An international perspective on the movement to
parents are in many ways victims of a social transform the control and performance of schools (pp.
system in which the scarcity of symbolic capital 200–214). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Boggs, C. (1984). The two revolutions: Gramsci and the Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. London: Oxford
dilemmas of western Marxism. Boston: South End University Press.
Press. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools restructure
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social inequalities. New Haven, CT: Yale University
reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, Press.
educations, and cultural change (pp. 487–501). Oakes, J., Oraseth, T., Bell, R., & Camp, P. (1990).
New York: Harper & Row. Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. class, and tracking on opportunities to learn
Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA:
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the Rand.
judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Oakes, J., Lipton, M., & Jones, M. (1995, April).
University Press. Changing minds: Deconstructing intelligence in
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction detracking schools. Paper presented at the annual
in education, society and culture. Beverly Hills, CA: meeting of the American Educational Research
Sage. Association, San Francisco.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1979). The inheritors: Oakes, J., &. Wells, A. S. (1995, April) Beyond
French students and their relation to culture. Chicago: sorting and stratification: Creative alternatives to
University of Chicago Press tracking in racially mixed secondary schools. Paper
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, I. J. D. (1992). An invita- presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
tion to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of can Educational Research Association, San
Chicago Press. Francisco.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural con- Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture.
flict in the classroom. New York: New Press. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
DiMaggio, P. (1979). Review essay: On Pierre Useem, E. (1990, April). Social class and ability
Bourdieu. American Journal of Sociology, 84, group placement in mathematics in transition to
1460–1472. seventh grade: The role of parental involvement.
Domhoff, W. G. (1983). Who rules America now? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
A view for the 80s. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- American Educational Research Conference,
Hall. Boston.
Domhoff, W. G. (1990). The power elite and the state: Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1992). Do parents choose
How polity is made in America. New York: A. de- school quality or school status? A sociological
Gruyter. theory of free-market education. In P. W. Cookson
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. (Ed.), The choice controversy (pp. 65–82). Newbury
New York: International Publishers. Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Harker, K. (1984). On reproduction, habitus and edu- Welner, K., & Oakes, J. (1995, April). Liability
cation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(2), grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking
117–127. systems to legal challenges. Paper presented at the
Harrison, P. R. (1993). Bourdieu and the possi- annual meeting of the American Educational
bility of a postmodern sociology. Thesis Eleven, 35, Research Association, San Francisco.
36–50. Yonesawa, S., Williams, E., & Hirshberg, D. (1995,
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. London: Falmer April). Seeking a new standard: Minority parent
Press. and community involvement in detracking schools.
McIntosh, P. (January/February, 1992). White privi- Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
lege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Creation American Educational Research Association, San
Spirituality, pp. 33–35 Francisco.
5 The Philosophy of Education
and Its Significance for
Teachers
In Chapter 1, we argued that Americans place a great deal of faith in education, and particularly
that Americans view schools as the great panacea for the multitude of problems that plague both
individuals and society as a whole. In this chapter, we point out that the study of the philosophy
of education as an integral part of the foundations perspective will allow prospective teachers to
reflect on educational issues from a particular perspective—the perspective of philosophy. This
perspective encourages logical, systematic thinking. It stresses the importance of ideas and allows—
indeed, encourages—the act of reflection on every aspect of practice. Thus, philosophy acts as
the building block for the reflective practitioner.
The Perspective of Philosophy of Education

Practitioners often argue, as do students in schools of education, that although philosophy of
education may add another dimension to the way in which they view schools, nevertheless, they
haven’t the time for a discipline that does not offer tangible results. Rather, they wish to learn
what to do, not why to do it. For too many practitioners and students of education, the practice
of teaching is reduced to action devoid of a rationale or justification.
We believe that the practice of teaching cannot be separated from a philosophical foundation.
Philosophy, as applied to education, allows practitioners and prospective practitioners to apply
systematic approaches to problem solving in schools and illuminates larger issues of the complex
relationship of schools to the social order.
What Is Philosophy of Education?

Philosophy of education differs from philosophy, as we have stated in Chapter 1. Philosophy of
education is firmly rooted in practice, whereas philosophy, as a discipline, stands on its own with
no specific end in mind. Given this difference, it is necessary to consider for a moment how a
particular philosophy might affect practice.
All teachers, regardless of their action orientation, have a personal philosophy of life that colors
the way in which they select knowledge; order their classrooms; interact with students, peers,
parents, and administrators; and select values to emphasize within their classrooms. Engaging in
philosophy helps teachers and prospective teachers to clarify what they do or intend to do and,
as they act or propose to act, to justify or explain why they do what they do in a logical, systematic
manner. Thus, the activity of doing philosophy aids teachers in understanding two very important
notions: (1) who they are or intend to be and (2) why they do or propose to do what they do.
Furthermore, through the action of clarification and justification of practice, teachers and
prospective teachers think about practice and acquire specific information, which lends authority
to their decision making.
The Meaning of Philosophical Inquiry

Although people exist as individuals, they also exist within the greater context of their culture.
Through interactions with the norms common to the culture, people form attitudes, beliefs, and
values, which are then transmitted to others. As people go about this process of acquiring cultural
norms, they may accept norms wholeheartedly, accept norms partially, or, in certain instances,
totally reject them. Whatever people choose to embrace, if their choices are made in a logical,
rational manner, they are engaged in the process of “doing philosophy.”
To proceed in doing philosophy, certain key questions are posed that can be divided into three
specific areas of philosophical inquiry. The first is called metaphysics, a branch of philosophy that
concerns itself with questions about the nature of reality. The second is called epistemology, a
branch of philosophy that concerns itself with questions about the nature of knowledge. Last is
axiology, a branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the nature of values.
We believe that these distinctions in philosophy are important for prospective teachers to know,
since ideas generated by philosophers about education usually fall under a particular branch of
philosophy, such as epistemology. Furthermore, the ideas generated by philosophers interested in
particular questions help people to clarify their own notions of existence, knowledge, and values—
in sum, one’s personal philosophy of life. Moreover, this philosophy of life, as one comes to
understand it, becomes the foundation upon which people construct pedagogic practice.
Particular Philosophies of Education

In the following pages, we will discuss several leading schools of philosophy that have influenced
and continue to influence the way people view educational practice. We have included both
classical philosophies and modern philosophies which, in our opinion, have made the most impact
on the ways in which people think about schools. Many of the ideas overlap; many of the
distinctions we make are artificial and, at times, arbitrary. Most important, we hope that you will
appreciate the fact that all successful practitioners borrow from many schools of thought.
Idealism
We begin our discussion of particular schools of philosophy that have influenced educational
thought with idealism, the first systematic philosophy in Western thought. Idealism is generally
thought to be the creation of the Greek philosopher, Plato (427–347 B.C.), the pupil of Socrates,
a famous Greek teacher and philosopher who lived in Athens (c.469–399 B.C.). Socrates did not
write anything down; rather, he taught through establishing oral dialogues with his students or
those he wished to engage in philosophical questions. Socrates saw himself, as Plato stated in The
Apology (The Defense), as “the gadfly of Athens.” Through questioning, he forced his fellow
Athenians to consider their life choices, and, in many instances, made them uncomfortable or
often provoked them to anger. In 399 B.C., Socrates was executed for his beliefs. He was officially
charged with corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens.
Plato wrote down Socrates’ ideas and his method, which was the dialogue. While doing so, he
probably added to Socrates’ ideas, since he was only 28 years old when Socrates was executed,
and he continued to write Socratic dialogue long after Socrates’ death. Scholars concur with the
idea that Plato augmented Socrates’ beliefs, since it is generally held that Plato was far more
sophisticated in his thinking than Socrates (Guthrie, 1969). Nevertheless, it is difficult for the
uninitiated to distinguish between Socrates’ and Plato’s work. Thus, we will refer to this
combination as Platonic philosophy.
Generic Notions
Philosophers often pose difficult, abstract questions that are not easily answered. Plato helped to
initiate this tradition through his concern for the search for truth.
Plato distrusted the world of matter; he believed that it was in a constant state of flux. Therefore,
matter was an inaccurate measurement of truth since it was constantly changing. Plato also believed
that the senses were not to be trusted, as they continually deceive us. Because truth for Plato was
perfect and because truth is eternal, it was not to be found in the world of matter: “The unchanging
realities we can apprehend by the mind only: the senses can show us only transient and imperfect
copies of reality” (Kitto, 1951, p. 194).
The only constant for Plato was the field of mathematics, since 1 + 1 = 2 will never change.
In fact, it is eternal. The problem, however, with all of this is that mathematics is only one field
of inquiry and so individuals must look to other modes of inquiry in the quest for truth. For Plato,
this was the task of the philosopher.
Plato’s method of doing philosophy was to engage another individual in a dialogue and, through
the dialogue, question that individual’s point of view. This questioning was done in a systematic,
logical examination of both points of view. Ultimately, both parties would reach a synthesis of
viewpoints that would be acceptable to both. This approach, called the dialectic, was used by Plato
to move individuals from the world of matter to the world of ideas. Perhaps, as some philosophers
suggest, Plato’s philosophy should be called “ideaism” rather than idealism, since, for Plato, ideas
were what mattered above all.
Plato thought that education, in particular, was important as a means of moving individuals
collectively toward achieving the good. He believed that the state should play an active role in
education and that it should encourage the brighter students to follow a curriculum that was more
abstract and more concerned with ideas rather than with concrete matter. Thus, brighter students
would focus on ideas, and data collecting would be assigned to the less able. Plato’s “tracking
system” was gender free; however, he proposed that those students who functioned on a more
concrete level should assume roles necessary for maintaining the city-state, such as craftsmen,
warriors, and farmers. Those who functioned on a more abstract level should rule. In fact, Plato
put forth the idea of a philosopher-king: an individual who would lead the state to discover the
ultimate good. Thus, Plato believed that rulers were individuals of thought, action, and obligation.
Since Plato’s time, people have seen the state become a major force in determining the system
of education. People have also witnessed how increasingly the school and tracking, in particular,
determine the life chances of students. Additionally, people still cling to the importance that
Plato attached to education as the instrument that will enlighten rulers and aid them in achieving
the highest good. Perhaps naively, people still believe that evil comes through ignorance, and that
if only the rulers are educated, evil will be obliterated. Unfortunately, modern history has yet to
validate this view.
Modern Idealists
Since Plato, there has been a series of philosophers who have augmented his original notions.
For example, St. Augustine (354–430 A.D.) added religion to classical idealism; later philosophers,
such as René Descartes (1596–1650), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), and George Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel (1770–1831), added their particular visions to Platonic idealism.
Goal of Education
Educators who subscribe to idealism are interested in the search for truth through ideas rather
than through the examination of the false shadowy world of matter. Teachers encourage their
students to search for truth as individuals. However, with the discovery of truth comes respons-
ibility—responsibility of those who achieve the realization of truth to enlighten others. Moreover,
idealists subscribe to the notion that education is transformation: Ideas can change lives.
Role of the Teacher

It is the teacher’s responsibility to analyze and discuss ideas with students in order for students to
move to new levels of awareness so that ultimately they can be transformed. Teachers should deal
with abstract notions through the dialectic method but should aim to connect analysis with action
as well.
In an idealist’s classroom, the teacher plays an active role in discussion, posing questions,
selecting materials, and establishing an environment, all of which ensure the teacher’s desired
outcome. An idealist teacher subscribes to the doctrine of reminiscence, described in the Meno,
an important Platonic dialogue, which states that the role of the teacher is to bring out that which
is already in the student’s mind. Additionally, an idealist teacher supports moral education as a
means of linking ideas to action. Last, the idealist teacher sees herself or himself as a role model
in the classroom, to be emulated by students.
Methods of Instruction
Idealist teachers take an active part in their students’ learning. Although they lecture from time
to time, perhaps to fill in background material not covered in the reading, they predominately
use the dialectic approach described by Plato. Through questioning, students are encouraged to
discuss, analyze, synthesize, and apply what they have read to contemporary society. Students are
also encouraged to work in groups or individually on research projects, both oral and written.
Curriculum
Idealists place great importance on the study of classics (i.e., great literature of past civilizations
that illustrated contemporary concerns). For idealists, all contemporary problems have their roots
in the past and can best be understood by examining how previous individuals dealt with them.
A good example of an idealist curriculum would be the Great Books curriculum at Saint John’s
University, in Annapolis, Maryland. During their four years in college, students read, analyze,
and apply the ideas of classical works to modern life. For elementary school-age children, there
is a Great Books course promoted by individuals in the private sector and there exists as well a
grass-roots movement to institute a core curriculum in elementary and junior high schools
throughout the nation.
An interesting proposal that has not taken root is Mortimer Adler’s Paideia Proposal (1982),
which advocates great literature for children of all abilities. Adler proposed that elementary school
children read great literature that would contain issues of relevance to all. Adler emphasized both
content and process through the actual readings, much like the current whole-language movement.
Many idealists also support a back-to-basics approach to education, which emphasizes the three
Rs. Such an approach became popular among educational conservatives, such as President Reagan’s
Secretary of Education, William Bennett, in the 1980s.
Realism
Realism is a philosophy that follows in the same historical tradition as idealism. Realism is
associated with both Plato and Aristotle, although philosophers tend to view Aristotle as the
leading proponent of realism. Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), a student of Plato’s, was the son of a
physician. He studied at Plato’s Academy in Athens until Plato’s death in 347 B.C. Aristotle also
lived in Asia Minor and in Macedonia, where he was tutor to King Philip of Macedonia’s son,
Alexander. Aristotle’s pupil later became Alexander the Great and a lover of all things Greek,
thanks to Aristotle’s influence.
In 355 B.C., Aristotle returned to Athens and started a school in the Lyceum, a public grove.
Aristotle’s career as a great teacher was cut short by the death of Alexander, his protector. The
Athenians charged Aristotle with “impiety” and thus Aristotle was forced to leave Athens and
settle in Euboea, where he remained until his death. Aristotle is particularly important because
he was the first philosopher who developed a systematic theory of logic.
Generic Notions
In our discussion of idealism, we noted that Plato argued for the centrality of ideas. Aristotle,
however, believed that only through studying the material world was it possible for an individual
to clarify or develop ideas. Thus, realists reject the Platonic notion that only ideas are real, and
argue instead that the material world or matter is real. In fact, realists hold that matter exists,
independent of ideas. Aristotle, in fact, might have argued that a triangle exists whether or not
there is a thinking human being within range to perceive it.
If Plato were to study the nature of reality, he would begin with ideas, since he believed that
the world of matter was shadowy and unreliable (see The Allegory of the Cave). Aristotle, however,
in his quest for the nature of reality, would begin with the world of matter. It is important to note
that both Plato and Aristotle subscribed to the importance of ideas but each philosopher dealt
with them very differently.
Since the classical realism of Aristotle, many forms of realism have evolved. These range
from the religious realism of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) to the modern realism of individuals
such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and John Locke (1632–1704) to the contemporary realism
of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970).
Aristotle’s Systematic Theory of Logic

Aristotle is particularly important because he was the first Western philosopher to develop a
rational, systematic method for testing the logic of statements people make. Aristotle began his
process with empirical research; then, he would speculate or use dialectic reasoning, which would
culminate in a syllogism. A syllogism is a system of logic that consists of three parts: (1) a major
premise, (2) a minor premise, and (3) a conclusion. A famous example of a syllogism, used by
many philosophers is as follows:
All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Ozmon & Craver, 1990, p. 43)
For a syllogism to work, all of the parts must be correct. If one of the premises is incorrect, the
conclusion will be fallacious. Basically, Aristotle used syllogisms to systematize thinking. The
problem, however, with this method is that Aristotle never made it clear where the syllogism was
to be placed in his schema or framework. Thus, subsequent philosophers may have misinterpreted
Aristotelian logic, grossly misusing the syllogism.
As you may have concluded by now, philosophers have been posing questions concerned with
“the good life” or “the importance of reason” from the Greeks through the present (and probably
long before the Greeks, considering that recorded history began in 3500 B.C. in Sumer). Aristotle,
as did his contemporaries, stressed the importance of moderation in all things—the importance of
achieving balance in leading one’s life. Reason, concluded Aristotle, was the instrument that
individuals could employ to achieve the proper balance or moderation in their lives. Education,
therefore, became particularly important in achieving moderation since education would introduce
individuals to the process of systematic, rigorous thought. Through education, individuals would
learn to reason and thus become able to choose the path of moderation in their lives. Since
Aristotle, there have been important subsequent developments in this school of philosophy.
Neo-Thomism
Aristotle was never clear about the place of the syllogism in his schema, although classical scholars
believe that the syllogism was to be the culmination of his system rather than the starting point
(Bowder, 1982). Many medieval thinkers, however, used Aristotle’s syllogism to begin their logical
proofs and deduced from generalizations to specific conclusions.
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) was an important medieval authority on the works of Aristotle.
A school of philosophy, Neo-Thomism, is derived from Aquinian thought based on Aristotle.
Basically, Aquinas affected a synthesis of pagan ideas and Christian beliefs, employing reason as
a means of ascertaining or understanding truth. Aquinas thought that God could be understood
through reasoning but reasoning based on the material world. Thus, Aquinas and Aristotle both
emphasized matter and ideas in their particular philosophical investigations.
Aquinas’s philosophy became known as Neo-Thomism in the latter part of the nineteenth
century when it was revived by the Vatican as a way of resolving the conflict between the natural
sciences and the Catholic Church. In particular, the Church, through Neo-Thomism, could argue
that there was no conflict between science and religion since scientific inquiry ultimately led to
belief in God. Aquinas’s influence on contemporary educational practice is especially profound
in Catholic schools, that base their educational goals on balancing the world of faith with the
world of reason.
Modern Realism
Modern realism dates from the Renaissance, particularly with the work of Francis Bacon
(1561–1626), who developed the inductive or scientific method of learning. Bacon was troubled
by the reliance of classical realists on a prior or preconceived notion upon which thinkers deduced
truths. Based on Aristotle’s use of observable data, Bacon was able to develop a method starting
with observations, that might culminate in a generalization, which then might be tested in specific
instances for the purpose of verification.
John Locke (1632–1704), continuing in the scientific tradition established by Bacon, attempted
to explain how people know things from the empirical point of view. He, too, chafed at the notion
of a priori ideas, stating that the mind was a blank page, or tabula rasa, and what humans know
is based on information gathered through the senses and through experience. Locke thought that
the human mind ordered sense data and experience and then reflected on it.
Contemporary Realists
Contemporary realists, or realists in modern times, have tended to focus on science and philo-
sophy—in particular, on scientific issues that have philosophical dimensions. For example, Alfred
North Whitehead came to philosophy through the discipline of mathematics and was concerned
with the search for “universal patterns” (Ozmon & Craver, 1990, p. 50).
Bertrand Russell studied both mathematics and philosophy as a student at Trinity College and
Cambridge University, and coauthored with Whitehead the important book, Principia Mathematica.
Both men believed that the universe could be characterized through universal patterns; however,
Russell proposed that these patterns could be verified and classified through mathematics. Both
were interested in education. Whitehead confined his interests to writing about education—in
particular, advocating (like Plato) the primacy of ideas. Nevertheless (like Aristotle), he
recognized the necessity of grounding ideas within the context of the living world. Russell actually
founded a school called Beacon Hill, in which he sought to put into practice some of his notions
of education, particularly the idea of employing knowledge to social problems in order to create
a better world.
Goal of Education
Both Plato and Aristotle believed that important questions concerning such notions as the good
life, truth, beauty, and so on could be answered through the study of ideas, using the dialectical
method. They differed, however, in their studying points. Plato emphasized only the study of ideas
to understand ideas. Aristotle believed that it was possible to understand ideas through studying
the world of matter. For Plato, the real world was shadowy and deceptive; for Aristotle, the real
world was the starting point in the quest for understanding philosophical concerns.
For contemporary realists, the goal of education is to help individuals understand and then apply
the principles of science to help solve the problems plaguing the modern world. Again, the leading
notion of realists is that through basic disciplines—and in particular, science—individuals will be
able to fathom what philosophers have been debating since the beginning of their discipline: the
existence of the good life, but, thanks to Aristotle, how it can be encouraged through science.
Role of the Teacher

Teachers, according to contemporary realists, should be steeped in the basic academic disciplines
in order to transmit to their students the knowledge necessary for the continuance of the human
race. They should have a solid grounding in science, mathematics, and the humanities.
Additionally, teachers must present ideas in a clear and consistent manner, and demonstrate that
there are definitive ways to judge works of art, music, poetry, and literature. From this point of
view, it is the role of the teacher to enable students to learn objective methods of evaluating such
works (Ozmon & Craver, 1990, p. 63).
Realists would support a number of methods—in particular, lecture, and question and answer.
Additionally, since realists believe in objective criteria for judging the value of artistic and literary
works, they would support the lecture as a method of instruction in order to give students the
knowledge necessary to make these evaluations. Finally, many realists support competency-based
assessment as a way of ensuring that students learn what they are being taught (Ozmon & Craver,
1990, p. 63). Remember that realists believe that the material world holds the key to the ideal
world; therefore, realists would encourage questions that would help students in the classroom
grasp the ideal through specific characteristics of particular manifestations.
Curriculum
Curriculum for realists would consist of the basics: science and math, reading and writing, and
the humanities. Realists believe that there is a body of knowledge that is essential for the student
to master in order to be part of society. Indeed, as stated previously, this body of knowledge is
viewed as being essential for the survival of society.
Recent debates have centered on various groups questioning whether, in fact, there is an
essential core of knowledge and, if so, what it might consist of. In particular, the debate about
cultural literacy, sparked by the work of E. D. Hirsch, and the championing of the primacy of
history and geography in social studies curricula proposed by Diane Ravitch, Chester Finn, and
Paul Gagnon (see the Bradley Commission, 1988, for a detailed discussion of these proposals)
support the notion of specific knowledge that helps students better understand their culture. Those
who might question just what “culture” consists of and support a curriculum that truly reflects
the multiplicity of U.S. society are scholars of curriculum, such as James Banks (1988).
Pragmatism
Pragmatism is generally viewed as an American philosophy that developed in the latter part of
the nineteenth century. Generally speaking, the founders of this school of thought are George
Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), and John Dewey (1859–1952).
However, there are European philosophers from earlier periods who might also be classified as
pragmatists, such as Frances Bacon, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Pragmatism comes from the Greek word pragma, meaning work. Both George Sanders Peirce
and William James are credited with having described pragmatism in part through the biblical
phrase, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” James specifically makes such a reference in his book,
Varieties of Religious Experience (James, 1978). That is, pragmatism is a philosophy that encourages
people to find processes that work in order to achieve their desired ends. Although pragmatists
do study the past, they generally are more interested in contemporary issues and in discovering
solutions to problems in present-day terms. Pragmatists are action oriented, experientially
grounded, and will generally pose questions such as “What will work to achieve my desired end?”
A pragmatic schema might look like this:
problem → speculative thought → action → results
Pragmatists might then ask “Do the results achieved solve the problem?” If the question is answered
in the affirmative, then the solution may be judged as valid.
Pragmatism’s roots, as well as modern realism’s roots, may be traced to the English philosopher
and scientist, Francis Bacon (1561–1626), whom we have previously discussed. Troubled with
the Aristotelian legacy of deductive reasoning through the syllogism, Bacon sought a way of
thinking in which people might be persuaded to abandon the traditions or “idols” of the past for
a more experiential approach to the world. Because Bacon emphasized experience posited firmly
within the world of daily existence, he can be thought of as a pioneer in the pragmatic school of
philosophy. Furthermore, the method of reasoning he emphasized was inductive, which became
the foundation of observational method in educational research.
Another modern realist, political philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), also followed in the
pragmatic tradition. Locke was particularly interested in the ways in which people come to know
things. He believed that the mind was a tabula rasa, a blank tablet, and that one acquires knowledge
through one’s senses (in opposition to Plato who, centuries earlier, had supported the notion of
innate ideas). Locke believed that people can have ideas, that people can obtain these ideas through
their senses but that they never verify them through the material or natural world. Locke’s emphasis
on the world of experience is particularly important for later developments in the philosophy of
education.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), a French philosopher, wrote mainly in France during the
years preceding the French Revolution. Rousseau believed that individuals in their primitive state
were naturally good and that society corrupted them. Society was harmful, for it led people away
from pure existences. For Rousseau, the good life meant, simply stated, “back to nature.” Thus,
the Queen of France, Marie Antoinette, and her court at Versailles, influenced by Rousseau’s
ideas, attempted to return to nature by dressing as milkmaids, shepherds, and shepherdesses.
Rousseau placed an important emphasis on environment and experience, which makes him
important to subsequent pragmatic thinkers. He is mainly known to educators for his book Émile,
which centers on a young boy who is removed from society to the country and learns experientially,
through his environment, with the help of a tutor. Two points of interest are (1) Émile does not
read books until he reaches 12 years of age and (2) there is little regard for the education of
women in Rousseau’s scheme other than two chapters on Sophie, who eats sweets and cakes and
plays with dolls, and whose raison d’être is to be Émile’s companion.
Rousseau is thought to be a romantic due to his preoccupation with individuals in their natural
state. Nevertheless, his emphasis on experience and on the child in a state of nature, constantly
growing and changing, paved the way for thinkers such as John Dewey.
John Dewey (1859–1952), intellectually, was heir to Charles Darwin, the British naturalist,
whose theory of natural selection emphasized the constant interaction between the organism and
its environment, thus challenging the Platonic and Aristotelian notions of fixed essences. Unlike
the static, ordered world of the eighteenth-century philosophers, nineteenth-century pragmatists
saw the world as dynamic and developing. Although Dewey acknowledged his intellectual debt
to Hegel, an early nineteenth-century idealist, the idea of the dynamic quality of life was, to Dewey,
of overriding importance. It could not have existed without the work of Charles Darwin.
Dewey, originally from Vermont, taught philosophy at the Universities of Minnesota, Michigan,
Chicago, and Columbia. During this time, he formulated his own philosophy, introducing
the terms instrumentalism and experimentalism. Instrumentalism refers to the pragmatic relation-
ship between school and society; experimentalism refers to the application of ideas to educa-
tional practice on an experimental basis. While at the University of Chicago, he opened the
Laboratory School (with his wife Alice Chapman Dewey), in which his ideas about education
were applied.
Dewey’s philosophy of education was the most important influence on what has been termed
progressive education. Actually, progressive education from Dewey to the present has included a
number of different approaches. Historically, the two most important have been child-centered
progressivism, influenced by Dewey, and social reconstructionism, a radical interpretation of
Dewey’s work. Social reconstructionists, such as George Counts (1932) and Theodore Brameld
(1956), viewed the schools as vehicles for improving and changing society. As we will suggest in
Chapter 7, although social reconstructionists had some effect on curriculum, it has been Dewey’s
work that had the most profound intellectual and practical influence on U.S. progressive education.
Our discussion of the progressive educational philosophy based on pragmatism therefore
concentrates on Dewey’s work.
Dewey’s Pragmatism: Generic Notions

Dewey’s form of pragmatism—instrumentalism and experimentalism—was founded on the new
psychology, behaviorism, and the philosophy of pragmatism. Additionally, his ideas were
influenced by the theory of evolution and by an eighteenth-century optimistic belief in progress.
For Dewey, this meant the attainment of a better society through education. Thus, the school
became an “embryonic community” where children could learn skills experientially as well as
from books, in addition to traditional information, which would enable them to work cooperatively
in a democratic society.
Dewey’s ideas about education, often referred to as progressive, proposed that educators start
with the needs and interests of the child in the classroom, allow the child to participate in planning
his or her course of study, employ project method or group learning, and depend heavily on
experiential learning.
Dewey’s progressive methodology rested on the notion that children were active, organic beings,
growing and changing, and thus required a course of study that would reflect their particular stages
of development. He advocated both freedom and responsibility for students, since those are vital
components of democratic living. He believed that the school should reflect the community in
order to enable graduating students to assume societal roles and to maintain the democratic way
of life. Democracy was particularly important for Dewey. He believed that it could be more perfectly
realized through education that would continually reconstruct and reorganize society.
Goal of Education
Dewey’s vision of schools was rooted in the social order; he did not see ideas as separate from
social conditions. He fervently believed that philosophy had a responsibility to society and that
ideas required laboratory testing; hence, he stressed the importance of the school as a place where
ideas can be implemented, challenged, and restructured, with the goal of providing students with
the knowledge of how to improve the social order. Moreover, he believed that school should
provide “conjoint, communicated experience”—that it should function as preparation for life in
a democratic society.
In line with the progressive political atmosphere of the turn of the century, Dewey viewed the
role of the school within the larger societal conditions of which it was a part. As such, Dewey’s
vision of schooling must be understood as part of the larger project of social progress and
improvement. Although Dewey was certainly concerned with the social dimensions of schooling,
he also was acutely aware of the school’s effects on the individual. Thus, Dewey’s philosophy of
education made a conscious attempt to balance the social role of the school with its effects on
the social, intellectual, and personal development of individuals. In other words, Dewey believed
that the schools should balance the needs of society and community on one hand and the needs
of the individual on the other. This tension, or what the philosopher of education Maxine Greene
(1988) termed the “dialectic of freedom,” is central to understanding Dewey’s work.
Dewey, like his contemporary, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, saw the effects of modern-
ization and urbanization on the social fabric of Western society. The rapid transformation in the
nineteenth century from a traditional, agrarian world to a modern industrial one shattered the
traditional bonds of solidarity and cohesion that held people together. Combined with the mass
immigration to the United States in the late nineteenth century, the urban worlds of Chicago and
New York City where Dewey spent his adult life were often fragmented and, in Durkheim’s words,
anomic (without norms). For both Durkheim and Dewey, the schools had to play a key role in creating
a modern form of cohesion by socializing diverse groups into a cohesive democratic community.
The key to Dewey’s vision is his view that the role of the school was to integrate children into
not just any type of society, but a democratic one. Therefore, Dewey’s view of integration is
premised on the school as an embryonic democratic society where cooperation and community
are desired ends. Dewey did not believe, however, that the school’s role was to integrate children
into a non-democratic society. Rather, he believed that if schools instilled democratic and
cooperative values in children, they would be prepared as adults to transform the social order into
a more democratic one. Although he located this central function of schools, he never adequately
provided a solution to the problem of integrating diverse groups into a community without
sacrificing their unique characteristics. This is a problem still hotly debated.
For Dewey, the primary role of education was growth. In a famous section of Democracy and
Education, Dewey (1916) stated that education had no other goals than growth—growth leading
to more growth. As Lawrence Cremin (1990) noted:
John Dewey liked to define the aim of education as growth, and when he was asked growth toward
what, he liked to reply, growth leading to more growth. That was his way of saying that education is
subordinate to no end beyond itself, that the aim of education is not merely to make parents, or citizens,
or workers, or indeed to surpass the Russians or Japanese, but ultimately to make human beings who
will live life to the fullest, who will continually add to the quality and meaning of their experience and
to their ability to direct that experience, and who will participate actively with their fellow human
beings in the building of a good society. (p. 125)
Historian of education Diane Ravitch (1983, pp. 43–80) noted that Dewey’s philosophy of
education was often misunderstood and misapplied. As we discussed in Chapter 3, it was often
misapplied as “life adjustment education” and learning through experience as vocational education;
it was often misapplied with regard to freedom, with individual freedom often confused with license
and becoming far more important than other processes; and it was often totally distorted by
providing social class appropriate education (i.e., vocational education for the poor). Despite these
distorted applications, Dewey’s philosophy of education, often referred to as progressive education,
was central to all subsequent educational theory. For Dewey, the role of the school was to be “a
lever of social reform”—that is, to be the central institution for societal and personal improvement,
and to achieve this by balancing a complex set of processes.
Role of the Teacher

In a progressive setting, the teacher is no longer the authoritarian figure from which all knowledge
flows; rather, the teacher assumes the peripheral position of facilitator. The teacher encourages,
offers suggestions, questions, and helps plan and implement courses of study. The teacher also
writes curriculum and must have a command of several disciplines in order to create and implement
curriculum.
Dewey proposed that children learn both individually and in groups. He believed that children
should start their mode of inquiry by posing questions about what they want to know. Today, we
refer to this method of instruction as the problem-solving or inquiry method. Books, often written
by teachers and students together, were used; field trips and projects that reconstructed some aspect
of the child’s course of study were also an integral part of learning in Dewey’s laboratory school.
These methods in turn became the basis for other progressive schools founded in the Deweyan
tradition.
Formal instruction was abandoned. Traditional blocks of time for specific discipline instruction
were eliminated. Furniture, usually nailed to the floor, was discarded in favor of tables and chairs
that could be grouped as needed. Children could converse quietly with one another, could stand
up and stretch if warranted, and could pursue independent study or group work. What at first
glance to the visitor used to formal pedagogy might appear as chaotic was a carefully orchestrated
classroom with children going about learning in nontraditional yet natural ways. Lockstep, rote
memorization of traditional schools was replaced with individualized study, problem solving, and
the project method.
Curriculum
Progressive schools generally follow Dewey’s notion of a core curriculum, or an integrated curri-
culum. A particular subject matter under investigation by students, such as whales, would yield
problems to be solved using math, science, history, reading, writing, music, art, wood or metal
working, cooking, and sewing—all the academic and vocational disciplines in an integrated,
interconnected way. Progressive educators support starting with contemporary problems and
working from the known to the unknown, or what is now called in social studies education “the
curriculum of expanding environments.” Progressive educators are not wedded to a fixed curriculum
either; rather, curriculum changes as the social order changes and as children’s interests and needs
change.
There is some controversy over Dewey’s ideas about traditional discipline-centered curriculum.
Some contemporary scholars (Egan, 1992, pp. 402–404) have stated that Dewey’s emphasis on
the need for the curriculum to be related to the needs and interests of the child suggests he was
against traditional subject matter and in favor of a child-centered curriculum based on imagination
and intuition. Others, including Howard Gardner (1992, pp. 410–411), felt that Dewey proposed
a balance between traditional disciplines and the needs and interests of the child. We concur
with Gardner’s reading of Dewey and believe that Dewey thought that an integrated curriculum
provided the most effective means to this balance.
Existentialism and Phenomenology

Like pragmatism, existentialism is a rather modern philosophy. Although its roots can be traced
back to the Bible, as a philosophy that has relevance to education, one may date existentialism
as beginning with the nineteenth-century European philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813–1855).
More recent philosophers who work in this school include Martin Buber (1878–1965), Karl Jaspers
(1883–1969), Jean Paul Sartre (1905–1986), and the contemporary philosopher Maxine Greene.
Phenomenology was primarily developed by Edmund Husserl (1859–1935), Martin Heidegger
(1889–1976), and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961). Since existentialism and phenomenology
have much in common, and since many phenomenologists are existentialists as well, we have
chosen to combine our discussion of these two schools here.
Generic Notions
Because existentialism is an individualistic philosophy, many of its adherents argue that it is not
a particular school of philosophy at all. However, there are certain notions to which a majority
of existentialists adhere. So, for our purposes, we will consider it as a particular philosophical
movement that has important implications for education.
Unlike traditional philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, who were concerned with posing
questions about epistemology, axiology, and metaphysics, existentialists pose questions as to how
their concerns impact on the lives of individuals. Phenomenologists focus on the phenomena of
consciousness, perception, and meaning, as they arise in a particular individual’s experiences.
Basically, existentialists believe that individuals are placed on this earth alone and must make
some sense out of the chaos they encounter. In particular, Sartre believed that “existence precedes
essence”—that is, people must create themselves, and they must create their own meaning. This
is done through the choices people make in their lives. Thus, individuals are in a state of constantly
becoming, creating chaos and order, creating good and evil. The choice is up to the individual.
The amount of freedom and responsibility people have is awesome, since they can, according to
Sartre, make a difference in a seemingly absurd world. Although Sartre rejected the idea of the
existence of God, other existentialists, especially its founder Soren Kierkergaard, were devout
Christians who, while attacking contemporary Christianity, proposed “a great leap to faith” through
which individuals might accept the existence of God. Whereas Kierkergaard was rallying against
the scientific, objective approach to existence, Sartre was attempting to sort out meaning in a
world that supported gross inhumane behavior—in particular, World War II and the Holocaust.
Phenomenologists are concerned with the way in which objects present themselves to people
in their consciousness, and how people order those objects. Hermeneutics, an outgrowth of
phenomenology, seeks to discover how people give objects meaning. Language is important here,
since language is used to describe the various phenomena in life.
Goal of Education
Existentialists believe that education should focus on the needs of individuals, both cognitively
and affectively. They also believe that education should stress individuality; that it should include
discussion of the non-rational as well as the rational world; and that the tensions of living in the
world—in particular, anxiety generated through conflict—should be addressed. Existential
phenomenologists go further; they emphasize the notion of possibility, since the individual changes
in a constant state of becoming. They see education as an activity liberating the individual from
a chaotic, absurd world.
Role of the Teacher

Teachers should understand their own “lived worlds” as well as that of their students in order to
help their students achieve the best “lived worlds” they can. Teachers must take risks; expose
themselves to resistant students; and work constantly to enable their students to become, in
Greene’s (1978) words, “wide awake.” Introspection is useful in order to enable students to become
in touch with their worlds and to empower them to choose and to act on their choices. Thus,
the role of the teacher is an intensely personal one that carries with it a tremendous responsibility.
Existentialists and phenomenologists would abhor “methods” of instruction as they are currently
taught in schools of education. They view learning as intensely personal. They believe that each
child has a different learning style and it is up to the teacher to discover what works for each
child. Martin Buber, an existentialist, wrote about an I–thou approach, whereby student and
teacher learn cooperatively from each other in a nontraditional, nonthreatening, “friendship.”
The teacher constantly rediscovers knowledge, the student discovers knowledge, and together
they come to an understanding of past, present, and future, particularly a future ripe with
possibilities. Thus, the role of the teacher is to help students understand the world through posing
questions, generating activities, and working together.
Curriculum
Existentialists and phenomenologists would choose curriculum heavily biased toward the
humanities. Literature especially has meaning for them since literature is able to evoke responses
in readers that might move them to new levels of awareness, or, in Greene’s (1978) words, “wide
awakeness.” Art, drama, and music also encourage personal interaction. Existentialists and
phenomenologists believe in exposing students at early ages to problems as well as possibilities,
and to the horrors as well as accomplishments humankind is capable of producing.
Neo-Marxism
Neo-Marxist philosophies of education are those approaches that trace their intellectual roots
and theoretical assumptions to the nineteenth-century economist and philosopher Karl Marx
(1818–1883). Based on the radical critique of capitalism, these theories argue that the role of
education in capitalist society is to reproduce the ideology of the dominant class and its unequal
economic outcomes; and conversely, that the role of education ought to be to give students the
insight to demystify this ideology and to become agents of radical educational and social change.
The neo-Marxist perspective is more an overall theory of society than a particular philosophy
of education. That is, while its proponents suggest specific philosophical approaches to educational
issues, they are a part of the longer critique of capitalist society and capitalist education. The neo-
Marxist approach includes the political–economic analysis of education, such as the works of
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1976), the curriculum theories of Michael Apple (1978, 1979a,
1982a, 1982b), the pedagogical work of Paulo Freire (1972), and the critical educational theory
of Henry Giroux (1983b). To understand the neo-Marxist philosophy of education, it is important
first to understand some basic background issues.
Generic Notions
The intellectual, theoretical, and methodological foundations of neo-Marxism are all found in
the works of Karl Marx. Marx was an economist, sociologist (before the discipline of sociology
was officially founded), and philosopher who left his native Germany in 1842, first for Paris and
then to London, where he spent the remainder of his life. Marx is usually associated with the
worldwide movement he inspired—communism—but his writings were the foundation for a radical
critique of capitalism throughout the twentieth century.
Although critics have pointed to problems with his theories (e.g., that socialism always proceeds
out of the collapse of capitalism, which it has not; that capitalism is destined to collapse, which
it has not), it is unfair to blame the problems and apparent failures of communist and socialist
societies (e.g., in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe) on Marx himself, for he wrote
very little on what socialism would look like. Rather, the bulk of his voluminous life’s work
concerned the understanding of capitalism.
Marx’s works may be divided into two periods. The early philosophical works, including The
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (1844), The German Ideology (1846), and The
Communist Manifesto (1848) (the later two written with his lifelong friend and collaborator
Frederick Engels), were concerned with philosophical and political issues such as alienation,
freedom, ideology, and revolution. His later economic works, including the three volumes of Das
Kapital (1867–1894), are concerned with the economic laws of capitalism and the contradictions
(a Marxian term meaning “irreconcilable differences”) that make its collapse inevitable.
Marx’s theories are far too complex to do justice to in these brief pages. However, it is necessary
to understand those parts of his theories that form the basis of neo-Marxist philosophies of
education. Simply stated, Marx believed that the history of civilization was defined by class
struggle—the struggle between the dominant economic group and subordinate economic groups.
Although every society defined such groups according to its own economic system (e.g., under
feudalism, the serfs and the nobility; under capitalism, the proletariat (workers) and the
bourgeoisie (the capitalist owners)), it was the domination of subordinate economic groups by
those who controlled the economy (or means of production) that marked each historical period
and the revolution by subordinate groups that marked the collapse of an outmoded economic
system and its replacement by a new and superior one.
For Marx, each new economic system moved civilization closer to his ideal: a society that would
produce sufficient economic resources to allow all of its citizens to live productive and decent
lives. Capitalism, for Marx, with its vast productive capacity, would have the potential to render
economic scarcity and human misery obsolete. The problem, however, is that Marx believed that
the laws of capitalist accumulation that give the bulk of its productive resources to those who own
the means of production (capitalists) would make such a just society impossible. Therefore, Marx
asserted that it was necessary for those who produced the resources (the workers) to recognize that
it is in their collective interest to change the system to what he saw as the next logical stage in
history: socialism, a society where the means of production are owned by the state in trust for the
entire public. Marx believed that the laws of capitalism would lead to increasing economic crises
(e.g., inflation, recession, depression), increasing poverty of the working class side by side with
increasing wealth on the part of the small capitalist class. Thus, Marx believed that the working
class would unite (class consciousness) and rebel (class struggle) to create a more just socialist society.
Numerous historical problems are evident with this theory. For instance, Marx did not foresee
the rise of the welfare state to partially ameliorate such social problems, nor the success of labor
unions in working within the system to gain significant economic rewards for workers. Theoretical
problems also abound, such as the view of dominant and subordinate groups in narrow economic
terms, rather than in broader social, political, and cultural terms. However, the general conflict
theory of society (discussed more fully in Chapter 4) is central to understanding modern neo-
Marxist philosophies of education.
The key component to this conflict theory is Marx’s theory of social order and change. Although
Marx indeed believed that economic laws are the foundation of any society, it is people, through
conflict and struggle, who make history. Thus, the dominant group in any society must preserve
order either through force and coercion, that is inherently unstable, or by convincing the
subordinate groups that the system is fair and legitimate. For Marx, this is accomplished through
ideology, or the ideas or belief system of the ruling class (Marx & Engels, 1848). Conversely, in
order for change to take place, the subordinate group must see through this ideology and become
conscious of its own interests (to change society). Thus, the subordinate groups must demystify
the illusions of the dominant ideology and work toward change. It is education’s role in transmitting
this dominant ideology and its potential in allowing students to demystify it that is the main
thrust of neo-Marxist philosophies of education.
Goal of Education
Modern neo-Marxist theories include what may be termed reproduction theories (Bowles & Gintis,
1976) and resistance theories (Freire, 1978; Giroux, 1983b). Reproduction theories argue that the
role of education in capitalist societies is to reproduce the economic, social, and political status
quo. More specifically, the school, through its ideology and curriculum (Apple, 1978, 1979a, 1982a,
1982b) and pedagogic practices (McLaren, 1989), transmits the dominant beliefs to children and
serves to legitimate the capitalist order. Resistance theories, while agreeing that schools often
reproduce the dominant ideology, state they also have the potential to empower students to
question it.
Therefore, resistance theories question the overly deterministic view of reproduction theories
and state that such approaches deny what they call “human agency”—that is, the power of
individuals to shape their own world and to change it. In this respect, resistance theories have a
great deal in common with existentialists, as they believe that the process of education contains
the tools to enable individuals both to understand the weaknesses in the dominant ideology and
to construct alternative visions and possibilities. Further, what are termed postmodernist
(Cherryholmes, 1988; Giroux, 1991) and feminist (Ellsworth, 1989; Laird, 1989; Lather, 1991;
Martin, 1987) theories of education are closely related to this aspect of neo-Marxism, although
not all postmodernists and feminists are neo-Marxists.
What all of these theorists have in common is the view that education should transform
the dominant culture (for a complete discussion of postmodernism and feminism, see Giroux,
1991, and Sadovnik, 1995b). Postmodernists and feminists disagree with neo-Marxists about who
exactly comprises the dominant culture. Feminists argue that male domination is the problem;
postmodernists are skeptical of any one theory that explains domination and therefore reject the
neo-Marxist emphasis on economic domination as too one-dimensional (Lyotard, 1984).
The Role of the Teacher

The neo-Marxist philosophy of education concentrates on the teacher and student as part of a
critical pedagogical process. The teacher, from this vantage point, must become a “transformative
intellectual” (Giroux, 1988) whose role is to engage his or her students in a critical examination
of the world. The student thus becomes part of an educational process that seeks to examine
critically the society and its problems and to seek radical alternatives.
In some respects, this view of education is similar to the existential phenomenology of Greene
(1978, 1988) in that it views the purpose of education as “wide awakeness.” The difference is that
Greene is less committed to an objective truth that constitutes such a state (that is, one reality
that is true), whereas neo-Marxists believe that “wide awakeness” requires an objective truth that
includes a critique of capitalism. Such a conclusion is open to considerable debate, even among
those sympathetic to neo-Marxism. However, its idea that education ought to result in critical
awareness of self and society is a view that goes well beyond neo-Marxist philosophy and is shared
by many of the other philosophies discussed here, including pragmatism, existentialism,
phenomenology, postmodernism, and feminism.
Given their emphasis on education as transformation, neo-Marxists favor a dialectical approach
to instruction, with the question-and-answer method designed to move the student to new
levels of awareness and ultimately to change. Through rigorous analysis of the taken-for-granted
aspects of the world, the goal of instruction is to reveal underlying assumptions of society and to
help students see alternative possibilities.
Curriculum
The neo-Marxist view of curriculum is that the curriculum is not objective or value free but is
socially constructed (Apple, 1978, 1979a, 1982a, 1982b; Young, 1971). This view suggests that
the curriculum is the organized and codified representation of what those with the power to shape
it want the children to know. Such a critical stance requires that teachers understand the ways
in which curriculum represents a particular point of view and that they become critical curriculum
constructors—that is, individuals who can reshape the curriculum to represent a fairer view of
the world (although for neo-Marxists, this fairer view of the world means a curriculum that is
critical of capitalism).
As we will discuss in Chapter 7, this view of the curriculum is shared by feminist curriculum
theorists (Macdonald & Macdonald, 1981; Miller, 1982; Mitrano, 1979) and postmodern theorists
(Giroux, 1991). The difference, however, is that feminists and postmodernists often disagree about
whose interests the curriculum represents. Feminists, for example, argue that it is patriarchal
interests rather than capitalist interests that affect the curriculum. The view of curriculum shared
by these theorists leads them to support more multicultural and feminist curricula, which emphasize
those social groups who are not in power.
Postmodernist and Critical Theory
Generic Notions
Postmodernism developed out of a profound dissatisfaction with modernism. Beginning with the
poststructural writings of Derrida (1981, 1982) and Baudrillard (1981, 1984), social theorists,
particularly in France, questioned the appropriateness of modernist categories for understanding
what they saw as a postmodern world—a world that transcended the economic and social relations
of the industrial world that modernist thought sought to understand. In particular, the work of
Lyotard (1984) rejected the Marxist project, as well as the Enlightenment and modernist assump-
tions underlying Marxist theory, and sought to create a different theory of the late twentieth
century.
There is a vast body of literature on the definition of postmodernist theory (Aronowitz &
Giroux, 1991; Giroux, 1991; Harvey, 1989; Jameson, 1982; Jencks, 1987; Lyotard, 1984), as well
as a growing body of literature on postmodern approaches to education (Aronowitz & Giroux,
1991; Cherryholmes, 1988; Ellsworth, 1989; Giroux, 1988, 1991; Lather, 1991; McLaren, 1991;
McLaren & Hammer, 1989;Wexler, 1987).
Modernist social theory, in both sociology and philosophy, traces its intellectual heritage to
the Enlightenment. From the classical sociological theory of Marx (1971), Marx and Engels
(1846/1947), and Durkheim (1938/1977, 1947), to the pragmatist philosophy of Dewey (1916,
1927/1984), and to the social theory of Habermas (1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987), what is usually
referred to as modernist theories had a number of things in common. First, the theories were based
on the belief in progress through science and technology, even if they were skeptical of positivist
social science. Second, they emphasized the Enlightenment belief in reason. And third, they
stressed Enlightenment principles such as equality, liberty, and justice.
Postmodernist thought consists of many interrelated themes:
1. Postmodernism insists on what Lyotard (1984) has labeled the rejection of all metanarratives.
By this, Lyotard meant that the modernist preoccupation with grand, total, or all-encompassing
explanations of the world needs to be replaced by localized and particular theories.
2. Postmodernism stresses the necessary connection between theory and practice as a corrective
to the separation of them in much modernist thought.
3. Postmodernism stresses the democratic response to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
In particular, Aronowitz and Giroux (1991), Giroux (1991), and McLaren and Hammer
(1989) call for a democratic, emancipatory, and antitotalitarian theory and practice, with
schools seen as sites for democratic transformation.
4. Postmodernism sees modernist thought as Eurocentric and patriarchal. Giroux (1991), Lather
(1991), Ellsworth (1989), and others provide an important critique of the racism and sexism
in some modernist writings and the failure of modernism to address the interests of women
and people of color.
5. Postmodernist theorists believe that all social and political discourse is related to structures
of power and domination.
6. Postmodernism stresses what Burbules and Rice (1991) term “dialogue across differences.”
Recognizing the particular and local nature of knowledge, postmodern theorists call for the
attempt to work through differences, rather than to see them as hopelessly irreconcilable.
Thus, postmodern theories of education call for teachers and students to explore the differences
between what may seem like inherently contradictory positions in an effort to achieve under-
standing, respect, and change.
Although much of postmodern theory developed as a critical theory of society and a critique of
modernism, it quickly became incorporated into critical writings on education, often called critical
theory. Educational theory—which over the past two decades has involved an interdisciplinary
mixture of social theory, sociology, and philosophy—has been profoundly affected by postmodernist
thought. In particular, critical theories of education, which, from the late 1970s, attempted to
provide an antidote to the overdeterminism of Bowles and Gintis (1976), by the 1980s regularly
incorporated postmodern language and concerns. There have been numerous postmodern theories
of education or applications of postmodernism to education. Critical and postmodern theories of
education often draw heavily on the work of the Brazilian educator Paolo Freire (1972, 1985, 1987),
whose influential work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972) became the foundation for critical
educational theory in the United States (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998; Macedo, 1990).
The Role of the Teacher, Methods of Instruction, and Curriculum

Postmodern and critical theories of education are similar to neo-Marxist theory with respect to
curriculum and pedagogy. Critical pedagogy (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998, Chapter 1) stresses
the classroom as a site for political action and teachers as agents of change.
Of all the postmodern writing in the United States, Henry Giroux’s represents the most
sustained effort to develop a postmodern theory of education and to connect it to previous critical
theories, including neo-Marxism, critical theory, and resistance theory. Giroux (1991, pp. 47–59)
outlined principles of critical pedagogy, which he stated are based on the insights of modernism,
postmodernism, and feminism. Thus, he provided a synthesis of three of the important theoretical
systems in the twentieth century, and from these he developed a critical pedagogy, whose function
is to transform teachers, schools, and ultimately society:
1. Giroux has argued that education must be seen not only as producing knowledge, but political
subjects as well (1991, p. 47). Thus, schooling must be linked to a critical pedagogy aimed
at the development of democratic education.
2. Giroux has indicated that ethics need to be a central concern of postmodern theories of educa-
tion and critical pedagogy.
3. Critical pedagogy should focus on postmodern concerns with difference in a politically
transformative manner. According to Giroux, students need to understand the social con-
struction of different voices and identities, how these are related to historical and social forces,
and how they can be used as the basis for change. The incorporation of different voices into
the curriculum and student reflection on these voices need to be connected to the conception
of a democratic community.
4. The concern for difference needs to be translated into a critical language that allows for
competing discourses and that rejects any master narratives or curriculum canons.
5. Critical pedagogy needs to create new forms of knowledge out of analysis of competing
discourses and from voices historically absent from traditional canons and narratives. Thus,
pedagogic practice is seen as a political activity, with curriculum development no longer
a technocratic exercise concerned with educational goals and objectives, but rather a way of
providing students with new forms of knowledge rooted in a pluralistic and democratic vision
of society.
6. Building on his earlier work, Giroux suggested that a postmodern critical pedagogy must
provide a sense of alternatives through a “language of critique and possibility” (1991, p. 52).
Critical pedagogy as a critique of what exists and a development of what is possible is central
to a project of social transformation.
7. Critical pedagogy must be related to a view of teachers as transformative intellectuals. In his

work on postmodernism, Giroux has developed a theme that was central to his earlier work
and has connected it to a view of democratic public life. Giroux calls for teachers to be involved
not only within schools, but to connect their voices to democratic politics in their
communities and within society, in general. Critical pedagogy needs to engage students and
teachers in the systematic discovery of alternatives to institutional racism, classism, and sexism
through the inclusion of the voices of marginalized groups. Such an enterprise should not be,
Giroux has warned, merely an exercise in giving voice to the voiceless, but needs to connect
their voices to political strategies aimed at social change.
Sadovnik (1995b) has pointed out a number of problems with postmodern and critical theories
of education. First, postmodern theories of education are often written in a language that is difficult
to understand. While this is problematic for all academic work, it is more so for a theory that
purports to provide an agenda for critique and change in the school. Second, postmodern theories
usually eschew empirical methods to study schools. Thus, they are sometimes long on assertion
and short on evidence. Finally, and most importantly, postmodernist theories of education often
fail to connect theory to practice in a way that practitioners find meaningful and useful. Although
this does not suggest that postmodernists write exclusively for practitioners, if one of the stated
aims of theorists such as Giroux is to develop teachers as transformative intellectuals and to provide
a critical pedagogy for school transformation, then the problem of language use is of central
importance. How can there be dialogues across difference if teachers are excluded from the
dialogue?
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have presented some of the major philosophies of education. Through a
discussion of how each school of philosophy views the goal of education, the role of the teacher,
methods of instruction, and the curriculum, we have presented how philosophers of education
view important educational issues. These schools of philosophy often overlap. As a teacher, you
will, more often than not, make use of several approaches. It is important that you develop, clarify,
and justify your own particular philosophical approach to teaching, as it will form the foundation
of your practice. Moreover, as we suggest in Chapter 10, the successful school reforms at schools
such as Central Park East in New York City are based on a sound philosophical foundation. Thus,
school improvement depends on both teachers and schools having a clear sense of purpose, and
a philosophy of education provides the basis for such a purpose.
The following selections illustrate some of the philosophies of education discussed in this chapter.
In the first selection, “My Pedagogic Creed,” John Dewey presents the central aspects of the “new”
or progressive education. Writing in 1897, Dewey discusses his definition of education, the school,
the curriculum, pedagogy, and the role of the school in social progress, and proposes a pragmatist
philosophy of education.
In the second selection, “Wide-Awakeness and the Moral Life,” philosopher of education
Maxine Greene presents an existentialist philosophy of education. Greene passionately argues for
teachers to become critically aware of the world around them and to help students better understand
their own lives. This understanding, according to Greene, is a necessary condition for social
improvement.
My Pedagogic Creed
John Dewey
Article I—What Education Is connect with some activity which the child is
I believe that all education proceeds by the carrying on of his own initiative independent
participation of the individual in the social of the educator, education becomes reduced to
consciousness of the race. This process begins a pressure from without. It may, indeed, give
unconsciously almost at birth, and is continually certain external results, but cannot truly be
shaping the individual’s powers, saturating his called educative. Without insight into the
consciousness, forming his habits, training his psychological structure and activities of the indi-
ideas, and arousing his feelings and emotions. vidual, the educative process will, therefore, be
Through this unconscious education the indi- haphazard and arbitrary. If it chances to coincide
vidual gradually comes to share in the intellec- with the child’s activity it will get a leverage;
tual and moral resources which humanity has if it does not, it will result in friction, or dis-
succeeded in getting together. He becomes an integration, or arrest of the child nature.
inheritor of the funded capital of civilization. I believe that knowledge of social conditions,
The most formal and technical education in the of the present state of civilization, is necessary in
world cannot safely depart from this general order properly to interpret the child’s powers.
process. It can only organize it or differentiate it The child has his own instincts and tendencies,
in some particular direction. but we do not know what these mean until we
I believe that the only true education comes can translate them into their social equivalents.
through the stimulation of the child’s powers by We must be able to carry them back into a social
the demands of the social situations in which he past and see them as the inheritance of previous
finds himself. Through these demands he is race activities. We must also be able to project
stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to them into the future to see what their outcome
emerge from his original narrowness of action and end will be. In the illustration just used, it is
and feeling, and to conceive of himself from the the ability to see in the child’s babblings the
standpoint of the welfare of the group to which promise and potency of a future social intercourse
he belongs. Through the responses which others and conversation which enables one to deal in
make to his own activities he comes to know the proper way with that instinct.
what these mean in social terms. The value I believe that the psychological and social
which they have is reflected back into them. For sides are organically related and that education
instance, through the response which is made cannot be regarded as a compromise between
to the child’s instinctive babblings the child the two, or a super-imposition of one upon the
comes to know what those babblings mean; other. We are told that the psychological
they are transformed into articulate language and definition of education is barren and formal—
thus the child is introduced into the consolidated that it gives us only the idea of a development
wealth of ideas and emotions which are now of all the mental powers without giving us any
summed up in language. idea of the use to which these powers are put.
I believe that this educational process has two On the other hand, it is urged that the social
sides—one psychological and one sociological; definition of education, as getting adjusted to
and that neither can be subordinated to the other civilization, makes of it a forced and external
or neglected without evil results following. Of process, and results in subordinating the freedom
these two sides, the psychological is the basis. of the individual to a preconceived social and
The child’s own instincts and powers furnish the political status.
material and give the starting point for all I believe that each of these objections is true
education. Save as the efforts of the educator when urged against one side isolated from the
other. In order to know what a power really is we will be most effective in bringing the child to
must know what its end, use, or function is; and share in the inherited resources of the race, and
this we cannot know save as we conceive of the to use his own powers for social ends.
individual as active in social relationships. But, I believe that education, therefore, is a pro-
on the other hand, the only possible adjustment cess of living and not a preparation for future
which we can give to the child under existing living.
conditions, is that which arises through putting I believe that the school must represent
him in complete possession of all his powers. present life—life as real and vital to the child as
With the advent of democracy and modern that which he carries on in the home, in the
industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell neighborhood, or on the playground.
definitely just what civilization will be twenty I believe that education which does not occur
years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare through forms of life, forms that are worth living
the child for any precise set of conditions. To for their own sake, is always a poor substitute for
prepare him for the future life means to give him the genuine reality and tends to cramp and to
command of himself; it means so to train him deaden.
that he will have the full and ready use of all his I believe that the school, as an institution,
capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may should simplify existing social life; should reduce
be tools ready to command, that his judgment it, as it were, to an embryonic form. Existing life
may be capable of grasping the conditions under is so complex that the child cannot be brought
which it has to work, and the executive forces be into contact with it without either confusion or
trained to act economically and efficiently. It is distraction; he is either overwhelmed by the
impossible to reach this sort of adjustment multiplicity of activities which are going on, so
save as constant regard is had to the individual’s that he loses his own power of orderly reaction,
own powers, tastes, and interests—say, that is, or he is so stimulated by these various activities
as education is continually converted into that his powers are prematurely called into play
psychological terms. and he becomes either unduly specialized or else
In sum, I believe that the individual who is disintegrated.
to be educated is a social individual and that I believe that as such simplified social life, the
society is an organic union of individuals. If we school life should grow gradually out of the home
eliminate the social factor from the child we are life; that it should take up and continue the
left only with an abstraction; if we eliminate activities with which the child is already familiar
the individual factor from society, we are left in the home.
only with an inert and lifeless mass. Education, I believe that it should exhibit these activities
therefore, must begin with a psychological to the child, and reproduce them in such ways
insight into the child’s capacities, interests, and that the child will gradually learn the meaning
habits. It must be controlled at every point by of them, and be capable of playing his own part
reference to these same considerations. These in relation to them.
powers, interests, and habits must be continually I believe that this is a psychological necessity,
interpreted—we must know what they mean. because it is the only way of securing continuity
They must be translated into terms of their social in the child’s growth, the only way of giving a
equivalents—into terms of what they are capable background of past experience to the new ideas
of in the way of social service. given in school.
I believe that it is also a social necessity
because the home is the form of social life in
Article II—What the School Is
which the child has been nurtured and in
I believe that the school is primarily a social connection with which he has had his moral
institution. Education being a social process, the training. It is the business of the school to deepen
school is simply that form of community life in and extend his sense of the values bound up in
which all those agencies are concentrated that his home life.
I believe that much of present education fails the child’s fitness for social life and reveal the
because it neglects this fundamental principle place in which he can be of the most service and
of the school as a form of community life. It where he can receive the most help.
conceives the school as a place where certain
information is to be given, where certain lessons
Article III—The Subject-Matter of
are to be learned, or where certain habits are
Education
to be formed. The value of these is conceived
as lying largely in the remote future; the child I believe that the social life of the child is the
must do these things for the sake of something basis of concentration, or correlation, in all
else he is to do; they are mere preparation. As a his training or growth. The social life gives the
result they do not become a part of the life unconscious unity and the background of all his
experience of the child and so are not truly efforts and of all his attainments.
educative. I believe that the subject-matter of the
I believe that the moral education centers school curriculum should mark a gradual
upon this conception of the school as a mode of differentiation out of the primitive unconscious
social life, that the best and deepest moral unity of social life.
training is precisely that which one gets I believe that we violate the child’s nature and
through having to enter into proper relations render difficult the best ethical results, by
with others in a unity of work and thought. The introducing the child too abruptly to a number
present educational systems, so far as they of special studies of reading, writing, geography,
destroy or neglect this unity, render it difficult etc., out of relation to this social life. I believe,
or impossible to get any genuine, regular moral therefore, that the true center of correlation on
training. the school subjects is not science, nor literature,
I believe that the child should be stimulated nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own
and controlled in his work through the life of the social activities. . . .
community. I believe that literature is the reflex expression
I believe that under existing conditions far too and interpretation of social experience; that
much of the stimulus and control proceeds from hence it must follow upon and not precede such
the teacher, because of neglect of the idea of the experience. It, therefore, cannot be made the
school as a form of social life. basis, although it may be made the summary of
I believe that the teacher’s place and work in unification.
the school is to be interpreted from this same I believe once more that history is of educa-
basis. The teacher is not in the school to impose tive value in so far as it presents phases of social
certain ideas or to form certain habits in the life and growth. It must be controlled by
child, but is there as a member of the community reference to social life. When taken simply as
to select the influences which shall affect the history it is thrown into the distant past and
child and to assist him in properly responding to becomes dead and inert. Taken as the record of
these influences. man’s social life and progress it becomes full
I believe that the discipline of the school of meaning. I believe, however, that it cannot be
should proceed from the life of the school as a so taken excepting as the child is also introduced
whole and not directly from the teacher. directly into social life.
I believe that the teacher’s business is simply I believe accordingly that the primary basis of
to determine on the basis of larger experience education is in the child’s powers at work along
and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall the same general constructive lines as those
come to the child. which have brought civilization into being.
I believe that all questions of the grading of I believe that the only way to make the child
the child and his promotion should be conscious of his social heritage is to enable him
determined by reference to the same standard. to perform those fundamental types of activity
Examinations are of use only so far as they test which make civilization what it is. . . .
I believe that there is, therefore, no succession I believe finally, that education must be
of studies in the ideal school curriculum. If conceived as a continuing reconstruction of
education is life, all life has, from the outset, a experience; that the process and the goal
scientific aspect, an aspect of art and culture, and of education are one and the same thing.
an aspect of communication. It cannot, therefore, I believe that to set up any end outside of
be true that the proper studies for one grade are education, as furnishing its goal and standard,
mere reading and writing, and that at a later grade, is to deprive the educational process of much
reading, or literature, or science, may be of its meaning and tends to make us rely upon
introduced. The progress is not in the succession false and external stimuli in dealing with the
of studies but in the development of new attitudes child. . . .
towards, and new interests in, experience.
Wide-Awakeness and the Moral Life

Maxine Greene
“Moral reform,” wrote Henry David Thoreau, “is attentiveness, this interest in things, is the direct
the effort to throw off sleep.” He went on: opposite of the attitude of bland conventionality
and indifference so characteristic of our time.
Why is it that men give so poor an account of We are all familiar with the number of indi-
their day if they have not been slumbering? They viduals who live their lives immersed, as it were,
are not such poor calculators. If they had not in daily life, in the mechanical round of habitual
been overcome with drowsiness they would activities. We are all aware how few people ask
have performed something. The millions are themselves what they have done with their own
awake enough for physical labor; but only one in lives, whether or not they have used their
a million is awake enough for effective intellec- freedom or simply acceded to the imposition of
tual exertion, only one in a hundred million to patterned behavior and the assignment of roles.
a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. Most people, in fact, are likely to go on in that
I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. fashion, unless—or until—“one day the ‘why’
How could I have looked him in the face? We arises,” as Albert Camus put it, “and everything
must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves begins in that weariness tinged with amazement.”
awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite Camus had wide-awakeness in mind as well;
expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake because the weariness of which he spoke comes
us in our soundest sleep. I know of no more “at the end of the acts of a mechanical life, but
encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability at the same time it inaugurates the impulse of
of man to elevate his life by a conscious consciousness.”3
endeavor.1 The “why” may take the form of anxiety, the
strange and wordless anxiety that occurs when
It is of great interest to me to find out how this individuals feel they are not acting on their
notion of wide-awakeness has affected contem- freedom, not realizing possibility, not (to return
porary thought, perhaps particularly the thought to Thoreau) elevating their lives. Or the “why”
of those concerned about moral responsibility may accompany a sudden perception of the
and commitment in this difficult modern insufficiencies in ordinary life, of inequities
age. The social philosopher Alfred Schutz has and injustices in the world, of oppression and
talked of wide-awakeness as an achievement, a brutality and control. It may accompany, indeed
type of awareness, “a plane of consciousness of it may be necessary, for an individual’s moral life.
highest tension originating in an attitude of full The opposite of morality, it has often been
attention to life and its requirements.”2 This said, is indifference—a lack of care, an absence
of concern. Lacking wide-awakeness, I want to the sense of agency required for living a moral
argue, individuals are likely to drift, to act on life.
impulses of expediency. They are unlikely to I think it is clear that there always has to be
identify situations as moral ones or to set them- a human consciousness, recognizing the moral
selves to assessing their demands. In such cases, issues potentially involved in a situation, if there
it seems to me, it is meaningless to talk of obliga- is to be a moral life. As in such great moral pre-
tion; it may be futile to speak of consequential sentations as Antigone, Hamlet, and The Plague,
choice. people in everyday life today have to define
This is an important problem today in many particular kinds of situations as moral and to
countries of the world. Everywhere, guidelines identify the possible alternatives. In Antigone,
are deteriorating; fewer and fewer people feel Antigone defined the situation that existed after
themselves to be answerable to clearly defined her uncle forbade her to bury her brother as one
norms. In many places, too, because of the in which there were alternatives: she could
proliferation of bureaucracies and corporate indeed bury her brother, thus offending against
structures, individuals find it harder and harder the law of the state and being sentenced to death,
to take initiative. They guide themselves by or (like her sister Ismene) submit to the men in
vaguely perceived expectations; they allow power. In Hamlet, the Danish prince defined the
themselves to be programmed by organizations situation in Denmark as one in which there were
and official schedules or forms. They are like alternatives others could not see: to expose the
the hero of George Konrad’s novel, The Case murderer of his father and take the throne as the
Worker. He is a social worker who works with true king or to accept the rule of Claudius and his
maltreated children “in the name,” as he puts it, mother and return as a student to Wittenberg. In
“of legal principles and provisions.” He does not The Plague, most of the citizens of Oran saw no
like the system, but he serves it: “It’s law, it works, alternative but to resign themselves to a pestil-
it’s rather like me, its tool. I know its ins and ence for which there was no cure; but Dr. Rieux
outs. I simplify and complicate it, I slow it down and Tarrou defined the same situation as one in
and speed it up. I adapt myself to its needs or which there were indeed alternatives: to submit
adapt it to my needs, but this is as far as I will go.”4 —or to form sanitary squads and, by so doing, to
Interestingly enough, he says (and this brings refuse to acquiesce in the inhuman, the absurd.
me back to wide-awakeness) that his highest When we look at the everyday reality of home
aspiration is to “live with his eyes open” as far as and school and workplace, we can scarcely
possible; but the main point is that he, like so imagine ourselves taking moral positions like
many other clerks and office workers and middle those taken by a Hamlet or a Dr. Rieux. One
management men (for all their meaning well), is reason has to do with the overwhelming ordinari-
caught within the system and is not free to ness of the lives we live. Another is our tendency
choose. to perceive our everyday reality as a given—
I am suggesting that, for too many individuals objectively defined, impervious to change.
in modern society, there is a feeling of being Taking it for granted, we do not realize that
dominated and that feelings of powerlessness reality, like all others, is an interpreted one. It
are almost inescapable. I am also suggesting that presents itself to us as it does because we have
such feelings can to a large degree be overcome learned to understand it in standard ways.
through conscious endeavor on the part of In a public school, for instance, we scarcely
individuals to keep themselves awake, to think notice that there is a hierarchy of authority; we
about their condition in the world, to inquire are so accustomed to it, we forget that it is man-
into the forces that appear to dominate them, made. Classroom teachers, assigned a relatively
to interpret the experiences they are having low place in the hierarchy, share a way of seeing
day by day. Only as they learn to make sense of and of talking about it. They are used to watch-
what is happening, can they feel themselves to ing schedules, curricula, and testing programs
be autonomous. Only then can they develop emanate from “the office.” They take for granted
the existence of a high place, a seat of power. If Young persons who are half asleep and who feel
required unexpectedly to administer a set of tests, no sense of agency might well see no alternative
most teachers (fearful, perhaps, irritated or to compliance with the group, when the group
sceptical) will be likely to accede. Their decides that certain new experiences should be
acquiescence may have nothing at all to do with tried. To such individuals, no moral situation
their convictions or with what they have exists. They are young; they are members;
previously read or learned. They simply see no whether they want to particularly or not, they
alternatives. The reality they have constructed can only go along.
and take for granted allows for neither autonomy Other young persons, just as committed to the
nor disagreement. They do not consider putting group, might be able to realize that there are
their objections to a test. The constructs they indeed alternatives when, say, some of their
have inherited do not include a view of teachers comrades go out to find a supply of cocaine. They
as equal participants. “That,” they are prone to might be able to ponder those alternatives, to
say, “is the way it is.” play them out in their imagination. They can
Suppose, however, that a few teachers made accompany their friends on their search; they
a serious effort to understand the reasons for might even, if they are successful, get to sniff a
the new directive. Suppose they went out into the little cocaine and have the pleasure such sniffs
community to try to assess the degree of pressure are supposed to provide. They can, on the other
on the part of parents. Suppose that they hand, take a moment to recall the feelings they
investigated the kinds of materials dispatched had when they first smoked marijuana—the
from the city or the state. Pursuing such efforts, nervousness at losing touch with themselves, the
they would be keeping themselves awake. They dread about what might happen later. They can
might become increasingly able to define their consider the fact that their friends are going to
own values with regard to testing; they might do something illegal, not playful, that they could
conceivably see a moral issue involved. For some, be arrested, even jailed. They can confront their
testing might appear to be dehumanizing; it own reluctance to break the law (or even to
might lead to irrelevant categorizing; it might break an ordinary rule), imagine what their
result in the branding of certain children. For parents would say, try to anticipate what they
others, testing might appear to be miseducative, would think of themselves. At the same time, if
unless it were used to identify disabilities and they decide to back away, they know they might
suggest appropriate remedies. For still others, lose their friends. If they can remember that they
testing might appear to be a kind of insurance are free, after all, and if they assess their situation
against poor teaching, a necessary reminder of as one in which they can indeed choose one
what was left undone. Discussing it from several course of action over another, they are on the
points of view and within an understood context, way to becoming moral agents. The more con-
the teachers might find themselves in a position siderations they take into account, the more they
to act as moral agents. Like Dr. Rieux and Tarrou, consider the welfare of those around, the closer
they might see that there are indeed alternatives: they will come to making a defensible choice.
to bring the school community into an open A crucial issue facing us is the need to find
discussion, to consider the moral issues in the light ways of educating young persons to such
of overarching commitments, or to talk about sensitivity and potency. As important, it seems
what is actually known and what is merely to me, is the matter of wide-awakeness for their
hypothesized. At the very least, there would be teachers. It is far too easy for teachers, like other
wide-awakeness. The members of the school people, to play their roles and do their jobs
community would be embarked on a moral life. without serious consideration of the good and
Where personal issues are concerned, the right. Ironically, it is even possible when they
approach might be very much the same. Suppose are using classroom manuals for moral educa-
that a young person’s peer group is “into” drugs tion. This is partly due to the impact of a vaguely
or alcohol or some type of sexual promiscuity. apprehended relativism, partly to a bland care-
lessness, a shrugging off (sometimes because of questions present in the lives of every teacher,
grave self-doubt) of responsibility. I am con- every parent: What shall we teach them? How
vinced that, if teachers today are to initiate can we guide them? What hope can we offer
young people into an ethical existence, they them? How can we tell them what to do?
themselves must attend more fully than they The risks are great, as are the uncertainties.
normally have to their own lives and its require- We are no longer in a situation in which we can
ments; they have to break with the mechanical provide character-training with the assurance
life, to overcome their own submergence in that it will make our children virtuous and just.
the habitual, even in what they conceive to We can no longer use systems of rewards and
be the virtuous, and ask the “why” with which punishments and feel confident they will make
learning and moral reasoning begin. youngsters comply. We recognize the futility of
“You do not,” wrote Martin Buber, “need teaching rules or preaching pieties or presenting
moral genius for educating character; you do conceptions of the good. We can no longer set
need someone who is wholly alive and able to ourselves up as founts of wisdom, exemplars of
communicate himself directly to his fellow righteousness, and expect to have positive
beings. His aliveness streams out to them and effects. Children are active; children are different
affects them most strongly and purely when at the various stages of their growth. Engaged in
he has no thought of affecting them . . . .”5 transactions with an environment, each one
This strikes me as true; but I cannot imagine must effect connections within his or her own
an aliveness streaming out from someone who is experience. Using whatever capacities they
half-asleep and out of touch with herself or have available, each one must himself or herself
himself. I am not proposing separate courses perceive the consequences of the acts he or she
in moral education or value clarification to be performs. Mustering their own resources, each
taught by such a teacher. I am, rather, suggesting one must embark—“through choice of action,”
that attentiveness to the moral dimensions as Dewey put it6—upon the formation of a self.
of existence ought to permeate many of the Moral education, it would seem, must be as
classes taught, that wide-awakeness ought to specifically concerned with self-identification in
accompany every effort made to initiate persons a community as it is with the judgments persons
into any form of life or academic discipline. are equipped to make at different ages. It has as
Therefore, I believe it important for teachers, much to do with interest and action in concrete
no matter what their specialty, to be clear about situations as it does with the course of moral
how they ground their own values, their own reasoning. It has as much to do with conscious-
conceptions of the good and of the possible. Do ness and imagination as it does with principle.
they find their sanctions in some supernatural Since it cannot take place outside the vital
reality? Are they revealed in holy books or in contexts of social life, troubling questions have
the utterances of some traditional authority? to be constantly confronted. How can indiffer-
Do they, rather, depend upon their own private ence be overcome? How can the influence of the
intuitions of what is good and right? Do they media be contained? How can the young be
decide in each particular situation what will best guided to choose reflectively and compassion-
resolve uncertainty, what works out for the ately, even as they are set free?
best? Do they simply refer to conventional social The problem, most will agree, is not to tell
morality, to prevailing codes, or to the law? them what to do—but to help them attain some
Or do they refer beyond the law—to some kind of clarity about how to choose, how to
domain of principle, of norm? To what extent are decide what to do. And this involves teachers
they in touch with the actualities of their own directly, immediately—teachers as persons able
experiences, their own biographies, and the ways to present themselves as critical thinkers willing
in which these affect the tone of their encounters to disclose their own principles and their own
with the young? Teachers need to be aware of reasons as well as authentic persons living in the
how they personally confront the unnerving world, persons who are concerned—who care.
Many teachers, faced with demands like sion to leave her husband. These are only
these, find themselves in difficult positions, morally significant in relation to a particular
especially if they are granted little autonomy, or fabric of codes and customs and rules. Think of
their conceptions of their own projects are at the Danish king’s wartime decision to stand with
odds with what their schools demand. Today Denmark’s Jewish citizens, Daniel Ellsberg’s
they may be held accountable for teaching decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, or Pablo
predefined competencies and skills or for Casals’ refusal to conduct in fascist Spain. These
achieving objectives that are often largely decisions too were made in a matrix of principles,
behavioral. At once, they may be expected to laws, and ideas of what is considered acceptable,
represent both the wider culture and the local absolutely, or conditionally good and right.
community, or the international community and To be moral involves taking a position towards
the particular community of the individual that matrix, thinking critically about what is
child. If teachers are not critically conscious, if taken for granted. It involves taking a principled
they are not awake to their own values and position of one’s own (choosing certain principles
commitments (and to the conditions working by which to live) and speaking clearly about it,
upon them), if they are not personally engaged so as to set oneself on the right track.
with their subject matter and with the world It is equally important to affirm that it is
around, I do not see how they can initiate the always the individual, acting voluntarily in a par-
young into critical questioning or the moral ticular situation at a particular moment, who does
life. the deciding. I do not mean that individuals are
I am preoccupied, I suppose, with what isolated, answerable only to themselves. I do
Camus called “the plague”—that terrible mean that individuals, viewed as participants, as
distancing and indifference, so at odds with com- inextricably involved with other people, must be
mitment and communion and love. I emphasize enabled to take responsibility for their own
this because I want to stress the connection choosing, must not merge themselves or hide
between wide-awakeness, cognitive clarity, and themselves in what Soren Kierkegaard called
existential concern. I want to highlight the fact “the crowd.”7 If individuals act automatically or
that the roots of moral choosing lie at the core conventionally, if they do only what is expected
of a person’s conception of herself or himself and of them (or because they feel they have no right
the equally important fact that choosing involves to speak for themselves), if they do only what
action as well as thought. Moral action, of course, they are told to do, they are not living moral lives.
demands choosing between alternatives, usually Indeed, I rather doubt that individuals who
between two goods, not between good and bad are cowed or flattened out or depressed or afraid
or right and wrong. The problem in teaching is can learn, since learning inevitably involves a
to empower persons to internalize and incarnate free decision to enter into a form of life, to pro-
the kinds of principles that will enable them to ceed in a certain way, to do something because
make such choices. Should I do what is thought it is right. There are paradigms to be found in
to be my duty and volunteer for the army, or many kinds of teaching for those interested in
should I resist what I believe to be an unjust war? moral education, since teaching is in part a pro-
Should I steal the medicine to save my mother’s cess of moving people to proceed according to a
life, or should I obey the law and risk letting specified set of norms. If individuals are wide-
her die? awake and make decisions consciously to
These are choices of consequence for the self interpret a poem properly, to try to understand a
and others; and they are made, they can only period in English history, or to participate in
be made in social situations where custom, some type of social inquiry, they are choosing
tradition, official codes, and laws condition and to abide by certain standards made available to
play upon what people think and do. We might them. In doing so, they are becoming acquainted
think of Huck Finn’s decision not to return with what it means to choose a set of norms. They
Jim to his owner or of Anna Karenina’s deci- are not only creating value for themselves, they
are creating themselves; they are moving towards Now it is clear that young people have to pass
more significant, more understandable lives. through the stages of heteronomy in their
Consider, with norms and self-creation in development towards the degree of autonomy
mind, the case of Nora in Ibsen’s The Doll’s they require for acting on principle in the way
House. If she simply ran out of the house in tears described. They must achieve the kind of wide-
at the end, she would not have been engaging in awakeness I have been talking about, the ability
moral action. Granting the fact that she was to think about what they are doing, to take
defying prevailing codes, I would insist that responsibility. The teaching problem seems to
she was making a decision in accord with an me to be threefold. It involves equipping young
internalized norm. It might be called a principle people with the ability to identify alternatives,
of emancipation, having to do with the right to and to see possibilities in the situations they
grow, to become, to be more than a doll in a doll’s confront. It involves the teaching of principles,
house. If asked, Nora might have been able to possible perspectives by means of which those
generalize and talk about the right of all human situations can be assessed and appraised, as well
beings to develop in their own fashion, to be as the norms governing historical inquiry, ballet
respected, to be granted integrity. dancing, or cooperative living, norms that must
Principles or norms are general ideas of that be appropriated by persons desiring to join
kind, arising out of experience and used by particular human communities. It also involves
individuals in the appraisal of situations they enabling students to make decisions of principle,
encounter as they live—to help them determine to reflect, to articulate, and to take decisive
what they ought to do. They are not specific actions in good faith.
rules, like the rules against stealing and lying and Fundamental to the whole process may be the
adultery. They are general and comprehensive. building up of a sense of moral directedness, of
They concern justice and equality, respect for the oughtness. An imaginativeness, an awareness,
dignity of persons and regard for their points of and a sense of possibility are required, along with
view. They have much to do with the ways in the sense of autonomy and agency, of being
which diverse individuals choose themselves; present to the self. There must be attentiveness
they are defined reflectively and imaginatively to others and to the circumstances of everyday
and against the backgrounds of biography. When life. There must be efforts made to discover ways
they are incarnated in a person’s life, they offer of living together justly and pursuing common
him or her the means for analyzing particular ends. As wide-awake teachers work, making
situations. They offer perspectives, points of principles available and eliciting moral
view from which to consider particular acts. judgments, they must orient themselves to the
The Golden Rule is such a principle, but, as concrete, the relevant, and the questionable.
Dewey says, the Golden Rule does not finally They must commit themselves to each person’s
decide matters just by enabling us to tell people potentiality for overcoming helplessness and
to consider the good of others as they would submergence, for looking through his or her own
their own. “It suggests,” he writes, “the necessity eyes at the shared reality.
of considering how our acts affect the interests I believe this can only be done if teachers can
of others as well as our own; it tends to prevent identify themselves as moral beings, concerned
partiality of regard. . . . In short, the Golden Rule with defining their own life purposes in a way that
does not issue special orders or commands; but it arouses others to do the same. I believe, you see,
does clarify and illuminate the situations that the young are most likely to be stirred to
requiring intelligent deliberation.”8 So it was learn when they are challenged by teachers who
with the principle considered by Ibsen’s Nora; so themselves are learning, who are breaking with
it is with the principle of justice and the what they have too easily taken for granted, who
principles of care and truth-telling. Our hope in are creating their own moral lives. There are no
teaching is that persons will appropriate such guarantees, but wide-awakeness can play a part in
principles and learn to live by them. the process of liberating and arousing, in helping
people pose questions with regard to what is Notes

oppressive, mindless, and wrong. Surely, it can 1. Henry David Thoreau, Walden (New York:
help people—all kinds of people—make the Washington Square Press, 1963), pp. 66–67.
conscious endeavors needed to elevate their lives. 2. Alfred Schutz, ed. Maurice Natanson, The
Camus, in an essay called “The Almond Problem of Social Reality, Collected Papers I
(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967), p. 213.
Trees,” wrote some lines that seem to me to apply 3. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (New York:
to teachers, especially those concerned in this Alfred A. Knopf, 1955), p. 13.
way. He was talking about how endless are our 4. George Konrad, The Case Worker (New York:
tasks, how impossible it is to overcome the Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), p. 168.
human condition—which, at least, we have 5. Martin Buber, Between Man and Man (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1957), p. 105.
come to know better than ever before:
6. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New
York: Macmillan Company, 1916), p. 408.
We must mend “what has been torn apart, 7. Soren Kierkegaard, “The Individual,” in The Point
make justice imaginable again—give happiness of View for My Work as an Author (New York:
a meaning once more. . . . Naturally, it is a Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 102–136.
superhuman task. But superhuman is the term for 8. Dewey, Theory of the Moral Life (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1960), p. 142.
tasks men take a long time to accomplish, that’s 9. Camus, “‘The Almond Trees,” in Lyrical and
all. Let us know our aims, then, holding fast to the Critical Essays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
mind. . . . The first thing is not to despair.9 1968), p. 135.
6 Schools as Organizations and
Teacher Professionalization
In this chapter, we explore the organizational characteristics of U.S. elementary and secondary
education, school cultures, and the vocation of teaching. These topics are tied together by one
underlying issue—the parameters and possibilities inherent in creating better schools. How can
schools be distinguished organizationally, and why are some schools more effective learning
environments than others? You undoubtedly have strong memories of the schools you attended,
but have you ever wondered why these memories are so vivid? Why is it that schools create such
powerful organizational cultures that deeply influence one’s life and one’s approach to learning?
The schools that an individual attends shape not only his or her life chances but his or her
perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Of course, schools operate in conjunction with families and
society. No school is an island unto itself. Still, schools are powerful organizations that profoundly
affect the lives of those children and adults who come in contact with them. It seems logical,
therefore, that knowing more about schools’ organizational characteristics is a first step in
understanding their impact on students, teachers, and the society at large.
Education in the United States is one of the nation’s largest businesses. According to the
U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2012a), elementary and secondary education was at that time a $650 billion enterprise,
serving 55.4 million students in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Understanding the
complexity and enormity of the educational enterprise is a difficult task because it contains so
many different elements. Just feeding all the youngsters who attend school every day is a substantial
undertaking. The New York City Board of Education, for instance, serves more meals per day
than Friendly’s Restaurants. Supplying schools with equipment, textbooks, and such consumable
items as paper and pencils is in itself a big business. Obviously, one could go on in this vein, but
the point should be clear. To understand education, one must look beyond the classroom itself
and the interaction between teachers and pupils to the larger world where different interest groups
compete with each other in terms of ideology, finances, and power.
Clearly, any one of the preceding topics would be worthy of a book itself. In this chapter, we
provide an overview of some of the basic elements of the organization of U.S. education so that
you will be able to make increasingly informed decisions about the nature of education and how
you as a teacher can grow professionally. In that sense, the purpose of this chapter is to create a
broad frame of reference that grounds the perceptions of education in their organizational and
social realities. To this end, we have included a section of this chapter that deals with the structure
of U.S. education and compares that structure briefly to the structure of education in Great Britain,
France, Japan, Germany, and Finland.
We then turn to what is often called school processes; that is, we examine the way in which
school cultures are created and maintained. Accordingly, we discuss such elements of school culture
as authority structures and the significance of bureaucracy. These observations naturally lead to
questions concerning the nature of teaching and the need for greater teacher professionalization.
Good teaching will always be at the core of learning. Creating the conditions where teachers can
use and improve their craft should be a major objective of those who believe that education is a
cornerstone for a better society.
226 Schools as Organizations
The Structure of U.S. Education

The organization of U.S. schools is complex on several levels. In this section, we examine the nation’s
elementary and secondary school system from the point of view of governance, size, degree of
centralization, student composition, and its relative “openness.” We also examine the duality of the
U.S. school system; that is, in the United States, we have public and private educational systems
that sometimes work in tandem and sometimes in opposition. The purpose of discussing the
organization of schools should be clear—without a sense of structure, one has little way of grasping
it as a whole. If one was to paint a landscape of elementary and secondary education in the United
States, it would require a picture of almost infinite complexity and subtlety. It is the product of
ideology, pragmatism, and history. It is unlike virtually any other educational system because the
U.S. system is so decentralized and so dedicated to the concept of equal educational opportunity.
We turn now to the issue of who is legally responsible for education in the United States.
Governance
When the Constitution of the United States was written, its authors indicated that those powers
that were not mentioned explicitly as belonging to the federal government were retained by
individual states. Because the federal government made no claims concerning its authority relative
to education, the states retained their authority and responsibility for education. Thus, the United
States has 50 separate state school systems. This picture is made even more complex by the fact
that there is also a private school system within each state. There are few countries with this
degree of decentralization. But this is just the beginning of the story, because most U.S. public
schools are paid for by the revenue that is raised by local property taxes. As a consequence, taxpayers
within particular school districts have a substantial stake in the schools within their districts and
are able to make their voices heard through community school boards.
What this means, in effect, is that the U.S. public school system is, in large part, decentralized
right down to the school district level. It is true that the state may mandate curriculum,
qualifications for teaching, and safety codes, but the reality is that these mandates must be carried
out not by agents of the state but by citizens of a particular school district. Is it any wonder that
top-down reform in the United States is difficult to achieve?
Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the federal government has entered the
educational policy field originally through the enforcement of students’ civil rights. The role of
the federal government in creating educational policy has increased since that time. This expansion
of the federal role in education is perhaps best symbolized by the founding of the United States
Department of Education in the late 1970s. During the era of Presidents Reagan and Bush, the
U.S. Department of Education served primarily as a “bully pulpit” for Secretaries of Education
who helped to define the crisis in U.S. education and to provide blueprints for the resolutions of
these crises. In actual fact, however, the Secretary of Education has relatively little authority when
it comes to the governance of public schools. However, under the Bush and Obama administrations
the Secretaries of Education played a much larger role in holding states accountable for student
achievement, through the No Child Left Behind Law and Race to the Top.
Size and Degree of Centralization

As indicated earlier, the elementary and secondary school system in the United States is extremely
large. It is estimated that more than 55 million youngsters are enrolled in kindergarten through
the twelfth grade and that the cost of educating these children is over $650 billion annually.
Interestingly enough, at the same time that the school system has been growing, it has been
simultaneously becoming more centralized, presumably for reasons of efficiency. For instance, in
Schools as Organizations 227
the early 1930s, there were approximately 128,000 public school districts in the United States.
By the late 1980s, this number had been reduced to slightly fewer than 16,000. In 2010, there
were 13,709 school districts. Part of this consolidation process has been by virtue of elimination
of single-teacher schools. At the turn of the twentieth century, there were approximately 200,000
such schools and by 1998, there were 380 (Muse, 1998).
As a consequence of this consolidation, the average number of pupils per elementary public
school rose from 91 in the early 1930s to 450 in the late 1980s. Public high schools expanded
from 195 students per school in the early 1930s to 513 in the late 1980s (Witte, 1990, p. 15).
In 2009–2010, the average number of pupils per school in the United States was 450 at the
elementary level and 856 at the secondary level (National Center for Education Statistics, NCES).
At the same time as schools are becoming larger, the number of pupils per teacher is decreasing.
Today, the average public elementary school classroom averages 16 students, whereas 80 years
ago, there were nearly 34 students per teacher. At the high school level, the average number of
pupils per teacher is 16, whereas 80 years ago, it was 22.
What these statistics reveal is that there has been a considerable amount of consolidation and
centralization in the last 80 years in U.S. public education. Although this trend may be cost-
effective, it may also have a negative impact on the diversity of schools that students may attend.
Usually, large institutions are more bureaucratic than smaller ones and a high degree of central-
ization diminishes the amount of democratic participation. For example, because school districts
have become larger, superintendents have become more powerful, and as a consequence teachers
have had fewer opportunities to make decisions regarding curriculum, conditions of employment,
and school policy.
Student Composition
In 2015, 50 percent of the students in primary and secondary public schools were white. This
percentage, however, masks a great deal of variation in terms of racial composition between states
and school districts. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 16 have less than 50 percent
of white students, and 10 states have almost no minority students. Some large states such as
California, Texas, and New York are extremely mixed racially. Many urban school districts enroll
mostly minority students (U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, 2015).
For instance, in 2009, in New York City, 85.6 percent of the students were nonwhite; in Los
Angeles, the figure was 91.3 percent; and in Detroit, 97.4 percent of the system’s students were
from minority backgrounds (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts
in the United States: 2008–09, 2010). In effect, nonminority families have moved out of the
cities and into the suburbs, leading to a high degree of residential segregation. In some cities, less
than 5 percent of the suburban population is minority. These data have remained fairly consistent.
What this means is that the student composition of U.S. schools is becoming more diverse at
the same time that there has been a trend toward increasing residential segregation. Another way
of expressing this is that de jure segregation has been replaced by de facto segregation (see Harvard
Civil Rights Project, 2004). Student composition can also be viewed along other dimensions such
as gender, class, ethnicity, and even ability. Later on, we will discuss how these characteristics of
students not only can affect the student composition of schools but are related to educational and
life outcomes. For example, we might wonder why it is that although approximately half the
students in U.S. education are female, so few of them choose to pursue technological or scientific
careers. Schools are also segregated or stratified according to the wealth and income of their student
bodies. Students who attend schools in wealthy school districts, for instance, are more likely to
have more curriculum options, better teachers, and more extracurricular activities than are students
who attend relatively poor school districts. We will have a great deal more to say about these
issues in subsequent chapters.
Degree of “Openness”
Public schools in the United States are organized as elementary, junior high or middle school,
and high school. Elementary school usually encompasses kindergarten through grades 5 or 6; junior
high, grades 7 through 9; middle school, grades 6 through 8; and high school, grades 9 through
12. Usually, children enter kindergarten at age 5 and graduate from high school at age 18. A key
element to understanding the U.S. school system is that relatively few academic impediments are
placed before students if they choose to graduate from high school. Indeed, there may be many
social and personal impediments that keep students from graduating from high school, but the
school system is designed to give students many opportunities for advancement.
In this sense, the U.S. school system is quite open. All youngsters are entitled to enroll into
public schools and to remain in school until they graduate. There is a powerful democratic ethos
underlining the belief in the “common school.” From a structural point of view, this means that
there are multiple points of entry into the school system and there are few forced exits. When
this openness is compared to other school systems, you will see that this is unusual, although most
Americans would agree that schools should be as democratic as possible.
Private Schools
Private schools tend to attract students from families that are relatively affluent and have a
commitment to education. There are approximately 33,619 elementary and secondary private
schools in the United States, enrolling 5.4 million students. Private schools constitute 25 percent
of all elementary and secondary schools and educate 10 percent of the student population. The
mean student enrollment of private schools is 193; only 7 percent of private schools enroll more
than 600 students. Unlike the public sector, which has been consolidating over the last
50 years, there has been a remarkable growth of private schools. In the early 1930s, for instance,
there were fewer than 10,000 private elementary schools in the United States; 50 years later,
there were nearly 17,000 such schools. In 2014, there were 22,509 private elementary schools in
the United States (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014).
There is a tremendous amount of diversity in the private sector, although most private schools
are affiliated with religious organizations. Private school researcher Donald Erickson (1986, p. 87)
has noted 15 major categories of private schools: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Seventh
Day Adventist, Independent, Episcopal, Greek Orthodox, Quaker, Mennonite, Calvinist,
Evangelical, Assembly of God, Special Education, Alternative, and Military. It should also be
mentioned that in the United States there is very little regulation of private education by state
authorities. The separation of Church and State ensures the relative autonomy of private schools
as long as they do not violate safety regulations and the civil rights of students. Each state has
slightly different regulations, but in the main, it is safe to say that the autonomy of private schools
is protected by a series of decisions made by the United States Supreme Court.
Most private schools are located on the East and West Coasts. Connecticut has the highest
percent of private school students and Wyoming has the lowest. Even though the percent of
students who attend private schools has remained relatively steady when compared to the public
sector, there has been a significant shift in the private sector in terms of enrollment patterns.
Clearly, Roman Catholic schools are experiencing a decline in enrollment. In the period between
1965 and 1983, there was a 46 percent drop in the number of students who attended Roman
Catholic schools. During the same period, virtually every other type of private school experienced
a great growth in terms of students and number of schools. Other religious schools doubled and
tripled in size. This trend continued throughout the early twenty-first century.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, numerous studies seemed to indicate that private schools
were more effective learning environments than were public schools. Various researchers claimed
that private schools are communities and, because they compete for students, they are less
bureaucratic than public schools, and, as a consequence, they are more innovative. As you will
see, there has been a growing movement among some educational reformers to allow students to
choose between public and private schools. It is difficult to know whether, in fact, this kind of
school choice will lead to school improvement or whether allowing students to choose private
schools will lead to increased educational and social stratification. Many of these issues will be
discussed in future chapters.
Conclusion
As this overview indicates, describing the U.S. elementary and secondary school system requires
viewing the organization of schools from a variety of points of view. There is considerable diversity
in the system despite the fact that there has been a trend toward centralization in the public
sector. The authority structure of the public school system is diffuse; ultimately, it is the people
who are responsible for the schools. This fact should not be minimized. Individuals, families, and
groups are able to influence education by voting, by attending school district board meetings, and
by paying for schools through taxes. This democratization gives the U.S. school system a unique
egalitarian ethos. How does the U.S. system compare to other education systems? This is an
important question to ask, because it is through comparison that one can see the unique features
of the U.S. school system and those features that the U.S. system shares with the other national
systems. This broadening frame of reference gives one greater understanding about the relationship
between educational structure, processes, and outcomes.
International Comparisons
Countries vary considerably by how they organize their school systems. Few school systems are
as complex as that in the United States; for instance, most countries have a National Ministry
of Education or a Department of Education that is able to exert considerable influence over the
entire educational system. Educational reforms can start from the top down with relative success
because the state has the authority to enforce its decisions right down to the classroom level.
Another dimension apparent in comparative analysis is the relative selectivity of systems. Education
in the United States is fundamentally inclusive in its purposes; most other educational systems
are not as inclusive. Individuals in other systems undergo a very rigorous academic rite of passage
that is designed to separate the “academically talented” from the less gifted. The relative selectivity
of a school system is an excellent indicator of its exclusiveness or inclusiveness.
What is the major purpose of the system? Is it to train an academic elite or to provide a broad-
based educational experience for a wide segment of the population? Clearly, the relative openness
of an educational system is related to the culture from which it originates. In this sense, educational
systems are the expression of the values of the larger society. Educational systems can be located
relative to each other by examining their degree of openness and the amount of authority that
is exercised over the educational system by the national government. For instance, as we will see,
France is a highly centralized educational system compared to the system in the United States.
Moreover, the educational system in France is designed to produce an academic elite compared
to the system in the United States, where equality of educational opportunity for all children is
a strong normative value.
Great Britain
Before the nineteenth century, the education of children in Great Britain was considered to be
a responsibility of parents. All schools were private. For the children of very wealthy families,
parents often hired tutors. For poor children, there was no schooling. During the nineteenth
century, there was a system of charity schools for the poor. Most of these schools were operated
by religious organizations. The establishment of a national educational system for all children in
the early nineteenth century was opposed by the Church of England and Roman Catholics. The
1870 Education Act led to the beginnings of a national system, although the Church of England
continued to maintain its own schools. This compromise between Church and State led to the
dual system of education that still exists in Great Britain, whereby State-run schools are
controlled by Local Education Authorities (LEAs), while Church schools continue to operate,
often funded by the State through the LEAs.
Although there were many attempts to reform this system, it was not until the 1944 Education
Act that a truly national system of education was established as part of an “integrated public
service welfare state” (Walford, 1992b). Free primary and secondary education was provided for
all children. Despite the fact that the 1944 Education Act was designed to democratize Great
Britain’s school system, on the whole, the system re-created the class system by channeling students
into different kinds of schools. Children from wealthy homes received academic training in
grammar schools, and children from working-class homes received vocational training. In short,
Great Britain had a decentralized educational system that was fundamentally elitist.
During the 1960s, there was an effort to democratize Great Britain’s educational system. When
Margaret Thatcher was elected prime minister in 1979, however, she promised to reform the
educational system. Throughout the 1980s, the Conservative Government, led by Thatcher,
attempted to reform the educational system by privatizing public education, by encouraging greater
parental choice, and by reorganizing the administrative structure of the State educational system.
There were a series of legislative changes, culminating in the 1988 Reform Act. This reform estab-
lished a national curriculum and set national assessment goals. Governing bodies of all secondary
schools and many primary schools were given control over their own budgets. Parental choice was
encouraged and a pilot network of City Technology Colleges was established. Also, State schools
were given the right to opt out of local educational authority control. Thus, the 1988 Educational
Reform Act was a radical challenge to the education system that had been established in 1944.
Since 1988, England and Wales have implemented a highly centralized national curriculum
and system of national assessment. Although teachers have been critical of the overly bureaucratic
nature of these reforms, and the number of key curriculum areas has been narrowed, nonetheless,
the 1988 Educational Reform Act has led to significant change (Walford, 1999).
The educational system in Great Britain is more open and less class stratified than it was a
quarter century ago. However, despite a decrease in the school leaving rate to under 30 percent
(from over 60 percent) (Brint, 2006) and an increase in university attendance to approximately
30 percent from under 10 percent, the educational system remains class stratified. It is also
increasingly becoming race and ethnicity stratified as Great Britain, especially London, has become
increasingly multiracial and multiethnic, with a dramatic influx of immigrants from former colonial
countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia, including India and Pakistan. The inner-London
schools are as multicultural as any urban school system in the United States, with some of the
same problems experienced in U.S. urban schools.
The British educational system is no longer the highly stratified system in which students are
sorted and selected by age 11 by examination, with achievement highly correlated to social class
background. The national curriculum has also eliminated the comprehensive secondary school,
which offered noncollege curriculum for its mostly working-class students. Nonetheless, critics of
the 1988 Education Reform Act argue that it has not significantly reduced educational stratification
and to some degree has exacerbated it (Walford, 1999). Although some believed that with the
election of Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair in the late 1990s, educational reform would
become more concerned with equity than standards, to date this does not appear to have happened.
France
The educational system in France is quite centralized compared to the United States and Great
Britain. The central government in France controls the educational system right down to the
classroom level. Traditionally, there have been two public school systems—one for ordinary people
and one for the elite. Efforts to end this dual system have been only partially successful, although
throughout the last three decades, there has been an attempt to create one comprehensive system.
The French educational system is highly stratified. For the academically talented, who usually
come from the upper classes, there is a system of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools
that is highly selective, highly academic, and socially elite. At the top of the system are the grandes
écoles, which are small specialized institutions that produce members of the country’s governmental
and intellectual elite.
According to a noted authority on French education, George Male (1992), the French
educational system is “excessively verbal.” That is, French students are taught to frame ideas almost
as an end unto itself, even as a matter of aesthetics. This sense of using language aesthetically is
closely related to the importance placed on intellectual attainment within the French system. At
one level, the objective of the French system is to produce a small number of highly qualified
intellectuals. To identify this small group, the government has instituted a set of examinations
that effectively, and one might even say ruthlessly, sort out the academically talented from the
less academically gifted. The French believe, by and large, that this system of examinations is
meritocratic, even though it is common knowledge that the system stratifies students by social
class background. The French educational system is frankly competitive.
Efforts to democratize the system have not succeeded. Despite a number of reforms associated
with particular Ministers of Education, the French system continues to be centralized, competitive,
and stratified. In 1984, the socialist government proposed to reduce State grants to private Catholic
schools. The opposition to this proposal was so fierce that the plan was dropped, and since that
time there have been few reform efforts, especially at the structural level.
In the past decade, the French educational system has become a little more democratic. Approxi-
mately a third of 17- and 18-year-olds enroll in some form of higher education, although only
about 15 percent graduate from university. The majority complete some form of postsecondary
occupational education. The top 10 percent of secondary students compete for the rare opportunity
to enter the grandes écoles, which prepare students for prestigious civil service (Brint, 1998, p. 50).
Entrance into the grandes écoles, although based on meritocratic selection, remains highly correlated
with social class background.
France has historically attached importance to the principle of secularism, so there is no formal
religious education in state schools. Recent events, particularly related to France's Islamic popu-
lation, point to the necessity of schools teaching some form of religious awareness to promote a
better understanding of different groups’ beliefs. However, the government has prohibited females
from wearing the hijab (Muslim head scarf) in school, which has created intense conflict. Given
the terrorist activities of ISIS, these conflicts have only intensified.
Japan
During the late twentieth century, some experts thought that the educational system in Japan
was exemplary when compared to the educational system in the United States (White, 1987).
The Japanese educational system seemed to produce skilled workers and highly competent managers.
In fact, Japan’s economic rise in the 1980s represented a serious challenge to the international
economic position of the United States. What is it about the Japanese system that makes it so
distinctive?
The first national system of education in Japan was established in the 1880s under the central
authority of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. After World War II, the structure
of schooling was changed when compulsory education was extended from 6 to 9 years and the
democratic principles of equality of opportunity were suffused throughout the system. Parallel to
the public system is a large and thriving private sector that plays an important role in providing
educational opportunities at all levels of education. The Japanese system of education is highly
competitive. To be admitted to a prestigious university, students are required to pass examinations
that are extremely competitive. This emphasis on achievement and attainment is exemplified
by the fact that Japanese students excel in every measured international standard up to the age of
17, both for the top students and for the 95 percent of students who graduate from high school.
What distinguishes the Japanese educational system from other educational systems in terms
of its efficiency and effectiveness? Certainly, the educational system benefits by the work ethic
that is so deeply entrenched in Japanese culture. Japanese parents have a high regard for the
importance of education. The belief in education in Japan is so strong that it has led to the “double-
schooling” phenomenon. In effect, many Japanese students are exposed to two educational systems.
The first system consists of the traditional public schools and the second system consists of the
nonformal schools that act as a national system of tutorial opportunities for students. The largest
nonformal school system in Japan is the “study institution” (Juku). It is estimated that there are
over 10,000 Jukus in Japan.
This love of education has made Japan a nation of strivers, but not without its own drawbacks.
The Japanese have always placed a high value on moral education. Ethical dimensions of a moral
education are not always easily compatible with the values inherent in competition. Thus, the
debate over education in Japan has more to do with national character than it does with structural
reform. Reconciling the cultural values of achievement and competition with those of cooperation
and mutuality will be the hallmark of Japanese educational reform in the coming years.
Germany
The German educational system is significantly different from that of the United States. Through
examinations, Germany selects and sorts its children at a relatively young age and tracks them
into a tripartite system of secondary education (Mitter, 1992). The Hauptschule is designed for
those destined for blue-collar and lower-level service positions; the Realschule is for lower-level
white-collar and technical positions; the Gymnasium is for academic preparation for university
and the intellectual and management professions (Brint, 1998, p. 41).
By the end of the lower secondary years, students from the Hauptschule and Realschule enter
the distinctive dual system of apprenticeship, where students spend part of the day working in
apprenticeships in businesses and the other part in school. The close connection between business
and schools in the training of workers is viewed as a model by many advocates of vocational
educational reform in the United States. Students in the Gymnasium complete a rigorous academic
curriculum that prepares them to take Abitur, the college entrance examination. About 25 percent
qualify for university attendance, which is State supported and tuition free. Of these, more than
half enroll in Fachhochschulen, or technical colleges. The remainder enter a four-year rigorous
academic education in the arts and sciences, in universities that are similar to one another.
Therefore, the rigid secondary school tracking system leads into a somewhat equal and
undifferentiated system of higher education (Brint, 1998, p. 42). Less than 15 percent of German
students complete this university education.
The German system is almost the opposite of the U.S. system. Primary schools in the United
States are relatively untracked, and secondary schools, although tracked, provide a relatively high
degree of access to higher education. Higher education is open to large numbers of students,
but also highly unequal and stratified, with technical and vocational programs and liberal arts
and sciences in two-year community colleges, and a system of nonelite and elite four-year pu-
blic and private colleges and universities. About 40 percent of U.S. students enter colleges and
universities, and another 35 percent enter community colleges, with approximately 30 percent
completing a baccalaureate degree (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2015).
German primary education sorts and selects students for a highly stratified and tracked secondary
system, marked by a rigorous university preparatory track and two vocational and technical tracks,
with a State-supported apprenticeship system. Although the system appears meritocratic, as place-
ment is based on achievement, academic achievement is related to social class background (Mitter,
1992).
German reunification took place on October 3, 1990. Since then, the former East German
system of communist education has been completely altered and replaced by the system of the
Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). Radical transformation of the curriculum to reflect
a capitalist rather than communist ideology, and the transition to the highly stratified system just
described, have taken place. Although it is too early to assess this transformation, some
preliminary indications are that former East Germans may be having some difficulty adjusting to
the more competitive system. Moreover, it will be interesting to see how those students who were
socialized in the primary grades in the 1980s under communism and schooled in the 1990s in
unified secondary schools are faring. The reunification of the German educational system is
currently a fruitful avenue of educational research in Germany.
Finland
In recent years, education experts have focused their attention on the high level of student
achievement in Finland. Throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century, Finland has had
some of the highest scores on the math, science and literacy exams administered by PISA (Program
for International Student Assessment). Even more impressive than their overall scores on the
PISA exams is the fact that there is little variation in student outcomes on the exams across all
populations of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups in Finland. Many other countries that
participate in PISA, including the United States, have large gaps in the performance of the highest
scoring students and the lowest scoring students. In an effort to learn from Finland’s experience
and replicate its successes, education experts have been looking at the organization and
implementation of education in Finland.
How has Finland’s education system achieved such dramatic results? During the past 40 years,
Finland has undertaken a major overhaul of its education system by focusing on equal access to
curriculum, the provision of wrap-around services for students, and teacher education. Finland
eliminated all forms of tracking and instead turned its focus to ensuring that all students attain
a high level of academic success. Unlike many other countries, Finland has abolished almost all
forms of standardized testing. Instead, Finland places an emphasis on formative evaluation, and
relies on oral and narrative dialogues between teachers and students to track progress. The one
standardized exam that Finland does administer is a college entrance exam that includes between
6 and 10 items that evaluate students’ problem-solving skills, analysis, and writing (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).
Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of the Finnish education system is the way in which
it recruits, educates, retains, and respects the professionalism of classroom teachers. Only 15 percent
of college graduates who apply for teacher education programs are admitted. People who are
accepted into these well-respected programs receive a stipend and free tuition as they complete a
three-year graduate program preparing them to be classroom teachers. As graduate students, aspiring
teachers develop research skills that aid them in honing their own teaching practice throughout
their careers. Upon entering the teaching profession, Finnish teachers receive competitive wages,
are treated with a high degree of professionalism, and maintain a large amount of autonomy over
their teaching practice. Teachers oversee small classes of students and are allotted significant periods
of time to collaborate with co-workers, develop curriculum, and review student work. As a result
of these teaching conditions, Finnish teachers are able to develop innovative practices that meet
the specific needs of their students. Furthermore, Finnish teachers have a high degree of work
satisfaction, making teacher retention and teacher shortages non-issues across the country (Darling-
Hammond, 2010). Education reform in Finland has taken a decidedly different path than education
reform in the United States and has achieved markedly better results. As the United States works
towards improving its education system and eliminating achievement gaps, it might be able to learn
from the Finnish experience with education reform (Sahlberg, 2015).
Conclusion
In sum, it is apparent from the preceding examples that educational systems and structures are in
the process of change on an almost continuous basis. Educational systems are difficult to
change because they are deeply embedded in their respective cultures. The values of a
culture become institutionalized in an educational system. Every system is confronted with the
same kinds of challenges. How many children shall be educated and what shall they learn? Every
educational system attempts to select and sort students by their academic talent. The ethics and
efficacy of any system is difficult to evaluate outside of its cultural context. Culture not only shapes
structure but it also shapes school processes. Knowing the organization of a school or school system
is a bit like knowing the architectural plans for a house. From a set of plans, one knows a house’s
dimensions and its form, but one does not know what it feels like to live in that structure. In the
next section, we examine some of the key elements that underlie school processes.
School Processes and School Cultures

When you think back over your educational experiences, you undoubtedly have strong memories
of the schools that you attended. You may remember particular teachers (for better or for worse),
you may recall the students in your classes, and perhaps particular incidents stand out in your
mind. Certainly, you remember the cafeteria. If you have strong powers of recall, you may remember
the schools you attended more globally in terms of atmosphere, culture, and even smells. When
one walks into a school, it is obvious that one is in a very particular place. Schools are unlike
other organizations and because of this, they remain etched in one’s memories for a lifetime. Thus,
when we speak of school processes, what we really are identifying are the powerful cultural qualities
of schools that make them so potent in terms of emotional recall, if not in terms of cognitive
outcomes.
Explaining school cultures is not easy because culture, by definition, is exactly that which one
takes most for granted. Roughly 60 years ago, a sociologist of education, Willard Waller, attempted
to understand the culture of schools. He later wrote:
The school is a unity of interacting personalities. The personalities of all who meet in the school are
bound together in an organic relation. The life of the whole is in all its parts, yet the whole could not
exist without any of its parts. The school is a social organism. (1965, p. 146)
According to Waller (p. 147), schools are separate social organizations because:
1. They have a definite population.
2. They have a clearly defined political structure, arising from the mode of social interaction
characteristics of the school, and influenced by numerous minor processes of interaction.
3. They represent the nexus of a compact network of social relationships.
4. They are pervaded by a “we feeling.”
5. They have a culture that is definitely their own.
Waller went on to describe schools as despotisms in a state of perilous equilibrium (1965, p. 150).
What is meant by this is that schools have authority structures that are quite vulnerable and that
a great deal of political energy is expended every day, thus keeping the school in a state of equi-
librium. In other words, school cultures are extremely vulnerable to disruption and continuity
is often maintained by the use of authority. Curiously, without the compliance of students, the
exercise of authority within schools would be virtually impossible. Metz (1978) examined the use
of authority in public schools and discovered that there was chronic tension within schools, in
part because of conflicting goals. The teachers often have pedagogic goals that are difficult to
reconcile with the social goals of the students. Administrators often have organizational goals
that are shared neither by the teachers nor by the students. Communities can exert tremendous
pressure on schools and thus aggravate tensions within schools.
It is ironic that organizations that are formally dedicated to the goals of learning should be
riddled with so many tensions and competing interests. However, this is the social reality within
which many real schools operate. Schools are political organizations in which there are numerous
competing interests. Thus, the culture of any one particular school is the product of the political
compromises that have been created in order for the school to be viable. As a student, you
experience these political compromises from a particular point of view. Individually, students
generally have little power, but collectively they have a great deal of power in terms of whether
they will accept the school’s authority. Very often, this authority is represented in terms of the
principal. Studies show that it is the principal who establishes the goals for the school, the level
of social and academic expectations, and the effectiveness of the discipline (Persell & Cookson,
1982; Semel, 1992).
Because schools are so deeply political, effecting change within them is very difficult. Groups
and individuals have vested interests. For example, teachers, represented through their unions,
have a great deal to say about the conditions of their employment. Local school board members
often struggle with the teachers in terms of pay, productivity, and professional standards. Many
of these conflicts are resolved through negotiation. This is possible because schools, especially
public schools, are bureaucracies.
Sociologist Max Weber (1976) suggested that bureaucracies are an attempt to rationalize and
organize human behavior in order to achieve certain goals. In theory, bureaucracies are
characterized by explicit rules and regulations that promote predictability and regularity in decision
making and minimize the significance of personal relationships. Rules of procedure are designed
to enforce fairness. As one knows, however, bureaucracies can become so complex, so rule oriented,
and so insensitive that they suppress individualism, spontaneity, and initiative. Bureaucratic
rationality can often suppress the creativity required for learning. Is it reasonable to suppose that
learning best takes place in 40- or 50-minute segments that are marked by the ringing of bells or
the mechanical rasp of buzzers? Is it reasonable to suppose that learning best takes place when
every student reads the same textbook? Is it reasonable to suppose that learning is best measured
by multiple-choice tests? In short, the demands of the bureaucracy can often be destructive to
the very spontaneity and freedom that is required by teachers and students if they are to develop
intellectually and personally.
Schools, as they are now organized, are shaped by a series of inherent contradictions that can
develop cultures that are conflictual and even stagnant. Changing the cultures of schools requires
patience, skill, and good will. Research on the effects of school-based management, for instance,
indicate that it is not an easy task for teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and
students to arrive at consensus.
An interesting example of how complex the restructuring of schools is was the “Schools of
Tomorrow . . . Today” project, run by the New York City Teachers Center Consortium of the
United Federation of Teachers. The purpose of this project was to create schools that were “more
centered on learner’s needs for active, experiential, cooperative, and culturally-connected learning
opportunities supportive of individual talents and learning styles” (Lieberman, Darling-Hammond,
& Zuckerman, 1991, p. ix). The aim of this project was to create schools that are “energized by
collaborative inquiry, informed by authentic accountability, and guided by shared decision making.”
It was discovered that despite the best efforts of the restructuring participants within the schools,
reform was difficult to achieve. Each of the 12 schools participating in the project had strikingly
different approaches to change and experienced significantly different outcomes in terms of
achieving the stated objectives.
The evaluators of this project identified four elements of change that applied to all the schools:
Conflict is a necessary part of change. Efforts to democratize schools do not create conflicts, but they
allow (and to be successful, require) previously hidden problems, issues, and disagreements to surface.
Staff involvement in school restructuring must be prepared to elicit, manage, and resolve conflicts.
New behaviors must be learned. Because change requires new relationships and behaviors, the change
process must include building communication and trust, enabling leadership and initiative to emerge,
and learning techniques of communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution.
Team building must extend to the entire school. Shared decision making must consciously work
out and give on-going attention to relationships within the rest of the school’s staff. Otherwise, issues
of exclusiveness and imagined elitism may surface, and perceived “resistance to change” will persist.
Process and content are interrelated. The process a team uses in going about its work is as important
as the content of educational changes it attempts. The substance of a project often depends upon the
degree of trust and openness built up within the team and between the team and the school. At the
same time, the usefulness and the visibility of the project will influence future commitments from and
the relationships among the staff and others involved. (Lieberman et al., 1991, pp. ix–x)
As these quotes indicate, changing the culture of a school in order to make the school more
learner centered requires time, effort, intelligence, and good will. Reflecting on the observations
of Willard Waller, one can see that altering a particular school’s culture is similar to diverting a
river as it flows to the sea. Just as change is institutionalized, the institution itself changes. School
processes are elusive and difficult to define, but all powerful nonetheless. This does not mean that
planned change is not possible. It does mean that planned change requires new ways of thinking.
It is our contention that teachers must be at the forefront of educational change and, therefore,
the very definition of the profession must be redefined.
Teachers, Teaching, and Professionalization

In the prologue to his engaging and important book, Horace’s Compromise (1984), Theodore Sizer
describes Horace Smith, a 53-year-old, 28-year veteran of high school classrooms. Horace is an
“old pro.” He gets up at 5:45 a.m. in order to get to school before the first period of the day, which
begins at 7:30 a.m. Horace puts in a long day, teaching English to high school juniors and seniors.
In all, he will come in contact with 120 students. His days are long and demanding. Horace figures
that by judiciously using his time, he is able to allot 5 minutes per week of attention on the written
work of each student and an average of 10 minutes of planning for each 50-minute class. For this,
he is paid $27,300. He earns another $8,000 a year working part-time in a liquor store. Horace’s
daughter just graduated from law school and has her first job in a law firm. Her starting salary is
$32,000 a year.
The story of Horace is by no means unusual. His loyalty, dedication, and hard work is repeated
thousands of times by thousands of teachers every day. As this story indicates, there are numerous
paradoxes related to the teaching profession. Teachers are expected to perform miracles with
children but are seldom given the respect that professionals supposedly deserve. Teachers are asked
to put in 60-hour weeks but are paid relatively small salaries. Teachers are expected to reform
education, but are left out of the educational reform process. In short, teachers are the key players
in education but their voices are seldom heard and their knowledge is terribly underutilized, and
even devalued.
In this section we will briefly examine the nature of the teaching profession and the possibilities
for further teacher professionalization. This topic is of utmost importance because we believe, as
do John Goodlad and others, that teachers will be key players in educational reform in the future.
After all, teachers are responsible for student learning. If they cannot assume responsibility for
school improvement, how likely is it that schools will improve in terms of students learning?
Who Becomes a Teacher?

In 2013, 70 percent of all public school teachers in the United States were women. Their median
age was 46; 73.1 percent were married, 13.2 percent were single, and 13.8 percent were widowed,
divorced, or separated. Some 37.2 percent had a bachelor’s degree, 60.4 percent had a master’s
degree, and 1.4 percent had a doctorate. Also, 38.2 percent would certainly teach if they had to
do it over again; 27.3 percent probably would teach again; 16.1 percent said the chances were
about even; 12.7 percent said they probably would not teach again; and 5.8 percent certainly
would not teach again (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
2006, 2012b). With the aging of the teaching force and an attrition rate of approximately
40 percent in the first five years (Ingersoll, 2004), there will be increased demand for new teachers
in the first decades of the twenty-first century.
Recently, there has been a great deal of discussion about the qualifications of those entering
the teaching profession. In 1982, for instance, the national average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
score was 893; the average score among students intending to major in education was 813 (Walker,
Kozma, & Green, 1989, p. 26). Although SAT scores may not be accurate predictors of professional
development, they do indicate that, on average, students entering the teaching profession are
relatively weak academically. When top high-school seniors are asked to indicate their future
professions, less than 10 percent indicate that they are interested in becoming teachers. These
data did not significantly change in the 1990s (National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 1996). What is perhaps even more alarming is that the best students who enter the teaching
profession are the ones that are most likely to leave the profession at an early date. Another
concern is that there are few minority teachers. The United States is becoming an increasingly
multicultural society. One wonders about the educational effectiveness of an aging white teaching
force in the context of increasing racial and ethnic diversity.
Given the concerns about teacher qualifications and quality, and the positive relationship
between teacher quality and student achievement, especially in high-poverty schools (Educa-
tion Trust, 1998), the No Child Left Behind Law mandated that states require all teachers to be
highly qualified. According to NCLB, teachers are “highly qualified” when they meet three
conditions:
1. A college degree.
2. Full certification or licensure, which specifically does not include any certification or
licensure that has been “waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.”
3. Demonstrable content knowledge in the subject they’re teaching, or in the case of elementary
teachers, in at least verbal and mathematics ability. This demonstration can come in various
forms:
– New elementary teachers must pass a state test of literacy and numeracy;
– New secondary teachers must either pass a rigorous test in the subject area or have a
college major;
– Veteran teachers may either pass the state test, have a college major, or demonstrate
content knowledge through some other uniformly applied process designed by the state.
(Education Trust, 2003)
Most states require that both elementary and secondary teachers pass a test in their subject area,
such as the Educational Testing Services Praxis II examinations, which are given in each subject
area. Although these processes have raised the entry-level qualifications of teachers, advocates for
increased teacher quality, such as the Education Trust, argue that many states have set the bar for
passing these examinations so low that teacher subject-level knowledge still needs improvement
(Education Trust, 2003). Some states, such as New York, require that new teachers pass examin-
ations in general liberal arts knowledge, teaching pedagogy, and pedagogical content knowledge
and subject matter knowledge; other states, such as New Jersey, only test subject matter knowledge,
permitting new teachers to enter the classroom with no examinations of teaching competence.
The majority of new teachers enter the profession after completing a university or college teacher
education program, where they student teach for a semester prior to entering the classroom. Many
states permit alternate route certification, where new teachers who pass subject matter examinations
enter the classroom with little or no teacher education or student teaching. Teach for America
(TFA), a national teacher corps that recruits liberal arts graduates for teaching in high-poverty
urban and rural school districts, is an example of such an alternate route program. Although
proponents of high-quality traditional teacher education, such as Linda Darling-Hammond, have
been critical of TFA, saying that no other profession allows people to practice without years of
training, defenders of TFA argue that their teachers are among the best and brightest in the country,
are dedicated to teaching in areas that most new teachers do not want to teach, and have a positive
effect on student achievement (Darling Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Vasquez, 2005; Decker,
Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004).
The Nature of Teaching

Few professions are as demanding as teaching. Teachers must be skilled in so many areas of technical
expertise and human relations. In their book, The Complex Roles of the Teacher: An Ecological
Perspective (1984), Heck and Williams described the many roles that teachers are expected to
play in their professional lives. These roles include colleague, friend, nurturer of the learner,
facilitator of learning, researcher, program developer, administrator, decision maker, professional
leader, and community activist. This is a daunting list and it leaves out the most important role
of the teacher: the caring, empathetic, well-rounded person that can act as a role model to students,
parents, and other professionals. Thus, on any single day, a teacher will be expected to wear many
personal and professional “hats.” This role switching is extremely demanding and may be one of
the reasons for teacher burnout (Johnson, 2004). It takes a great deal of emotional energy and
imagination to maintain a sense of personal equilibrium in the face of meeting the needs of so
many diverse groups.
Lieberman and Miller (1984) have explored what they call “the social realities of teaching.”
Through their research, they have been able to identify elements of the teaching experience that
give it its unique flavor. According to Lieberman and Miller, the central contradiction of teaching
is that
teachers have to deal with a group of students and teach them something and, at the same time, deal
with each child as an individual. The teachers, then, have two missions: one universal and cognitive,
and the other particular and affective. (p. 2)
In order to reconcile this contradiction, teachers develop all kinds of classroom strategies that
become highly personal and that evolve into a teaching style that is more akin to an artistic
expression than it is to a technocratic or scientific resolution. Teachers, according to Lieberman
and Miller, are best viewed as craftspeople and most of the craft is learned on the job. Teaching
is a somewhat messy and personal undertaking.
There are other social realities of teaching that are significant. For instance, rewards are derived
from students. Very often, the greatest and perhaps the only positive feedback that teachers receive
is from their students. Seymour Sarason has written that teaching is a lonely profession. By this,
he means that teachers get few opportunities to have professional interactions with their peers,
and administrators seldom take the time or make the effort to give the kind of positive feedback
teachers need.
Another element that gives teaching its unique characteristics is that very little is known about
the links between teaching and learning. Researchers have only a marginal knowledge of whether
or not what is taught is what is learned and what the nature of learning is. This means that the
knowledge base of teaching is relatively weak compared to the knowledge base of other professions.
Few teachers are experts in learning theory and many are only minimally qualified in some of the
content areas they teach. What is key in teaching is the exercise of control. Control precedes
instruction. Without control, there are few opportunities for learning, and yet control can stifle
learning. Walking the razor’s edge between social claustrophobia in the classroom and chaos in
the classroom requires a high degree of self-understanding and understanding of group behavior.
This is made more difficult by the fact that the goals of teaching are not always clear. There is a
great deal of talk about holding teachers accountable for student learning. But the fact is that
classrooms are communities, where many needs must be met. To be an effective teacher requires
a sensitivity to individual and group dynamics.
Lieberman and Miller (1984) devoted a great deal of time discussing the “dailiness of teaching.”
There is a rhythm to the teacher’s day. Thinking back to Horace in Horace’s Compromise (Sizer,
1984), one can see that his day is punctuated by a set of rules, interactions, and feelings that are
played out on a day-to-day basis with a certain predictability. Each day has a rhythm, weeks have
rhythms, months have rhythms, and seasons have rhythms. For instance, fall is a time of high
hopes and promise. As the fall winds down, energy winds down. By Thanksgiving, there is a great
need for a break from the routine. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, there is a frantic round
of activities that culminate with the Christmas break. January can be brief, but February can seem
never to end. It is in February that most teachers begin to think of other professions. By March,
spirits begin to rise. This is accelerated by the spring break and the last-minute rush to fulfill the
promises made in September by the closing of school in June. And then one day in June, school
ends: No more routines, no more rituals, just memories of the year past.
Few professions are as simultaneously routinized and creative as teaching. Good teachers are
creators. They take the dailiness of teaching and turn each day into a special event. A great teacher
can turn a mundane lesson into an exciting intellectual voyage, and a poor teacher can make
students reject learning altogether. There are few rules about what it takes to be a good teacher.
Certainly, most good teachers genuinely like their students, have a commitment to their subject
matter, are reasonably orderly in terms of their classroom organization, and have at least a working
sense of humor. But these qualities are not professional qualities per se. How can one ensure that
the teaching force will be staffed by people who are academically sound and pedagogically artistic?
Given the condition of education today, it is important, even critical, that teachers be trained
in new ways and redefine the nature of their professionalism.
Underqualified Teachers
A requirement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was that all schools have highly qualified
teachers in every classroom. This criterion highlighted the problem of unqualified teachers, many
of whom were teaching out of their field of expertise. In the 1999–2000 school year, just prior to
the enactment of NCLB, 99 percent of public school teachers held at least a bachelor’s degree
and almost half held a master’s degree or higher. Moreover, about 92 percent of public school
teachers held a regular or full teaching certificate.
Most teachers today meet the highly qualified standards of NCLB; however, the data indicate
that significant numbers of classrooms are staffed by teachers who are not highly qualified in the
particular subject taught. This is the result of the practice called out-of-field teaching—teachers
being assigned to teach subjects that do not match their training or education. This is a crucial
practice because highly qualified teachers may actually become highly unqualified if they are
assigned to teach subjects for which they have little training or education. At the secondary school
level, about one-fifth of classes in each of the core academic subjects (math, science, English,
social studies) are taught by teachers who do not hold a teaching certificate in the subject taught.
The data also show that some kinds of schools and classes have more out-of-field teaching than
others. For example, low-income public schools have higher levels of out-of-field teaching than
do schools in more affluent communities, and lower-track classes are more often taught by out-
of-field teachers than are higher-track classes (Ingersoll, 2004).
According to Richard Ingersoll, a leading expert on issues relating to teacher staffing, the reasons
for underqualified teachers have less to do with teacher shortages and more to do with
organizational issues inside schools. Principals often find it easier to hire unqualified teachers than
qualified ones, and the absence of status and professionalism in teaching leads to high dropout
rates in the first five years of teaching. Therefore, districts are constantly replacing teachers on
an ongoing basis, which has significant consequences, because it takes years to become an expert
teacher. Rates of teacher attrition and misassignment are more prevalent in urban and high-poverty
schools (Ingersoll, 1999, 2003, 2004). Ingersoll’s research suggests that programs aimed at solving
school staffing problems at the supply level through alternative teacher education programs—
such as Teach for America, the New York City Teaching Fellows Program, and New Jersey’s
Alternative Certification Program (all of which allow college graduates with majors in their
teaching field to enter teaching without traditional certification through a college teacher
education program)—fail to address the organizational problems within schools that are responsible
for high turnover rates (Ingersoll, 2004).
Teacher Professionalization
Sociologist Dan Lortie (1975) argues that teaching, particularly elementary school teaching, is
only partially professionalized. When he compared elementary school teachers to other profes-
sionals, he found that the prerequisites for professionalism among elementary school teachers were
vaguely defined or absent altogether. For example, doctors have many clients, which means that
they are not economically dependent on any single individual. This economic independence
provides professional autonomy so that doctors need not always comply with the wishes of the
client. Teachers are in a very different market situation. They receive their income from “one
big client.” There is little opportunity for teachers to teach independently of their school, and
thus there is little opportunity for teachers to gain a reputation for excellence outside of their
school or their school district. There is, in Lortie’s words, “an incomplete subculture.” Teacher
socialization is very limited compared to other professions and there is little evidence that the
socialization processes associated with becoming a teacher are highly professionalized or represent
standards of behavior congruent with other professions. Lortie (1975, p. 213) concluded: “The
general status of teaching, the teacher’s role and the condition and transmission arrangements of
its subculture point to a truncated rather than fully realized professionalization.”
Educational researcher Linda M. McNeil (1988b) has written about what she calls the
contradictions of control. She pointed out that “in theory, the bureaucratic design of schools frees
teachers to teach by assigning to administrators and business managers the duties of keeping the
school ‘under control’” (p. 433). But, as McNeil indicated, when so much attention is placed on
keeping things under control, the educational purposes of the school can diminish in importance
and teachers can begin to be part of a controlling process rather than an instructional one.
As a result, teachers begin to take on the characteristics of the workers whose craft was splintered and
recast when they became factory workers. When teachers see administrators emphasizing compliance with
rules and procedures, rather than long term educational goals, teachers begin to structure their courses
in ways that will elicit minimum participation from their students. When they see administrators run the
schools according to impersonal procedures aimed at credentialing students, teachers begin to assert in
their classrooms the authority they feel they are lacking in their schools as a whole. And when the
complicated and often unpredictable task of educating a wide range of students is less valued than having
quiet halls and finishing paperwork on time, teachers try to create in their own classrooms the same kind
of efficiencies by which they are judged in the running of their schools. (McNeil, 1988b, p. 433)
Clearly, Lortie and McNeil are pointing to a set of conditions within the teaching profession
that makes genuine professional autonomy a difficult goal to attain. On one hand, teachers are
expected to be autonomous, thoughtful experts in education. On the other hand, the conditions
of their employment leave little scope for autonomy, thoughtfulness, or expertise. Perhaps none
of this would really matter if the compromise between the norms of professionalism and the
norms of bureaucracy did not lead to a kind of intellectual and moral paralysis among many
teachers. Trying to be a professional and a bureaucrat, while at the same time trying to fulfill the
many roles of a teacher, is a task that cannot be reasonably achieved by most people. Thus, in
the teaching profession there is a tendency toward malaise, a lack of self-worth, and even cynicism.
A visit to a teachers’ lounge can be bracing and challenging to the idealist because teachers’ lounges
are notorious sites for gossip and back-stabbing. This is not to say that teaching is an impossible
profession. There are many incredible teachers who overcome these obstacles and are inspirational
to their students and even to their colleagues.
It is difficult to think of ways of educating inspirational teachers. After all, teaching is so
personal. For educators such as John Goodlad, however, the time has come when society must
find ways of better educating teachers. In the mid-1980s, Goodlad and two colleagues created the
Center for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington. Using the Center as a base,
they conducted a number of studies about teacher education in the United States. Goodlad’s (1991,
p. 5) findings included the following: “(1) A debilitating lack of prestige in the teacher education
enterprise, (2) Lack of program coherence, (3) Separation of theory and practice, and (4) A stifling
regulated conformity.” These findings underscore what many already know. There is a crisis in
teacher education. Goodlad suggested that there is a need for a complete redesign of teacher
education programs and that a share of this redesign be conducted by policy makers, state officials,
university administrators, and faculty members in the arts and sciences as well as in the schools
of education. He also suggested that the redesign of teacher education include input from parents,
teachers in schools, and the community at large.
Goodlad believes that a teacher education program should include a clearly articulated
relationship between education and the arts and sciences. He believes that students should stay
together with teams of faculty members throughout their period of preparation and that universities
should commit enough resources to ensure first-rate teacher education programs. He is a strong
believer that schools and universities should collaborate to operate joint educational projects as a
way of preparing teachers for the real world of schools and as a way of revitalizing schools themselves.
In short, Goodlad wants to raise the level of academic preparation for teachers, create a more
cohesive curriculum, and professionalize teacher education by enlarging its clinical component.
Goodlad’s ideas are far from radical. Many of them were incorporated into the recommendations
of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996), which are summarized
in Chapter 10. But if they are to be implemented, the way most teachers are prepared would have
to be fundamentally altered. Clearly, there is a relationship between a higher level of preparation
and professionalization. However, if teachers are to be truly professional, they must be able to
share in the important decisions within the schools. School-based management, if it is to succeed,
must empower teachers in terms of their decision-making capacities about curriculum, discipline,
and other academic areas of importance. Whether or not school-based management will succeed
as a reform will determine in no small degree the level of professionalization achieved by teachers.
As one looks to the future, one can only hope that educational reformers will listen to teacher
advocates such as John Goodlad who argue that without creating a new generation of teacher-
leaders, there is little hope that schools will become more productive and just.
In this chapter we have discussed schools as organizations and teacher professionalization. Clearly,
the many topics covered in this chapter deserve further discussion. The readings for this chapter
touch on critical issues related to schools and teachers. The first selection, “Rich Land, Poor
Schools,” by sociologists David Baker and Gerald LeTendre provides a comparative and inter-
national analysis of schooling.
The second selection, “What Do the National Data Tell Us About Minority Teacher Short-
ages?” written by sociologist Richard M. Ingersoll, discusses whether or not there is a teacher
shortage in mathematics and sciences, two of the hardest to staff fields, as it relates to the high
turnover rate in teaching.
Rich Land, Poor Schools

Inequality of National Educational Resources and Achievement
of Disadvantaged Students
David Baker and Gerald LeTendre, with Brian Goesling
Using broad strokes, one could paint the theme were underrepresented in education at the time:
of the politics of schooling in many wealthy females, minorities, and rural children. Gradu-
nations in the 1960s and 1970s as trying to create ally shifting away from educational equality,
school systems with equal educational resources, the political agenda in many nations over the
or what is called “educational equality.” The past twenty years has been and continues to
main objective was expanding access to roughly be on educational quality, where the main
equal educational opportunities for children who objective is raising the basic level of educational
achievement. Of course, international informa- differences. Similarly in many nations, by law

tion has intensified many nations’ focus on basic physical resources and teacher pay scales are
international educational competitiveness. equal; it is rare for a school system to inten-
The preceding two chapters explored how a tionally distribute resources unequally, but there
deepening institutionalization of schooling and are a number of mechanisms by which this can
rising resources in many nations shape how happen (Oakes, 1985). Sometimes unintended
families invest their resources in their chil- inequalities occur because of variation in the
dren’s mathematics and science achievement. In level of educational expenditures across regions,
this chapter, we shift attention from differences provinces, or states. In the United States, for
among families to those among schools in terms example, tying local property tax revenues to
of resources dedicated to teaching and learning educational finance has led to discernible
these two subjects. As we noted in the discussion differences in resources across school districts
of the Coleman and Heyneman/Loxley effects in everything from the physical condition of the
in Chapter 3, even though there has been an school to the quality of the teachers (LeTendre,
observable effect of a rising level of quality in Hofer, and Shimizu, 2003).
many nations, there are still significant differ- Unintended differences in resources con-
ences in access to resources among schools tinue to frustrate national and local education
within a given country. Further, as we will show administrators who hope to attain equality of
here, nations vary in how much resource in- educational opportunity. By implementing com-
equality among schools their system produces; pulsory education for all children over the past
such educational inequality can have severe century, nations eliminated one major historical
negative consequences for the school achieve- source of inequality in access to education,
ment of poor and disadvantaged students. but successful expansion of mass schooling
Unequal resources among schools can be a has created a new problem. Implementing mass
result of both intentional education policy and schooling in most nations meant the rise of ex-
an unintentional consequence of the system. pectations about national academic outcomes,
For the most part, modern national systems have and the related goal of lowering (and even doing
tended to reduce both types—the latter as a away with) any unintentional gross differences
reflection of greater institutionalization of the in the quality of schooling from one school to the
idea of the universality of education, and the next. As schooling becomes more central to so
former as a consequence of political action aimed many facets of the future of children and youth,
at alleviation of poverty and social disadvantage. the public’s expectations for more equality rise
Of course, both kinds of inequality still exist in as its tolerance of unintended inequality plum-
many nations. mets. The logic of modern schooling emphasizes
Many national systems intentionally sort the general principle that among schools of
children into different kinds of schools, some- similar types there should be similar curricula,
times leading to differences in secondary cre- a similar level of student attainment, and simi-
dentials and rights vis-à-vis higher education. lar basic educational resources. If this is not
For example, as early as age ten in some parts achieved, it increasingly becomes a political con-
of Germany or around age fifteen in Japan chil- cern and even sometimes a national crisis. We
dren are sorted by the kind of school. In focus here on the amount of unintended resource
Germany, the most academic stream, the Gym- inequality among schools across nations.
nasium, has teachers with more advanced
training, accepts only academically talented
Comparative Savage Inequalities
students, and prepares these students for uni-
versity entrance. Such a system deliberately Twelve years ago, in a richly descriptive and aptly
creates distinct school types with differing goals titled book, Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol
and specific resources but tries to equalize (1993) presented haunting stories of the failure
resources within each type, thereby legitimizing of U.S. public schools to educate the nation’s
most socially and economically disadvantaged States looked like from a comparative perspec-
students. The American case of educational tive. Is this really an “American” problem, or can
inequality is particularly telling about how we identify global patterns and factors that might
institutional values of universalism and consider- help us clarify the situation in the United
able inequalities coexist in one national context. States? We asked two questions about how
Public education in America, as elsewhere, savage inequalities look from a global perspec-
has always been held up as one of the key paths tive. First, are American disadvantaged students
to a socially just and prosperous society. As we comparatively more at risk of educational failure
have seen, wealthy nations invest considerably than similarly disadvantaged students in other
in education, and in general this pays off in a wealthy nations? Second, what is the conse-
higher average level of achievement. Yet the quence of educational performance among
United States, economically dynamic and disadvantaged students for the overall internatio-
the most politically powerful nation in the world, nal educational competitiveness of the nation?
has a poor record in establishing a fair and level With the TIMSS data, we examined how well
educational playing field. Evidence continues to American schools educate students with several
show a disproportionately high number of types of disadvantaged background and com-
educational problems (low achievement, low pared these results with findings from other
attainment, and premature ending of schooling) nations. For this chapter, we focus only on high
among economically, racially, and ethnically dis- schools, but readers can find the results of
advantaged youths (Farkas, 1996). At the same an analysis of the eighth grade in Baker (2002).
time, there is growing evidence that the human We used two indicators of social and economic
costs of educational failure for both individuals disadvantage: low education of the student’s
and society continue to increase over time mother and living in a single-parent home. The
(Rubinson and Browne, 1994). Simply put, edu- proportion of students with mothers having less
cational inequality creates problems that drain than a high school degree and single-parent
social resources over a long period of time. homes in the U.S. twelfth grade TIMSS sample
Scholars and reformers in the United States is 11 percent and 15 percent respectively; inter-
have been aware of this problem for quite a while. national averages for students in all wealthy
Over the last thirty years, unequal distribution nations are 29 percent and 11 percent.1
of basic educational resources has garnered Although these family characteristics do not
considerable attention and significant aca- create a disadvantaged home in every case, they
demic studies and policy ideas (see, for example, significantly increase the risk that children will
Coleman and others, 1966; Hanusek, 1994; have a disadvantaged home life, which can lead
Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald, 1994; Mosteller to less-than-full academic achievement for a
and Moynihan, 1972). Much of the empirical number of reasons.
work centers on the large differences in per- Are disadvantaged American students more
pupil expenditures that appear when comparing at risk of educational failure? As shown in
schools, districts, and states. These funding dis- Table 6.1, the answer is clearly yes. American
parities have been linked with differences in disadvantaged students learn considerably less
the quality of schools and instruction; political general mathematics than similarly disadvan-
attempts to change resource inequalities between taged students in other nations. Among the
schools have resulted in litigation challenging thirteen wealthiest nations in the TIMSS twelfth
school finance systems within almost all U.S. grade sample, the average American mathe-
states and have even been linked to vigorous matics knowledge for both students with mothers
debate on tracking and social inequality (Lucas, having less than a high school education and
1999; Loveless, 1999). from single-parent homes is strikingly low.
The ongoing debates and failed attempts to Overall, American twelfth graders did not
eliminate between-school resource inequality led perform well, so on the one hand it is not a
us to explore what the situation in the United surprise that disadvantaged students in the
United States also performed poorly. But on Table 6.1 Comparative Analysis of Educating
the other hand, it is true that although the Disadvantaged Students
American overall eighth grade sample did as well Students with Mothers Mean Students from
as that in a number of other wealthy nations, Without a High School Math Single-Parent
American eighth grade disadvantaged students Degree (x Proportion Achieve- Homes
also finished last compared to similar students in in Nation = 29%) ment (x Proportion in
other wealthy nations (Baker, LeTendre, and Nation = 11%)
Goesling, 2002). This suggests that the most Netherlands 560 Netherlands
disadvantaged students in the United States Sweden
are not just affected at one level of the school Denmark 550 Iceland
system; they fail to achieve across the span of Iceland 540 Sweden
compulsory schooling. New Zealand
The consequences of low educational per- Austria, Norway 530 Switzerland
formance in human terms are pervasive and Switzerland Australia
complex, and we can judge the impact of low
International mean 520 Norway, Denmark
educational performance by recalculating the
France, Australia
overall American mean mathematics knowledge
Canada 510 New Zealand
to see what would happen if the United States
educated its disadvantaged students as well as 500
other wealthy nations do. If the United States 490
were as successful as, say, Sweden in educating 480
youths with mothers without a high school 470 Germany
degree, then it would improve its overall national Germany 460
mean by fourteen points in twelfth grade 450
mathematics. If we add doing as well as Sweden United States 440
does with youths whose mothers have just a high 430 United States
school degree, the improvement in the U.S. 420
TIMSS mathematics average score would place
the country above five wealthy nations that Source: TIMSS 12th 1995.
currently outperform it.2
This is a simple exercise that can be done with these findings suggest there may be social and
any proportion of a distribution, but the message educational policies at work in other nations that
is clear. Because the United States (as well as might serve as a model for the United States in
other nations) fails to educate its most disad- meeting the educational challenge of students
vantaged students, it lowers the overall cross- from disadvantaged families. We know that dis-
national standing. Receiving a subpar education advantaged students are more at risk of lower
significantly adds to the risk of entering the ranks educational performance, and that in nations like
of the underclass, and coming from a disadvant- the United States the overall effect substantially
aged home in the United States places a youth lowers the national mean achievement.
at greater risk of poor educational performance But what have nations done to address this
than in many other wealthy nations. issue? The school has been the central institution
These findings should also be disturbing for used to prevent social problems in most nations,
American policy makers because they show that and it is often thought that reducing resource
school systems in other nations somehow have inequality across schools is a key to lessening the
found ways to lessen the impact of disadvantaged impact of disadvantaged families on achieve-
background on school achievement. This is not ment. Has any country devised a mass education
to say that what is done in these nations is per- system that significantly lowers, or even eradi-
fect, or that the negative impact of disadvantaged cates, differences in basic educational resources
families has been completely ameliorated, but across schools?
Table 6.2 Basic Resource Inequality Across Nations restricted the analysis to middle grade schools in
order to lessen the chance of including some
Nations with Nations with Nations with
Significant Average Levels Low Levels of
intentional resource differences across curricular
Levels of of Inequality Inequality streams in upper secondary schools.
Inequality When we estimated the degree of inequality
of educational resources across schools, we found
South Africa Moldova Sweden
that all TIMSS nations have some level of
Philippines Greece Hong Kong
between-school resource inequality (between-
Colombia Malaysia Italy school is the research shorthand for saying
Macedonia Bulgaria Germany resource differences among schools). As shown
Morocco Lithuania Iceland in Table 6.2, although mass schooling is pre-
Iran Slovenia Australia dicated on equality in basic resources in practice
Romania Israel Spain this is just not the case. There is considerable
Portugal France Cyprus cross-national variation in educational resource
Turkey Chinese Taipei New Zealand inequality, and like cross-national differences in
Russian Slovak Republic Japan mathematics and science achievement the
Federation Canada Finland national level of between-school inequality
Latvia Ireland Singapore clusters into three distinct groups. The first, with
Thailand International Norway the highest estimated level of between-school
average inequality, includes South Africa, the Philip-
Denmark Tunisia Austria pines, Latvia, Chile, and sixteen other nations.
Jordan United States Netherlands The seventeen nations in the second group are
Chile Korea Czech Republic roughly equal to the international mean; notable
Indonesia England Belgium (Flemish) in this group are Greece, France, the United
Hungary Switzerland States, and South Korea. The nineteen nations
Kuwait
with less between-school inequality include
Sweden, Germany, Japan, and Kuwait. Most
Source: TIMSS 1995. wealthy nations have less inequality in basic
Note: Within boxes, national levels of inequality are not
resources across schools than the United States
statistically different from one another. does, and this surely has some consequences for
its overall educational competitiveness as well as
persistent poverty across generations.
Educational Resource Inequality
When we examined which nations had high
Among Schools Worldwide
and low levels of between-school inequality, the
To answer this question, we analyzed how well results were as we expected, with one surprise.
national school systems distribute basic educa- First, wealthier nations tend to have less inequal-
tional resources equitably across schools. With our ity in resources across schools, although there are
colleague Brian Goesling, we estimated the degree a few interesting exceptions, among them the
of resource inequality among schools with eighth United States. Second, nations with a lower level
graders in fifty-two nations by combining the 1994 of inequality tend to produce a higher level of
and 1999 TIMSS data (Baker, LeTendre, and overall mathematics and science achievement.
Goesling, 2002). We developed a measure of The positive impact of having more equal
inequality for basic educational resources, resources among schools is about the same in
including instructional resources such as budget magnitude as the impact of national wealth
for teaching materials, supplies, libraries, heating on average national achievement, discussed in
and lighting, and other physical plant resources; Chapter 3. Last, contrary to what many think,
instructional space; computer hardware and the degree to which education governance is
software; professional experience of teachers; centralized is not associated with less or more
and student-to-teacher ratio (class size). We also resource inequality.
The first two findings make sense intuitively. (see early estimates of inequality in Heyneman,
Wealthier nations have more to spend on edu- 1982). Similar to what we find about school
cation, more sophisticated consumers of educa- violence in Chapter 6, these results show that
tion (that is, better-educated parents), more resource inequality is not only an “American”
professionalized administration, and better- problem; it occurs in other nations as well. How
trained teachers; these are all factors that go into can our institutional perspective of the widespread
the political process to reduce gross inequality strength of schooling take into account persistent
in distributing resources across a set of schools inequality in school resources within a nation?
in the nation. Also, as we have already shown,
education resource inequality deprives socially
National Politics and Educational
disadvantaged students, which in turn causes
Inequality
considerable damage to a nation’s overall efforts
to raise the national level of achievement. In These results show problems in many nations in
other words, in a highly inequitable system it is the implementation of mass schooling. Return-
probably the case that those students who most ing to some basic institutional assumptions, we
need instructional resources (to make up for the know that around the world mass schooling is
detrimental effects of a poorer family back- legitimated by (among other values) the com-
ground) do not receive them. monly held ideal that schooling should operate
This compounds educational disadvantage, in a meritocratic fashion with achievement as its
leading to potentially severe and lasting social main currency. This means opportunity should
disadvantage. Although wealthier nations have, be linked primarily to performance, not social
on average, lower resource inequality, academic status, family background, or other nonacademic
failure in these nations probably has more dire aspects of the student. It also means that one’s
ramifications because of their complex labor ability to learn specific curricula is connected to
markets and the domination of educational the opportunities with which one is presented at
credentials. Compared to individuals in develop- school. So to orchestrate a meritocratic process,
ing economies, less-educated individuals in schools should have at least equal resources.
highly developed economies have few ways to Some would argue that schools serving disad-
compete in the labor market, and since that fact vantaged communities should even have more
is compounded by attending schools with lower resources to compensate for poor family back-
resources this can result in large communities of ground, to put each student at the same starting
impoverished, undereducated adults. line academically; as an example, this is what
The lack of association between adminis- Japan actually implements.3
trative style in nations and level of resource But why doesn’t this happen in more nations?
inequality is not so surprising in light of the Why can’t a country like the United States,
rather ambiguous state of centralized versus which seems to value mass education so highly
decentralized government structures that many and spends a substantial amount on schooling,
nations now find themselves in as a reaction to do away with its resource differences that repro-
the “devolution revolution” in educational duce across generations an unfair amount of low
governance (see Chapter 9). achievement and limited future educational
The numbers behind Table 6.2 representing opportunities, and all the concomitant social
educational resource inequality within these mass problems faced by children of poor families?
systems of education are abstract compared to the The usual answers to this question are parti-
tragic human stories of educational failure in the cularistic and mechanical, not institutional. One
United States found in Kozol’s book. But they are such answer goes that U.S. governmental policy
in reality one and the same, and they give us a way and its resulting programs aimed at poverty are
to measure the extent to which poorly imple- comparatively weaker than social and econo-
mented mass education can contribute to the mic welfare systems in many other wealthy
creation of savage inequalities in some nations nations. In other words, the United States has
comparatively less progressive income transfer rather as families with considerable resources
policies in its tax system, which combined with attempting to improve their own kids’ school for
the variation in state-to-state policies and all the obvious benefits.
resources to assist families in poverty both add up The same is true in nations such as Chile,
to making the American disadvantaged experi- where all of the upper and middle class buy out
ence a greater economic deprivation than that of the public system with its generally lower
for similar people in other developed nations. resources level and use private schooling directly
Another frequent answer concerns the because of a belief in higher educational quality
uniquely American practice of running public (among other benefits). For the same reasons
schooling through its system of locally adminis- given in Chapter 4 about the growth in con-
tered, property-tax-funded school districts (some sumption of shadow education, as schooling
fourteen thousand of them). This, the argument becomes the main (and virtually only) game by
goes, causes many districts in poorer urban and which to pass on social status to children,
rural communities serving a geographically con- pressure for better implementation of meri-
centrated population of students from disadv- tocratic processes in schools is met by counter-
antaged families to suffer severely deficient pressure from families competing to secure better
financial and managerial support for schools. education for their own children.
But politically neither factor is insurmount- But in and of itself this does not explain the
able; there are obvious ways to fix them toward persistence of resource inequality among schools
more educational equity. In fact, they really are in so many nations. Undoubtedly, as we have
such flimsy barriers to more educational equality just done for the United States and Chile, we
that many frustrated advocates for American could pick through each national case and piece
disadvantaged children turn to almost para- together particular mechanisms that lead to
noiac images of planned, sustained, systematic some degree of inequality within the system. But
racism and social classism in educational policy. that does not really get to the question at hand
Kozol’s otherwise moving account of educa- of why so many nations implement mass pub-
tional inequality in the United States is a classic lic schooling with some degree of resource
example of this, suffering from an unrealistic inequality present that has a detrimental effect
image of an officially unstated yet systematic and on disadvantaged students. What is missed in
oppressive educational policy presumably blessed much discussion of educational inequality is that
by an uncaring American majority. organizational barriers to more equity in most
Certainly racism and social classism have nations are by themselves relatively easily over-
had some influence on education inequality in the come, but at the same time the institutional
United States, but as the preceding chapters have values that education weaves into modern
shown the production of inequality of educational society strongly reinforce even the weakest
outcomes such as mathematics and science technical barriers to more equity.
achievement in many nations is more a product
of informal forces acting through the family. For
Toward an Institutional Explanation
example, some U.S. states have tried to equalize
of Educational Inequalities
resources among numerous local districts that
heretofore were captives (or winners) of differing Among scholars of social inequality, the most
property values (tax base) between communities. popular image of schooling holds that unequal
As welcome as this expression of equal resources resources and unequal access to quality schools
is in some quarters, stories abound about how reflect (and hence reproduce in the next
upper-middle-class families conspire to provide generation) underlying social power differences
direct financial support to enhance school among groups within a society. Wealthier groups
resources beyond a state-imposed limit. Probably demand and find ways to secure the best
on the whole these families do not see themselves schooling for their children regardless of chil-
in some grand social-class or racial struggle, but dren’s ability to achieve, and in some systems this
comes at a price of lower school quality for less that the world culture seems to interweave so
wealthy and less politically powerful families. thoroughly into national systems of schooling.
Correspondence between schooling and its We predict this first of all because of the
role in social inequality has been a central notion impression the TIMSS data give of the relatively
in social stratification research at least since the modest absolute amount of inequality in mass
late 1920s, when sociologist Pitirim Sorokin education found across nations. Even though
and others first wrote about “social mobility,” a inequalities persist in real systems of school-
term meaning how easy or difficult it is for ing, in a matter of minutes anyone can dream up
children to attain a higher social position than a far more effective elite-serving inequitable edu-
their parents. This image also motivated some of cation system than is actually operating in most
the earliest comparative analysis of schooling and developed nations in the world today, including
national patterns of social mobility, as found in the United States (Werum and Baker, 2004).
Turner’s now-classic article (1960) about how Indeed, there is historical evidence that although
“sponsored” and “contest” mobility processes many nations initially constructed schooling
differentiate the education systems of England and with intentional resource inequalities built in,
the United States. from the early part of the nineteenth century
In the same spirit, sociologist Richard onward they systematically dismantled such
Rubinson (1986) argues, in an award-winning intentional inequalities to a significant degree.
article, that implementation of mass schooling is There are, of course, nations such as Germany
shaped by the specific social class struggles within with remnants of a highly stratified nineteenth-
a nation. So, for example, the nineteenth-century century secondary system still operating with
American working class won greater access to unequal educational secondary school degrees
public schooling from a fragmented capitalist built in. But also in Germany (as in other nations
class that was more involved in internecine com- of Western Europe) basic resource equality
petition than consolidating its own power, com- among schools is legally prescribed and organ-
pared to the working class in Western Europe at izationally achieved to a large degree (see Table
the same time. His larger point is that schooling 6.2). The point is, even with clear cross-national
is porous and penetrable to political interests; the differences as we describe here, mass public
relative power of these political interests shapes systems in developed nations are not hugely
educational access and inequalities. In this image unequal in resource distribution, certainly not to
of schooling and society, institutionalization of the degree implied by more conspiratorial images
mass schooling and its organizational imple- of the role of schooling in social reproduction.
mentation is constrained by national politics (see Secondly, we predict a lessening of inequality
also Buchmann and Hannum, 2001). of resources in the future because as an institution
We don’t disagree with the basic idea of mass mass schooling gains considerable legitimation
schooling being porous to political interests, or from developing and maintaining a meritocracy
that those interests can be motivated by social process based on achievement, even though this
class competition or even racial or ethnic bigotry. is rarely, if ever, perfectly implemented. Mass
There have been many sad chapters in the schooling works to spread the belief that indivi-
development of schooling in which it was used for duals should be evaluated and promoted on the
bad purposes by political interests. Also, mass basis of merit, which is reflected in their achieve-
schooling’s long-term development by national ment. (Chapter 2 describes the impact that this
governments certainly attests to the major role of institutional value has had on gender and
political action in the organization of schooling. achievement.) Further, for a number of reasons
But we would add that now, in many nations, the outlined in the introductory chapter, national
holes through which political interests of speci- governments have bought into this idea to a con-
fic groups seep into schooling are small, and siderable degree. Of course, state apparatuses are
probably becoming even smaller with greater open to group political interests, but the ideas of
incorporation of common values about education human capital investment and its universal
acceptance have proven powerful enough for the opportunity for children as it can. This not only
development of schooling generally to occur includes things done within families but also
with little partisan difference in beliefs in these more collective action taken by similar families
basic institutional values. This is reflected in the acting as interest groups. Schooling as an institu-
public expectation of mass schooling as a way to tion increases the motivation for successful cog-
break the cycle of enduring poverty and social dis- nitive achievement, particularly in subjects such
advantage across generations. Of course, imple- as mathematics that are deemed highly applic-
mentation of these ideas can be on a partisan able to further achievement; at the same time it
level, as is seen in the divergent emphasis attempts better and better implementation of
that political parties of the left and right put on meritocratic processes around such achievement.
certain educational policies, but the point is Certainly not every school does this, but for
they all think mass formal education is the key. better or worse the overall trend in the operation
The ideas of merit and cognitive achievement of mass schooling in many nations increasingly
are attractive to the modern mind; compared to turns on cognitive achievement and the idea of
a century or so ago, now highly schooled popu- merit according to mastery of a few highly valued
lations in many nations help to create and academic subjects. On top of this is the fact that
maintain these ideals. Even overt differentiation the prominence of schooling in society as the main
of future educational opportunity at a rela- avenue to adult success makes this a powerful set
tively young age in national systems such as in of values. Therefore in the United States the
Germany and Japan are legitimated by the same problem is not a socially uncaring upper-middle
basic ideal of meritocracy that pervades school- class of families; instead the problem is that as a
ing throughout the world. The ideas of merit and group the upper-middle class have supercharged
academic achievement may even trump more motivations and significant resources to assist their
local cultural beliefs about when and to what own children to better educational achievement.
degree school performance should result in The paradox is that, as an institution, schooling
differing opportunities, and even about what produces both forces. The holes that make
causes ability in students (LeTendre, Hofer, and schooling porous to political interests may indeed
Shimizu, 2003). They certainly have already become smaller in the future, but the pressure
trumped more traditional conservative ideol- behind the political interests attempting to find
ogies about schooling as maintaining a “natural, those holes intensifies as education determines
hierarchical” social order, or confirming the indi- more and more of children’s future.
vidual’s natural place in that order. Of course, the government in many nations
Perhaps, then, the best way to think about the mediates raw political interests in the education
origin of educational inequality in mass school- arena, and nations differ partly in the degree to
ing is as a result of two institutional character- which the government is a buffer. The United
istics that mass schooling itself simultaneously States, compared to France, has less govern-
produces: meritocratic opportunities to learn and mental buffering of local interests, for example.
the increased social and economic relevance of This is also not to say that since inequality always
school performance and credentials for adult tends to exist national systems can do nothing to
status and well-being. These institutional char- address it. Our simple yet compelling evidence
acteristics per se are not contradictory; they are here about cross-national differences in achieve-
highly complementary and together increase the ment among socially disadvantaged students
overall institutional stature of schooling (Meyer, suggests that some nations buffer students from
1977). But they lead to differing behavior on the social inequalities educationally more than
part of school systems and families. The former others. A nation like the United States, with its
(the school) attempts to ratchet up meritocratic considerable wealth, certainly can and should do
functions on the basis of cognitive performance far more for its disadvantaged students.
within schooling, while the latter (the family) is But our larger point is that the powers
highly motivated to create as much educational unleashed by institutionalization of the belief in
merit and the primacy of educational achieve- deprivation and social instability—a scenario
ment for attaining a successful future inevitably that has serious implications for all nations.
create a dynamic tension between the efforts of
schools to focus on more equity in the conditions Notes
for achievement and private interests to focus on
1. Although the United States has a high dropout
educational advantages for their children. rate by age eighteen, it offers a number of other
By and large, our discussion about educatio- ways to obtain a high school diploma such that it
nal resource inequality has been limited to has one of the highest high school completion
wealthier nations, but what about poorer ones? rates in the world in cohorts aged twenty-four to
As our results showed, they tend to produce twenty-eight.
2. Similar results are found for other indicators of
greater inequality than in wealthier nations. student disadvantage.
What is happening on the level of schools and 3. Our technical measures of resource inequality
families of the students who attend them also could not pull out this kind of ameliorative
happens on an international level as well. distribution, so for some nations the overall
Educational inequality among nations, as well as measure of inequality is a bit inflated.
within them, is a major challenge to national
economic and social development. In a world References
increasingly dominated by the drive for human Baker, D. (2002). Should we be more like them?
capital enrichment, substandard education American high school achievement in cross-
systems that produce large inequality along the national comparison. Brookings Papers on Education
lines of social disadvantage are at risk of national Policy.
disadvantage as well. Continued educational Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & LeTendre, G. K.
(2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality,
expansion and its recent revolution in quality and national economic development: A cross-
(and, we would add, the growing trend toward less national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect”
unintended inequality of educational resources) on mathematics and science achievement.
ups the human-capital stakes for poorer nations. Comparative education review, 46(3), 291–312.
Buchmann, C., & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and
Particularly troubling are nations that—
stratification in developing countries: A review of
through poverty, internal corruption, and exter- theories and research. Annual review of sociology,
nal exploitation—have in recent times failed to 27(1), 77–102.
develop effective systems of mass education, Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J.,
public health delivery, and economic develop- McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., &
Robert, L. (1937). York. 1966. Equality of
ment. Called “failed states” by some scholars, educational opportunity, 2.
these countries (notably Angola, Afghanistan, Hanushek, E. A. (1994). A jaundiced view of “ade-
and the Congo) have been beset by civil war quacy” in school finance reform. Educational Policy,
and a host of terrifying social problems. In 8(4), 460–469.
such nations, expansion of mass schooling is Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994).
Money does matter somewhere: A reply to
effectively disrupted and the equalizing effects Hanushek. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 9–10.
are lost. We know very little about how severe Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1982). Influences
the impact has been in these states, but it is clear on academic achievement across high and low
that significant international resources are income countries: A re-analysis of IEA data.
needed to stabilize such nations or regions and Sociology of Education, 13–21.
Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in
restart mass schooling. Many other nations are America's schools. Broadway Books.
still struggling with basic educational and LeTendre, G. K., Hofer, B. K., & Shimizu, H. (2003).
developmental issues (examples are Cameroon What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the
and Niger). If these nations and regions continue United States, Germany, and Japan. American
to find themselves stalled in equalizing access to Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 43–89.
Loveless, T. (1999). Will tracking reform promote
education and developing quality schooling for social equity?. Educational Leadership, 56, 28–32.
at least a large portion of children, then their Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking Inequality: Stratification
inhabitants will be forced to endure long-term and Mobility in American High Schools. Sociology of
Education Series. Teachers College Press, 1234 Rubinson, R. (1986). Class formation, politics, and
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027. institutions: Schooling in the United States.
Mosteller, F. (Ed.). (1972). On Equality of Educational American Journal of Sociology, 92(3), 519–548.
Opportunity: Papers Deriving from the Harvard Rubinson, R., & Browne, I. (1994). Education and
University Faculty Seminar on the Coleman Report. the Economy. The handbook of economic sociology,
Edited by Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P. 581–599.
Moynihan. Random House. Turner, R. H. (1960). Sponsored and contest mobility
Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, part 2: Curriculum and the school system. American sociological review,
inequality and school reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 855–867.
68(2), 148–154.
What Do the National Data Tell Us About

Minority Teacher Shortages?
Richard Ingersoll
Introduction do seek to enter teaching, this view holds, they

For the past several decades, shortages of minor- encounter barriers—in particular, teaching entry
ity teachers have been a big issue for the nation’s tests, on which minority candidates historically
schools. Policymakers at all levels, including have tended to have lower pass rates. The result
recent presidents, have agreed that our element- is the minority teacher shortage.
ary and secondary teaching force “should look like The prescription, understandably enough,
America.” But conventional wisdom is that as the has been to try to recruit more minority candi-
nation’s population and students have grown dates into teaching. In recent decades, numerous
more racially and ethnically diverse, the teaching government and nongovernment organizations
force has done the opposite. The result, we are have launched a variety of minority teacher
told, is that minority students in the nation’s recruitment programs and initiatives, includ-
schools increasingly lack minority adult role ing future educator programs in high schools,
models, don’t have sufficient contact with teach- partnerships between community colleges and
ers who understand their racial and cultural four-year teacher education programs, career
backgrounds, and often lack qualified teachers of ladders for paraprofessionals in schools, and
any background, because nonminority teachers alternative teacher certification programs (see,
eschew schools with large percentages of minor- e.g., Hirsch, Koppich & Knapp, 2001; Feistritzer,
ities. The minority teacher shortage in turn, we 1997; Liu et al., 2008; Rice, Roellke, Sparks &
are told, is a major reason for the minority Kolbe, 2008). Support for these efforts has been
achievement gap and, ultimately, unequal occu- substantial. For instance, beginning in the late
pational and life outcomes for disadvantaged 1980s, the Ford Foundation, along with the
students. In short, the minority teacher shortage DeWitt Wallace Reader’s Digest Fund, commit-
is considered a major civil rights issue (for reviews, ted more than $60 million to minority teacher
see Quiocho & Rios, 2000; Torres et al., 2004; recruitment and preparation programs. Many of
Villegas & Lucas, 2004; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). these initiatives have been designed to bring
The main source of minority teacher shortages, minority teachers into schools serving predo-
conventional wisdom holds, is a problem with the minantly minority student populations, often in
teacher supply pipeline. In this view, too few low-income, urban school districts. Some of
minority students enter and complete college, these initiatives have been designed specifically
and those who do have an increasing number to recruit minority men, as they are often
of career and employment options aside from considered to be in the shortest supply. Today,
teaching. Moreover, when minority canddates in more than half of the states, minority teacher
recruitment policies or programs of some sort are Staffing Survey (SASS) and its longitudinal
in place. Despite these ongoing efforts, however, supplement, the Teacher Follow-Up Survey
many commentators see little success, claiming (TFS), both administered by the National
that, if anything, the student–teacher diversity Center for Education Statistics in the U.S.
gap has widened (e.g., Villegas, Strom and Lucas, Department of Education. SASS is the largest
2012). This raises important questions: Has the and most comprehensive data source available
teaching force grown more diverse or less so? on teachers. There have been seven SASS cycles
And if diversity has not increased, why haven’t to date: 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–00,
these efforts been successful? This section seeks 2003–04, 2007–08 and 2011–12. Twelve months
to address these questions. after the administration of SASS, the same
schools are contacted again, and all those in the
original teacher sample who had departed from
The Study
their schools are given a second questionnaire to
This section summarizes a study I recently com- obtain information on their departures. The TFS
pleted that used the best national data available comprises this latter group, along with a repre-
in an attempt to empirically ground the debate sentative sample of those who stayed in their
on the recruitment, employment and retention teaching jobs (for information on SASS and
of minority teachers. TFS, see NCES, 2005). Our analyses use data
Our study sought to address several questions: from all seven cycles of SASS and TFS, covering
the 25-year period from 1987 to 2013.
• The Number of Minority Teachers: Throughout this study, the definitions of
Has the number of minority teachers been minority teachers and nonminority teachers are
going up or down in recent decades? What based on Census Bureau classifications of race/
changes have there been, if any, in the ethnicity. Nonminority refers to those identified
number of minority students and teachers, as White, non-Hispanic. Minority includes those
and how does this compare with non- identified as Black/African-American, Hispanic,
minority students and teachers? Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or Asian, and
• The Employment of Minority Teachers: American Indian/Native American/Alaska
Where are minority teachers employed? Are Native, and those of multiple races. Hispanic
minority teachers more likely than non- refers to ethnicity and includes those of all races;
minority teachers to be employed in schools it is important to recognize that more than half
serving high-poverty, high-minority, urban of those identifying as Hispanic are White.
student populations? Hence, the term person of color is not synonymous
• Minority Teacher Turnover: How does with minority; hence, for clarity, we will not use
minority teacher retention compare with the former term.
that of nonminority teachers, and has it
been going up or down?
• What Can Be Done to Increase the Num-
The Results
ber of Minority Teachers? What are the
The Number of Minority Teachers
implications of the data for the prospects of
increasing the number of minority teachers? The data clearly show that there continues to be
a persistent racial-ethnic parity gap between
Note that this section focuses on changes in the percentage of minority students and the
the employment and retention of minority percentage of minority teachers in the U.S.
teachers, and does not focus on the important school system. For instance, in the 2011–12
and contentious question of whether minority school year, 37 percent of the nation’s population
teachers are better at teaching minority students. was minority and 44.1 percent of all elementary
The data we analyzed for this study are from and secondary students were minority, but only
the nationally representative Schools and 17.3 percent of all elementary and secondary
Table 6.3 Trends in the Nation’s Population, K-12 Student Enrollment and the K-12 Teaching Force, by Race and
Ethnicity, 1987–2012
1987–88 1990–91 1993–94 1999–00 2003–04 2007–08 2011–12 %

School Year School Year School Year School Year School Year School Year School Year Increase,
1987–88 to
2011–12
Percent 23.1 24.3 25.6 28.1 32.1 34.4 37.0

Minority
Population
of U.S.
Total Student 45,220,953 44,777,577 46,592,207 50,629,075 52,375,110 53,644,872 53,988,330 19
Enrollment
Number 31,641,098 31,213,142 31,895,394 32,700,441 32,419,640 31,864,127 30,164,827 –5
White,
non-Hispanic
Students
Number 12,335,372 13,564,435 14,696,813 17,928,634 19,955,470 21,780,745 23,825,612 93
Minority
Students
Percent 27.3 30.3 31.5 35.4 38.1 40.6 44.1
Minority
Students
Total 2,630,335 2,915,774 2,939,659 3,451,316 3,717,998 3,894,065 3,850,058 46
Teaching
Force
Number 2,303,094 2,542,720 2,564,416 2,933,591 3,113,249 3,252,234 3,183,837 38
White,
non-Hispanic
Teachers
Number 327,241 373,054 375,243 517,725 604,749 641,830 666,221 104
Minority
Teachers
Percent 12.4 12.8 12.8 15.0 16.3 16.5 17.3
Minority
Teachers
teachers were minority (see Table 6.3). This Since the late 1980s, the number of element-
student–teacher gap also exists for each of ary and secondary teachers has dramatically
the major minority subgroups, as illustrated in increased. This is especially true for minority
Table 6.4. For example, in 2011–12, while 21 teachers, whose numbers have more than
percent of elementary and secondary stu- doubled from about 325,000 to 666,000. Even as
dents in the United States were Hispanic, only the size of the teaching force has grown, the
7.5 percent of teachers were Hispanic. percentage of minority teachers has increased
But the data also show that this student– steadily—from 12 to 17 percent (bottom row
teacher parity gap has persisted in recent years of Table 6.3). Growth in the number of minority
largely because the number of nonminority teachers outpaced growth in the number of
students has decreased while the number of minority students and was more than twice the
minority students has increased (Table 6.3). The growth rate of nonminority teachers during this
gap is not due to a failure to recruit minority 24-year period (see Figure 6.1). So, while there
teachers. is still not parity between the proportions of
Table 6.4 Percentage of Students and Teachers, by Race and Ethnicity, 2011–2012
White, Minority Black Hispanic Asian American Multiple

non-Hispanic Indian Races
Students 55.9 44.1 14.4 21.1 5.1 1.2 2.3
Teachers 82.7 17.3 6.4 7.5 1.9 0.4 1.0
Figure 6.1 Percent Change in Students and Teachers, by Race and Ethnicity, 1987–88 to 2011–12.
minority students and minority teachers in subgroups and across different time periods. This
schools, the U.S. teaching force has grown more is shown in Figures 6.2 and 6.3, which dis-
diverse since the late 1980s. aggregate the data in Figure 6.1, by both group
Interestingly, the overall growth pattern from and time.
1987 to 2012 was also true for male minority During the period from 1987 to 2008, the
teachers. Teaching has long been a predomin- overall number of both teachers and students
antly female occupation, and in recent decades, increased. Moreover, in all but one case,
it has become increasingly so (Ingersoll, Merrill growth in minority teachers outpaced growth
& Stuckey, 2014). But this varies by race and in minority students (see Figure 6.2). While the
ethnicity. Over the two and a half decade period number of nonminority teachers increased by
from 1987 to 2012, the number of nonminority 41 percent, the number of Hispanic teachers
male teachers increased by only 12 percent, but increased by 245 percent and the number of
the number of minority male teachers increased Asian teachers increased by 148 percent. Black
by 109 percent. In 2011–12, males represented teachers also grew in number, but at a far slower
about 24 percent of all nonminority teachers and rate. The large exception to this growth was
about 25 percent of all minority teachers. American Indian teachers, who declined in
However, the overall growth from 1987 number by 30 percent. American Indians com-
to 2012 in the number of minority teachers prise only 1 percent of students and less than half
also greatly varied across different minority a percent of the teaching force.
Figure 6.2 Percent Change in Students and Teachers, by Race and Ethnicity, 1987–88 to 2007–08.
Figure 6.3 Percent Change in Students and Teachers, By Race And Ethnicity, 2007–08 to 2011–12.
This pattern changed after 2008, when the The Employment of Minority
economic downturn and recession began. Figure Teachers
6.3 shows trends for the period from 2008
to 2012. During that period, there was a decline While there has been a dramatic increase in min-
in the number of nonminorities, Blacks and ority teachers, this growth has not been equally
American Indians, for both teachers and students. distributed across different types of schools. In
In contrast, the number of Hispanic and Asian 2011–12, 92 percent of minority teachers
teachers and students continued to increase. were employed in public schools (Table 6.5).
Table 6.5 Of Minority and White, Non-Hispanic School Teachers, Percentage Employed in Different Types of
Schools, 2011–2012
School Type White, Minority Black Hispanic Asian American Multiple

non-Hispanic Indian Races
Public 87.1 91.9 93.2 91.5 87.5 97.6 91.5
Urban 25 45 50 44 49 19 33
Suburban 33 29 27 32 28 20 38
High Poverty 31 62 68 63 52 59 42
Low Poverty 23 11 8 11 18 7 21
High Minority 21 64 67 67 59 43 41
Low Minority 21 3 1 3 5 5 8
Private 12.9 8.1 6.8 8.5 12.5 2.4 8.5
Note: High-poverty schools are those in which 60% or more of the students are eligible for the federal free or
reduced-price lunch program for students from families below poverty level. Low-poverty schools are those in which
less than 20% of the students are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price lunch program. High-minority schools
are those in which 75% or more of the students are minority. Low-minority schools are those in which less than 10%
of the students are minority.
Moreover, minority teachers were overwhelm- students have been very successful. This has
ingly employed in public schools serving high- been somewhat of an unheralded victory. While
poverty, high-minority, urban communities. commentators and researchers have tended to
Nearly two-thirds of minority teachers worked in discuss the minority teacher shortage in dire and
schools serving predominantly minority students. pessimistic terms, the data suggest that such
A similar proportion was employed in high- efforts and expenditures are working.
poverty schools. Minority teachers were two
to three times more likely than nonminority
Minority Teacher Turnover
teachers to work in such hard-to-staff schools. In
contrast, only 3 percent of minority teachers were While minorities entered teaching at higher
in low-minority schools (i.e., those in which less rates than nonminorities over the two and a half
than a 10th of the students are minority). decades from 1987 to 2012, minority teachers
Because minority teachers represented only also left schools at higher rates. Overall, the data
17.3 percent of the teaching force in 2011–12, show that minority teachers’ careers have been
in the types of schools where minority teachers less stable than those of nonminority teachers,
were disproportionately employed, the teach- and have included more job transitioning. In
ing staff overall was nevertheless predomin- recent years, minority teachers were more likely
antly White, non-Hispanic. Figure 6.4 illustrates to depart their schools, either to migrate to
this continuing lack of demographic parity. another school or to leave teaching altogether
For instance, in high-minority public schools (see Figure 6.5). This was especially true for
(i.e., those with 75 percent or more minority male minority teachers.
students), only 40 percent of teachers were Some turnover and departures of teachers
minority. Likewise, in high-poverty public is normal, inevitable and even beneficial. For
schools, only 31 percent of teachers were individuals, departures that lead to better jobs,
minority. in teaching or not, are a source of upward mobil-
In sum, while a large student–teacher racial ity. For schools, departures of low-performing
and ethnic parity gap persists in schools, the employees can enhance school performance. For
data show that efforts over recent decades to the educational system as a whole, some teacher
recruit more minority teachers and place them career changes—such as moving from one school
in schools serving disadvantaged and minority to another, or leaving classroom teaching for
Figure 6.4 Of Different Types of Public Schools, Race and Ethnicity of their Teaching Staffs, 2011–2012.
Figure 6.5 Percent of Annual Public School Teacher Turnover, by Race and Ethnicity of Teachers, by Year.
other education-related jobs—do not represent ization. One consequence of such turnover, our
a net loss of human capital. analysis reveals, is that it undermines efforts
However, from the viewpoint of those to address the minority teacher shortage. For
managing schools and those seeking to employ instance, at the beginning of the 2003–04
more minority teachers in school classrooms, school year, about 47,600 minority teachers
none of these types of departures are cost- entered teaching; however, by the following
free. All have the same effect: They reduce the school year, 20 percent more—about 56,000—
number of minority teachers in the organ- had left teaching. These data convey an image
of a revolving door: too many going in one door turnover to the way their school is admin-
and out another. istered, to how student assessments and school
What are the reasons for the high rates of accountability affected teaching, to student
minority teacher turnover? Contrary to con- discipline problems, and to a lack of input into
ventional wisdom, retirement is not an especially decisions and a lack of classroom autonomy over
prominent factor (see Figure 6.6), as it was their teaching (see Figure 6.7). The data also
reported by only 17 percent of those who show that nonminority teachers report similar
departed. At 25 percent, school staffing cutbacks reasons behind their turnover, and, in general,
due to layoffs, terminations, school closings and similar kinds of dissatisfactions underlie both
reorganizations account for a larger proportion of teacher migration and teacher attrition.
turnover than does retirement. These staffing In sum, the data indicate that minority
actions more often result in teachers migrating teachers depart their jobs for a variety of reasons.
to other teaching jobs than leaving the teaching Retirement accounts for a relatively small
occupation altogether. number of total departures. Some departures are
A third category of minority teacher turn- due to school staffing actions, a large proportion
over—personal reasons—includes departures of departures is for personal reasons, and another
for pregnancy, child rearing, health problems and large proportion is for job dissatisfaction or to
family moves. These account for more turnover seek better jobs or other career opportunities.
than either retirement or staffing actions, and These findings are important because of their
they are probably common to all occupations and policy implications. Unlike explanations that
all types of organizations. The two final sets of focus on external demographic trends, these
reasons are directly related to the working findings suggest there is a role for the internal
conditions of teaching. More than half of all organization and management of schools.
those who depart report as a reason either job This brings us to a critical question: Why
dissatisfaction or the desire to pursue a better job, do minority teachers depart schools at higher
another career or better career opportunities in rates than do nonminority teachers? Strikingly,
or out of education. Individually, each of these while the demographic characteristics of schools
categories accounts for more turnover than appear to be highly important to minority
does retirement; together, they are the most teachers’ initial employment decisions, this
prominent source of turnover. doesn’t appear to be the case for their later
Of those minority teachers who depart decisions about whether to depart. Using
because of job dissatisfaction, most link their advanced statistical analyses (Ingersoll & May,
Figure 6.6 Percent of Minority Public School Teachers Reporting General Types of Reasons for their
Turnover, 2012–2013.
Figure 6.7 Of Those Minority Public School Teachers Reporting Dissatisfaction, Percent Reporting
Particular Reasons for Their Turnover, 2012–2013.
2011a), we found that none of the following was strongest factors by far for minority teachers were
strongly or consistently related to the likelihood the level of collective faculty decision-making
of minority teachers staying or departing: student influence in the school and the degree of
poverty levels, proportion of minority students or individual instructional autonomy held by
teachers, or urban or suburban location. Accord- teachers in their classrooms. Influence and
ing to a companion study, this also appears to be autonomy, of course, are hallmarks of respected
true when analyzing only the data for Black professions. Schools that provided teachers
teachers (Connor, 2011). with more classroom discretion and autonomy,
What does matter is working conditions. as well as schools with higher levels of faculty
While students’ race and ethnicity, poverty input into school decision making, had
levels and school urbanicity are not factors in and significantly lower levels of minority teacher
of themselves, the same hard-to-staff, high- turnover.
poverty urban schools that are more likely to
employ minority teachers are also more likely to
What Can Be Done to Increase the
have less-desirable working conditions. And
Number of Minority Teachers?
these less-desirable conditions, our data suggest,
account for the higher rates of minority teacher In supply and demand theory, any imbalance
turnover (see Ingersoll & May, 2011a). In other between labor demand and supply can be referred
words, the data indicate that minority teachers to as a shortage, in the sense that too few indi-
are employed at higher rates in schools serving viduals are able and willing to offer their services
disadvantaged students, and then depart at under given wages and conditions. From this
higher rates because these same schools tend to perspective, the problems encountered by many
be less desirable as workplaces. The tragedy is schools in retaining minority teachers can
that the success of minority teacher recruitment technically be referred to as a shortage. However,
efforts has been undermined. in the context of minority teachers and schools,
Even more striking was what we found when the term shortage is typically given a narrower
we looked at which conditions were most cor- connotation—an insufficient production and
related with minority teachers’ departures. Salary recruitment of new minority teaching candi-
levels, the provision of useful professional dates in the face of increasing minority student
development and the availability of classroom enrollments. These differences in terminology
resources all had some impact on whether these and diagnosis have crucial implications for
teachers were likely to leave. However, the prescription and policy.
Increasing production and recruitment of new teaching: An update on patterns and trends. Seattle,
teachers has long been the dominant strategy for WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy, University of Washington.
diversifying the teaching force and addressing
Ingersoll, R. & May, H. (2011a). Recruitment,
the minority teacher shortage. And, nothing retention, and the minority teacher shortage.
in our research suggests that bringing new, quali- Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research
fied minority candidates into teaching is not in Education, University of Pennsylvania and
worthwhile. Indeed, our data show that this Center for Educational Research in the Interest of
Underserved Students, University of California,
approach has had remarkable success. In the two
Santa Cruz.
and a half decades since the late 1980s, the Ingersoll, R. & May, H. (2011b). “The Minority
minority teaching force has increased at more Teacher Shortage: Fact or Fable?” Phi Delta
than two and a half times the rate of the non- Kappan, 93(1) 62–65, (Sept. 2011).
minority teaching force. Ingersoll, R. Merrill, L & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven
Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force.
But recruitment alone has not solved the
CPRE Working Paper (#RR-80). Philadelphia:
problem of minority teacher shortages or Consortium for Policy Research in Education,
the problem of filling positions in hard-to-staff University of Pennsylvania (April, 2014 Update).
schools. The data indicate that teacher recruit- Liu, E., Rosenstein, J., Swann, A., & Khalil, D. (2008).
ment strategies alone do not directly address When districts encounter teacher shortages: The
challenges of recruiting and retaining math
a major source of minority teacher staffing
teachers in urban districts. Leadership and Policy
problems—turnover. This is especially true for in Schools, 7(3), 296–323.
minority teacher recruitment efforts aimed at National Center for Education Statistics. (2005).
male teachers, who have especially high turn- Schools and staffing survey (SASS) and teacher follow-
over. Indeed, the dramatic growth in the number up survey (TFS). Data File. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Available from
of minority teachers is all the more remarkable
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ SASS
because it has occurred in spite of the high turn- Quiocho, A. & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their
over rate among minority teachers. presence: Minority group teachers and schooling.
Improving the retention of minority teachers Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 485–528.
recruited into teaching, by addressing the factors Rice, J., Roellke, C., Sparks, D., & Kolbe, T. (2008).
Piecing together the teacher policy landscape:
that drive them out, could prevent the loss of
A policy-problem typology. Teachers College
recruitment resources invested and also lessen Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org/
the need for more recruitment initiatives. These Content.asp?ContentId=15223
data, and the examples in other sections, suggest Torres, J., Santos, J., Peck, N. L., & Cortes, L. (2004).
the importance of jointly developing teacher Minority teacher recruitment, development, and
retention. Providence, RI: Brown University,
recruitment and teacher retention initiatives. In
Educational Alliance.
plain terms, it makes no sense to put substantial Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2004). Diversifying the
effort into recruiting minority candidates to teacher workforce: A retrospective and prospective
teach in schools serving disadvantaged students, analysis. In M.A. Smylie & D. Miretky (Eds.),
if large numbers of those same teachers then Developing the teacher workforce (103rd Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education,
leave those schools in a few years.
Part 1) (pp. 70–104). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Villegas, A.M., Strom, K. and Lucas, T. 2012. Closing
References the Racial/Ethnic Gap Between Students of
Connor, R. (2011). Examining African American Color and Their Teachers: An Elusive Goal. Equity
teacher turnover, past & present. (PhD. dissertation). & Excellence in Education. 45:2, 283–301.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ charac-
Feistritzer, E. (1997). Alternative teacher certification: teristics: Research on the demographic profile. In
A state-by-state analysis (1997). Washington, DC: M. Cochran-Smith & K.M. Zeichner (Eds.),
National Center for Education Information. Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA
Hirsch, E., Koppich, J., & Knapp, M. (2001). Revisiting panel on research and teacher education (pp.
what states are doing to improve the quality of 111–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7 Curriculum, Pedagogy,
and the Transmission of
Knowledge
In Chapter 6, we looked at the organization and structure of U.S. schools. In this chapter, we
will examine what goes on inside of the schools by focusing on curriculum and teaching practices.
As we argued in Chapter 4, sociologists of education suggest that schools produce important
cognitive and noncognitive results and affect students’ lives in significant ways. The important
question, however, is how do the schools do this? The answer, in part, lies in what the schools
teach and how they teach it. This chapter explores these issues in detail.
What Do the Schools Teach?

Teachers and students in teacher education programs too often think in very simplistic terms
about what the schools teach. Their answer to the question is that the schools teach a specific
curriculum, one that is mandated by the state education department and implemented in an
organized manner within the schools. This view defines the curriculum as an objective and
organized body of knowledge to be transmitted to students. Unfortunately, such a view simplifies
the complexity of the curriculum and ignores the social and political dimensions of what is taught
in schools.
Traditional approaches to the curriculum have been concerned with the science of the
curriculum. These approaches view the curriculum as objective bodies of knowledge and examine
the ways in which this knowledge may be designed, taught, and evaluated. Using a technical-
rational model, traditional curriculum theorists and curriculum planners are not concerned with
why the curriculum looks as it does, but rather with how it can be effectively designed and
transmitted to students. Students in teacher education programs, from this perspective, are taught
to design curriculum using goals and objectives, and to evaluate it in terms of the effectiveness
of student learning. Although there may be some practical merit for prospective teachers to
understand how to develop curriculum strategies, these traditional approaches eschew important
political, sociological, historical, and philosophical questions about what is taught in schools. The
effects of such teacher education practices is that teachers look at the curriculum from this
“objectivist” perspective and therefore seldom question critically the central component of what
they do on a daily basis: transmit knowledge and values to students.
Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, sociologists of education and curriculum began to challenge
the traditional theories of curriculum. Rather than viewing curriculum as an objective body of
knowledge, they suggested that the curriculum is an organized body of knowledge that represents
political, social, and ideological interests. The “new sociology of education” ushered in by the
works of Michael F. D. Young (1971) and Basil Bernstein (1973a, 1973b, 1977) in Britain looked
critically at the curriculum as a reflection of the dominant interests in society and suggested that
what is taught in schools is a critical component of the effects of schooling.
Drawing on the insights of the sociology of knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Durkheim,
1947, 1954; Mannheim, 1936; Marx & Engels, 1846/1947), the new sociology did not view the
curriculum as value neutral, but rather as the subject for critical and ideological analysis. Although
The Transmission of Knowledge 263
the new sociology certainly had a radical flavor to it and inspired what has been labeled “critical
curriculum theory” (Apple, 1978, 1982a, 1982b; Giroux, 1981, 1983a, 1983b), the insights of the
sociology of curriculum do not always have a radical perspective. What is important about the
sociological approach to the curriculum is that it rejects the view that the curriculum is objective
and instead insists that the curriculum be viewed as subjectively reflecting particular interests
within a society. What these interests are and how the curriculum reflects them is a question of
ideological debate as well as for empirical investigation.
We will return to sociological studies of the curriculum later in this chapter. First, we will
examine the historical and philosophical dimensions of the curriculum. Whereas the sociology
of curriculum analyzes what is taught in schools, the history of the curriculum examines what was
taught, the politics of the curriculum examines the battles and conflicts over what is and should
be taught, and the philosophy of the curriculum examines what ought to be taught and why.
The History and Philosophy of the Curriculum

The history of the curriculum helps explain why the curriculum looks as it does today. Kliebard
(1986), in his book The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1893–1958, outlines four different
types of curriculum in the twentieth century: humanist, social efficiency, developmentalist, and
social meliorist, each of which had a different view of the goals of schooling.
The humanist curriculum reflects the idealist philosophy that knowledge of the traditional liberal
arts is the cornerstone of an educated citizenry and that the purpose of education is to present to
students the best of what has been thought and written. Traditionally, this curriculum focused
on the Western heritage as the basis for intellectual development, although some who support
this type of curriculum argue that the liberal arts need not focus exclusively on the Western
tradition. This curriculum model dominated nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century U.S.
education and was codified in the National Education Association’s Committee of Ten report
issued in 1893, “which recommended that all secondary students, regardless of whether they
intended to go to college, should be liberally educated and should study English, foreign lan-
guages, mathematics, history, and science” (Ravitch, 1983, p. 47).
Although that view of a Western liberal arts curriculum for all secondary students did not
remain the dominant model of secondary schooling in the twentieth century, conservative critics
have called for a return to the humanist curriculum. As we noted earlier, critics such as Bennett
(1988), Hirsch (1987), and Ravitch and Finn (1987) have argued that U.S. students do not know
enough about their cultural heritage because the school curriculum has not emphasized it for all
students. They have proposed that schools should return to a traditional liberal arts curriculum
for all students and that this curriculum should focus, although not necessarily exclusively,
on the Western tradition. Bennett (1988), as Secretary of Education during the Reagan adminis-
tration, took an activist posture in promoting such curriculum reform. In his proposals for a model
elementary and secondary curriculum, he emphasized the need for a traditional core of subjects
and readings that would teach all students a common set of worthwhile knowledge and an array
of intellectual skills.
From a functionalist perspective, the conservative curriculum reformers of the 1980s and 1990s
believed that the purpose of schooling was to transmit a common body of knowledge in order to
reproduce a common cultural heritage. As we noted earlier, the problem with this view, from a
conflict perspective, is that it assumed a common culture. It is this disagreement about the role
of schools in transmitting a common culture that was at the heart of disagreements over curriculum
in the twentieth century.
The social efficiency curriculum was a philosophically pragmatist approach developed in the early
twentieth century as a putatively democratic response to the development of mass public secondary
264 The Transmission of Knowledge
education. As we suggested in Chapter 3, the introduction of the comprehensive high school was
marked by the processes of differentiated curriculum, scientific management of the schools and
the curriculum, and standardized testing of students for placement into ability groups and/or
curriculum tracks (Oakes, 1985, Chapter 2; Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985, Chapter 5). Rather
than viewing the need for a common academic curriculum for all students, as with the humanist
tradition, the social efficiency curriculum was rooted in the belief that different groups of students,
with different sets of needs and aspirations, should receive different types of schooling. Although
this perspective emerged from the progressive visions of Dewey about the need for individualized
and flexible curriculum, many critics (Cremin, 1961; Hofstadter, 1966; Sadovnik, 1991a; Tyack,
1974) believe that the social efficiency curriculum was a distortion of his progressive vision.
The publication of the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education in 1918 by the National
Education Association’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Schools represented a
direct contrast to the humanist tradition of the Committee of Ten. This report ushered in what
Ravitch (1983, p. 48) termed pedagogical progressivism and stressed the relationship between
schooling and the activities of adults within society. Given the stratified nature of adult roles,
the school curriculum was tailored to prepare students for these diverse places in society. The
result, as we argued in Chapter 3, was that students often received very different curricula, based
on their race, class, and gender. In criticizing the distortion of early progressivism, Ravitch (1983,
p. 48) wrote, “The social efficiency element of the Cardinal Principles, which inverted Dewey’s
notion of the school as a lever of social reform into the school as a mechanism to adjust the
individual to society, became the cornerstone of the new progressivism.” It is important to note
the distinction made between this new progressivism and its social efficiency bent and the principles
of Dewey, which we believe were profoundly distorted by this view of curriculum.
The development of the social efficiency curriculum in the twentieth century was related to
the scientific management of the schools. Based on the writings of Frederick Taylor about the
management of the factory system, the administration of schools began to mirror this form of
social organization, with its emphasis on efficiency, time on task, and a social division of labor
(see Callahan, 1962; Tyack, 1974; Tyack & Hansot, 1982). The scientific management of the
curriculum involved both the division of knowledge into strictly defined areas and its transmission
into scientifically defined goals and objectives, as well as the division of students into different
aspects of the curriculum, based on ability. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the definition
of ability became increasingly based on performance on standardized tests.
The development of standardized testing was inextricably related to the differentiation of the
curriculum. At the elementary school level, intelligence tests and reading tests were used to assign
students to ability groups and ability-grouped classes. At the secondary level, standardized tests,
as well as previous school achievement (and other factors not related to ability), were used to
place students into different curriculum tracks: academic, for college-bound students; vocational,
to prepare students directly for the postsecondary world of work; and general, which usually was
an academic curriculum taught at a lower level. These practices, which will be discussed later in
this chapter, became a defining characteristic of U.S. education. The important point, however,
is that the development of standardized testing became the process by which students were placed
in different curriculum tracks, putatively in a fair and meritocratic manner. The extent to which
such placement has been meritocratic (i.e., based on ability) has been a controversial and hotly
debated issue. It will be discussed in Chapter 9.
Putting the fairness of curriculum placement aside for the moment, the basic assumption of
the social efficiency curriculum that different groups of students should receive different curricula
has come increasingly under criticism from both conservatives and radicals. Conservatives argue
that the separation of the curriculum into different tracks has led to the denigration of the
traditional purpose of schooling—to pass on a common culture to all citizens. Radicals argue that
the placement into curriculum tracks has been based on race, class, and gender, and thus has
limited the life chances of minority, working class, and female students, who, because they are
often more likely to elect or wind up in general or vocational tracks, are less likely to go on to
college. These are empirical questions that will be discussed in Chapter 9.
The important point is that the curriculum tracking associated with the social efficiency
curriculum is a subject of considerable research and debate. Moreover, many critics question the
moral basis of providing different students with such radically different school experiences. This
issue returns us to the very nature and purpose of schooling in a complex and diverse society:
Should it be the same for everyone or should it be variable and flexible, given the diverse nature
of the social division of labor?
The developmentalist curriculum is related to the needs and interests of the student rather than
the needs of society. This curriculum emanated from the aspects of Dewey’s writings related to
the relationship between the child and the curriculum (Dewey, 1902), as well as developmental
psychologists such as Piaget, and it emphasized the process of teaching as well as its content. This
philosophically progressive approach to teaching was student centered and was concerned with
relating the curriculum to the needs and interests of each child at particular developmental stages.
Thus, it stressed flexibility in both what was taught and how it was taught, with the emphasis on
the development of each student’s individual capacities. Moreover, the developmental curriculum
stressed the importance of relating schooling to the life experiences of each child in a way that
would make education come alive in a meaningful manner. The teacher, from this perspective,
was not a transmitter of knowledge but rather a facilitator of student growth.
Although school and curriculum historians (Kliebard, 1986; Spring, 1989) pointed out that
the developmental curriculum model was not very influential in the U.S. public schools, they
also noted that it has been profoundly influential in teacher education programs, as well as an
important model in independent and alternative schools. It was in the private, independent sector
that this view of curriculum and pedagogy first became dominant, with Dewey’s progressive
principles implemented in a number of independent progressive schools, such as Bank Street
(Antler, 1987), City and Country (Pratt, 1924), Dalton (Semel, 1992), Putney (Lloyd, 1987),
and Shady Hill (Yeomans, 1979).
Furthermore, in the 1960s and 1970s, the reemergence of what Ravitch (1983, pp. 239–256)
called romantic progressivism occurred, placing its philosophical allegiance squarely within this form
of curriculum and pedagogy. Among its most radical proponents was the British psychoanalyst
and educator A. S. Neill, whose boarding school, Summerhill, had no required curriculum and
became a prototype of the “open” and “free” schools of the period.
Although the influence of the developmental curriculum has been marginal in public schools
(Cuban, 1984) and its advocacy waned in the conservative era of the 1980s and 1990s, there are
still remnants of it in both the public and private sectors. In the private sector, many of the early
progressive schools still exist and in varying degrees still reflect their early progressive character.
Some, such as Bank Street, and City and Country, remain faithful to their founders’ visions; others,
such as Dalton, have been transformed considerably into a more traditional humanist model
(Semel, 1992). In the public sector, the whole-language movement for teaching reading and writing
is developmental in its approach. Rather than teaching reading and writing through traditional
basal readers, it relates literacy instruction to the experiences and developmental stages of children
(Bennett & LaCompte, 1990, p. 186).
The social meliorist curriculum, which was philosophically social reconstructionist (the radical
wing of progressive education), developed in the 1930s, both out of the writings of Dewey, who
was concerned with the role of the schools in reforming society (James, 1995; Semel & Sadovnik,
1999), as well as a response to the growing dominance of the social efficiency curriculum. Two
of the most influential of the social meliorists were two Teachers College (Columbia University)
professors, George Counts and Harold Rugg, who radicalized Dewey’s philosophy into an explicit
theory that the schools should change society, or, at the least, help solve its fundamental problems.
In books such as Counts’s Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? (1932) and Rugg’s writings
on curriculum, these critics proposed that the school curriculum should teach students to think
and help solve societal problems, if not to change the society itself.
Although this view of curriculum never challenged the dominance of the social efficiency model,
it has continued to influence curriculum theory in the United States and elsewhere. The social
meliorist tradition is the precursor to what is called contemporary critical curriculum theory, with
Apple and Giroux’s work the most important examples. Additionally, philosophers such as Maxine
Greene and Paulo Freire, discussed in Chapter 5, adopt a consciously social meliorist view of
curriculum, which stresses the role of the curriculum in moving students to become aware of societal
problems and active in changing the world. Although these writings are sometimes presented to
prospective teachers in teacher education programs, the effects of the social meliorist model in
public schools are minimal. For the most part, it has been the social efficiency curriculum, much
more than the other three models, that is responsible for what is taught in U.S. schools.
The social efficiency curriculum resulted in the organization of the curriculum into distinct
tracks. Although we will discuss the stratification of the curriculum later in this chapter, it is
important to note that the degree of overlap between various segments of the curriculum varied
according to the type of school and its philosophy of curriculum. Bernstein (1977) argued that
curriculum may be either strongly classified (i.e., where there is a strong distinction between aca-
demic subjects such as mathematics, science, history, literature, music, art, etc.) or weakly classified
(i.e., where there is integration and overlap between academic subjects, such as mathematics
and science, social studies, humanities—including history, literature, art, music, etc.). Additionally,
in the social efficiency curriculum there may be strong classification between academic and
vocational curricula, with students taking the majority of their courses in one area or the other,
or weak classification, with students taking courses in both areas. There have been both philo-
sophical and sociological factors in the organization of the curriculum.
From a philosophical vantage point, traditionalists (conservatives) supported the humanist
curriculum model and the strong classification between academic subjects. This was necessary,
they argued, to properly transmit the traditional cultural knowledge. Progressives tended to support
a more integrative curriculum, discouraging the separation of subjects. In many of the early
progressive schools, such as the Lincoln School in New York City, an integrative core curriculum
revolving around common themes rather than subjects was favored. This approach reappeared in
the 1990s in the contemporary whole-language movement and in the thematic core curriculum
at New York City’s now closed Central Park East Secondary School, Urban Academy, and other
public progressive schools.
From a sociological vantage point, the organization of the curriculum has been stratified
according to the social class composition of the school. Elite private schools, for example, have
always had a humanist curriculum with strong classification between academic subjects. Public
high schools have had a social efficiency curriculum with strong classification between academic
and vocational subjects. Within the public system, the degree to which the academic track has
mirrored the humanist curriculum has varied, often in relation to the social class composition of
the students. Progressive private and public schools have had a weakly classified academic
curriculum that reflected their particular philosophy of education, but, as Bernstein (1977)
suggested, this philosophy reflected their particular middle- and upper middle-class preferences.
Thus, the organization of the curriculum has not been and is not now a simple matter. It relates
to philosophical, sociological, and political factors. We now turn to the sociological and political
dimensions.
The Politics of the Curriculum

The politics of curriculum analyzes the struggles over different conceptions of what should be
taught. As we have noted, the history of the U.S. curriculum may be understood in terms of
different models of school knowledge. Throughout the twentieth century, various groups, both
inside and outside schools, fought to shape and control the schools’ curriculum. Labeling these
groups and determining their degree of control is still the subject of debate. For example,
functionalists, subscribing to a pluralist democratic model of schooling, believe that the curriculum
represents a democratic consensus about what should be taught. Neo-Marxist conflict theorists
believe that the dominant capitalist class controls what is taught in school. Non-Marxist conflict
theorists believe that many groups struggle over the curriculum, with different groups winning
and losing at different historical periods.
Ravitch (1983) has documented the long and conflictual struggles that have marked U.S.
educational history. Her history of education in the twentieth century reveals a pattern of conflict
between various groups about the purpose and goals of the schools. Within this context, the
curriculum became contested terrain—the subject of heated controversy and disagreements. Earlier
in this chapter, we presented the four curriculum models that predominated in the twentieth
century; in this section, we will discuss the politics of curriculum and how various groups attempt
to shape the curriculum to reflect their own interests and ideologies.
The central question in the politics of the curriculum is: Who shapes the curriculum? As the
new sociology of education suggests, the curriculum is not a value-neutral, objective set of
information to be transmitted to students; rather, it represents what a culture wants its students
to know. From this perspective, curriculum represents culturally valued knowledge. The question
remains, however: Whose values are represented and how do groups manage to translate their
values into the subjects that are taught in school?
These questions are first and foremost related to power. The ability to shape the curriculum
requires that groups have the power to affect the selection of instructional materials and textbooks.
There are two models of political power used by political scientists. The first, the pluralist model
(Dahl, 1961), argues that the political system in the United States is not controlled by any one
group; rather, the decisions are made through the input of many groups, each attempting to exercise
influence and control. The second, the political elite model (Domhoff, 1967, 1983; Mills, 1956),
argues that a small number of powerful groups (i.e., those with wealth and political influence)
dominate the political landscape and have disproportionate control over political decision making.
Although the controversy over which of the two views is correct has not been settled, we
believe that the reality, as in most controversies, lies somewhere in the middle. The U.S. political
system allows for participation from many groups, but it also requires a great deal of money and
power to successfully affect political decisions. On this level, the political elite model finds consider-
able support. Nonetheless, the evidence does not support the view that less powerful groups cannot
win some of the time or that a ruling elite manages to control the political arena. For example,
the ability of a coalition of community groups in New York City to defeat the proposed Westway
Project (to rebuild the collapsed West Side Highway), which was supported by the most powerful
and wealthy interests in the city, is an example of the ability of the less powerful to sometimes
emerge victorious. Thus, political decision making is a complex, conflictual process in which many
groups vie for advantage, with those with more wealth and power having distinct advantages but
not total domination. In the educational arena, these conflicts are certainly apparent.
Conflicts over curriculum are more likely to occur in public schools than in private ones. The
reason for this is fairly clear. Parents who send their children to private or parochial schools do
so, in part, because they support the particular school’s philosophy. Where there are conflicts in
the private sector, it is usually about disagreements within a particular philosophical or religious
tradition, as opposed to between two or more different philosophies. In the public sector, however,
there is rarely agreement about educational matters, and thus the curriculum, like other aspects
of the educational system, is the focus of considerable debate. In a society with diverse cultural
groups, it is inevitable that what the schools teach will not be the product of consensus. The
questions are: How do all of the groups affect what is taught in classrooms, and which groups are
successful in accomplishing this task?
Kirst (1984, p. 114) has outlined the different levels of influence on the school curriculum in
Table 7.1. As the table indicates, there are multiple factors that influence curriculum policy making
at the national, state, and local levels. Curriculum decisions occur through a number of different
channels, including the legislative and executive branches of government; the levels of the school
system; and other interests, including professional associations, bureaucratic interests, and private
interests (such as business and parent groups). As we discussed in Chapter 6, unlike many countries
where there is governmental control of education and thus a national curriculum, education in
the United States is controlled at the state and local levels. Therefore, curriculum policy making
is, for the most part, a state and local matter, although in the last two decades the federal govern-
ment has taken an increasingly activist role in education. Nonetheless, the federal government,
through its Department of Education or through the president, is one part of the process, not the
determining factor.
Through Race to the Top, the federal government incentivized the adoption of the Common
Core State Standards. While the Common Core State Standards purport to be research-based
standards aligned to prepare elementary and secondary students for college, many have questioned
the quality of the standards, the universality of them, and the intention behind them. Some have
raised concerns about the level of control Pearson, a company with a focus on publishing, has
had over creating the Common Core Standards, selling curricular material for the implementation
of the Common Core State Standards, and overseeing standardized testing of students using the
standards (Ravitch, 2013; Fabricant & Fine, 2013). Scholars and policy-makers have questioned
the degree to which a for-profit corporation like Pearson should control what takes place in the
Table 7.1 Influences on Curriculum Policy Making
National State Local

General Legislative Congress State Legislature City Council (usually
has no influence)
Educational U.S. House State School Board Local School Board
Legislative Committee on
Education & Labor
Executive President Governor Mayor (usually has
no influence)
Administrative School U.S. Department of State Department of Superintendent
Education Education
Bureaucratic National Science State Department of Department
Foundation (Division of Education (Division of Chairmen, Teachers
Curriculum Improvement) Instruction)
Professional Association National Testing Agencies Accrediting Association; County Association of
such as Educational State Subject Matter Superintendents
Testing Services (ETS) Affiliates, National
Education Association
Private Interests Foundations & Business Corporations, Political & Service Organizations
Source: Wirt and Kirst (1972).

public school system. Looking towards the future, the fate of the Common Core State Standards
is tenuous, as both conservatives and progressives attack the reform effort and states continue to
back away from the standards.
Although each of these political actors just listed has input into the curriculum, it is evident
that all do not have equal input. If there is any one group with more influence than the others,
it is the education profession itself, consisting of state-level educational bureaucrats, administrators
at the district and school levels, and teachers. The traditional humanist curriculum and the social
efficiency curriculum, which have dominated U.S. education to a large degree, reflect the values
and interests of professional educators. Moreover, as Ravitch (1983) and Kliebard (1986) noted,
the struggle over the U.S. curriculum has involved primarily educators and revolved around
different philosophies of education.
Although there is no denying that there have been influences from outside the educational
establishment—including students, parents, and politicians—their influence has not been nearly
as significant. The U.S. curriculum has reflected the professional values of educators. Additionally,
it mirrored the increased power of expertise in the twentieth century. As Collins (1979) argued,
the rise of professions has led to the use of professional expertise as a means of influence. In the
case of the curriculum, professional educators have made valuable use of their expertise as a means
to legitimate their control over the curriculum.
Despite the dominance of professional educators in determining the curriculum, other groups
have sought control with varying degrees of success. More often than not, conflicts over the
curriculum have symbolized significant political and cultural conflicts. For example, in 1925, amid
the fundamentalist religious movements of the period, the Scopes Trial reflected the tensions
between schooling and particular groups opposed to the official curriculum. More importantly,
the trial represented the role of the school in reflecting the values of a modern society and the
opposition of those still faithful to traditional societal values.
This trial involved the prosecution of a Tennessee biology teacher, John Scopes, who violated
the state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution and requiring the teaching of creationism. In
the decades following the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), conflict between
secular theories of evolution and religious theories of creationism raged on. Backed by the American
Civil Liberties Union, Scopes used a biology textbook that taught evolution and was arrested.
The trial, which literally became a circus and a symbol of the conflict between the old and the
new, involved two important individuals in U.S. political and legal history: William Jennings
Bryan, the populist leader and fundamentalist crusader, who assisted the prosecution, and Clarence
Darrow, the liberal legal crusader, who represented the defendant. In Tennessee, where funda-
mentalism was widely accepted, and with a judge who was clearly biased against Scopes (Garraty,
1985, p. 430), the defendant was found guilty and fined $100.
This case represented the battle between the values of the secular modern world and the values
of the traditional religious world. Despite the belief of the majority of educators that evolution
was the correct scientific interpretation, the power of a conservative state legislature to shape the
curriculum won out, at least temporarily. Over the years, however, the professional expertise of
scientists has been dominant. Today, fundamentalists are still trying to eliminate the teaching of
evolution or to include creationism as a viable alternative theory.
In the 1940s and 1950s, controversies over curriculum were widespread. As part of the
intellectual attack on progressive education, a number of educational and cultural critics argued
that progressivism had watered down the traditional curriculum and replaced it with a social
efficiency curriculum. Critics such as Arthur Bestor (1953) called for a return to the classical
humanist curriculum and to an emphasis on the intellectual functions of schooling.
Whereas many of these critiques were based on academic and intellectual grounds, some of
the conflicts revolved around blatantly political issues. With the rise of anticommunism during
the McCarthy Era (where alleged Communists were brought before the House on an Un-American
Activities Committee and a Senate Investigative Committee chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy
of Wisconsin), the school curriculum became the subject of political turmoil. Anti-Communist
groups pressured school districts to eliminate textbooks and instructional materials that they
believed to be Communist. Moreover, progressive education, as a whole, was seen as part of a
Communist conspiracy and labeled REDucation (Ravitch, 1983, p. 105). During this period, books
by noted progressive educators such as Harold Rugg were banned in many districts, teachers at
both the K–12 and university levels were required to take loyalty oaths, and many teachers and
professors were dismissed as Communists or Communist sympathizers. This was a period in which
conservatives actively sought to control what was taught in school, by controlling both the curri-
culum and the faculty.
One of the best examples of the politics of schooling during this period occurred in Pasadena,
California. In 1948, Willard Goslin, a celebrated progressive educator, was hired as superintendent.
As Cremin (1990, pp. 87–88) noted, for the next two years, a strongly organized group of
conservatives attacked the superintendent’s policies, the school curriculum, and its teaching
methods. In 1950, under considerable pressure and amid continual conflict, Superintendent Goslin
was forced to resign. Cremin has suggested that this case is a prime example of the historical
tendency for Americans to use politics as a means for controlling education, with political
disagreements often a key aspect of the fight for control.
Although this period was a shameful era in U.S. history, Ravitch (1983) pointed out that the
incidents of book banning were by no means the rule. Many districts successfully battled the book-
banning activists. Moreover, by the 1950s, the tide began to turn, with both the legislative and
judicial branches reacting against McCarthyism. However, during this time, conscious efforts were
made to control what was taught in schools, and the wounds inflicted did not easily heal.
More recently, new controversies surrounding the curriculum have emerged. In the 1970s
through the 1990s, conservative groups argued that many books—including Ken Kesey’s (1977)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Richard Wright’s (1969) Native Son, and Joseph Heller’s (1985)
Catch 22—were unsuitable for use in public schools. In some districts, books were banned and
taken off reading lists and library shelves. Recently, the state of Arizona has implemented legislation
banning ethnic studies curricula.
Although the cases of book banning are the most sensational examples of the attempt to control
curriculum, the struggle over what is conveyed to students occurs in more routine ways, such as
in the selection of textbooks. Kirst (1984, pp. 118–122) provided an illuminating discussion of
the factors affecting textbook adoptions. He suggested that a number of forces—including the
economics of publishing, the dominance of those states such as Texas and California with statewide
adoption policies, the clout of political pressure groups, the guidelines of professional associations,
and the input of educators—all combine to create a complex and politically charged process. The
attempt to meet the demands of such a complex and often contradictory set of pressure groups
leads to what many critics suggest are textbooks with little controversy and less life (Sewall, 1991).
According to Kirst, although textbook publishers are constantly concerned with which group they
will offend and thus risk losing market share, they are unfortunately less concerned with such
significant issues as content and presentation.
The difficulties in textbook publishing are part of a larger curricular issue—that is: What is
the appropriate content of the curriculum? In the 1980s, the question of what should be taught
became a difficult and controversial subject. Beginning with the conservative claim that U.S.
students know very little because the schools have abandoned their traditional role in transmitting
the nation’s cultural heritage, questions about the definition of the cultural heritage became central
to curriculum debates. While conservatives such as Finn and Hirsch argued that the school
curriculum should consist largely of the Western tradition, liberals and radicals countered that
this tradition unfairly ignored the important traditions of non-Western groups, people of color,
women, and other minority groups.
This controversy affected both the K–12 level and the postsecondary level. At the K–12 level
in New York state, a commission was appointed in 1990 by Commissioner of Education Thomas
Sobel to revise the social studies curriculum in light of the demands of some groups for a more
multicultural curriculum and the counterclaims by other groups that such demands were both
racist and encouraged historical inaccuracies. On the one hand, supporters of multicultural
curriculum charged that the traditional curriculum was ethnocentric and reinforced the low
self-esteem of minority groups because they rarely were presented with historical role models. On
the other hand, conservative critics responded that in order to give equal time to all groups, the
teaching of history would be revised in a distorted and inaccurate manner (Ravitch, 1989).
The conflict between parental values and the curriculum was clearly illustrated in New York
City in 1992 when District 24 in Queens objected to the New York City Board of Education’s
new multicultural curriculum. This curriculum was titled “Children of the Rainbow” and it called
for the teaching of tolerance for families headed by same-sex couples to elementary school children.
Outraged parents and community leaders, first in District 24 and then throughout New York City,
challenged the curriculum, arguing that schools do not have the right to teach “immoral” values
to children. Proponents of the curriculum argued that the intent behind the curriculum was to
foster tolerance and respect for all groups and that the schools were the appropriate place for such
an education.
Some of the curriculum’s optional teaching materials, including “Heather Has Two Mommies”
and “Daddy Has a Roommate,” became the focus of heated conflict between New York City
Chancellor Joseph Fernandez and a number of local school boards. The Chancellor suspended the
District 24 Community School Board for refusing to comply with the curriculum or to offer a suitable
alternative; the Board of Education reinstated the community school board and called on all parties
to reach a compromise that would maintain the integrity of the multicultural curriculum. While
this particular conflict has passed, it highlights the fact that significant numbers of parents are
strongly opposed to schools teaching what parents consider values to their children. It also
underscores the political dimension of the curriculum and how the often moral aspects of such
political conflict become educational issues. In the aftermath of this conflict, the New York City
Board of Education did not renew Fernandez’s contract. Although attitudes have liberalized since
then, with equal marriage rights and other progress for the LGBTQ community, the backlash has
also been considerable. For example, the Obama administration and other entities such as North
Carolina’s state government went to battle over an individual’s right to choose a bathroom based
on their gender identity. North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” requires people to use the bathroom
that corresponds with the sex identified on their birth certificates in public facilities including
schools. President Obama issued an Executive Order requiring public schools to allow transgender
students to use the bathroom or locker room that corresponds with their gender identity. North
Carolina’s bathroom bill and President Obama’s Executive Order are both being challenged in the
courts. Differences such as these continue to manifest in heated curricular debates.
At the postsecondary level, debates about the need for a core curriculum for all students and
what that core should be have raged from campus to campus. At Stanford University, for example,
the requirement that all undergraduates take a core curriculum stressing Western civilization
was abolished after considerable controversy and was replaced with requirements stressing multi-
culturalism. At Columbia University, where undergraduates have for decades taken a core
curriculum stressing Western civilization, the curriculum has been retained despite vigorous
criticism. However, the University of Chicago has decided to revise its curriculum.
By the early 1990s, the term politically correct became part of the popular culture. It referred to
definitions of what is construed as acceptable language, curriculum, and ideas. It was initially coined
by campus conservatives who argued that universities were dominated by radicals who conspired
to alter the traditional curriculum and who “censor” all ideas that they deem offensive (e.g., see
D’Souza, 1991; Kimball, 1990). Critics responded that the university has always reflected the
dominant interests of society and that the curriculum is in dire need of revision in a more
democratic and representative manner. In the 2000s these debates have continued on campuses
throughout the United States.
Although there have been serious debates on many campuses on the important philosophical
issues underlying these disagreements—such as the purpose of higher education and the nature
of a literary canon, or whether one exists—to a large degree, the media has simplified the issue
of political correctness in such a way that it has become a symbol not for the critical questions
it raises but for the putative silliness of university life. More importantly, the conflicts over
curriculum correctness and free speech (that is, whether individuals have the right to say offensive
things, and who decides what is and what is not offensive have raised the specter of McCarthyism
and all the ugliness that it represented).
What is clear from these examples is that curriculum debates are hotly contested because they
represent fundamental questions about the purposes of schooling. The transmission of knowledge,
as we have suggested, is never objective or value neutral. Rather, it represents what particular
interest groups believe students should know. Because there is little agreement about this, it is
no surprise that there is significant conflict over the content of the curriculum. We have also
suggested that the shaping of the curriculum is a complex process with many groups having input;
but if there is one dominant group in this process, it is professional educators whose expertise
enables them to justify their claims. However, professional educators are not a cohesive interest
group, so many of the most heated curriculum debates involve disagreements within this group
about the nature and purpose of the curriculum.
The Sociology of the Curriculum

Sociologists of curriculum have focused on not only what is taught but why it is taught. As we
have mentioned, sociologists of curriculum reject the objectivist notion that curriculum is value
neutral; rather, they view it as a reflection of particular interests within a society. Additionally,
sociologists believe that the school curriculum includes both what is formally included as the
subject matter to be learned—the formal curriculum—and the informal or hidden curriculum.
The hidden curriculum includes what is taught to students through implicit rules and messages,
as well as through what is left out of the formal curriculum. For example, very few undergraduate
or graduate students can list more than one nineteenth-century American feminist. In fact, many
do not know that there was a feminist movement in the nineteenth century (for a complete
discussion, see Leach, 1980). Why is this the case? We believe it is because the history of women
has never been a part of the school curriculum. Certain ideas, people, and events are not part of
the curriculum because those who formulate it do not deem them important enough. From the
standpoint of the formal curriculum, this is a political and social statement; in terms of the hidden
curriculum, students receive a message that these things are just not important, which ultimately
is a powerful force in shaping human consciousness. The sociology of curriculum, as the following
discussion will illuminate, is concerned with both the formal and informal curriculum.
The sociology of the curriculum concentrates on the function of what is taught in schools and
its relationship to the role of schools within society. As we stated in Chapter 4, functionalist and
conflict theories of school and society differ about the roles of schools in U.S. society. Functionalists
believe the role of the schools is to integrate children into the existing social order—a social
order that is based on consensus and agreement. Conflict theorists believe that the role of schools
is to reproduce the existing social order—a social order that represents the dominant groups in
society. Based on these differences, the two theories have different perspectives on the school
curriculum.
Functionalists argue that the school curriculum represents the codification of the knowledge
that students need to become competent members of society. From this perspective, the curriculum
transmits to students the cultural heritage required for a cohesive social system. Thus, the role of
the curriculum is to give students the knowledge, language, and values to ensure social stability,
for without a shared common culture social order is not possible.
The general functionalist theory, derived by the work of Emile Durkheim (1962, 1938/1977)
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was concerned with the role of schools in
combating the social and moral breakdown initiated by modernization. As the processes of
industrialization, secularization, and urbanization weakened the bonds between people and the
rituals that traditionally gave people a sense of community, Durkheim argued that the schools
had to teach students to fit into the less cohesive modern world.
Modern functionalist theory, developed in the United States through the works of Talcott
Parsons (1959) and Robert Dreeben (1968), stressed the role of the schools in preparing students
for the increasingly complex roles required in a modern society. This society, according to
functionalists, is a democratic, meritocratic, and expert society (Hurn, 1993, pp. 44–47) and the
school curriculum is designed to enable students to function within this type of society. According
to Hurn (1993, pp. 193–194), functionalists believe that in the twentieth century, the curriculum
had to change to meet the new requirements of the modern world. In this respect, the schools
began to move away from the teaching of isolated facts through memorization to the general task
of teaching students how to learn. Thus, for functionalists, the specific content of the curriculum,
such as history or literature, is less important than the role of schools in teaching students how
to learn—a skill vital in an increasingly technocratic society.
In addition to teaching general cognitive skills, functionalists believe that schools teach the
general values and norms essential to a modern society. According to Parsons (1959) and Dreeben
(1968), modern society is one where individuals are rewarded based on achievement and
competence. This meritocratic system is reflected in the way schools operate, with the norm of
universalism (that people are treated according to universal principles of evaluation) rather than
particularism (that people are treated according to individual characteristics, such as family
background, personality, etc.) the basis for evaluation.
Finally, functionalists believe that schools teach students the values that are essential to a
modern society. According to this theory, modern society is a more cosmopolitan and tolerant
one than traditional society, and schools teach students to respect others, to respect differences,
and to base their opinions on knowledge rather than tradition. Such attitudes are necessary in a
society where innovation and change are the foundation of technological development, and schools
teach students these vitally important things. In summary, the functionalist theory is a positive
view of the role of the schools and suggests that what schools teach are the general norms, values,
and knowledge required for the maintenance and development of modern society.
According to conflict theorists, who provide a far more radical view of the roles of schools in
society, the functionalist perspective of what is taught in schools is more a reflection of ideology
than empirical reality. Conflict theorists do not believe that schools teach liberal values and
attitudes such as tolerance and respect. Rather, they believe that schools’ hidden curriculum teaches
the attitudes and behaviors required in the workplace and that the formal curriculum represents
the dominant cultural interests in society.
As we pointed out in Chapter 4, Neo-Marxists, such as Bowles and Gintis (1976), believe that
the hidden curriculum of the school teaches the character traits, behaviors, and attitudes needed
in the capitalist economy. According to their correspondence theory, school organization and
processes reflect the social needs of the economic division of labor, with the schools preparing
students to fit into the economic order. From this perspective, the hidden curriculum differentially
prepares students from different social class backgrounds with the type of personality traits required
in the workplace. For example, working-class children attend working-class schools where the
values of conformity, punctuality, and obedience to authority are relayed through the hidden
curriculum; middle-class children attend middle-class schools where the hidden curriculum is more
likely to teach the values of initiative and individual autonomy; upper-class children attend elite
private schools where the hidden curriculum rewards independence, creativity, and leadership.
Thus, working-class students are prepared for working class jobs, middle-class students are prepared
for middle-class jobs, and upper-class students are prepared for leadership positions in the corporate
and political arenas.
In our intensely segregated society, race and economic class are highly correlated, often
providing additional advantages to white students as a result of ongoing racial bias. While conflict
theorists maintain that the intersectionality of race and class is complex, the fact that school
curriculum almost always provides advantages to white and nonpoor students is clear. Although,
as we will argue later in this chapter, this view of schooling is far too neat and rational, there are
significant race- and social class-related differences between schools. We will also show that there
are significant curriculum and pedagogical differences within schools and that these differences
may be as important as the ones between different schools.
Whereas Neo-Marxists such as Bowles and Gintis emphasize the importance of the hidden
curriculum in the shaping of values, other conflict theorists stress the effects of the formal and
hidden curriculum on the reproduction of consciousness (Hurn, 1993, p. 197). According to these
social reproduction theorists, such as Apple and Bourdieu, the role of the curriculum is to shape
the way people think and in doing so to reproduce the dominant interests of society. Thus, for
Apple (1978, 1979a, 1979b, 1982a, 1982b) the school curriculum represents the dominant class,
cultural, and gender interests within society, and students internalize these interests as they go
through schools. Bourdieu (1973) and Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) argued that the school
curriculum represents a form of cultural capital, which separates different groups within the system
of social stratification. This cultural capital symbolizes the “high culture” of the dominant groups
within society as opposed to the popular culture of the masses.
Since the school system, according to conflict theorists, is highly stratified according to social
class, and because students from different social class backgrounds learn different things in school,
the cultural capital required for membership in the dominant groups is not universally learned
but is acquired by children whose families already possess such knowledge. The system is not
completely closed, however, as the system of curriculum tracking teaches at least some students
in all secondary schools this high-status knowledge. The important point is that through the
cultural capital transmitted through the school curriculum, the class differences in society are
reflected not merely in terms of economic wealth and income but through cultural differences.
Thus, through a subtle yet complex process, the schools transmit both a common body of knowledge
to all students, usually at the elementary school level, and a stratified body of knowledge to students,
usually at the secondary level. According to conflict theorists, this process allows for societal
reproduction on one hand, and for class and cultural stratification on the other hand.
Hurn (1993, pp. 197–198) suggested that these forms of radical conflict theory are far more
ideological than they are empirical. Although they point to a number of important functions of
the curriculum, they do not provide sufficient evidence about the nature of the curriculum or
curriculum change to support their assertions. Additionally, in arguing that school curriculum
both reproduces the overall interests of the dominant groups in society by reflecting their interests
and separates groups based on differential access to such a curriculum, the theory never fully
explains how this is possible. If the school curriculum functions both as a means of societal
reproduction and cultural separation, specifically how does it accomplish this Herculean task?
Moreover, the theory needs to document empirically the ways in which the curriculum reproduces
social stratification between dominant and subordinate groups by looking at the curriculum and
teaching practices in different schools serving different groups. To date, this has not been
accomplished sufficiently.
A different variety of conflict theory, which we discussed in Chapter 4, is the neo-Weberian
conflict theory of Randall Collins. For Collins, both functionalist and Neo-Marxist conflict theory
are far too rational. These theories, according to Collins (1979), posit too cohesive a link between
the economy, the workplace, and the schools. If the role of the curriculum is truly to give students
the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace, then how does one explain the relatively weak
relationship between schooling and work-related skills? Collins has argued that most work skills
are learned on the job, not in schools. Further, he has suggested that schools transmit a cultural
currency (Hurn, 1993, pp. 198–199) to students through a credentialing process, and that the
actual content of what is learned in schools is less relevant than the credential. Thus, it is not
that the specific content of the curriculum is functionally related to the workplace, but it is that
the credential given by schools reflects the ability of some groups to attain it and the failure of
other groups to do so.
For Collins, the link between the school curriculum and the skills required in the workplace
is very weak. Moreover, he has stated that the curriculum reflects the interests of various groups
rather than one dominant group. If anything, the traditional school curriculum, with its emphasis
on the liberal arts and sciences, reflects the cultural beliefs of those who shape the curriculum—
the middle-class and white professional educators who have primary input into curricular matters.
It is their cultural values that are represented in schools as much as the values of the upper class.
Finally, this view demonstrates that what is taught in schools must be understood as part of
the larger process of cultural conflict and stratification, with school knowledge important not so
much for its functional value but for its value in attaining access to specific occupations. It is this
belief that the credential is related to occupational performance rather than the fact that it actually
is that makes it so important. To the contrary, Collins has suggested that the actual knowledge
and skills learned in acquiring a credential do not correlate highly with the actual requirements
of most occupations. Therefore, Collins has provided a more cynical and skeptical view of what
is taught in schools and has suggested that a more multidimensional view of conflict is required
to understand the complexities of the curriculum.
Multicultural Education
The conflict perspective is illustrated nicely by the debates over multicultural education.
Beginning in the 1980s, critics of the humanist curriculum argued that the traditional curriculum
was Eurocentric and male dominated. They argued that the curriculum had to be transformed to
represent the varied voices of the groups that make up the United States.
James Banks (1993; Banks & McGee Banks, 1995, 2009) has been the premier writer on multi-
cultural education over the past three decades. Banks (Banks & McGee Banks, 1995) has made it
clear that there is no one definition of multiculturalism and, more importantly, that multicultural
approaches are by no means new, but must be traced back to the end of the nineteenth century.
He has presented a typology of five dimensions of multiculturalism: content integration,
knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and empowering school culture.
Geneva Gay (1995) provided one of the best and most comprehensive discussions of multi-
cultural curriculum theory available. Gay argued that “a high degree of consensus exists among
multiculturalists on the major principles, concepts, concerns, and directions for changing
educational institutions to make them more representative of and responsive to the cultural
pluralism that exists in the United States and the world” (p. 40) and that “educational equity
and excellence for all children in the United States are unattainable without the incorporation
of cultural pluralism in all aspects of the educational process.”
A related component of multicultural education is termed culturally relevant pedagogy.
Proponents of culturally relevant pedagogy (Foster, 1995, pp. 570–581; Ladson-Billings, 1994,
2004) have described a number of characteristics of successful teachers of black students, including
having high self-esteem and a high regard for others; seeing themselves as part of the community;
believing that all students can succeed; helping students make connections between their
community, national, and global identities; and seeing teaching as “pulling knowledge out”
(Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 34). Further, Ladson-Billings (1994, p. 55) described the social relations
of cultural relevant pedagogy in the following way: (1) The teacher–student relationship is fluid,
extending to interactions beyond the classroom and into the community; (2) the teacher
demonstrates a connectedness with all students; (3) the teacher encourages a “community of
learners”; and (4) the teacher encourages students to learn collaboratively. Students are expected
to teach each other and be responsible for each other.
Conservative critics of multicultural education (see Sleeter, 1995, for an overview) argued that
it threatened the foundation of Western civilization and the role of schooling in transmitting this
culture. Even liberals such as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. suggested that multicultural
education might lead to the breakdown of social order (Schlesinger, 1992). Supporters of multi-
cultural education also raised questions (Semel, 1996). If curriculum and pedagogy, as multicultural-
ists suggest, need to be culture centered to meet the needs of each group, how does one construct
a truly multicultural curriculum out of the diverse and different needs of all the groups that make
up this nation’s society? If an Afrocentric curriculum is the appropriate culture-centered curri-
culum for blacks, do schools need separate, culture-specific curricula for Asians, Puerto-Ricans,
Mexican-Americans, or white Americans (or for specific white ethnic groups, as well)? Based
on their unique histories, problems, and cultures (Takaki, 1993, 1998a, 1998b), the more appro-
priate question seems to be: How does one revise and expand the curriculum to include multiple
culture-centered approaches? If the goal of multiculturalism is rather to produce multiple, but
separate, curricula, each tailored to specific groups, then educators may be in danger of what
Schlesinger (1992) terms a “disuniting of America.” The problem with the conservative critique
of multiculturalism that argues for the superiority of the Western canon is that it calls for an
either/or stance and assumes a unity that has never existed; however, many multiculturalists
(Gordon, 1995; King, 1995) appear to call for the same either/or position (Eurocentric or
Afrocentric). Given the diversity of ethnic, race, class, and gender groups in U.S. society, the
problem of developing a multicultural curriculum that is both culture centered and not separatist
remains one of the greatest challenges in education (see Semel, 1996, for a detailed analysis of
multiculturalism).
Curriculum Theory and Practice: The Reconceptualization

of Curriculum Studies
For most of the twentieth century, the field of curriculum studies was concerned with relating the
study of curriculum to classroom practice. From the child-centered and social-reconstructionist
strands of progressive education in the first half of the century (Semel & Sadovnik, 1999) to the
professionalization of teacher education (Labaree, 1996), the subject of curriculum studies has
often been more concerned with practice than theory and has viewed classroom practice within
the narrow confines of schools. Beginning in the 1970s, critical curriculum theorists in both the
United States and England questioned the assumptions of curriculum studies and argued that school
knowledge represented the socially constructed interests of dominant groups in society (Apple,
1979a, 1992, 1993; Sadovnik, 1991a; Young, 1971).
From the 1970s onward, William Pinar has been the preeminent figure in the reconceptualiza-
tion of curriculum studies into the field of curriculum theory (Kincheloe, 2010; Pinar, 1975, 1978a,
1978b, 1979, 1988; Pinar et al., 1995). Building on the critical curriculum theory of Apple and
others, Pinar integrated both psychoanalytic and postmodern approaches to the curriculum. His
approach called for the separation of theory and practice, rather than its traditional integration.
Pinar suggested that this separation was necessary for curriculum theorists to have the necessary
distance to understand the complex factors that affect practice. However, he also indicated that
eventually theory and practice had to be reconnected. He also connected the personal
(autobiographical) to the study of schools by relating experience to theory. By the 1990s,
reconceptualized curriculum theory had become a dominant voice in the field, with its own national
conference.
In the 1990s, amid the calls for teacher education reform that criticized university-based schools
of education for failing to adequately connect theory to practice and involve education professors
in school improvement (Holmes Group, 1995; Labaree, 1996; National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future, 1996), curriculum theory came under fire. Wraga (1997, 1999) argued that
the reconceptualization of curriculum studies into curriculum theory has resulted in a false
dichotomy between theory and practice, eschewed the historic roles of universities from the 1862
Morrill Act (see Chapter 3) onward to provide practical knowledge for social policy, and created
an elitism in education characteristic of the split in the sciences between pure and applied science.
Wraga has called for the reestablishment of a Deweyan vision that educational theory must be
tested in real-life schools (Wraga, 1999).
The Wraga–Pinar debate reflects much of the educational debate of the 1990s by reducing
complex issues to either/or poles. As Dewey noted in Experience and Education (1938), both sides
of either/ors are usually equally misinformed. Critical curriculum studies and reconceptualized
curriculum theory have provided an important corrective to traditional approaches by demanding
that scholars examine the social, political, and economic forces outside schools that affect classroom
discourse and practice. These approaches have made important contributions to the knowledge
of how schools contribute to social inequalities. However, curriculum theorists have often been
so detached from the everyday life of teachers and students that they have had little impact on
school reform and improvement. As we move deeper into the new millennium, the field of
curriculum studies needs to integrate the rich findings of curriculum theory into a more pragmatic
approach to school improvement. Such a vision is consistent with Dewey’s pragmatism, which
stressed the need to balance theory, research, and practice.
Pedagogic Practices: How the Curriculum Is Taught

Thus far in this chapter, we have focused on what is taught in schools and why it is taught. As
students, you are aware that how something is taught is as important as, and at times more import-
ant than, the content. On the most simplistic level, how something is taught is important to you
because it can make the difference between learning the material or not learning it. Moreover,
we have all sat in classes with teachers who certainly knew their subject matter but did not have
the ability or teaching skills to convey it to the class. Conversely, the ability to teach something
without the requisite knowledge of the subject matter is equally problematic. Thus, the relationship
between curriculum, the content of education, and pedagogy (the process of teaching) is an
interdependent one, with each being a necessary but insufficient part of the act of teaching.
Today, technology is reshaping the way education is delivered to students. There has been a
rise in the use of online classes, particularly at the post-secondary level, and students of all ages
are increasingly accessing academic content through the internet. Blended learning, online adap-
tive content, and online courses all have the potential to create personalized learning experiences
that are accessible to more people. Despite the clear educational benefits of new technologies,
there are concerns that these modes of learning may dehumanize the schooling process and that
they may allow corporate interests to unscrupulously profit off of public education at the expense
of students.
On a more complex level, the process of teaching, like the curriculum, is not an objective skill
agreed on by all practitioners; rather, it is also the subject of disagreements over what constitutes
appropriate teaching practices. Additionally, sociologists of education (Bernstein, 1990; Sadovnik,
1991a) suggest that different pedagogic practices, like different curricula, are differentially offered
to different groups of students, often based on class, racial, ethnic, and gender differences.
The Philosophy of Teaching: Differing Views on Pedagogic Practices

Philip Jackson, in his insightful book, The Practice of Teaching (1986), provided a thoughtful
discussion of the philosophical dimensions of teaching. He suggested that there have been different
views about teaching—some see it as an art or craft while others see it as a scientific enterprise
with distinct and testable methodological principles. Although the scope of this chapter does not
permit us to go into this in detail, this section will outline some of the salient features of the
major philosophical viewpoints on teaching practices.
Jackson (1986, pp. 115–145) has distinguished between the two dominant traditions of teaching:
the mimetic and the transformative. In Chapters 2, 3, and 5, we referred to progressive and
traditional (conservative) models in U.S. education. Using these terms, the mimetic tradition
loosely coincides with the traditional (conservative) model and the transformative with the
progressive model.
The mimetic tradition is based on the viewpoint that the purpose of education is to transmit
specific knowledge to students. Thus, the best method of doing this is through what is termed the
didactic method, a method that commonly relies on the lecture or presentation as the main form
of communication. At the heart of this tradition is the assumption that the educational process
involves the relationship between the knower (the teacher) and the learner (the student), and
that education is a process of transferring information from one to the other. Based on the belief
that the student does not possess what the teacher has, the mimetic model stresses the importance
of rational sequencing in the teaching process and assessment of the learning process (i.e., a clear
statement of learning goals and a clear means to assess whether students have acquired them).
The emphasis on measurable goals and objectives has become a central component of many teacher
education programs, with the attempt to create a science of teaching often viewed as the key to
improving educational achievement.
The transformative tradition rests on a different set of assumptions about the teaching and
learning process. Although learning information makes the student different than he or she was
before, this model defines the function of education more broadly and, according to some, more
ambiguously. Simply put, proponents of this tradition believe that the purpose of education is to
change the student in some meaningful way, including intellectually, creatively, spiritually, and
emotionally. In contrast to the mimetic tradition, transformative educators do not see the trans-
mission of knowledge as the only component of education and thus they provide a more multi-
dimensional theory of teaching. Additionally, they reject the authoritarian relationship between
teacher and student and argue instead that teaching and learning are inextricably linked.
Thus, the process of teaching involves not just the didactic transfer of information but the
conversation between teacher and student in such a way that the student becomes an integral
part of the learning process. Although the lecture may be used in this tradition, the dialectical
method, which involves the use of questioning, is at the core of its methodology. Derived from
the teaching methods of Socrates, as presented in the dialogues of Plato, and given philosophical
grounding in the works of John Dewey, transformative educators believe that all teaching begins
with the active participation of the student and results in some form of growth. Exactly what type
of growth is desired varies with the specific goals of the classroom, but given the broader spectrum
of goals outlined by transformative educators, it is more difficult to assess and measure educational
outcomes. Moreover, the transformative tradition tends to reject the scientific model of teaching
and instead views teaching as an artistic endeavor.
Dewey was somewhat ambiguous about what he believed to be the goals of education, saying
that the goal of education was simply growth leading to more growth (Cremin, 1990, p. 125).
However, the transformative tradition has often defined growth within a radical critique of
the status quo. Critical theorists such as Freire (1972, 1977, 1978) and Giroux (1983a, 1983b,
1988, 1991), existential phenomenologists such as Greene (1978, 1988), and feminist theorists
such as Belenky (Belenky et al., 1986), Laird (1989), and Martin (1987) believe that the purpose
of education is to change human consciousness and in doing so begin to change society. These
perspectives view teaching as a political activity; its goal is to transform students’ minds as the
first step in radical social transformation.
For example, feminist theorists (Macdonald & Macdonald, 1981; Miller, 1982; Mitrano, 1979)
believe that traditional curriculum and pedagogy reproduce the dominant patriarchal relations of
society and reinforce male domination. They teach competition and sexism, rather than
cooperation and gender equality. Therefore, feminists suggest that a curriculum and pedagogy
that teach caring and that are explicitly anti-sexist are required.
Critical theorists, who are political radicals, argue that traditional curriculum and pedagogy
reproduce the consciousness required in a competitive, capitalist society. They suggest that a critical
pedagogy is required—one that enables students to critique the dominant ideologies of society
and that is explicitly concerned with democratic and egalitarian principles. Thus, for the radical
wing of the transformative tradition, growth leading to more growth is unacceptable, as the
definition of growth is left at the level of the individual student. What is necessary, they argue,
is individual growth that leads to social change. It should be noted also that these contemporary
educational theories are examples of the social meliorist tradition outlined earlier in this chapter.
A major difference between the mimetic (traditional) and transformative (progressive) models
of teaching relates to the question of authority relations in the classroom. Given the fact that the
traditional model views the teacher as the knowledgeable authority in the classroom, traditional
classrooms usually have explicit authority relations, with teachers in charge and students in a
subservient position. The lesson is usually teacher directed, with students speaking when spoken
to and in response to direct questions. The progressive model usually has less authoritarian authority
relations in the classroom, with authority internalized within the student rather than in direct
response to the teachers’ higher authority. Although there are differences in authority, they are
often less explicitly structured. Additionally, students usually have more input in their education
and the classroom is often more child centered than teacher directed.
It is important to point out that these two models of teaching are ideal types, and that most
classrooms are neither totally one nor totally the other. Most teachers combine different methods
of teaching and most classrooms are neither totally authoritarian nor totally unstructured. Non-
etheless, most classrooms, schools, and teachers lean in one direction or the other, based on
philosophical and sociological factors. On a philosophical level, the belief in one model over the
other is an essential determinant of classroom practice; on a sociological level, the use of different
models appears to correlate with class differences.
For example, Bernstein’s (1990) work on pedagogic practices has indicated that the looser
authority relations of what he calls invisible pedagogy (usually found in progressive education)
are found in schools with middle- and upper middle-class populations; the more author-
itarian relations of what he calls visible pedagogy (usually found in traditional education) are
found in schools with poor and working-class populations as well as in schools with upper-class
populations. Although the poor and the working class seem to receive the same form of pedagogic
practices, they receive a very different form of curriculum from the upper class, with the upper
class receiving a classical humanist curriculum and the poor and working class receiving a social
efficiency curriculum (that often is vocationally based). Bernstein argued that these class
differences in pedagogic practices are the result of the different functions of schooling for differ-
ent groups.
The important point here is that different teaching practices are not the result of philosophical
preferences only, nor are they randomly distributed between schools in a nonrational manner.
They are also related to sociological factors and may be important in understanding differences
in academic achievement between groups. We will explore this in more detail in our discussion
of the stratification of the curriculum and again in Chapter 9, when we discuss explanations of
unequal educational achievement among different groups.
The Stratification of the Curriculum

As we have noted, the social efficiency curriculum has been the dominant model in U.S. public
education since the 1920s. From this period onward, U.S. schools offered a stratified curriculum
to students, with some students receiving an academic curriculum and others receiving a voca-
tional or general curriculum. Curriculum stratification (i.e., the division of the curriculum), usually
at the secondary school level, is not the only form of differentiation in U.S. schools. Ability
grouping, or the separation of students into groups based on putative ability (usually based on
standardized tests), is another important form of stratification. Ability grouping begins at the
elementary school level with reading and mathematics groups within the same classroom, and is
often extended in the upper elementary and middle school levels with separate classes with the
same curriculum but different ability levels. These ability groups are often directly related to high
school curriculum tracks (different curricula and different abilities) or ability groups (similar
curricula and different abilities).
It is important to note that ability grouping and curriculum tracking are related aspects of the
curriculum stratification system. Students, from elementary school through college, may be
separated according to ability, curriculum, or both. For example, there are a number of different
ways that schools organize the curriculum. First, some schools require all students to learn the
same curriculum and therefore group students without regard to ability (heterogeneous grouping).
Second, other schools require all students to learn the same curriculum and thus group students
based on ability (homogeneous grouping). Third, other schools stratify students based on both
ability and the curriculum, with high-ability students at the secondary level enrolled in an academic
curriculum and low-ability students enrolled in a vocational or general curriculum. Finally,
although these differences are found within schools, there are also important differences between
schools, both public and private, in terms of their curriculum and pedagogy.
These differences between schools are often based on the social class differences of the students
who attend them. They are found at all levels of education through the university, where the
U.S. system provides different types of postsecondary education based on both curriculum and
ability (e.g., from vocational education and liberal arts education at the community colleges, to
liberal arts education at selective elite private colleges and universities, to variations of both at
other public and private colleges and universities).
The factors affecting ability group and/or curricula track placement, as well as the outcomes
of such placement, have been the subject of considerable debate in the sociology of education.
For example, the degree to which track placement is based on meritocratic criteria and actually
reflects ability—or the degree to which it is based on nonmeritocratic criteria such as race, class,
and gender—are important empirical questions. Additionally, the effects of such placement on
the life chances and educational careers of groups of students are likewise crucial to understanding
the relationship between schooling and inequalities. These issues will be explored in detail in
Chapter 9, which discusses explanations of educational inequality. At this point it is important
to understand that U.S. schools are stratified by curriculum and ability, and these differences are
reflected both between schools at all levels (e.g., differences between public and private schools
at all levels, and differences between public schools at all levels) and within schools through
tracking and ability grouping. Further, it is important to understand why such practices exist.
The rationales for curriculum tracking and ability grouping are complex, as they speak to some
of the most fundamental questions concerning teaching and learning. First, should all students
learn the same things or should different groups of students learn different things, depending on
their needs, interests, and future plans? Second, is there a common body of knowledge that all
students, regardless of their future plans, should learn? Third, if all students should learn the same
things, at least for a part of their education, should they learn them in heterogeneous groups or
homogeneous ability groups? That is, given individual differences in ability, can students of different
abilities learn the same material at the same pace, without some students falling behind or others
being held back? Or is it more effective to teach students of different abilities at different paces
in order to ensure that they all eventually learn the same material?
Debates about these questions have been central to U.S. education since the 1920s. In terms
of the curriculum, the dominant social efficiency model has accepted the view that all students
should not be required to take the same curriculum and that the secondary school curriculum
should meet the different aspirations of different groups of students. In terms of ability grouping,
the separation of students into homogeneous ability groups, beginning at the elementary level,
has been a salient feature of U.S. education from about the same time (e.g., see Oakes, 1985).
Moreover, there is often a strong relationship between elementary school ability grouping and
secondary school track placement (Hurn, 1993; Oakes, 1985, 2005).
According to Oakes (1985, 2005), ability grouping and tracking have been based on four
rationales. The first is that students learn more effectively in homogeneous groups, and that students
with different abilities require different and separate schooling. The second is that “slower” students
develop a more positive self-image if they do not have to compete with “brighter” students. The
third is that placement procedures accurately reflect students’ academic abilities and prior
accomplishments. The last rationale is that homogeneous groups are easier to manage and teach.
Oakes argued that each of these is a myth that cannot be supported by empirical evidence and
that ability grouping and curriculum tracking have unfairly limited the lives of students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds who are far more likely to be placed in lower tracks. In Chapter 9,
we will review the evidence on the effects of these processes; for now, it is important to understand
that they have been significant organizational processes in the stratification of curriculum and
pedagogy.
The Effects of the Curriculum: What Is Learned in Schools?

Thus far in this chapter, we have discussed the organization of the curriculum and its effect on
what is taught in schools. It is important to note, however, that what is taught in schools is not
necessarily equivalent to what is learned in schools. Much of the discussion about curriculum
assumes that the curriculum is important precisely because it affects student consciousness, values,
and so on. This is true only to the extent that the school curriculum is actually internalized by
students; if it is not (i.e., if the students do not actually learn what is taught or what is in the
curriculum), then the claim that schooling transmits important knowledge to students and that
it has important social functions may be more ideological than real.
Hurn (1993, pp. 199–201) pointed out that there are a number of methodological problems
in studying school effects, in general, and what students learn cognitively and noncognitively, in
particular. First, it is difficult to separate school effects from more general processes of childhood
and adolescent development. To what extent the increased knowledge of children as they get
older is due to schooling and to what extent it is due to developmental patterns and maturation
is difficult to ascertain. Second, it is difficult to separate the effects of schooling from other variables,
including social class and cultural factors. For example, one may be able to ascertain that students
with more education have more academic knowledge than those with lower levels of education
or that they may have more liberal political values. However, it is not easy to demonstrate that
these differences have been caused by the independent effects of schooling rather than the effects
of social class or cultural differences external to the processes of schooling.
Despite these difficulties, some things are known about the effects of schooling that suggest
that schools have some important effects on students. First, the evidence indicates that students
who have higher levels of educational attainment do know more about school subjects than those
with lower levels of attainment. Research on school effects (Hurn, 1993, pp. 201–204) suggests
that schooling does increase knowledge; that there is a strong correlation between formal schooling
and tests of cognitive skills, such as reasoning, mathematics, and so on; and that evidence from
the United States and other societies (Hurn, 1993, pp. 206–216) shows that schools have powerful
effects on cognitive development. This evidence suggests that the cynical view of conflict theorists
such as Collins (that little is really learned in school and that schooling is mostly a credentialing
process) is not fully supported by empirical evidence. This does not refute Collins’s claim that
school knowledge is not necessary for the workplace (this is a different question), but it does
demonstrate that schools do teach things to students (whether it is valuable or not is as much an
ideological as it is an empirical question).
A second issue related to the effects of schooling regards the effects of different schools and
different tracks within schools. This is a very controversial question, with proponents of the
effective school movement arguing that there are specific school characteristics that correlate
highly with learning. At the same time, however, there is evidence (Hurn, 1993) to suggest that
school characteristics, independent of other factors such as the social class background of students,
make little difference in student learning.
Although we will review these disagreements more fully in Chapter 9 in our discussion of
education and inequality, it is important to note here that some research on curriculum tracking
does provide an important piece of the puzzle. If students in different curriculum tracks within
the same school—or more importantly, within different ability groups with similar curricula
within the same school—have substantially different educational experiences and this results in
vastly different educational learning outcomes, then one may conclude that schooling does have
important effects. Oakes’s (1985) research on tracking and ability grouping suggested such a process.
Although we will suggest in Chapter 9 that these findings are not universally accepted (as it is
difficult to rule out the independent effects of outside factors such as family), they do provide
some support for the argument that schools affect different groups of students in significantly
different ways.
Another important aspect of what students learn in school concerns the noncognitive effects
of schooling. Since both functionalists (Dreeben, 1968) and conflict theorists (Bowles & Gintis,
1976) believe that schools teach important societal values and beliefs to students (albeit they
disagree about whose values and what they are), it is important to empirically document the actual
effects in this area. The empirical evidence is incomplete and inconclusive, but there are some
conclusions that may be drawn. First, there is some evidence (Hurn, 1993, p. 205) that increased
levels of education lead to greater tolerance, greater openness, and less authoritarianism. Further,
the evidence does not support the radical view that schools in capitalist societies teach conformity,
docility, and obedience to authority as the only values; the effects of schooling are more
complicated. Finally, given the multiple influences on values, including the role of the family and
the media, it is difficult to isolate the independent role of schooling. Hurn (1993, p. 218) has
suggested:
Students in contemporary society are exposed to a wide variety of competing values and ideals both within
schools and in the wider environment, and many of these implicit and explicit messages cancel each
other out. Thus although particular and unusual schools may have quite powerful effects on some students,
schooling in general cannot be said to have enduring or important effects on one set of attitudes and
values rather than another.
Although we agree that the effects of schooling on values and attitudes has been exaggerated
by both functionalists and Neo-Marxists, the fact that some schools do have powerful effects on
student attitudes, that students in different curriculum tracks are often taught and learn different
attitudes, and that students with more education have different attitudes and values does suggest
that schools do have some effects on students. That it is difficult, as Hurn points out, to disentangle
these effects from other societal institutions demonstrates the complex relationship between
schooling and other educating institutions; it does not suggest that schooling is unimportant.
Conclusion
This chapter has discussed the content and process of schooling: curriculum and pedagogy.
We have suggested that curriculum and pedagogy are not objective phenomena, but rather must
be understood within the context of their sociological, philosophical, political, and historical roots.
The curriculum represents what particular groups think is important and, by omission,
what they believe is not important. What is included and excluded is often the subject of debate
and controversy. Teachers too often are excluded from such decisions, but, as we argued in
Chapter 1, you, as teachers, must be part of these debates. Only through an understanding of the
complex issues involved can you become active and critical curriculum makers rather than passive
reproducers of a curriculum into which you have no input.
Most importantly, we have pointed out that what is taught and how it is taught are complex
matters with profound consequences, both for individuals and society. Although there are
differences of opinion concerning the effects of curriculum organization and pedagogic practices,
it is evident that differences in these areas are not random; they affect different groups of students
in different ways. In the next chapters (8 and 9), we will explore the broader question of schooling
and inequality, and examine how both factors within the schools, such as curriculum and pedagogy,
as well as outside the school, such as family, neighborhood, economics, and other variables, are
related to unequal educational attainment and achievement.
The following articles examine issues relating to curriculum and pedagogy. The first article, “The
Politics of a National Curriculum,” written by curriculum theorist Michael W. Apple, examines
the politics of curriculum through an analysis of a national curriculum. Apple argues that the
curriculum represents the dominant interests in society, and therefore curriculum decisions are
always political and conflictual. Although Apple is not necessarily against a national curriculum,
he points out that its proponents represent a particular curriculum ideology.
The second article, “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s
Children,” written by educator Lisa D. Delpit, analyzes the concept of culturally relevant pedagogy,
and questions whether one form of pedagogic practice is appropriate for all children.
The Politics of a National Curriculum

Michael W. Apple
Introduction in this society (Bernstein 1977; Apple 1988a).

There is, then, always a politics of official know-
Education is deeply implicated in the politics of ledge, a politics that embodies conflict over what
culture. Its curriculum is never simply a neutral some regard as simply neutral descriptions of
assemblage of knowledge, somehow appearing the world and what others regard as elite concep-
in the texts and classrooms of a nation. It is tions that empower some groups while disem-
always part of a selective tradition, and is someone’s powering others.
selection, some group’s vision of legitimate Speaking in general about how elite culture,
knowledge. It is produced out of the cultural, habits, and tastes function, Pierre Bourdieu
political, and economic conflicts, tensions, and (1984, p. 7) puts it this way:
compromises that organize and disorganize a
society. As I argue in Ideology and Curriculum The denial of lower, coarse, vulgar, venal, servile
(Apple 1990) and Official Knowledge (Apple —in a word, natural—enjoyment, which consti-
1993), the decision to define some groups’ tutes the sacred sphere of culture, implies an
knowledge as the most legitimate, as official, affirmation of the superiority of those who can be
while other groups’ knowledge hardly sees the satisfied with the sublimated, refined, disinter-
light of day, says something extremely important ested, gratuitous, distinguished pleasures forever
about who has power in a society. closed to the profane. That is why art and cultural
Consider social studies texts that continue consumption are predisposed, consciously and
to speak of the “Dark Ages” rather than using deliberatively or not, to fulfill a social function
the historically more accurate and much less of legitimating social difference.
racist phrase “the age of African and Asian
Ascendancy.” Or consider books that treat As he goes on to say, these cultural forms,
Rosa Parks as merely a naive African-American “through the economic and social conditions
woman who was simply too tired to go to the which they presuppose . . . are bound up with the
back of the bus rather than discussing her systems of dispositions (habitus) characteristic of
training in organized civil disobedience at the different classes and class fractions” (Bourdieu
Highlander Folk School. The realization that 1984, pp. 5–6). Thus, cultural form and content
teaching, especially at the elementary school function as markers of class (Bourdieu 1984,
level, has in large part been defined as women’s p. 2). The granting of sole legitimacy to such a
work—with its accompanying struggles over system of culture through its incorporation
autonomy, pay, respect, and deskilling—also within the official centralized curriculum, then,
documents the connections between curriculum creates a situation in which the markers of taste
and teaching and the history of gender politics become the markers of people. The school
(Apple 1988b). Thus, whether we like it or not, becomes a class school.
differential power intrudes into the very heart of The contemporary tradition of scholarship
curriculum, teaching, and evaluation. What and activism has been based on exactly these
counts as knowledge, the ways in which know- insights: the complex relationships between
ledge is organized, who is empowered to teach economic capital and cultural capital; the role of
it, what counts as an appropriate display of the school in reproducing and challenging the
having learned it, and—just as critically—who multitude of unequal relations of power (which
is allowed to ask and answer all of these ques- go well beyond class, of course), and the roles
tions are part and parcel of how dominance that content and organization of the curriculum,
and subordination are reproduced and altered pedagogy, and evaluation all play.
It is exactly now that these kinds of issues of these developments in a time of conservative
must be considered most seriously. This is a triumphalism.
period—which we can call the conservative We are not the only nation where a largely
restoration—when conflict over the politics of rightist coalition has put such proposals on the
official knowledge is severe. At stake is the very educational agenda. In England, a national
idea of public education and a curriculum that curriculum, first introduced by the Thatcher
responds to the cultures and histories of large and government, is now mostly in place. It consists
growing segments of the American population. of “core and foundation subjects” such as mathe-
Even with a “moderate” Democratic administra- matics, science, technology, history, art, music,
tion now in Washington, many of this admin- physical education, and a modern foreign lan-
istration’s own commitments embody the guage. Working groups to determine the
tendencies addressed below. standard goals, “attainment targets,” and content
I intend to instantiate these arguments in each subject have already brought forth their
through an analysis of the proposals for a natio- results. This curriculum is accompanied by a
nal curriculum and national testing. But in order national system of achievement testing—one
to understand these issues, we must think that is both expensive and time-consuming—for
relationally, and connect these proposals to the all students in state-run schools at the ages of
larger program of the conservative restoration. seven, eleven, fourteen, and sixteen (Whitty
I intend to argue that behind the educational 1992, p. 24).
justification for a national curriculum and The assumption in many quarters in the
national testing is a dangerous ideological attack, United States is that we must follow nations such
the effects of which will be truly damaging to as Britain and especially Japan or we shall be left
those who already have the most to lose. I shall behind. Yet it is crucial that we understand that
first present a few interpretive cautions. Then I we already have a national curriculum, which is
shall analyze the general project of the rightist determined by the complicated nexus of state
agenda. Third, I shall show the connections textbook adoption policies and the market in
between the national curriculum and national textbook publishing (Apple 1988b; Apple and
testing and the increasing focus on privatization Christian-Smith 1991). Thus, we have to ask
and “choice” plans. And, finally, I want to discuss whether a national curriculum—one that will
the pattern of differential benefits that will likely undoubtedly be linked to a system of national
result. goals and nationally standardized instruments of
evaluation—is better than an equally widespread
but somewhat more covert national curriculum
The Question of a National
established by textbook adoption states such as
Curriculum
California and Texas, which control 20 to 30
Where should those of us who count ourselves percent of the market in textbooks (Apple
a part of the long progressive tradition in 1993). Whether or not such a covert national
education stand in relationship to the call for a curriculum already exists, however, there is a
national curriculum? growing feeling that standardized national
At the outset, I wish to make clear that I am curricular goals and guidelines are essential to
not opposed in principle to a national curri- “raise standards” and to hold schools accountable
culum. Nor am I opposed in principle to the idea for their students’ achievement.
or practice of testing. Rather, I wish to provide We can concede that many people repre-
a more conjunctural set of arguments based on senting an array of educational and political
my claim that at this time—given the balance of positions are involved in the call for higher
social forces—there are very real dangers which standards, more rigorous curricula at a national
are important to recognize. I shall confine myself level, and a system of national testing. Yet we
largely to the negative case here, and my task is must ask the question: which group is in the
to raise serious questions about the implications leadership of these “reform” efforts? This leads
to another, broader question: who will benefit active and inventive.” Teachers, administrators,
or lose as a result of all this? I contend that, and students would need “to become more
unfortunately, rightist groups are setting the thoughtful, collaborative, and participatory”
political agenda in education and that, in (Smith, O’Day, and Cohen 1990, p. 46).
general, the same pattern of benefits that has In Smith, O’Day, and Cohen’s (1990) words:
characterized nearly all areas of social policy—
in which the top 20 percent of the population Conversion to a national curriculum could
reap 80 percent of the benefits (Apple 1989; only succeed if the work of conversion were
Danziger and Weinberg 1986; Burtless 1990)— conceived and undertaken as a grand, coopera-
will be reproduced here. tive learning venture. Such an enterprise would
We need to be very cautious of the genetic fail miserably if it were conceived and organized
fallacy, the assumption that because a policy chiefly as a technical process of developing new
or a practice originates within a distasteful exams and materials and then “disseminating”
position it is fundamentally determined, in all its or implementing them. (p. 46)
aspects, by its origination within that tradition.
And they go on to say:
Take Edward Thorndike, one of the founders
of educational psychology in the United States, A worthwhile, effective national curriculum
for instance. The fact that his social beliefs would also require the creation of much new
were often repugnant—as evidenced by his par- social and intellectual connective tissue. For
ticipation in the popular eugenics movement instance, the content and pedagogy of teacher
and his notions of racial, gender, and class education would have to be closely related to the
hierarchies—does not necessarily destroy every content of and pedagogy of the schools’ curricu-
aspect of his research on learning. While I am not lum. The content and pedagogy of examinations
at all a supporter of this paradigm of research (its would have to be tied to those of the curriculum
epistemological and social implications continue and teacher education. Such connections do not
to demand major criticism),1 this requires a now exist. (p. 46)
different kind of argument than one based on
origin. (Indeed, one can find some progressive The authors conclude that such a revitalized
educators turning to Thorndike for support for system, one in which such coordination would be
some of their claims about what needed to be built, “will not be easy, quick, or cheap,” especi-
transformed in our curriculum and pedagogy.) ally if it is to preserve variety and initiative. “If
It is not only those who are identified with the Americans continue to want educational reform
rightist project who argue for a national on the cheap, a national curriculum would be a
curriculum. Others who have historically been mistake” (Smith, O’Day, and Cohen 1990, p. 46).
identified with a more liberal agenda have I could not agree more with this last point.
attempted to make a case for it (Smith, O’Day, Yet they do not sufficiently recognize that
and Cohen 1990). much of what they fear is already taking place
Smith, O’Day, and Cohen suggest a positive, in the very linkage they call for. Even more
if cautionary, vision for a national curriculum. A importantly, what they do not pay sufficient
national curriculum would involve the invention attention to—the connections between a
of new examinations, a technically, conceptually, national curriculum and national testing and the
and politically difficult task. It would require the larger rightist agenda—constitutes an even
teaching of more rigorous content and thus greater danger. It is this I wish to focus on.
would require teachers to engage in more
demanding and exciting work. Teachers and
Between Neoconservatism and
administrators, therefore, would have to “deepen
Neoliberalism
their knowledge of academic subjects and change
their conceptions of knowledge itself.” Teaching Conservatism by its very name announces
and learning would have to be seen as “more one interpretation of its agenda: it conserves.
Other interpretations are possible, of course. ing international competitiveness, profit, and
One could say, somewhat more wryly, that discipline and for returning us to a romanticized
conservatism believes that nothing should be past of the “ideal” home, family, and school
done for the first time (Honderich 1990, p. 1). (Apple 1993).
Yet in many ways, in the current situation, The power of this alliance can be seen in a
this is inaccurate. For with the Right now in number of educational policies and proposals:
ascendancy in many nations, we are witnessing (1) programs for voucher plans and tax credits
a much more activist project. Conservative to make schools operate like the thoroughly
politics now are very much the politics of altera- idealized free-market economy; (2) the move-
tion—not always, but clearly the idea of “Do ment at national and state levels to “raise
nothing for the first time” is not a sufficient standards” and mandate both teacher and stu-
explanation of what is happening either in dent “competencies” and basic curricular goals
education or elsewhere (Honderich 1990, p. 4). and knowledge, increasingly through the imple-
Conservatism has in fact meant different mentation of statewide and national testing;
things at different times and places. At times it (3) the increasingly effective attacks on the
involves defensive actions; at other times it school curriculum for its antifamily and anti-free
involves taking the initiative against the status enterprise “bias,” its secular humanism, its lack
quo (Honderich 1990, p. 15). Today we are of patriotism, and its supposed neglect of the
witnessing both. knowledge and values of the “Western tradition”
Thus, it is important to set out the larger and of “real knowledge”; and (4) the growing
social context in which the current politics of pressure to make the perceived needs of busi-
official knowledge operates. There has been ness and industry into the primary goals of the
a breakdown in the accord that guided a good school (Apple 1988b; Apple 1993).
deal of educational policy since World War II. In essence, the new alliance in favor of this
Powerful groups within government and the conservative restoration has integrated educa-
economy and within “authoritarian populist” tion into a wider set of ideological commitments.
social movements have been able to redefine The objectives in education are the same as
—often in very retrogressive ways—the terms those which serve as a guide to its economic and
of debate in education, social welfare, and social welfare goals. These include the expansion
other areas of social policy. What education is of the “free market,” the drastic reduction of
for is being transformed (Apple 1993). No government responsibility for social needs
longer is education seen as part of a social alli- (though the Clinton Administration intends
ance which combines many “minority”2 groups, to mediate this in not very extensive—and not
women, teachers, community activists, progres- very expensive—ways), the reinforcement of
sive legislators and government officials, and intensely competitive structures of mobility, the
others who act together to propose (limited) lowering of people’s expectations for economic
social democratic policies for schools (e.g., security, and the popularization of what is
expanding educational opportunities, limited clearly a form of Social Darwinist thinking
attempts at equalizing outcomes, developing (Bastian et al. 1986).
special programs in bilingual and multicultural As I have argued at length elsewhere, the
education, and so on). A new alliance has been political Right in the United States has been very
formed, one that has increasing power in successful in mobilizing support against the
educational and social policy. This new power educational system and its employees, often
bloc combines neoliberal elements of business exporting the crisis in the economy onto the
with the New Right and with neoconservative schools. Thus, one of its major achievements
intellectuals. Its interests are less in increasing has been to shift the blame for unemployment
the life opportunities of women, people of color, and underemployment, for the loss of economic
and labor than in providing the educational competitiveness, and for the supposed break-
conditions believed necessary both for increas- down of traditional values and standards in the
family, education, and paid and unpaid work- in Edwards, Gewirtz, and Whitty forthcoming,
places from the economic, cultural, and social p. 22)
policies and effects of dominant groups to the
school and other public agencies. “Public” now That is, there will be a relatively less regu-
is the center of all evil; “private” is the center of lated and increasingly privatized sector for the
all that is good (Apple 1985). children of the better-off. For the rest—whose
In essence, then, four trends have charac- economic status and racial composition will
terized the conservative restoration in both be thoroughly predictable—the schools will be
the United States and Britain—privatization, tightly controlled and policed and will continue
centralization, vocationalization, and differen- to be underfunded and unlinked to decent paid
tiation (Green 1991, p. 27). These trends are employment.
actually largely the results of differences within One of the major effects of the combination
the most powerful wings of this alliance— of marketization and the strong state is “to
neoliberalism and neoconservatism. remove educational policies from public debate.”
Neoliberalism has a vision of the weak state. That is, the choice is left up to individual parents
A society that lets the “invisible hand” of the free and “the hidden hand of unintended conse-
market guide all aspects of its forms of social quences does the rest.” In the process, the very
interaction is seen as both efficient and democra- idea of education being part of a public political
tic. On the other hand, neoconservatism is sphere in which its means and ends are publicly
guided by a vision of the strong state in certain debated atrophies (Education Group II 1991,
areas, especially over the politics of the body and p. 268).
gender and race relations, over standards, values, There are major differences between demo-
and conduct, and over what kind of knowledge cratic attempts at enhancing people’s rights
should be passed on to future generations over the policies and practices of schooling
(Hunter 1988).3 These two positions do not easily and the neoliberal emphasis on marketization
sit side by side in the conservative coalition. and privatization. The goal of the former is to
Thus, the rightist movement is contradictory. extend politics, to “revivify democratic practice by
Is there not something paradoxical about linking devising ways of enhancing public discussion,
all of the feelings of loss and nostalgia to the debate, and negotiation.” It is based inherently
unpredictability of the market, “in replacing loss on a vision of democracy as an educative prac-
by sheer flux”? (Johnson 1991a, p. 40). tice. The latter, on the other hand, seeks to
The contradiction between neoconservative contain politics. It wants to reduce all politics
and neoliberal elements in the rightist coalition to economics, to an ethic of “choice” and “con-
are “solved” through a policy of what Roger Dale sumption” (Johnson 1991a, p. 68). The world in
has called conservative modernization. Such a essence becomes a vast supermarket.
policy is engaged in Enlarging the private sector so that buying
and selling—in a word, competition—is the
simultaneously “freeing” individuals for econo- dominant ethic of society involves a set of closely
mic purposes while controlling them for social related propositions. This position assumes that
purposes; indeed, in so far as economic “freedom” more individuals are motivated to work harder
increases inequalities, it is likely to increase the under these conditions. After all, we “already
need for social control. A “small, strong state” know” that public servants are inefficient and
limits the range of its activities by transferring to slothful, while private enterprises are efficient
the market, which it defends and legitimizes, as and energetic. It assumes that self-interest and
much welfare [and other activities] as possible. competitiveness are the engines of creativity.
In education, the new reliance on competition More knowledge and more experimentation are
and choice is not all pervasive; instead, “what created and used to alter what we have now. In
is intended is a dual system, polarized between . . . the process, less waste is created. Supply and
market schools and minimum schools.” (quoted demand remain in a kind of equilibrium. A more
efficient machine is thus created, one which neoliberal emphasis on the extension of market-
minimizes administrative costs and ultimately driven principles (also embraced by Clinton)
distributes resources more widely (Honderich into all areas of society (Whitty 1992, p. 25).
1990, p. 104). Thus, a national curriculum—coupled with
This ethic is not meant to benefit simply the rigorous national standards and a system of
privileged few. However, it is the equivalent of testing that is performance driven—is able at one
saying that you have the right to climb the north and the same time to be aimed at “moderniza-
face of the Eiger or scale Mount Everest, tion” of the curriculum and the efficient “pro-
provided, of course, that you are very good at duction” of better “human capital” and represent
mountain climbing and have the necessary a nostalgic yearning for a romanticized past
institutional and financial resources (Honderich (Whitty 1992, p. 25). When tied to a program
1990, pp. 99–100). of market-driven policies such as voucher and
Thus, in a conservative society, access to a choice plans, such a national system of stand-
society’s private resources (and remember, the ards, testing, and curriculum—while perhaps
attempt is to make nearly all of society’s resources internally inconsistent—is an ideal compromise
private) is largely dependent on one’s ability to within the rightist coalition.
pay. And this is dependent on one’s being a But one could still ask, won’t a national
person of an entrepreneurial or efficiently acquisitive curriculum coupled with a system of national
class type. On the other hand, society’s public achievement testing contradict in practice the
resources (that rapidly decreasing segment) are concomitant emphasis on privatization and
dependent on need (Honderich 1990, p. 89). In school choice? Can it really simultaneously
a conservative society, the former is to be achieve both? I maintain that this apparent
maximized, the latter is to be minimized. contradiction may not be as substantial as one
However, the conservatism of the New Right might expect. One long-term aim of powerful
does not merely depend in large portion on a elements within the conservative coalition is
particular view of human nature—the view of not necessarily to transfer power from the local
human nature as primarily self-interested. It has level to the center, although for some neo-
gone further; it has set out to degrade human conservatives who favor a strong state in the
nature, to force all people to conform to what area of morality, values, and standards, this may
at first could only be claimed to be true. indeed be the case. Rather, these elements would
Unfortunately, in no small measure it has prefer to decentralize such power altogether
succeeded. Perhaps blinded by their own and redistribute it according to market forces,
absolutist and reductive vision of what it means thus tacitly disempowering those who already
to be human, many of our political leaders do not have less power while employing a rhetoric
seem to be capable of recognizing what they have of empowering the consumer. In part, both a
done. They have set out, aggressively, to drag national curriculum and national testing can be
down the character of a people (Honderich 1990, seen as “necessary concessions in pursuit of this
p. 81), while at the same time attacking the poor long term aim” (Green 1991, p. 29).
and the disenfranchised for their supposed lack In a time of a loss of legitimacy in govern-
of values and character. ment and a crisis in educational authority, the
government must be seen to be doing something
about raising educational standards. After all, this
Curriculum, Testing, and a
is exactly what it promises to offer to “consumers”
Common Culture
of education. This is why a national curriculum
As Whitty reminds us, what is striking about the is crucial. Its major value does not lie in its
rightist coalition’s policies is its capacity to supposed encouragement of standardized goals
connect the neoconservative emphasis on and content and of levels of achievement in what
traditional knowledge and values, authority, are considered the most important subject areas.
standards, and national identity with the This concern with achievement, of course,
should not be totally dismissed. However, the This nostalgia for “cohesion” is interesting, but the
major role of a national curriculum is rather in great delusion is that all pupils—black and white,
providing the framework within which national working class, poor, and middle class, boys and
testing can function. It enables the establishment girls—will receive the curriculum in the same way.
of a procedure that can supposedly give consum- Actually, it will be read in different ways, accord-
ers “quality tags” on schools so that “free market ing to how pupils are placed in social relationships
forces” can operate to their fullest extent. If we and culture. A common curriculum, in a hetero-
are to have a free market in education in which geneous society, is not a recipe for “cohesion,” but
the consumer is presented with an attractive for resistance and the renewal of divisions. Since
range of choices, both a national curriculum and it always rests on cultural foundations of its own,
especially national testing then act as a “state it will put pupils in their places, not according to
watchdog committee” to control the “worst “ability,” but according to how their cultural
excesses” of the market (Green 1991, p. 29).4 communities rank along the criteria taken as the
However, let us be honest about our own “standard.” A curriculum which does not “explain
educational history here. Even with the supposed itself,” is not ironical or self-critical, will always
emphasis of some people on student portfolios have this effect. (Johnson 1991a, pp. 79–80)
and other more flexible forms of evaluation,
there is no evidence at all to support the idea that These are significant points, especially the call
what will ultimately be installed—even if only for all curricula to explain themselves. In complex
because of time and expense—will be anything societies like ours, which are riven with
other than a system of mass standardized paper- differential power, the only kind of cohesion that
and-pencil tests. is possible is one in which we overtly recognize
Yet we must also be clear about the social differences and inequalities. The curriculum
function of such a proposal. A national curricu- then should not be presented as “objective.”
lum may be seen as a device for accountability Rather, it must constantly subjectify itself. That
that will help us establish benchmarks so that is, it must “acknowledge its own roots” in the
parents can evaluate schools. But it also puts culture, history, and social interests out of which
into motion a system in which children them- it arose. It will accordingly neither homogenize
selves will be ranked and ordered as never before. this culture, history, and social interest, nor
One of its primary roles will be to act as will it homogenize the students. The “same
“a mechanism for differentiating children more treatment” by sex, race and ethnicity, or class is
rigidly against fixed norms, the social meanings not the same at all. A democratic curriculum
and derivation of which are not available for and pedagogy must begin with a recognition of
scrutiny” (Johnson 1991a, p. 79). “the different social positionings and cultural
Thus, while the proponents of a national repertoires in the classrooms, and the power
curriculum may see it as a means to create social relations between them.” Thus, if we are
cohesion and to give all of us the capacity concerned with “really equal treatment”—as I
to improve our schools by measuring them think we must be—we must base a curriculum on
against objective criteria, the effects will be the a recognition of those differences that empower
reverse. The criteria may seem objective, but the and disempower our students in identifiable ways
results will not be, given existing differences in (Johnson 1991a, p. 80; Ellsworth 1989).
resources and class and race segregation. Rather Foucault reminds us that if you wish to under-
than cultural and social cohesion, differences stand how power works, you should examine the
between “us” and the “others” will be generated margins, look at the knowledge, self-understand-
even more strongly, and the attendant social ings, and struggles of those whom powerful
antagonisms and cultural and economic destruc- groups in this society have cast off as “the other”
tion will worsen. (Best and Kellner 1991, pp. 34–75). The New
Richard Johnson helps us understand the Right and its allies have created entire groups of
social processes at work here. “others”—people of color, women who refuse to
accept external control of their lives and bodies, of people of color, women, and “others”), the
gays and lesbians, the poor (and the list could go maintenance of existing hierarchies of what
on). It is in the recognition of these differences counts as official knowledge, the revivifying of
that curriculum dialogue can occur. Such a traditional Western standards and values, the
national dialogue should begin with the concrete return to a “disciplined” (and one could say
and public exploration of how we are differently largely masculine) pedagogy, and so on, are
positioned in society and culture. What the New paramount. A threat to any of these becomes a
Right embargoes–the knowledge of the margins, threat to the entire worldview of the Right
of how culture and power are indissolubly (Johnson 1991a, p. 51; Rose 1988).
linked—becomes a set of indispensable resources The idea of a common culture—in the guise
for this task (Johnson 1991b, p. 320). of the romanticized Western tradition of the
The proposed national curriculum of course neoconservatives (or even as expressed in the
would recognize some of these differences. But, longings of some socialists)—does not give
as Linda Christian-Smith and I argue in The enough thought, then, to the immense cultural
Politics of the Textbook, the national curriculum heterogeneity of a society that draws its cultural
serves both to partly acknowledge difference and traditions from all over the world. The task of
at the same time to recuperate it within the defending public education as public, as deserving
supposed consensus that exists about what we of widespread support “across an extremely
should teach (Apple and Christian-Smith 1991; diverse and deeply divided people, involves a lot
see also Apple 1993). It is part of an attempt to more than restoration” (Education Group II
recreate hegemonic power that has been partly 1991, p. x).
fractured by social movements. The debate in England is similar. A national
The very idea of a common culture upon curriculum is seen by the Right as essential to
which a national curriculum—as defined by prevent relativism. For most of its proponents, a
neoconservatives—is to be built is itself a form common curriculum must transmit both the
of cultural politics. In the immense linguistic, common culture and the high culture that has
cultural, and religious diversity that makes up the grown out of it. Anything else will result in
constant creativity and flux in which we live, it incoherence, no culture, merely a “void.” Thus,
is the cultural policy of the Right to override such a national culture is “defined in exclusive,
diversity. Thinking it is reinstituting a common nostalgic, and frequently racist terms” (Johnson
culture, it is instead inventing one, in much the 1991a, p. 71).
same way as E. D. Hirsch (1987) has tried to do Richard Johnson’s (1991a) analysis docu-
in his self-parody of what it means to be literate ments its social logic:
(Johnson 1991b, p. 319). A uniform culture
never truly existed in the United States, only a In formulations like these, culture is thought of
selective version, an invented tradition that is as a homogeneous way of life or tradition, not as
reinstalled (though in different forms) in times a sphere of difference, relationships, or power. No
of economic crisis and a crisis in authority recognition is given to the real diversity of social
relations, both of which threaten the hegemony orientations and cultures within a given nation-
of the culturally and economically dominant. state or people. Yet a selective version of a natio-
The expansion of voices in the curriculum nal culture is installed as an absolute condition
and the vehement responses of the Right be- for any social identity at all. The borrowing,
come crucial here. Multicultural and antiracist mixing and fusion of elements from different
curricula present challenges to the program of cultural systems, a commonplace everyday prac-
the New Right, challenges that go to the core tice in societies like [ours], is unthinkable within
of their vision. In a largely monocultural national this framework, or is seen as a kind of cultural
curriculum (which deals with diversity by misrule that will produce nothing more than a
centering the always ideological “we” and usually void. So the “choices” are between . . . a national
then simply mentioning “the contributions” culture or no culture at all. (p. 71)
The racial subtext here is perhaps below the curricular benchmarks based on problematic
surface but is still present in significant ways.5 cultural visions and more rigorous testing will
The national curriculum is a mechanism for do more than affix labels to poor students in a
the political control of knowledge (Johnson way that is seemingly more neutral is to totally
1991a, p. 82). Once it is established, there will misunderstand the situation. It will lead to more
be little chance of turning back. It may be modi- blame being placed on students and poor parents
fied by the conflicts that its content generates, and especially to the schools that they attend.
but it is in its very establishment that its politics It will also be very expensive. Enter voucher
lies. Only by recognizing its ultimate logic of false plans with even wider public approval.
consensus and, especially, its undoubted harden- Basil Bernstein’s analysis of the complexities
ing in the future as it becomes linked to a massive of this situation and of its ultimate results is more
system of national testing can we fully under- than a little useful here. He says, “the pedagogic
stand this. When this probable future is connec- practices of the new vocationalism [neoliberal-
ted to the other parts of the rightist agenda ism] and those of the old autonomy of knowledge
—marketization and privatization—there is [neoconservatism] represent a conflict between
reason to make us pause, especially given the different elitist ideologies, one based on the class
increasingly powerful conservative gains at local, hierarchy of the market and the other based on
regional, and state levels (Apple 1993). the hierarchy of knowledge and its class supports”
(Bernstein 1990, p. 63). Whatever the oppo-
sitions between market- and knowledge-oriented
Who Benefits?
pedagogic and curricular practices, present racial,
Since leadership in such efforts to “reform” our gender, and class-based inequalities are likely to
educational system and its curriculum, teaching, be reproduced (Bernstein 1990, p. 64).
and evaluative practices is largely exercised by What he calls an “autonomous visible peda-
the rightist coalition, we need always to ask, gogy”—one that relies on overt standards and
“Whose reforms are these?” and “Who benefits?” highly structured models of teaching and evalu-
A system of national curricula and national ation—is justified by referring to its intrinsic
testing cannot help but ratify and exacerbate worthiness. The value of the acquisition of say,
gender, race, and class differences in the absence the Western tradition, lies in its foundational
of sufficient resources both human and material. status for “all we hold dear” and by the norms
Thus, when the fiscal crisis in most of our urban and dispositions that it instills in the students.
areas is so severe that classes are being held in “Its arrogance lies in its claim to moral high
gymnasiums and hallways, when many schools ground and to the superiority of its culture, its
do not have enough funds to stay open for the indifference to its own stratification conse-
full 180 days a year, when buildings are dis- quences, its conceit in its lack of relation to any-
integrating before our very eyes (Apple 1993), thing other than itself, its self-referential
when in some cities three classrooms must abstracted autonomy” (Bernstein 1990, p. 87).
share one set of textbooks at the elementary Its supposed opposite—one based on the
level (Kozol 1991)—I could go on—it is simply knowledge, skills, and dispositions “required” by
a flight of fantasy to assume that more stand- business and industry and one that seeks to
ardized testing and national curriculum guide- transform schooling around market principles—
lines are the answer. With the destruction of is actually a much more complex ideological
the economic infrastructure of these same cities construction:
through capital flight, with youth unemploy-
ment at nearly 75 percent in many of them, with It incorporates some of the criticism of the
almost nonexistent health care, with lives that autonomous visible pedagogy . . . criticism of the
are often devoid of hope for meaningful mobility failure of the urban school, of the passivity and
because of what might simply be called the porn- inferior status [given to] parents, of the boredom
ography of poverty, to assume that establishing of . . . pupils and their consequent disruptions of
and resistance to irrelevant curricula, of assess- Afterthoughts by Way of

ment procedures which itemize relative failure Conclusion
rather than the positive strength of the acquirer. I have been more than a little negative in my
But it assimilates these criticisms into a new dis- appraisal here. I have argued that the politics of
course: a new pedagogic Janus. . . . The explicit official knowledge—in this case surrounding pro-
commitment to greater choice by parents . . . is posals for a national curriculum and for national
not a celebration of participatory democracy, but testing—cannot be fully understood in an
a thin cover for the old stratification of schools isolated way. A national curriculum and national
and curricula. (Bernstein 1990, p. 87) testing needs to be situated within larger
ideological dynamics in which we are seeing an
Are Bernstein’s conclusions correct? Will the attempt by a new hegemonic bloc to transform
combination of national curricula, testing, and our very ideas of what education is. This
privatization actually lead away from demo- transformation involves a major shift—one that
cratic processes and outcomes? Here we must Dewey would have shuddered at—in which
look not to Japan (where many people unfortun- democracy becomes an economic, not a political,
ately have urged us to look) but to Britain, where concept and where the idea of the public good
this combination of proposals is much more withers at its very roots.
advanced. But perhaps I have been too negative. Perhaps
In Britain, there is now considerable evidence there are good reasons to support national
that the overall effects of the various market- curricula and national testing even as currently
oriented policies introduced by the rightist constituted precisely because of the power of the
government are not genuine pluralism or the rightist coalition.
“interrupting [of] traditional modes of social It is possible, for example, to argue that only
reproduction.” Far from this. They may instead by establishing a national curriculum and natio-
largely provide “a legitimating gloss for the nal testing can we stop the fragmentation that
perpetuation of long-standing forms of struc- will accompany the neoliberal portion of the
tured inequality” (Whitty 1991, pp. 20–21). The rightist project. Only such a system would pro-
fact that one of its major effects has been tect the very idea of a public school, would
the disempowering and deskilling of large num- protect teachers’ unions which in a privatized
bers of teachers is not inconsequential either and marketized system would lose much of their
(Apple 1993). power, would protect poor children and children
Going further, Edwards, Gewirtz, and Whitty of color from the vicissitudes of the market. After
have come to similar conclusions. In essence, the all, it is the free market that created the poverty
rightist preoccupation with “escape routes” and destruction of community that they are
diverts attention from the effects of such policies experiencing in the first place.
on those (probably the majority) who will be It is also possible to argue, as Geoff Whitty has
left behind (Edwards, Gewirtz, and Whitty in the British case, that the very fact of a national
forthcoming, p. 23). curriculum encourages both the formation of
Thus, it is indeed possible—actually prob- intense public debate about what knowledge
able—that market-oriented approaches in edu- should be declared official and the creation
cation (even when coupled with a strong state of progressive coalitions against such state-
over a system of national curriculum and testing) sponsored definitions of legitimate knowledge.6
will exacerbate already existing and widespread It could be the vehicle for the return of the
class and race divisions. Freedom and choice in political which the Right so wishes to evacuate
the new educational market will be for those who from our public discourse and which the
can afford them. “Diversity” in schooling will efficiency experts wish to make into merely a
simply be a more polite word for the condition technical concern.
of educational apartheid (Green 1991, p. 30; Thus, it is quite possible that the establish-
see also Karp 1992 and Lowe 1992). ment of a national curriculum could have the
effect of unifying oppositional and oppressed and crucially, it requires not the stipulation of the
groups. Given the fragmented nature of pro- facts, concepts, skills, and values that make us all
gressive educational movements today, and “culturally literate,” but the creation of the
given a system of school financing and govern- conditions necessary for all people to participate
ance that forces groups to focus largely on the in the creation and recreation of meanings and
local or state level, one function of a national values. It requires a democratic process in which
curriculum could be the coalescence of groups all people—not simply those who are the
around a common agenda. A national move- intellectual guardians of the Western tradition—
ment for a more democratic vision of school can be involved in the deliberation over what is
reform could be the result. important. This necessitates the removal of the
In many ways—and I am quite serious here— very real material obstacles—unequal power,
we owe principled conservatives (and there are wealth, time for reflection—that stand in the
many) a debt of gratitude. It is their realization way of such participation (Williams 1989,
that curriculum issues are not only about pp. 35–36). As Raymond Williams (1989) so
techniques that has helped to stimulate the perceptively puts it:
current debate. When many women, people of
color, and labor organizations fought for decades The idea of a common culture is in no sense the
to have society recognize the selective tradition idea of a simply consenting, and certainly not
in official knowledge, these movements were of a merely-conforming society. [It involves] a
often (though not always) silenced, ignored, or common determination of meanings by all the
recuperated into dominant discourses (Apple people, acting sometimes as individuals, some-
1993; Apple and Christian-Smith 1991). The times as groups, in a process which has no parti-
power of the Right—in its contradictory attempt cular end, and which can never be supposed at
to establish a national common culture, to chal- any time to have finally realized itself, to have
lenge what is now taught, and to make that become complete. In this common process, the
culture part of a vast supermarket of choices and only absolute will be the keeping of the channels
thus to purge cultural politics from our and institutions of communication clear so that
sensibilities—has now made it impossible for the all may contribute, and be helped to contribute.
politics of official knowledge to be ignored. (pp. 37–38)
Should we then support a national curriculum
and national testing to keep total privatization In speaking of a common culture, then, we
and marketization at bay? Under current should not be talking of something uniform,
conditions, I do not think it is worth the risk— something to which we all conform. Instead what
not only because of its extensive destructive we should be asking is precisely, for that free,
potential in the long and short run but also contributive and common process of participa-
because I think it misconstrues and reifies the tion in the creation of meanings and values. It is
issues of a common curriculum and a common the very blockage of that process in our insti-
culture. tutions that must concern all of us.
Here I must repeat the arguments I made in Our current language speaks to how this
the second edition of Ideology and Curriculum process is being defined during the conservative
(Apple 1990). The current call to return to a restoration. Instead of people who participate in
common culture in which all students are to be the struggle to build and rebuild our educational,
given the values of a specific group—usually the cultural, political, and economic relations, we are
dominant group—does not in my mind concern defined as consumers (of that “particularly
a common culture at all. Such an approach acquisitive class type”). This is truly an extra-
hardly scratches the surface of the political and ordinary concept, for it sees people as either
educational issues involved. A common culture stomachs or furnaces. We use and use up. We
can never be the general extension to everyone don’t create—someone else does that. This is
of what a minority means and believes. Rather, disturbing enough in general, but in education it
is truly disabling. Leave it to the guardians of task. See, for example, Haraway (1989), Harding
tradition, the efficiency and accountability and Barr (1987), Tuana (1981), and Harding
(1991).
experts, the holders of “real knowledge,” or to the
2. I put the word “minority” in quotation marks
Christopher Whittles of this world who have here to remind us that the vast majority of the
given us commercial television in the classroom world’s population is composed of persons of
and intend to franchise “schools of choice” for color. It would be wholly salutary for our ideas
the generation of profit (Apple 1993). Yet we about culture and education to bear this fact in
leave it to these people at great risk, especially to mind.
3. Neoliberalism doesn’t ignore the idea of a strong
those students who are already economically and state, but it wants to limit it to specific areas
culturally disenfranchised by our dominant (e.g., defense of markets).
institutions. 4. I am making a “functional,” not necessarily
As I noted at the outset, we live in a society an “intentional,” claim here. See Liston (1988).
with identifiable winners and losers. In the future For an interesting discussion of how such testing
we may say that the losers made poor “consumer programs might actually work against more
democratic efforts at school reform, see Darling-
choices” and that’s the way markets operate. But Hammond (1992).
is this society really only one vast market? 5. For a more complete analysis of racial subtexts in
As Whitty reminds us, in a time when so our policies and practices, see Omi and Winant
many people have found out from their daily (1986).
experiences that the supposed “grand narratives” 6. Geoff Whitty, personal communication. Andy
Green, in the English context, argues as well
of progress are deeply flawed, is it appropriate
that there are merits in having a broadly defined
to return to yet another grand narrative, the national curriculum but goes on to say that this
market? (Whitty 1992). The results of this makes it even more essential that individual
narrative are visible every day in the destruction schools have a serious degree of control over its
of our communities and environment, in the implementation, “not least so that it provides a
increasing racism of society, in the faces and check against the use of education by the state as
a means of promoting a particular ideology”
bodies of our children, who see the future and (Green 1991, p. 22).
turn away.
Many people are able to disassociate them-
selves from these realities. There is almost a
References
pathological distancing among the affluent Apple, M. W. 1985. Education and Power. New York:
(Kozol 1991). Yet how can one not be morally Routledge.
——. 1988a. Social Crisis and Curriculum Accords.
outraged at the growing gap between rich and
Educational Theory 38: 191–201.
poor, the persistence of hunger and homeless- ——. 1988b. Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy
ness, the deadly absence of medical care, the of Class and Gender Relations in Education. New
degradations of poverty. If this were the (always York: Routledge.
self-critical and constantly subjectifying) ——. 1989. American Realities: Poverty, Economy,
centerpiece of a national curriculum (but then and Education. In Dropouts from School, ed.
Lois Weis, Eleanor Farrar, and Hugh Petrie,
how could it be tested cheaply and efficiently,
205–223. Albany: State University of New York
and how could the Right control its ends and Press.
means?), perhaps such a curriculum would be ——. 1990. Ideology and Curriculum. 2d. ed. New York:
worthwhile. But until such a time, we can take Routledge.
a rightist slogan made popular in another con- ——. 1993. Official Knowledge: Democratic Education
text and apply it to their educational agenda in a Conservative Age. New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W., and L. Christian-Smith, eds. 1991. The
—“Just say no.” Politics of the Textbook. New York: Routledge.
Bastian, A., N. Fruchter, M. Gittell, C. Greer, and
K. Haskins. 1986. Choosing Equality. Philadelphia:
Notes Temple University Press.
1. See, e.g., Gould (1981). Feminist criticisms and Bernstein, B. 1977. Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 3.
reconstructions of science are essential to this New York: Routledge.
——. 1990. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Hunter, A. 1988. Children in the Service of Con-
New York: Routledge. servatism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law
Best, S., and D. Kellner. 1991. Postmodern Theory: School, Institute for Legal Studies.
Critical Interrogations. London: Macmillan. Johnson, R. 1991a. A New Road to Serfdom. In
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge: Harvard Education Limited, ed. Education Group II, 31–86.
University Press. London: Unwin Hyman.
Burtless, G., ed. 1990. A Future of Lousy Jobs? ——. 1991b. Ten Theses on a Monday Morning.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. In Education Limited, ed. Education Group II,
Danziger, S., and D. Weinberg, eds. 1986. Fighting 306–321. London: Unwin Hyman.
Poverty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Karp, S. 1992. Massachusetts “Choice” Plan Under-
Darling-Hammond, L. 1992. Bush’s Testing Plan cuts Poor Districts. Rethinking Schools 6 (March/
Undercuts School Reforms. Rethinking Schools 6 April): 4.
(March/April): 18. Kozol, J. 1991. Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown.
Education Group II, eds. 1991. Education Limited. Liston, D. 1988. Capitalist Schools. New York:
London: Unwin Hyman. Routledge.
Edwards, T., S. Gewirtz, and G. Whitty. Forthcoming. Lowe, R. 1992. The Illusion of “Choice.” Rethinking
Whose Choice of Schools? In Sociological Schools 6 (March/April): 1, 21–23.
Perspectives on Contemporary Educational Reforms, Omi, M., and H. Winant. 1986. Racial Formation in the
ed. Madeleine Arnot and Len Barton. London: United States. New York: Routledge.
Triangle Books. Rose, S. 1988. Keeping Them Out of the Hands of Satan.
Ellsworth, E. 1989. Why Doesn’t This Feel Empower- New York: Routledge.
ing? Harvard Educational Review 59: 297–324. Smith, M., J. O’Day, and D. Cohen. 1990. National
Gould, S. J. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Curriculum, American Style: What Might It
Norton. Look Like. American Educator 14: 10–17,
Green, A. 1991. The Peculiarities of English Edu- 40–47.
cation. In Education Limited, ed. Education Group Tuana, N., ed. 1989. Feminism and Science. Bloom-
II, 6–30. London: Unwin Hyman. ington: Indiana University Press.
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions. New York: Whitty, G. 1991. Recent Education Reform: Is It
Routledge. a Postmodern Phenomenon? Paper presented at
Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science, Whose Knowledge? the conference on Reproduction, Social Inequal-
Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ity, and Resistance, University of Bielefeld,
Harding, S., and J. Barr, eds. 1987. Sex and Scientific Germany.
Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ——. 1992. Education, Economy, and National
Hirsch, E. O. Jr. 1987. Cultural Literacy. New York: Culture. Milton Keynes, England: Open University
Vintage. Press.
Honderich, T. 1990. Conservatism. Boulder, CO: Williams, R. 1989. Resources of Hope. New York: Verso.
Westview Press.
The Silenced Dialogue

Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children
Lisa D. Delpit
A black male graduate student who is also a they really don’t listen or if they just don’t believe
special education teacher in a predominantly you. It seems like if you can’t quote Vygotsky or
black community is talking about his experiences something, then you don’t have any validity to
in predominantly white university classes: speak about your own kids. Anyway, I’m not
bothering with it anymore, now I’m just in it for
There comes a moment in every class where we a grade.
have to discuss “The Black Issue” and what’s
appropriate education for black children. I tell A black woman teacher in a multicultural
you, I’m tired of arguing with those white people, urban elementary school is talking about her
because they won’t listen. Well, I don’t know if experiences in discussions with her predomi-
nantly white fellow teachers about how they If you try to suggest that’s not quite the way it is,
should organize reading instruction to best serve they get defensive, then you get defensive, then
students of color: they’ll start reciting research.
I try to give them my experiences, to explain.
When you’re talking to white people they still They just look and nod. The more I try to explain,
want it to be their way. You can try to talk to them they just look and nod, just keep looking and
and give them examples, but they’re so nodding. They don’t really hear me.
headstrong, they think they know what’s best for Then, when it’s time for class to be over, the
everybody, for everybody’s children. They won’t professor tells me to come to his office to talk
listen; white folks are going to do what they want more. So I go. He asks for more examples of what
to do anyway. I’m talking about, and he looks and nods while
It’s really hard. They just don’t listen well. I give them. Then he says that that’s just my
No, they listen, but they don’t hear—you know experience. It doesn’t really apply to most black
how your mama used to say you listen to the radio, people.
but you hear your mother? Well they don’t hear It becomes futile because they think they
me. know everything about everybody. What you
So I just try to shut them out so I can hold my have to say about your life, your children, doesn’t
temper. You can only beat your head against a mean anything. They don’t really want to hear
brick wall for so long before you draw blood. If I what you have to say. They wear blinders and
try to stop arguing with them I can’t help myself earplugs. They only want to go on research
from getting angry. Then I end up walking around they’ve read that other white people have written.
praying all day “Please Lord, remove the bile I feel It just doesn’t make any sense to keep talking
for these people so I can sleep tonight.” It’s funny, to them.
but it can become a cancer, a sore.
So, I shut them out. I go back to my own little Thus was the first half of the title of this text
cubby, my classroom, and I try to teach the way born: “The Silenced Dialogue.” One of the
I know will work, no matter what those folk say. tragedies in this field of education is that
And when I get black kids, I just try to undo the scenarios such as these are enacted daily around
damage they did. the country. The saddest element is that the
I’m not going to let any man, woman, or child individuals that the black and Native Alaskan
drive me crazy—white folks will try to do that to educators speak of in these statements are
you if you let them. You just have to stop talking seldom aware that the dialogue has been silenced.
to them, that’s what I do. I just keep smiling, but Most likely the white educators believe that their
I won’t talk to them. colleagues of color did, in the end, agree with
their logic. After all, they stopped disagreeing,
A soft-spoken Native Alaskan woman in her didn’t they?
forties is a student in the Education Department I have collected these statements since
of the University of Alaska. One day she completing a recently published article, a some-
storms into a black professor’s office and very what autobiographical account entitled “Skills
uncharacteristically slams the door. She plops and Other Dilemmas of a Progressive Black
down in a chair and, still fuming, says, “Please tell Educator,” in which I discuss my perspective as
those people, just don’t help us anymore! I give a product of a skills-oriented approach to writing
up. I won’t talk to them again!” and as a teacher of process-oriented approaches.1
And finally, a black woman principal who is I described the estrangement that I and many
also a doctoral student at a well-known uni- teachers of color feel from the progressive
versity on the West Coast is talking about her movement when writing process advocates
university experiences, particularly about when dismiss us as too “skills oriented.” I ended the
a professor lectures on issues concerning article suggesting that it was incumbent upon
educating black children: writing process advocates, or indeed, advocates
of any progressive movement, to enter into 3. The rules of the culture of power are a
dialogue with teachers of color, who may not reflection of the rules of the culture of those
share their enthusiasm about so-called new, who have power.
liberal, or progressive ideas. 4. If you are not already a participant in the
In response to this article, which presented culture of power, being told explicitly the
no research data and did not even cite a refer- rules of that culture makes acquiring power
ence, I received numerous calls and letters from easier.
teachers, professors, and even state school 5. Those with power are frequently least aware
personnel from around the country, both black of—or least willing to acknowledge—its
and white. All of the white respondents, except existence. Those with less power are often
one, have wished to talk more about the question most aware of its existence.
of skills versus process approaches—to support or
reject what they perceive to be my position. On The first three are by now basic tenets in the
the other hand, all of the nonwhite respondents literature of the sociology of education, but
have spoken passionately on being left out of the the last two have seldom been addressed. The
dialogue about how best to educate children of following discussion will explicate these aspects
color. of power and their relevance to the schism
How can such complete communication between liberal educational movements and that
blocks exist when both parties truly believe they of non-white, non-middle-class teachers and
have the same aims? How can the bitterness and communities.2
resentment expressed by the educators of color
be drained so that the sores can heal? What can 1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms.
be done? These issues include: the power of the
I believe the answer to these questions lies in teacher over the students; the power of
ethnographic analysis, that is, in identifying and the publishers of textbooks and of the
giving voice to alternative worldviews. Thus, developers of the curriculum to determine
I will attempt to address the concerns raised the view of the world presented; the power
by white and black respondents to my article of the state in enforcing compulsory school-
“Skills and Other Dilemmas.” My charge here ing; and the power of an individual or group
is not to determine the best instructional to determine another’s intelligence or
methodology; I believe that the actual prac- “normalcy.” Finally, if schooling prepares
tice of good teachers of all colors typically people for jobs, and the kind of job a person
incorporates a range of pedagogical orientations. has determines her or his economic status
Rather, I suggest that the differing perspec- and, therefore, power, then schooling is
tives on the debate over “skills” versus “process” immediately related to that power.
approaches can lead to an understanding of the 2. There are codes or rules for participating in
alienation and miscommunication, and thereby power; that is, there is a “culture of power.”
to an understanding of the “silenced dialogue.” The codes or rules I’m speaking of relate to
In thinking through these issues, I have found linguistic forms, communicative strategies,
what I believe to be a connecting and com- and presentation of self; that is, ways of
plex theme: what I have come to call “the talking, ways of writing, ways of dressing,
culture of power.” There are five aspects of power and ways of interacting.
I would like to propose as given for this 3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection
presentation: of the rules of the culture of those who have
power. This means that success in institu-
1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms. tions—schools, workplaces, and so on—is
2. There are codes or rules for participating predicated upon acquisition of the culture of
in power; that is, there is a “culture of those who are in power. Children from
power.” middle-class homes tend to do better in
school than those from nonmiddle-class power is distinctly uncomfortable. On the

homes because the culture of the school is other hand, those who are less powerful in
based on the culture of the upper and middle any situation are most likely to recognize the
classes—of those in power. The upper and power variable most acutely. My guess is that
middle classes send their children to school the white colleagues and instructors of those
with all the accoutrements of the culture of previously quoted did not perceive them-
power; children from other kinds of families selves to have power over the nonwhite
operate within perfectly wonderful and speakers. However, either by virtue of their
viable cultures but not cultures that carry position, their numbers, or their access to
the codes or rules of power. that particular code of power of calling upon
4. If you are not already a participant in the culture research to validate one’s position, the white
of power, being told explicitly the rules of that educators had the authority to establish what
culture makes acquiring power easier. In my was to be considered “truth” regardless of the
work within and between diverse cultures, opinions of the people of color, and the latter
I have come to conclude that members of were well aware of that fact.
any culture transmit information implicitly A related phenomenon is that liberals
to co-members. However, when implicit (and here I am using the term “liberal”
codes are attempted across cultures, commu- to refer to those whose beliefs include
nication frequently breaks down. Each striving for a society based upon maximum
cultural group is left saying, “Why don’t individual freedom and autonomy) seem to
those people say what they mean?” as well act under the assumption that to make any
as, “What’s wrong with them, why don’t rules or expectations explicit is to act
they understand?” against liberal principles, to limit the
freedom and autonomy of those subjected to
Anyone who has had to enter new cultures, the explicitness.
especially to accomplish a specific task, will know
of what I speak. When I lived in several Papua I thank Fred Erickson for a comment that led
New Guinea villages for extended periods to me to look again at a tape by John Gumperz
collect data, and when I go to Alaskan villages on cultural dissonance in cross-cultural inter-
for work with Native Alaskan communities, I actions.3 One of the episodes showed an East
have found it unquestionably easier, psycholog- Indian interviewing for a job with an all-white
ically and pragmatically, when some kind soul committee. The interview was a complete
has directly informed me about such matters as failure, even though several of the interview-
appropriate dress, interactional styles, embedded ers appeared to really want to help the applicant.
meanings, and taboo words or actions. I contend As the interview rolled steadily downhill,
that it is much the same for anyone seeking to these “helpers” became more and more indirect
learn the rules of the culture of power. Unless one in their questioning, which exacerbated the
has the leisure of a lifetime of “immersion” to problems the applicant had in performing
learn them, explicit presentation makes learning appropriately. Operating from a different cul-
immeasurably easier. tural perspective, he got fewer and fewer clear
And now, to the fifth and last premise: clues as to what was expected of him, which
ultimately resulted in his failure to secure the
5. Those with power are frequently least aware position.
of—or least willing to acknowledge—its exist- I contend that as the applicant showed less
ence. Those with less power are often most and less aptitude for handling the interview, the
aware of its existence. For many who consider power differential became ever more evident to
themselves members of liberal or radical the interviewers. The “helpful” interviewers,
camps, acknowledging personal power and unwilling to acknowledge themselves as having
admitting participation in the culture of power over the applicant, became more and more
uncomfortable. Their indirectness was an To explore those differences, I would like

attempt to lessen the power differential and their to present several statements typical of those
discomfort by lessening the power-revealing made with the best of intentions by middle-class
explicitness of their questions and comments. liberal educators. To the surprise of the speakers,
When acknowledging and expressing power, it is not unusual for such content to be met by
one tends towards explicitness (as in yelling at vocal opposition or stony silence from people
your ten-year-old, “Turn that radio down!”). of color. My attempt here is to examine the
When deemphasizing power, there is a move underlying assumptions of both camps.
toward indirect communication. Therefore,
in the interview setting, those who sought to “I want the same thing for everyone else’s
help, to express their egalitarianism with the children as I want for mine.”
East Indian applicant, became more and more To provide schooling for everyone’s chil-
indirect—and less and less helpful—in their dren that reflects liberal, middle-class values
questions and comments. and aspirations is to ensure the maintenance of
In literacy instruction, explicitness might be the status quo, to ensure that power, the culture
equated with direct instruction. Perhaps the of power, remains in the hands of those who
ultimate expression of explicitness and direct already have it. Some children come to school
instruction in the primary classroom is Distar. with more accoutrements of the culture of
This reading program is based on a behaviorist power already in place—“cultural capital,” as
model in which reading is taught through the some critical theorists refer to it4—some with
direct instruction of phonics generalizations less. Many liberal educators hold that the primary
and blending. The teacher’s role is to maintain goal for education is for children to become
the full attention of the group by continuous autonomous, to develop fully who they are in the
questioning, eye contact, finger snaps, hand classroom setting without having arbitrary, out-
claps, and other gestures, and by eliciting choral side standards forced upon them. This is a very
responses and initiating some sort of award reasonable goal for people whose children are
system. already participants in the culture of power and
When the program was introduced, it arrived who have already internalized its codes.
with a flurry of research data that “proved” that But parents who don’t function within
all children—even those who were “culturally that culture often want something else. It’s
deprived”—could learn to read using this not that they disagree with the former aim, it’s
method. Soon there was a strong response, first just that they want something more. They want
from academics and later from many classroom to ensure that the school provides their children
teachers, stating that the program was terrible. with discourse patterns, interactional styles,
What I find particularly interesting, however, is and spoken and written language codes that will
that the primary issue of the conflict over Distar allow them success in the larger society.
has not been over its instructional efficacy— It was the lack of attention to this con-
usually the students did learn to read—but the cern that created such a negative outcry in the
expression of explicit power in the classroom. black community when well-intentioned white
The liberal educators opposed the methods—the liberal educators introduced “dialect readers.”
direct instruction, the explicit control exhibited These were seen as a plot to prevent the schools
by the teacher. As a matter of fact, it was not from teaching the linguistic aspects of the culture
unusual (even now) to hear of the program of power, thus dooming black children to a perm-
spoken of as “fascist.” anent outsider caste. As one parent demanded,
I am not an advocate of Distar, but I will “My kids know how to be black—you all teach
return to some of the issues that the program, and them how to be successful in the white man’s
direct instruction in general, raises in underworld.”
standing the differences between progressive Several black teachers have said to me
white educators and educators of color. recently that as much as they’d like to believe
otherwise, they cannot help but conclude that progressive system was ideal for some children,
many of the “progressive” educational strategies for others it was a disaster.
imposed by liberals upon black and poor chil- I do not advocate a simplistic “basic skills”
dren could only be based on a desire to ensure approach for children outside of the culture of
that the liberals’ children get sole access to power. It would be (and has been) tragic to oper-
the dwindling pool of American jobs. Some ate as if these children were incapable of critical
have added that the liberal educators believe and higher-order thinking and reasoning.
themselves to be operating with good intentions, Rather, I suggest that schools must provide these
but that these good intentions are only consci- children the content that other families from a
ous delusions about their unconscious true different cultural orientation provide at home.
motives. One of the black anthropologist John This does not mean separating children accord-
Gwaltney’s informants in Drylongso reflects this ing to family background, but instead, ensuring
perspective with her tongue-in-cheek observa- that each classroom incorporate strategies
tion that the biggest difference between black appropriate for all the children in its confines.
folks and white folks is that black folks know And I do not advocate that it is the school’s
when they’re lying! job to attempt to change the homes of poor and
Let me try to clarify how this might work in nonwhite children to match the homes of those
literacy instruction. A few years ago I worked on in the culture of power. That may indeed be a
an analysis of two popular reading programs, form of cultural genocide. I have frequently heard
Distar and a progressive program that focused schools call poor parents “uncaring” when
on higher-level critical thinking skills. In one of parents respond to the school’s urging, saying,
the first lessons of the progressive program, the “But that’s the school’s job.” What the school
children are introduced to the names of the personnel fail to understand is that if the parents
letters m and e. In the same lesson they are then were members of the culture of power and lived
taught the sound made by each of the letters, by its rules and codes, then they would transmit
how to write each of the letters, and that when those codes to their children. In fact, they
the two are blended together they produce the transmit another culture that children must learn
word me. at home in order to survive in their communities.
As an experienced first-grade teacher, I am
convinced that a child needs to be familiar “Child-centered, whole language, and process
with a significant number of these concepts to be approaches are, needed in order to allow a democratic
able to assimilate so much new knowledge in one state of free, autonomous, empowered adults, and
sitting. By contrast, Distar presents the same because research has shown that children learn
information in about forty lessons. best through these methods.”
I would not argue for the pace of Distar People of color are, in general, skeptical of
lessons—such a slow pace would only bore most research as a determiner of our fates. Academic
kids—but what happened in the other lesson is research has, after all, found us genetically
that it merely provided an opportunity for those inferior, culturally deprived, and verbally defici-
who already knew the content to exhibit that ent. But beyond that general caveat, and despite
they knew it, or at most perhaps to build one new my or others’ personal preferences, there is little
concept onto what was already known. This research data supporting the major tenets of
meant that the child who did not come to school process approaches over other forms of literacy
already primed with what was to be presented instruction, and virtually no evidence that such
would be labeled as needing “remedial” instruc- approaches are more efficacious for children of
tion from day one; indeed, this determination color.5
would be made before he or she was ever taught. Although the problem is not necessarily
In fact, Distar was “successful” because it actually inherent in the method, in some instances ad-
taught new information to children who had not herents of process approaches to writing create
already acquired it at home. Although the more situations in which students ultimately find
themselves held accountable for knowing a set This sense of being cheated can be so strong
of rules about which no one has ever directly that the student may be completely turned off to
informed them. Teachers do students no service the educational system. Amanda Branscombe,
to suggest, even implicitly, that “product” is not an accomplished white teacher, recently wrote
important. In this country, students will be a letter discussing her work with working-class
judged on their product regardless of the process black and white students at a community college
they utilized to achieve it. And that product, in Alabama. She had given these students my
based as it is on the specific codes of a particular “Skills and Other Dilemmas” article to read
culture, is more readily produced when the and discuss, and wrote that her students really
directives of how to produce it are made explicit. understood and identified with what I was
If such explicitness is not provided to saying. To quote her letter:
students, what it feels like to people who are old
enough to judge is that there are secrets being One young man said that he had dropped out
kept, that time is being wasted, that the teacher of high school because he failed the exit exam.
is abdicating his or her duty to teach. A doctoral He noted that he had then passed the GED
student of my acquaintance was assigned to without a problem after three weeks of prep. He
a writing class to hone his writing skills. The said that his high school English teacher claimed
student was placed in the section led by a white to use a process approach, but what she really
professor who utilized a process approach, did was hide behind fancy words to give herself
consisting primarily of having the students write permission to do nothing in the classroom.
essays and then assemble into groups to edit
each other’s papers. That procedure infuriated The students I have spoken of seem to be
this particular student. He had many angry saying that the teacher has denied them access
encounters with the teacher about what she was to herself as the source of knowledge necessary
doing. In his words: to learn the forms they need to succeed. Again,
I tentatively attribute the problem to teachers’
I didn’t feel she was teaching us anything. She resistance to exhibiting power in the classroom.
wanted us to correct each other’s papers and we Somehow, to exhibit one’s personal power as
were there to learn from her. She didn’t teach expert source is viewed as disempowering one’s
anything, absolutely nothing. students.
Maybe they’re trying to learn what black Two qualifiers are necessary, however. The
folks knew all the time. We understand how to teacher cannot be the only expert in the
improvise, how to express ourselves coercively. classroom. To deny students their own expert
When I’m in a classroom, I’m not looking for knowledge is to disempower them. Amanda
that, I’m looking for structure, the more formal Branscombe, when she was working with black
language. high school students classified as “slow learners,”
Now my buddy was in [a] black teacher’s had the students analyze rap songs to discover
class. And that lady was very good. She went their underlying patterns. The students became
through and explained and defined each part of the experts in explaining to the teacher the rules
the structure. This [white] teacher didn’t get for creating a new rap song. The teacher then
along with that black teacher. She said that she used the patterns the students identified as a
didn’t agree with her methods. But I don’t think base to begin an explanation of the structure
that white teacher had any methods. of grammar, and then of Shakespeare’s plays.
Both student and teacher are expert at what they
When I told this gentleman that what the know best.
teacher was doing was called a process method The second qualifier is that merely adopting
of teaching writing, his response was, “Well, at direct instruction is not the answer. Actual
least now I know that she thought she was doing writing for real audiences and real purposes is a
something. I thought she was just a fool who vital element in helping students to understand
couldn’t teach and didn’t want to try.” that they have an important voice in their own
learning processes. E. V. Siddle examines the children. Snow and others, for example, report
results of various kinds of interventions in a that working-class mothers use more directives
primarily process-oriented writing class for black to their children than do middle- and upper-class
students.6 Based on readers’ blind assessments, parents.8 Middle-class parents are likely to give
she found that the intervention that produced the directive to a child to take his bath as, “Isn’t
the most positive changes in the students’ it time for your bath?” Even though the utterance
writing was a “mini-lesson” consisting of direct is couched as a question, both child and adult
instruction about some standard writing conven- understand it as a directive. The child may
tion. But what produced the second highest respond with “Aw, Mom, can’t I wait until . . . ,”
number of positive changes was a subsequent but whether or not negotiation is attempted,
student-centered conference with the teacher. both conversants understand the intent of the
(Peer conferencing in this group of black utterance.
students who were not members of the culture of By contrast, a black mother, in whose house
power produced the least number of changes I was recently a guest, said to her eight-year-old
in students’ writing. However, the classroom son, “Boy, get your rusty behind in that bathtub.”
teacher maintained—and I concur—that such Now, I happen to know that this woman loves
activities are necessary to introduce the elements her son as much as any mother, but she would
of “real audience” into the task, along with more never have posed the directive to her son to
teacher-directed strategies.) take a bath in the form of a question. Were
she to ask, “Would you like to take your bath
“It’s really a shame but she (that black teacher now?” she would not have been issuing a
upstairs) seems to be so authoritarian, so focused directive but offering a true alternative. Conse-
on skills and so teacher directed. Those poor kids quently, as Heath suggests, upon entering school
never seem to be allowed to really express their the child from such a family may not understand
creativity. (And she even yells at them.)” the indirect statement of the teacher as a direct
This statement directly concerns the display command. Both white and black working-class
of power and authority in the classroom. One children in the communities Heath studied “had
way to understand the difference in perspective difficulty interpreting these indirect requests for
between black teachers and their progressive adherence to an unstated set of rules.”9
colleagues on this issue is to explore culturally But those veiled commands are commands
influenced oral interactions. nonetheless, representing true power, and with
In Ways with Words, Shirley Brice Heath true consequences for disobedience. If veiled
quotes the verbal directives given by the middle- commands are ignored, the child will be labeled
class “townspeople” teachers:7 a behavior problem and possibly officially
classified as behavior disordered. In other words,
• “Is this where the scissors belong?” the attempt by the teacher to reduce an exhib-
• “You want to do your best work today.” ition of power by expressing herself in indirect
terms may remove the very explicitness that the
By contrast, many black teachers are more child needs to understand the rules of the new
likely to say: classroom culture.
A black elementary school principal in
• “Put those scissors on that shelf.” Fairbanks, Alaska, reported to me that she has a
• “Put your name on the papers and make sure lot of difficulty with black children who are
to get the right answer for each question.” placed in some white teachers’ classrooms. The
teachers often send the children to the office
Is one oral style more authoritarian than for disobeying teacher directives. Their parents
another? are frequently called in for conferences. The
Other researchers have identified differences parents’ response to the teacher is usually
in middle-class and working-class speech to the same. “They do what I say; if you just tell them
what to do, they’ll do it. I tell them at home that questions/commands as “Would you like to sit
they have to listen to what you say.” And so, does down now?” If the children in her class under-
not the power still exist? Its veiled nature only stand authority as she does, it is mutually agreed
makes it more difficult for some children to upon that they are to obey her no matter how
respond appropriately, but that in no way indirect, soft-spoken, or unassuming she may be.
mitigates its existence. Her indirectness and soft-spokenness may indeed
I don’t mean to imply, however, that the only be, as I suggested earlier, an attempt to reduce the
time the black child disobeys the teacher is implication of overt power in order to establish
when he or she misunderstands the request a more egalitarian and nonauthoritarian class-
for certain behavior. There are other factors room atmosphere.
that may produce such behavior. Black children If the children operate under another notion
expect an authority figure to act with authority. of authority, however, then there is trouble. The
When the teacher instead acts as a “chum,” the black child may perceive the middle-class
message sent is that this adult has no authority, teacher as weak, ineffectual, and incapable of
and the children react accordingly. One reason taking on the role of being the teacher; therefore,
that is so, is that black people often view issues there is no need to follow her directives. In her
of power and authority differently than people dissertation, Michelle Foster quotes one young
from mainstream middle-class backgrounds.10 black man describing such a teacher:
Many people of color expect authority to be
earned by personal efforts and exhibited by She is boring, boring. She could do something
personal characteristics. In other words, “the creative. Instead she just stands there. She
authoritative person gets to be a teacher because can’t control the class, doesn’t know how to
she is authoritative.” Some members of middle- control the class. She asked me what she was
class cultures, by contrast, expect one to achieve doing wrong. I told her she just stands there like
authority by the acquisition of an authoritative she’s meditating. I told her she could be
role. That is, “the teacher is the authority meditating for all I know. She says that we’re
because she is the teacher.” supposed to know what to do. I told her I don’t
In the first instance, because authority is know nothin’ unless she tells me. She just can’t
earned, the teacher must consistently prove the control the class. I hope we don’t have her next
characteristics that give her authority. These semester.11
characteristics may vary across cultures, but in
the black community they tend to cluster around But of course the teacher may not view the
several abilities. The authoritative teacher can problem as residing in herself but in the student,
control the class through exhibition of personal and the child may once again become the
power; establishes meaningful interpersonal behavior-disordered black boy in special
relationships that garner student respect; exhibits education.
a strong belief that all students can learn; estab- What characteristics do black students
lishes a standard of achievement and “pushes” attribute to the good teacher? Again, Foster’s
the students to achieve that standard; and holds dissertation provides a quotation that supports
the attention of the students by incorporating my experience with black students. A young
interactional features of black communicative black man is discussing a former teacher with a
style in his or her teaching. group of friends:
By contrast, the teacher whose authority is
vested in the role has many more options of We had fun in her class, but she was mean. I can
behavior at her disposal. For instance, she does remember she used to say, “Tell me what’s in the
not need to express any sense of personal power story, Wayne.” She pushed, she used to get on me
because her authority does not come from any- and push me to know. She made us learn. We had
thing she herself does or says. Hence, the power to get in the books. There was this tall guy and
she actually holds may be veiled in such he tried to take her on, but she was in charge of
that class and she didn’t let anyone run her. I still I was amazed at the response. Some faculty
have this book we used in her class. It has a bunch implied that the student should never have been
of stories in it. I just read one on Coca-Cola again allowed into the teacher education program.
the other day.12 Others, some of the more progressive minded,
suggested that I was attempting to function as
To clarify, this student was proud of the gatekeeper by raising the issue, and had internal-
teacher’s “meanness,” an attribute he seemed to ized repressive and disempowering forces of the
describe as the ability to run the class and power elite to suggest that something was wrong
pushing and expecting students to learn. Now, with a Native American student just because
does the liberal perspective of the negatively she had another style of writing. With few
authoritarian black teacher really hold up? I exceptions, I found myself alone in arguing
suggest that although all “explicit” black teachers against both camps.
are not also good teachers, there are different No, this student should not have been denied
attitudes in different cultural groups about which entry to the program. To deny her entry under
characteristics make for a good teacher. Thus, it the notion of upholding standards is to blame
is impossible to create a model for the good the victim for the crime. We cannot justifiably
teacher without taking issues of culture and enlist exclusionary standards when the reason
community context into account. this student lacked the skills demanded was
And now to the final comment I present for poor teaching at best and institutionalized
examination: racism at worst.
However, to bring this student into the
“Children have the right to their own language, program and pass her through without attending
their own culture. We must fight cultural hegemony to obvious deficits in the codes needed for her to
and fight the system by insisting that children be function effectively as a teacher is equally
allowed to express themselves in their own language criminal—for though we may assuage our own
style. It is not they, the children, who must change, consciences for not participating in victim
but the schools. To push children to do anything else blaming, she will surely be accused and convicted
is repressive and reactionary.” as soon as she leaves the university. As Native
A statement such as this originally inspired Alaskans were quick to tell me, and as I under-
me to write the “Skills and Other Dilemmas” stood through my own experience in the black
article. It was first written as a letter to a colleague community, not only would she not be hired as
in response to a situation that had developed in a teacher, but those who did not hire her would
our department. I was teaching a senior-level make the (false) assumption that the university
teacher education course. Students were asked was putting out only incompetent Natives and
to prepare a written autobiographical docu- that they should stop looking seriously at any
ment for the class that would also be shared with Native applicants. A white applicant who
their placement school prior to their student exhibits problems is an individual with problems.
teaching. A person of color who exhibits problems
One student, a talented young Native Ameri- immediately becomes a representative of her
can woman, submitted a paper in which the ideas cultural group.
were lost because of technical problems—from No, either stance is criminal. The answer is to
spelling to sentence structure to paragraph accept students but also to take responsibility to
structure. Removing her name, I duplicated the teach them. I decided to talk to the student and
paper for a discussion with some faculty found out she had recognized that she needed
members. I had hoped to initiate a discussion some assistance in the technical aspects of writ-
about what we could do to ensure that our ing soon after she entered the university as a
students did not reach the senior level without freshman. She had gone to various members of
getting assistance in technical writing skills when the education faculty and received the same two
they needed them. kinds of responses I met with four years later:
faculty members told her either that she should But don’t think that I let the onus of change
not even attempt to be a teacher, or that it didn’t rest entirely with the students. I am also involved
matter and that she shouldn’t worry about such in political work both inside and outside of the
trivial issues. In her desperation, she had found educational system, and that political work
a helpful professor in the English Department, demands that I place myself to influence as many
but he left the university when she was in her gatekeeping points as possible. And it is there
sophomore year. that I agitate for change, pushing gatekeepers to
We sat down together, worked out a plan for open their doors to a variety of styles and codes.
attending to specific areas of writing competence, What I’m saying, however, is that I do not
and set up regular meetings. I stressed to her the believe that political change toward diversity can
need to use her own learning process as insight be effected from the bottom up, as do some of my
into how best to teach her future students colleagues. They seem to believe that if we
those “skills” that her own schooling had failed accept and encourage diversity within classrooms
to teach her. I gave her some explicit rules to of children, then diversity will automatically be
follow in some areas; for others, we devised vari- accepted at gatekeeping points.
ous kinds of journals that, along with readings I believe that will never happen. What will
about the structure of the language, allowed her happen is that the students who reach the
to find her own insights into how the language gatekeeping points—like Amanda Branscombe’s
worked. All that happened two years ago, and student who dropped out of high school because
the young woman is now successfully teaching. he failed his exit exam—will understand that
What the experience led me to understand is they have been lied to and will react accordingly.
that pretending that gatekeeping points don’t No, I am certain that if we are truly to effect
exist is to ensure that many students will not pass societal change, we cannot do so from the
through them. bottom up, but we must push and agitate from
Now you may have inferred that I believe that the top down. And in the meantime, we must
because there is a culture of power, everyone take the responsibility to teach, to provide for
should learn the codes to participate in it, and students who do not already possess them, the
that is how the world should be. Actually, additional codes of power.13
nothing could be further from the truth. I But I also do not believe that we should teach
believe in a diversity of style, and I believe the students to passively adopt an alternate code.
world will be diminished if cultural diversity is They must be encouraged to understand the
ever obliterated. Further, I believe strongly, as do value of the code they already possess as well as
my liberal colleagues, that each cultural group to understand the power realities in this country.
should have the right to maintain its own Otherwise they will be unable to work to change
language style. When I speak, therefore, of the these realities. And how does one do that?
culture of power, I don’t speak of how I wish Martha Demientieff, a masterful Native
things to be but of how they are. Alaskan teacher of Athabaskan Indian students,
I further believe that to act as if power does tells me that her students, who live in a small,
not exist is to ensure that the power status quo isolated, rural village of less than two hundred
remains the same. To imply to children or adults people, are not aware that there are different
(but of course the adults won’t believe you codes in English. She takes their writing and
anyway) that it doesn’t matter how you talk or analyzes it for features of what has been referred
how you write is to ensure their ultimate failure. to by Alaskan linguists as “Village English,” and
I prefer to be honest with my students. I tell them then covers half a bulletin board with words or
that their language and cultural style is unique phrases from the students’ writing, which she
and wonderful but that there is a political power labels “Our Heritage Language.” On the other
game that is also being played, and if they want half of the bulletin board she puts the equivalent
to be in on that game there are certain games that statements in “Standard English,” which she
they too must play. labels “Formal English.”
She and the students spend a long time on the They speak only Formal English at this meal.
“Heritage English” section, savoring the words, Then they prepare a picnic where only informal
discussing the nuances. She tells the students, English is allowed.
“That’s the way we say things. Doesn’t it feel She also contrasts the “wordy” academic way
good? Isn’t it the absolute best way of getting that of saying things with the metaphoric style of
idea across?” Then she turns to the other side of Athabaskan. The students discuss how book
the board. She tells the students that there are language always uses more words, but in Heritage
people, not like those in the village, who judge language, the shorter way of saying something is
others by the way they talk or write. always better. Students then write papers in the
academic way, discussing with Martha and with
We listen to the way people talk, not to judge each other whether they believe they’ve said
them, but to tell what part of the river they enough to sound like a book. Finally, students
come from. These other people are not like that. further reduce the message to a “saying” brief
They think everybody needs to talk like them. enough to go on the front of a T-shirt, and the
Unlike us, they have a hard time hearing what sayings are put on little paper T-shirts that the
people say if they don’t talk exactly like them. students cut out and hang throughout the room.
Their way of talking and writing is called Sometimes the students reduce other authors’
“Formal English.” wordy texts to their essential meanings as well.
We have to feel a little sorry for them The following transcript provides another
because they have only one way to talk. We’re example. It is from a conversation between a
going to learn two ways to say things. Isn’t that black teacher and a Southern black high school
better? One way will be our Heritage way. The student named Joey, who is a speaker of Black
other will be Formal English. Then, when we go English. The teacher believes it very important
to get jobs, we’ll be able to talk like those people to discuss openly and honestly the issues of
who only know and can only really listen to one language diversity and power. She has begun the
way. Maybe after we get the jobs we can help discussion by giving the student a children’s book
them to learn how it feels to have another written in Black English to read.
language, like ours, that feels so good. We’ll talk
TEACHER: What do you think about that book?
like them when we have to, but we’ll always
JOEY: I think it’s nice.
know our way is best.
TEACHER: Why?
Martha then does all sorts of activities with JOEY: I don’t know. It just told about a black
the notions of Formal and Heritage or informal family, that’s all.
English. She tells the students, TEACHER: Was it difficult to read?
JOEY: No.
In the village, everyone speaks informally most TEACHER: Was the text different from what you
of the time unless there’s a potlatch or something. have seen in other books?
You don’t think about it, you don’t worry about JOEY: Yeah. The writing was.
following any rules—it’s sort of like how you eat TEACHER: How?
food at a picnic—nobody pays attention to JOEY: It uses more of a southern-like accent in
whether you use your fingers or a fork, and it feels this book.
so good. Now, Formal English is more like a TEACHER: Uhm-hmm. Do you think that’s
formal dinner. There are rules to follow about good or bad?
where the knife and fork belong, about where JOEY: Well, uh, I don’t think it’s good for people
people sit, about how you eat. That can be really down this-a-way, cause that’s the way they
nice, too, because it’s nice to dress up sometimes. grow up talking anyway. They ought to get
the right way to talk.
The students then prepare a formal dinner in TEACHER: Oh. So you think it’s wrong to talk
the class, for which they dress up and set a big like that?
table with fancy tablecloths, china, silverware. JOEY: Well . . . {Laughs}
TEACHER: Hard question, huh? how politically charged they are. They compare
JOEY: Uhm-hmm, that’s a hard question. But I various pieces written in different styles, discuss
think they shouldn’t make books like that. the impact of different styles on the message
TEACHER: Why? by making translations and back translations
JOEY: Because they are not using the right way across styles, and discuss the history, apparent
to talk and in school they take off for that, and purpose, and contextual appropriateness of
li’l chirren grow up talking like that and each of the technical writing rules presented by
reading like that so they might think that’s their teacher. And they practice writing different
right, and all the time they getting bad grades forms to different audiences based on rules appro-
in school, talking like that and writing like priate for each audience. Such a program not
that. only “teaches” standard linguistic forms, but also
TEACHER: Do you think they should be getting explores aspects of power as exhibited through
bad grades for talking like that? linguistic forms.
JOEY: {Pauses, answers very slowly} No . . . no. Tony Burgess, in a study of secondary writing
TEACHER: So you don’t think that it matters in England by Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod,
whether you talk one way or another? and Rosen, suggests that we should not teach
JOEY: No, not long as you understood. “iron conventions . . . imposed without rationale
TEACHER: Uhm-hmm. Well, that’s a hard or grounding in communicative intent,” but
question for me to answer, too. It’s, ah, that’s “critical and ultimately cultural awareness.”14
a question that’s come up in a lot of schools Courtney Cazden calls for a two-pronged
now as to whether they should correct approach:
children who speak the way we speak all the
time. Cause when we’re talking to each other 1. Continuous opportunities for writers to
we talk like that even though we might not participate in some authentic bit of the unending
talk like than when we get into other conversation . . . thereby becoming part of a vital
situations, and who’s to say whether it’s— community of talkers and writers in a particular
JOEY: {Interrupting} Right or wrong. domain, and
TEACHER: Yeah. 2. Periodic, temporary focus on conventions
JOEY: Maybe they ought to come up with of form, taught as cultural conventions expected
another kind of . . . maybe Black English or in a particular community.15
something. A course in Black English. Maybe
Black folks would be good in that cause people Just so that there is no confusion about what
talk, I mean black people talk like that, so Cazden means by a focus on conventions of
. . . but I guess there’s a right way and wrong form, or about what I mean by “skills,” let me
way to talk, you know, not regarding what stress that neither of us is speaking of page after
race. I don’t know. page of “skill sheets” creating compound words
TEACHER: But who decided what’s right or or identifying nouns and adverbs, but rather
wrong? about helping students gain a useful knowledge
JOEY: Well that’s true . . . I guess white people of the conventions of print while engaging in real
did. {Laughter. End of tape.} and useful communicative activities. Kay Rowe
Grubis, a junior high school teacher in a multi-
Notice how throughout the conversation cultural school, makes lists of certain technical
Joey’s consciousness has been raised by thinking rules for her eighth graders’ review and then gives
about codes of language. This teacher further them papers from a third grade to “correct.” The
advocates having students interview various per- students not only have to correct other students’
sonnel officers in actual workplaces about their work, but also tell them why they have changed
attitudes toward divergent styles in oral and or questioned aspects of the writing.
written language. Students begin to understand A village teacher, Howard Cloud, teaches his
how arbitrary language standards are, but also high school students the conventions of formal
letter writing and the formulation of careful really an illusion created initially not by teachers
questions in the context of issues surrounding the but by academics whose worldview demands
amendment of the Alaska Land Claims Settle- the creation of categorical divisions—not for
ment Act. Native Alaskan leaders hold differing the purpose of better teaching, but for the goal
views on this issue, critical to the future of local of easier analysis. As I have been reminded
sovereignty and land rights. The students by many teachers since the publication of my
compose letters to leaders who reside in different article, those who are most skillful at educating
areas of the state seeking their perspectives, set black and poor children do not allow themselves
up audioconference calls for interview/debate to be placed in “skills” or “process” boxes. They
sessions, and, finally, develop a videotape to understand the need for both approaches, the
present the differing views. need to help students establish their own voices,
To summarize, I suggest that students must and to coach those voices to produce notes that
be taught the codes needed to participate fully in will be heard clearly in the larger society.
the mainstream of American life, not by being The dilemma is not really in the debate
forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextual- over instructional methodology, but rather in
ized subskills, but rather within the context of communicating across cultures and in addressing
meaningful communicative endeavors; that they the more fundamental issue of power, of whose
must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s voice gets to be heard in determining what is
expert knowledge, while being helped to best for poor children and children of color.
acknowledge their own “expertness” as well; Will black teachers and parents continue to be
and that even while students are assisted in silenced by the very forces that claim to “give
learning the culture of power, they must also be voice” to our children? Such an outcome would
helped to learn about the arbitrariness of those be tragic, for both groups truly have something
codes and about the power relationships they to say to one another. As a result of careful
represent. listening to alternative points of view, I have
I am also suggesting that appropriate educa- myself come to a viable synthesis of perspectives.
tion for poor children and children of color can But both sides do need to be able to listen, and
only be devised in consultation with adults who I contend that it is those with the most power,
share their culture. Black parents, teachers of those in the majority, who must take the greater
color, and members of poor communities must be responsibility for initiating the process.
allowed to participate fully in the discussion of To do so takes a very special kind of listening,
what kind of instruction is in their children’s best listening that requires not only open eyes and
interest. Good liberal intentions are not enough. ears, but open hearts and minds. We do not really
In an insightful 1975 study entitled “Racism see through our eyes or hear through our ears, but
without Racists: Institutional Racism in Urban through our beliefs. To put our beliefs on hold is
Schools,” Massey, Scott, and Dornbusch found to cease to exist as ourselves for a moment—and
that under the pressures of teaching, and with all that is not easy. It is painful as well, because it
intentions of “being nice,” teachers had means turning yourself inside out, giving up your
essentially stopped attempting to reach black own sense of who you are, and being willing to
children.16 In their words: “We have shown that see yourself in the unflattering light of another’s
oppression can arise out of warmth, friendliness, angry gaze. It is not easy, but it is the only way
and concern. Paternalism and a lack of to learn what it might feel like to be someone else
challenging standards are creating a distorted and the only way to start the dialogue.
system of evaluation in the schools.” Educators There are several guidelines. We must keep
must open themselves to, and allow themselves the perspective that people are experts on their
to be affected by, these alternative voices. own lives. There are certainly aspects of the
In conclusion, I am proposing a resolution outside world of which they may not be aware,
for the skills/process debate. In short, the debate but they can be the only authentic chroniclers
is fallacious; the dichotomy is false. The issue is of their own experience. We must not be too
quick to deny their interpretations, or accuse there are other non-white people, as well as poor
them of “false consciousness.” We must believe white people, who have indicated to me that their
perspectives are similar to those attributed herein
that people are rational beings, and therefore
to black people.)
always act rationally. We may not understand 3. Multicultural Britain: “Crosstalk,” National Centre
their rationales, but that in no way militates of Industrial Language Training, Commission
against the existence of these rationales or for Racial Equality, London, England, John
reduces our responsibility to attempt to appre- Twitchin, producer.
4. See, for example, M. W. Apple, Ideology and
hend them. And finally, we must learn to be
Curriculum (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
vulnerable enough to allow our world to turn 1979).
upside down in order to allow the realities of 5. See E. V. Siddle, “A Critical Assessment of the
others to edge themselves into our consciousness. Natural Process Approach to Teaching Writing,”
In other words, we must become ethnographers unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard University,
1986.
in the true sense.
6. See E. V. Siddle, “The Effect of Intervention
Teachers are in an ideal position to play this Strategies on the Revisions Ninth Graders
role, to attempt to get all of the issues on the table Make in a Narrative Essay,” unpublished doctoral
in order to initiate true dialogue. This can only dissertation, Harvard University, 1988.
be done, however, by seeking out those whose 7. Shirley Brice Heath, Ways with Words (Cam-
bridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1983),
perspectives may differ most, by learning to
p. 280.
give their words complete attention, by under- 8. C.E. Snow, A. Arlman-Rup, Y. Hassing, J. Josbe,
standing one’s own power, even if that power J. Joosten, and J. Vorster, “Mother’s Speech in
stems merely from being in the majority, by being Three Social Classes,” Journal of Psycholinguistic
unafraid to raise questions about discrimination Research 5(1976), pp. 1–20.
9. Heath, Ways with Words, p. 280.
and voicelessness with people of color, and to
10. I would like to thank Michelle Foster, who is
listen, no, to hear what they say. I suggest that the presently planning a more in-depth treatment
results of such interactions may be the most of the subject, for her astute clarification of the
powerful and empowering coalescence yet seen idea.
in the educational realm—for all teachers and for 11. Michelle Foster, “‘It’s Cookin Now’: An Ethno-
graphic Study of the Teaching Style of a
all the students they teach.
Successful Black Teacher in a White Community
College,” unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Harvard University, 1987, pp. 67–68.
Notes 12. Ibid., p. 68.
1. See chapter 1 of this [original] volume, “Skills and 13. B. Bernstein makes a similar point when he pro-
Other Dilemmas of a Progressive Black Educator.” poses that different educational frames cannot be
2. Such a discussion, limited as it is by space con- successfully institutionalized in the lower levels of
straints, must treat the intersection of class and education until there are fundamental changes at
race somewhat simplistically. For the sake of the postsecondary levels (see “Class and Pedago-
clarity, however, let me define a few terms: “black” gies: Visible and Invisible,” in B. Bernstein, Class,
is used herein to refer to those who share some or Codes, and Control, vol. 3 [Boston: Routledge and
all aspects of “core black culture” (see John Kegan Paul, 1975]).
Gwaltney, Drylongso, New York: The New Press, 14. I. Britton, T. Burgess, N. Martin, A. McLeod, and
1993), that is, the mainstream of black America— H. Rosen, The Development of Writing Abilities
neither those who have entered the ranks of the (London: Macmillan Education for the Schools
bourgeoisie nor those who are participants in the Council, and Urbana, Ill.: National Council of
disenfranchised underworld. “Middle-class” is Teachers of English, 1975/1977), p. 54.
used broadly to refer to the predominantly white 15. Ibid., p. 20.
American “mainstream.” There are, of course, 16. G.C. Massey, M.V. Scott, and S.M. Dornbusch,
nonwhite people who also fit into this category; “Racism without Racists: Institutional Racism
at issue is their cultural identification, not in Urban Schools,” The Black Scholar 73 (1975),
necessarily the color of their skin. (I must add that pp. 2–11.
8 Equality of Opportunity
and Educational Outcomes
The evolution of the U.S. education system is a story that is profoundly moving because it is a
narrative of struggle. From the founding of the Republic, there has been a deep belief on the part
of the American people in equality of opportunity. Echoing throughout the Declaration of Inde-
pendence and the Constitution of the United States are the voices of people who demand to be
treated with respect, dignity, and equality. From its inception, public education has been conceived
of as a social vehicle for minimizing the importance of class and wealth as a determinant of who
shall get ahead. Before the word meritocracy was invented, Americans believed that hard work,
thrift, and a little bit of luck should determine who receives the economic and social benefits that
the society has to offer. To some degree, education has helped to make this dream come true.
Yet, there is an underside to this story. The United States has only been partially successful in
developing an educational system that is truly meritocratic and just.
In this chapter, we examine this belief in equal opportunity in the context of the social realities
of life in the United States. We ask fundamental questions: To what degree do schools mitigate the
significance of such ascriptive characteristics as class, race, gender, and sexuality in determining who
shall receive the benefits of education? Do differences between schools make a difference in who
gets ahead? What is the relationship between education and economic outcomes? And last, is it
reasonable to characterize the U.S. educational system as meritocratic, or does the educational system
simply reproduce existing social and economic inequalities?
In 1842, Horace Mann said, “Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is
the great equalizer of the conditions of men—the balance wheel of the social machinery” (Walker,
Kozma, & Green, 1989, p. 133). In the twenty-first century, can one say with certainty that
Horace Mann’s dream has become a reality? The answer to this question requires empirical
investigation. To determine the relationship between education and equality is a complex
intellectual task. Interpreting these facts is also complex. Perhaps you remember from Chapter 2
our discussion of the four fundamental points of view: conservative, neo-liberal, liberal, and radical.
Nowhere are the differences between these three groups more clearly drawn than in their rivaling
interpretations of the empirical facts concerning the degree of equality in the United States. There
is, so to speak, a set of calculations that could be called life arithmetic. But there is also a set of
interpretations that accompany this arithmetic that are shaded by the shadow of ideology. We
do not, nor could we, definitively resolve these debates. However, based on the data that are
available, we would be less than candid if we did not admit that, to our way of thinking,
U.S. society is deeply stratified by class, race, and gender. These forms of stratification negatively
impact on the mobility of certain individuals and groups. This chapter explores issues relating to
equality of opportunity and educational outcomes and roots the dicsussiion in data.
Calculating Educational and Life Outcomes

Most people are aware that society is stratified—there are rich people, poor people, and people
in between. People are discriminated against on the basis of gender and race. Curiously, the
significance of these issues is often muted by public perceptions that in the United States,
individuals, through their own efforts, can overcome the effects of stratification—that is,
educational and social mobility are matters of individual life experiences. Although it is true that
certain individuals do become upwardly mobile because of their success in business or because
they possess an unusual talent, the stark fact is that the overwhelming number of individuals will
remain in the social class into which they were born. Social stratification is a structural
characteristic of societies. Human differences do not cause social stratification; social stratification
causes human differences.
Sociologist Daniel Rossides (1976, p. 15) defined social stratification as follows:
Social stratification is a hierarchical configuration of families (and in industrial societies in recent decades,
unrelated individuals) who have differential access to whatever is of value in the society at a given
point and over time, primarily because of social, not biopsychological, variables.
He went on to point out that “a full system of social stratification emerges only when parents can
see to it that their children inherit or acquire a social level equal or superior to their own regardless
of innate ability” (p. 16). In other words, parents attempt to roll the dice of life chances in favor
of their children so that they may be successful in terms of material comfort, security, personal
fulfillment, and occupation.
Rossides (1976) described three basic forms of social stratification. Caste stratification occurs in
agrarian societies where social level is defined in terms of some strict ascriptive criteria such as
race and/or religious worth. Estate stratification occurs in agrarian societies where social level is
defined in terms of the hierarchy of family worth. Class stratification occurs in industrial societies
that define social level in terms of a hierarchy of differential achievement by individuals, especially
in economic pursuits. Within each one of these major forms of stratification there can be other
hierarchies (i.e., patriarchal distinctions between men and women), and the three major forms
of stratification can overlap within any given society. For example, in the United States, individuals
can experience caste stratification because of their race, while simultaneously experiencing class
stratification because of their occupation and lack of property.
With this discussion as a prelude, one can begin to look at the United States in terms of social
stratification. There can be little doubt that the population of the United States is stratified by
class. Very briefly, approximately 1–3 percent of Americans are members of the upper class,
approximately 15 percent of Americans are upper middle class, another 25 percent belong to the
lower middle class, 40 percent are working class, and 20 percent belong to what has been called
the underclass. These classes all have somewhat different relationships to the economy. The upper
class derives most of its wealth through the possession of property; the upper middle class is
essentially a professional and managerial class; the lower middle class are likely to be semi-
professionals such as school teachers and small business owners; the working class derive their
income directly from their labor and are often paid an hourly wage; and the underclass are marginal
to the economy and are often extremely poor.
In the last 50 years, the upper and upper middle classes in the United States have become
increasingly wealthy while the other classes have experienced a relative decline in terms of their
economic security and income. In fact, the United States is the most unequal industrial
country in terms of the distribution of income. According to Phillips (1990, p. 11), “America’s
top 420,000 households alone accounted for 26.9 percent of U.S. family net worth—in
essence, 26.9 percent of the nation’s wealth. The top 10 percent of households, meanwhile,
controlled approximately 68 percent.” In 2015, approximately 10.4 million Americans were
millionaires, which is ten times the number of millionaires in 1990. In 1953, there were only
27,000 millionaires in the United States. Not since the latter part of the nineteenth century has
it happened that the United States has experienced such an upsurge of wealth into the upper
classes. In 1999, the number of millionaires dramatically increased, with over 400,000 in New
York City alone (Koch, 1999). Moreover, during the 1990s, as the number of millionaires
skyrocketed, due, in part, to an incredible rise in the stock market (especially Internet stocks),
the number of poor also increased (Wilson, 1999). In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement
brought the issue of income inequality into the public spotlight, as protestors banded around the
slogan “We are the 99 percent.” Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign brought
additional attention to wealth disparity.
Again, according to Phillips (1990), the “downside of the American dream” is that individuals
in the lower middle class, the working class, and the underclass have suffered a decline in terms
of their incomes when income is adjusted for inflation. To cite one example, in 1972, weekly per
worker income was $366. In 1987, the weekly per worker income was $312, when adjusted for
inflation. These data indicate that when calculating the effects of class in determining an
individual’s or group’s life arithmetic, one must not fail to take into account the increasing
significance of class. These inequalities increased in the 1990s and at the beginning of the twenty-
first century, with the top decile of income earners experiencing significant gains in income
and wealth, and the bottom decile experiencing significant declines (Andersen, 1999; Anyon,
2005a; Wilson, 1999). These inequalities of income and wealth have widened over the past decade
and are at the crux of philosophical disagreements between the Democratic and Republican parties,
the former believing that such huge differences are economically and socially unjustifiable and
contrary to the American ethos of equity, and the latter believing that they are the earned rewards
of hard work and necessary for economic investment and growth (for an analysis of these gaps,
see Duncan and Murnane, 2011).
Connecting the linkages between class and other forms of stratification and educational
outcomes is extremely complex. In Chapter 4, we presented Persell’s model for analyzing the
relationship of what she called “the societal structure of dominance” and educational outcomes.
By analyzing the relationship between the societal, institutional, interactional, and intrapsychic
levels, you can see that there is a set of interrelated social and school variables that create the
context for the production of educational outcomes. In brief, economic and political resources
directly influence the selectivity of schools and the authority structures within schools, which, in
turn, influence the climate of expectations and patterns of interactions within schools.
To illustrate these relationships, imagine a public school located in a wealthy white suburb
and a public school located in an urban neighborhood. The suburban school will differ significantly
from the urban school in terms of its resources, its ability to monitor students’ progress, its discipline,
its climate of expectations, and its culture. In effect, the suburban school is more similar to a
wealthy private school in that it can provide better educational opportunities for its students than
the urban school, which has very few resources and educates students who come to school with
few advantages.
Sociologists of education have studied the relationship between education and mobility in
great detail. Sometimes the study of mobility is referred to as the status-attainment process.
Summarizing this literature is virtually impossible since there is no consensus about how much
education influences attainment. Clearly, the number of years of education an individual possesses
is directly linked to occupation and income. For example, individuals who attain managerial
and professional statuses are very likely to have a bachelor’s degree from college and to have
attended some graduate school. Laborers and individuals in the service fields are, on average,
likely to have a high school diploma. In terms of wages, individuals without a high school
diploma are paid, on average, $392 per week for their work, whereas individuals who possess a
college degree are paid approximately $973 per week for their labor (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2016).
To complicate matters further, other forms of stratification also influence income. In 2015,
a man age 25 or over with a college degree earned $61,589 a year on average, whereas a woman
with the same educational qualifications earned $41,763 a year. Race and ethnicity compound
the relationship between gender and earnings. In 2015, the median earnings for a white male
employed in a full-time job was $51,457; whereas the median earnings for a black female employed
in a full-time job was $34,616, and the median earnings for a Hispanic female employed in a full-
time job was $29,399 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2016).
Shortly, we will discuss the effects of race and gender on educational attainment, but for now,
the central point to be made is that there is a relationship between education and attainment,
although it is certainly not an open contest, as was alleged by Turner (1960) some 55 years ago.
You may recall from Chapter 4 that we discussed the work of Rosenbaum (1976), who suggested
that educational mobility was similar to what he called “tournament selection.” In this form of
competition, winners are allowed to proceed to the next round and losers are dropped. Some
students are eliminated, but “winning” students must still continue to compete. Unfortunately,
from the point of view of equality of opportunity, this tournament is not played on a truly level
field. Privilege can tilt the field to the advantage of whites, males, and the wealthy. The empirical
results of this tilting are discussed next.
Class
Students in different social classes have different kinds of educational experiences. There are several
factors that can influence these class-based experiences. For instance, education is extremely
expensive. The longer a student stays in school, the more likely he or she needs parental financial
support. Obviously, this situation favors wealthier families. Families from the upper class and the
middle class are also more likely to expect their children to finish school, whereas working-class
and underclass families often have lower levels of expectation for their children. From a cultural
point of view, schools represent the values of the middle and upper classes.
Studies show that the number of books in a family’s home is related to the academic achieve-
ment of its children. Middle and upper middle-class children are more likely to speak “standard”
English. Clearly, the ability to use this standard English is an educational asset. Teachers have
been found to think more highly of middle-class and upper middle-class children than they do of
working-class and underclass children because working-class and underclass children do not speak
middle-class English. This phenomenon leads to labeling children, ostensibly according to their
abilities, but covertly according to their social class backgrounds. Also, data show that peer groups
have a significant influence on students’ attitudes toward learning. In a school that enrolls many
middle-class students, there is a high likelihood that more emphasis is placed on high academic
achievement than in a school where there are few middle-class children.
It is little wonder, then, that class is directly related to achievement and to educational
attainment; there is a direct correlation between parental income and children’s performance on
achievement tests, as well as placement in ability groups and curriculum track in high school.
Study after study shows that class is related to achievement on reading tests and basic skills tests.
Children from working-class and underclass families are more likely to underachieve, drop out,
and resist the curriculum of the school. In terms of going on to college, there is little doubt
that the higher an individual’s social class, the more likely he or she is to enroll in college and
to receive a degree. The more elite the college, the more likely the college is to enroll upper-
class and upper middle-class students. In sum, social class and level of educational attainment
are highly correlated. This finding represents a challenge to those who believe in equality
of opportunity.
Race
Despite the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, U.S. society is still highly stratified by race. An
individual’s race has a direct impact on how much education he or she is likely to achieve. Among
16–24 year-olds, for instance, 5.2 percent of white students drop out of school, whereas 7.4 per-
cent of black students and 17.6 percent of Hispanic students are likely to drop out of school. Among
17-year-olds, 87 percent of white students will be able to read at the intermediate level, which
includes the ability to search for specific information, interrelate ideas, and make generalizations
about literature, science, and social studies materials. However, 70 percent of black students have
reached that level of reading proficiency and 74 percent of Hispanic students are reading at the
intermediate level (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).
It is not surprising, therefore, that these lower levels of proficiency are reflected by the fact that
black and Hispanic students have, on average, lower SAT scores than white students. As you know,
there is a direct link between SAT scores and admission to college. There is also a link between
SAT scores and being awarded scholarships for study in postsecondary institutions.
That race is related to educational outcomes is undeniable, although, given the nature of
U.S. society, it is extremely difficult to separate race from class. In a society as segregated as that
in the United States, it is not surprising that black and Hispanic students receive fewer and lesser
educational opportunities than white students. Explanations as to why black and Hispanic
underachieve compared to whites vary. But, at one level, the answer is not terribly complex. Black
students and Hispanic students do not receive the same educational opportunities as whites, and
their rewards for educational attainment are significantly less. It is important to note that, on
average, Asian students outperform black, Hispanic, and white students. This trend will be discussed
in greater detail later in the chapter.
Gender
Historically, an individual’s gender was directly related to his or her educational attainment. Even
though women are often rated as being better students than men, in the past they were less likely
to attain the same level of education. Today, females are less likely to drop out of school than
males, and are more likely to have a higher level of reading proficiency than males. The same is
true for writing. The one area in which males outperform females is mathematics proficiency.
There are numerous explanations as to why males do better than females in mathematics, the
most convincing of which is related to the behavior of classroom teachers who tend to assume
that females will not do as well as males in mathematics.
In the last 30 years, gender differences between men and women, in terms of educational
attainment, have been reduced. Recent data from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
and Australia indicate that not only have girls caught up to boys in almost all measures of academic
achievement, policy makers are now discovering the “boy problem” (Arnot, David, & Weiner,
1999; Datnow & Hubbard, 2002; Riordan, 1999). Liberals argue that these increases demonstrate
the success of educational reforms aimed at improving achievement; conservatives argue that the
decline in male achievement and attainment is a result of the “feminizing” of the classroom. There
are still significant advantages for men when competing for the most prestigious academic prizes,
however. Whether men receive preferential treatment within schools is an issue that will be
discussed in the next chapter. There is little doubt that society discriminates against women
occupationally and socially. Given this, one might wonder about the relationship between
educational attainment and occupational attainment for women. Are these two forms of attain-
ment highly correlated or, in fact, is there only a weak relationship between educational attainment
and occupational attainment for women?
Educational Achievement and Attainment Gaps by Student Background

The academic achievement of students from different backgrounds is an important aspect of socio-
logical research on education. The National Center for Education Statistics publishes yearly
statistical reports, including The Condition of Education, which provides important statistical data
on a variety of educational issues. The following discussion and data rely heavily on The Condition
of Education, 2016.
Figures 8.1 through 8.4 (pp. 318–319) indicate these achievement gaps by race and ethnicity;
they also show that achievement goes up in relation to parental level of education. Figures 8.5
through 8.6 (pp. 320–321) indicate the achievement gaps with respect to gender. Females achieve
at higher levels in reading at ages 9 and 17; and females achieve at identical levels in mathe-
matics at age 9 and at lower levels at age 17.
From 1973 to 1990, the gaps between Asian and white students on one hand and black and
Hispanic students on the other in reading and mathematics narrowed and then increased from 1990
to 1999. These gaps remained relatively constant through the first decade of the new millennium,
and they have recently shown signs of narrowing. Females have outperformed males in reading since
1973 and males have out-performed females in mathematics and science since 1973.
Although the achievement gaps have decreased since the 1970s, a closer examination reveals
that much of the progress occurred until 1988. Since then, the gaps have widened or remained
steady. (see Figures 8.7 through 8.10 on pages 321–322). This has occurred despite federal legis-
lation aimed at reducing these gaps, including Goals 2000, NCLB, RTT, and ESSA. There appear
to be a number of explanations for these trends, including the significant effects of federal policies
seeking to address poverty in the 1960s and 1970s.
The rationale for preschool programs such as Head Start or the mandate in New Jersey under
Abbott v. Burke for free preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds in the low-income, urban districts,
is that these gaps begin well before kindergarten (Lynch, 2004/2005). Figures 8.11 and 8.12
(pp. 323–324) illustrate that black children, Hispanic children, and children living in poverty
enter kindergarten with lower reading and mathematics skills than Asian children, white chil-
dren, and children not living in poverty. These differences persist through all stages of schooling,
and will be discussed further in Chapter 9.
Attainment
These gaps in achievement are reflected in attainment gaps among groups. For persons of both
sexes 25 or older, 88.7 percent of whites graduated from high school and 31.0 percent received
a bachelor’s degree; 83.8 percent of blacks graduated from high school and 19.5 percent rec-
eived a bachelor’s degree; 86.0 percent of Asians graduated from high school and 51.4 percent
received a bachelor’s degree; 64.9 percent of Hispanics graduated from high school and 14.3 per-
cent received a bachelor’s degree. Also, 86.0 percent of males graduated from high school and
29.7 percent received a bachelor’s degree; 87.3 percent of females graduated from high school
and 29.8 percent received a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2016).
The SAT has become the unofficial college entrance examination in the United States. Begun
as a utopian experiment to create a meritocratic aristocracy of talent in the 1930s by Henry
Chauncey, the president of the newly founded Educational Testing Service (ETS), and Harvard
president James Bryant Conant, by the 1990s the SAT became a high-stakes test that appeared
to serve the affluent and white at the expense of the poor and nonwhite (Lemann, 1999).
Rather than providing a fair, meritocratic process giving the best and brightest, regardless of
family background, a chance to attain the Jeffersonian ideal of mobility, the examination has
advantaged the already advantaged, with some exceptions. The Digest of Educational Statistics
(U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016) indicates that
white students outperform all other students, with the exception of Asian students; and male
students continue to outperform female students. Lemann (1999) in his history of the SAT, argues
that in part through the use of private preparation services such as Stanley Kaplan and Princeton
Review, affluent families have managed to use the SATs to their advantage. The case of Asian
students, however, provides an important exception—one that will be explored in the next chapter.
These data indicate that despite improvements, black and Hispanic students still lag behind
white students in educational achievement and attainment. Female students, however, outperform
male students in most categories, with the exception of mathematics and science, where they
have made substantial gains. The problem, however, with these data is that The Condition of
Education does not control for the independent effects of social class with respect to racial, ethnic,
and gender differences—that is, to what degree do race, ethnic, and gender differences begin to
disappear when social class is controlled? Much research indicates that social class is strongly and
independently related to educational attainment and achievement (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Hurn,
1993; Riordan, 1997). Recent data from The Digest of Educational Statistics support this relationship.
For example, although the Digest does not control for income or social class, it does have measures
of parental level of education, which is one indicator of socioeconomic status. Using this measure,
we see that reading proficiency is highly correlated with race, ethnicity, and parental level of
education, with higher level of education predicting higher reading proficiency.
The significant sociological question is how to explain the reasons why these differences exist
and persist. As the following section and Chapter 9 indicate, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
levels are also highly correlated with curriculum track placement, with working-class and black
and Hispanic students more likely to be in lower tracks, and affluent and Asian and white students
more likely to be in higher tracks. In addition (see Figures 8.13 to 8.18 on pages 325–330), low-
income and black and Hispanic students are more likely to have less challenging curricula, less
likely to be in advanced placement classes, more likely to have underqualified and less experi-
enced teachers, more likely to be in larger classes, more likely to change schools, and less likely
to have their parents participate in school activities than affluent and white students (Barton,
2003, 2004). In the next chapter, we will explore various explanations of these educational
inequalities more fully.
Text continues on page 331.

Scale score
500
300 297 297 296

295 295 296 295 299
293 293 294 295
291* 295
291 293 295
284 284 284 289*
289 289 290
288 287
274 275
274
275 271 273
269
266
266 266 267 269
271
261* 267 266
264 263 265 264 264 262
261
252*
250
241*
239*
243*
225
0
’71 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Asian
White Figure 8.1 Trends in NAEP Average Reading Scale Scores for
Hispanic 17-Year-Old Students by Race/Ethnicity.
Black
* Significantly different from 1999.
Original assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
Revised assessment format of Educational Progress, 2012 Long-Term Trend Assessment.
Scale score
500
325 321 322

320 320
320
317 316 317 313 315
313 314 314
310* 311 313
313 315
312 312 311
308* 309*
308*
300 304*
292 292 293 292 293 294
291 221
289
283* 289
287 288
277* 288 288 288
277* 276* 284* 283 285 284
275 279*
272*
270*
268*
0
’73 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Asian
White
Hispanic Figure 8.2 Trends in NAEP Average Mathematics Scale
Black Scores for 17-Year-Old Students by Race/Ethnicity.
Extrapolated data * Significantly different from 1999.
Original assessment format
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
Revised assessment format
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2012 Long-Term Trend Assessment.
Age 17
Scale score
500
299*
295* 293*
301 302* 302* 301
300 300 299 298 298 298
300 300 Graduated from college
298* 288
295* 294* 295* 295* 286
281* 282* 283* 280* 287 Some education after
277 276 high school
273 274 274 274
269* 267 270*
265 270 Graduated from high school
262 271* 268
267 259 266 Less than high school
266
250
200
0
1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 2012
Figure 8.3 Trends in NAEP Average Reading Scale Scores by Parents’ Highest Level of Education.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2012 Long-Term
Trend Assessment.
Age 17
Scale score
500
317 316 316 318 317 317 317 317 Graduated from
314 316
312* college
305 305 308 308 305 307 308 306 306
304* 306 Some education
298 297 299 after high school
300 294 293 293
294 295 295 296
289 291 Graduated from
285 285 284 281 high school
280* 279 287 292
279* 290 Less than
high school
250
200
0
1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 2012
Figure 8.4 Trends in NAEP Average Mathematics Scale Scores by Parents’ Highest Level of Education.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2012 Long-Term
Trend Assessment.
Scale score
500
325
300 296* 296*

295 295
294 294 295*
291 292
291 291 291
289
288*
284* 284 284* 289
282 282 281 283
280 281 280
279 278
275 276*
0
’71 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Female
Figure 8.5 Trends in NAEP Average Reading Scale Scores for
Male
17-Year-Old Students by Gender.
Original assessment format * Significantly different from 1999.
Revised assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
Scale score
500
250
243 244
243 239*
242 244
232* 233* 233* 240* 240*

230* 231*
230* 231*
225 222* 229* 229* 229*
220* 221*
220*
222*
218* 217* 217*
200
0
’73 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Female
Male
Extrapolated data
Original assessment format
Figure 8.6a Trends in NAEP Average Mathematics Scale
Scores for 9-Year-Old Students by Gender.
Scale score
500
300
309 310 310

309 309 308 309
308 307 308
304* 305*
275 301* 307* 305
305 305 304 303 304
304
303
301
299*
297* 296*
250
0
’73 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Female
Figure 8.6b Trends in NAEP Average Mathematics Scale
Male
Scores for 17-Year-Old Students by Gender.
Extrapolated data
Original assessment format * Significantly different from 1999.
Revised assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
325 317 316

313 311
310
306 304
Average Math NAEP score
308 309
300
283 284 282

277 276 282
272 279
275
270 268
Figure 8.7 Gaps Narrow 1973–90,
Asian
NAEP Math Scores, 17-year-olds.
250 White
Hispanic Source: U.S. Department of Education, National
Black Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999,
225
Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC:
1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 U.S. Department of Education, August 2000,
Year p. 108.
300 293 295 294

291 292
Average Reading NAEP score
289
284 284 274
275 268
261 270
252 264
250
Figure 8.8 Gaps Narrow 1970–88, NAEP
243
239 241 Asian Reading, 17-year-olds.
225 White
Hispanic Source: U.S. Department of Education, National
Black Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999,
200 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC:
71 75 80 84 88 U.S. Department of Education, August 2000,
Year p. 107.
Scale score
500
325
315
312 312 313 313 314 314
310* 309* 311
308*
308*
301*
32 26
300
20
289
40 289 288
287
288 288 288
283 285 284
275 279*
270* 272*
268*
250
0
’73 ’78 ’82 ’86 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Extrapolated data White
Original assessment format Black
Figure 8.9 Gaps Narrow, Then Hold Steady or Widen: NAEP Math Scores, 17-year-olds.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 2012.
Scale score
500
300 295 295 297 297 296 295 295

293 293 293 295 295
291*
289*
21 31 26
274
275
266 266
52 267
264
266
269
264 262
264 261
250
243*
239* 241*
225
0
’71 ’75 ’80 ’84 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’99 ’04 ’08 ’12
Year
Key
Original assessment format White
Revised assessment format Black
Figure 8.10 After 1988, Gaps Mostly Widen: NAEP Reading, 17-year-olds.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 2012.
A. Reading Skills at Start and End of Kindergarten by Race/Ethnicity
60 Start of Kindergarten
54.0 End of Kindergarten
51.6
50 47.1
45.3
40.5
40
Mean scale scores
36.6
32.9
30.3
30
20
10
0
Asian Black Hispanic White
B. Reading Skills at Start and End of Kindergarten by Socioeconomic Status

70
Start of Kindergarten
60 End of Kindergarten
53.1
Mean scale scores
50 48.4
44.4
40 38.6
33.4
29.6
30
20
10
0
Poverty 100–199 percent of At or above 200 percent
the Poverty Level of the Poverty Level
Figure 8.11 Kindergarten Reading Skills.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (2012). First-Time Kindergartners
in 2010–2011: First Findings from the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
2010–2011.
A. Mathematics Skills at Start and End of Kindergarten by Race/Ethnicity
60 Start of Kindergarten
End of Kindergarten
50
46.0
44.6
40 37.8
Mean scale scores
37.5
34.5
31.7
30
25.8 24.7
20
10
0
Asian Black Hispanic White
B. Mathematics Skills at Start and End of Kindergarten by Socioeconomic Status

70
Start of Kindergarten
60 End of Kindergarten
Mean scale scores
50
40.6
40 36.8
35.9
33.3
30 27.9
24.1
20
10
0
Poverty 100–199 percent of At or above 200 percent
the Poverty Level of the Poverty Level
Figure 8.12 Kindergarten Mathematics Skills.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (2012). First-Time Kindergartners in
2010–2011: First Findings from the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of
2010–2011.
A. Percentage of High School Graduates with Substantial Credits

in Academic Courses, 1982 and 2005
Percentage with four years of English, three years each of social studies
and mathematics, and two years of a foreign language
70 Asian White Black Hispanic American Indian/
64 Alaskan Native
60
53
51
50
Percentage
42
40 36
30
20
17
10
11
5 4 3
0
’82 ’05 ’82 ’05 ’82 ’05 ’82 ’05 ’82 ’05
Year
B. Distribution of Advanced Placement Examinations Compared with the Distribution

of the High School Population, by Race/Ethnicity, 2013
% of Graduating Class % of AP Exam Takers % of Successful AP Exam Takers
80%
Percentage of population
60% 61.3%
58.3%
55.9%
40%
20% 18.8%18.8%16.9%
14.5%
10.7%12.7% 9.2%
5.9% 4.6%
0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5%
American Asian Black Hispanic White

Indian
Note: Because some AP exam takers identify themselves as “Other” for race/ethnicity or do not provide race/ethnicity,
the figures may not total 100%.
Figure 8.13 Rigor of Curriculum.

Source for 8.13A: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2010, Table 161. Original data
from National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study.
Source for 8.13B: College Board, The 10th Annual AP Report to the Nation, February 2014.
A. Percentage of Secondary-Level Core Academic Courses Taught by a

Teacher With Neither Certification Nor Major, 2007–2008
25
21.9%
20
Percentage
15
10.9%
10
0
High-Poverty Schools Low-Poverty Schools
B. Percentage of Eighth Graders Whose Math Teachers Lack Certification

in Middle/Junior High School or in Secondary School Mathematics,
by Race/Ethnicity and Poverty, 1996–2000
60
White Black Hispanic Non-poor* Poor*
50
Percentage
40
30 27
26
22
19
20 17 17
14
13 13
12
10
’96 ’00 ’96 ’00 ’96 ’00 ’96 ’00 ’96 ’00
Year
Figure 8.14 Teacher Preparation.

* As measured by whether eligible for free/reduced lunch.
Source for 8.14A: Sarah Almy and Christina Theokas, High-Poverty Schools Continue to Have Fewer In-Field Teachers,
Education Trust, November 2010.
Source for 8.14B: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata
Percentage of Teachers Percentage of Fourth-Grade Percentage of Twelfth-Grade

with Three or Fewer Years Students in School Where Students Where 6 to10 Percent
of Experience, 1998 Same Teachers Started and of Teachers are Absent on
Ended the Year, 2000 Average Day, 2000
Level of Minority Enrollment Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity
Low 10 White 82 White 11
Medium 13 Hispanic 73 Hispanic 25
High 21 Black 57 Black 23
Level of Low Income Enrollment School Lunch Program School Lunch Program
Low 11 Eligible 58 Eligible 22
Not Not
Medium 12 69 15
Eligible Eligible
High 20
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Percent Percent Percent
Note: Low, medium, and high are Source: http://nces.ed.gov/ Source: http://nces.ed.gov/
defined as the schools in the nationsreportcard/ nationsreportcard/
bottom quartile, the middle two naepdata/getdata.asp, naepdata/getdata.asp,
quartiles, and the top quartile, 1/12/03. Data are for public schools 1/12/03. Data are for public schools
respectively. Low income is
defined as the percent of students
eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch.
Source: From Mayer et al., 2000,
which cites the Fast Response
Survey System’s Teacher Survey
on Professional Development
and Training, NCES, 1998.
Figure 8.15 Teacher Experience and Attendance.

By the Percent of Minority Students
Less than 10 22*
10 to 24 25
25 to 49 22
50 to 75 26
More than 75 31
By the Percent of Students Eligible for School Lunch Program
Less than 15 27
15 to 29 25
30 to 49 19
50 to 74 23
75 to 100 26
By the Percent of Students with Limited-English Proficiency
Less than 1 23
1 to 10 24
More than 10 31
0 10 20 30 40
Percentage of Teachers
Figure 8.16 Percentage of Teachers with Classes of 25 or More Students, 1999–2000.

*In classes with less than 10 percent minority students, 22 percent of the teachers have 25 or more students in their
classes.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, School and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–2000.
Parent attended a school or class event
100
Parent volunteered or served on school committee
90 Parent participated in school fundraising
82%
80 77%
70 68% 67%
64% 64%
60 58%
Percentage
52%
50%
50 46% 46%
44%
40 37%
31% 32%
30
20
10
0
Asian Black Hispanic White Other

100
89%
90 Parent participated in school fundraising 85%
80 77%
75%
71%
70
62% 61% 61%
60
Percentage
55%
50 48%
46%
41%
40
31%
30 28%
19%
20
10
0
Less than High school Some Bachelor’s Graduate or
high school graduate or college degree professional
equivalency school

100
90 Parent participated in school fundraising
80 78%
70
63%
60%
60
Percentage
50 45%
41%
40
30 27%
20
10
0
Poor Non-poor
Figure 8.17 Parent Participation.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in
Education Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2012.
Free/reduced 40%
price lunch 54%
Below poverty 17%

threshold 26%
11% 0–2 school changes

Food stamps
25% 4 or more school changes
Temporary assistance 3%
for needy families 9%
No father in 21%
household 31%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of students
15%
Black 0–2 school changes
23%
4 or more school changes
18%
Hispanic 18%
60%
White
51%
7%
Other
8%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of students
Figure 8.18 Comparisons Across Income Measures and Race/Ethnicity of Less Mobile and More Mobile
Third Grade Students, 2010.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently,
November 2010
Note: Estimates in this figure compare the percentage of all students who changed schools two times or less that had
these characteristics to the percentage of all students who changed schools four or more times who also had these
characteristics. For example, as depicted in the graph, 40 percent of all students who changed two times or less and
54 percent of all students who changed four or more times received free or reduced price lunch.
Students with Special Needs

The field of special education has mirrored the debates about equality of educational opportunity
and the concern with the appropriate placement of students with special educational needs.
Beginning in the late 1960s, parents of children with special needs (including physical and learning
disabilities) began to put pressure on the educational system to serve their children more appro-
priately and effectively. Arguing that their children were often treated as invisible and not given
appropriate services, or in some cases excluded entirely from schools, parent groups demanded
legislation to ensure that their children receive an appropriate and adequate education (Budoff,
1975; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Milofsky, 1974; Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977).
In 1975, Congress passed the Education of All Handicapped Children Law (EHA) (PL 94–142),
which included six basic principles: (1) the right of access to public education programs; (2) the
individualization of services; (3) the principle of “least restrictive environment”; (4) the scope of
broadened services to be provided by the schools and a set of procedures for determining them;
(5) the general guidelines for identifying disability; and (6) the principles of primary state and
local responsibilities (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987 in Hehir & Latus, 1992, p. 126). The purpose of
the law was to guarantee that children with special needs were properly identified and placed in
appropriate classes, defined as the “least restrictive environment.” This meant that students should
be placed in specially designated classes if they required such a placement and in regular classes
with assistance, if they could function in the mainstream. The law was reauthorized in 1996 as
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
By the mid-1980s, the efficacy of the law became a critical issue for policy makers and advo-
cates of the disabled. Critics (Biklen, 1985; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lytle, 1988) argued that
despite its good intentions, the law produced adverse effects, such as the over-identification of
students with handicapping conditions, the failure of special education students to make it back
into the mainstream, and the overrepresentation of minority students in special education classes.
Defenders (Singer & Butler, 1987) countered that, despite some problems, the EHA provided
significant increases in the quality of services for children with disabilities.
In the late 1980s, critics of special education pushed the regular education initiative (REI), which
called for mainstreaming children with disabilities into regular classes. The REI called for inclusion
of almost all children into the mainstream, which many critics argued would result in chaos and
the inability to educate mainstream children effectively. Proponents of REI argued that democratic
principles require that all students be educated together and that special education placement
had not proven effective for most students (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lilly, 1986; Pugach & Lilly,
1984; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1989). Critics of REI
(Kauffman, 1989) countered that inclusion of the majority of students with special needs was
unfair to both “regular” and special students, neither of whom would be served effectively. They
indicated that special education reform should ensure that the “least restrictive environment”
principle of the EHA be more fully implemented.
Skrtic (1991), in a comprehensive essay in Harvard Educational Review, analyzed the relationship
between the organizational structure of public education and the bureaucratization of special
education since 1975. Arguing that the organizational procedures of special education had resulted
in a system that was often concerned more with its own perpetuation than with the needs of
students, Skrtic argued for reform of the entire system to ensure proper placement and education.
Skrtic placed the special education system in the larger context of educational bureaucracy and
suggested that it needed to be understood as part of the more general system of testing and track-
ing. He concluded that special education be reformed within a democratic overhaul of public
education.
Today, the field of special education remains in conflict. The field of disability studies has
emerged to challenge conventional theories in the field (Davis, 2010). Disability studies theorists
argue that handicapping conditions are for the most part socially constructed and although there
may be cognitive differences at the polar ends, the vast majority of children labelled as handi-
capped can be better served in mainstream settings (Baglieri, Valle, Connor, & Gallagher, 2011).
Critics, especially from the growing fields of neuro and cognitive sciences, argue that there are
real cognitive differences among children and that students often need separate special education
placement (for an overview, see Patten & Campbell, 2011; Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011).
Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the cases of hyperactive deficit and attention disorder
(HDAD) and autism spectrum disorders. Disability studies proponents argue that the increase in
the number of children with these disorders is a consequence of over-labeling; neuro and cognitive
scientists argue that it is the result of better testing and diagnosis (for an overview of the field,
see Hehir, 2005). Whether or not minority children are over-labeled and disproportionately placed
in special education has been a controversial question. Morgan and his colleagues have debunked
the conventional wisdom that this is the case using sophisticated statistical techniques (Morgan,
Farkas, Hillemeier, Mattison, Maczuga, Li, & Cook, 2015). However, Skiba and his colleagues
argue that Morgan’s methods have significant flaws and that the evidence still supports the claim
that minorities are overrepresented (Skiba, Artiles, Kozleski, Losen, & Harry, 2016). We have
to await future studies to resolve this debate.
Thus, the controversies over REI and EHA continue. As we move ahead in the twenty-first
century, it is imperative that educational researchers provide empirical evidence to inform place-
ment decisions. It is clear that far too many students have been labeled and placed into special
education classes and that, for many, these classes have resulted in lifetime sentences that have
limited their educational opportunities. It is also clear that minority students have been
overrepresented in special education placements. However, it is not clear that all students with
special needs will benefit from inclusion, nor that students in the mainstream will not be harmed
academically from wholesale mainstreaming. What is needed is a flexible system that provides
appropriate placements for students with special needs: an inclusion class for those who can
function within it and a special class for students whose needs require a separate placement.
Unfortunately, too often the politics of special education has been more important than the needs
of children. As you will see in Chapter 9, this has been true of tracking in general.
Conclusion
In this section, we have examined the relationship between social stratification and educational
outcomes. We have made a strong case that the ideal of equal opportunity is somewhat tarnished
by the reality that an individual’s origin has a significant impact on his or her destination. Education
is related to mobility, but this relationship is made complex by the fact that education cannot
erase the effects of inequality. Class and race, in particular, continue to haunt the egalitarian ideal
that all children should be treated equally. Thinking in terms of life arithmetic, one might say
that in the equation of educational outcomes, who you are is almost as significant a factor as what
you know. Critics of this position might argue that effective schools can make a difference in
terms of providing equality of opportunity. In the next section, we examine the issue of whether
school differences have a significant impact on educational outcomes.
School Differences and Educational Outcomes

There is now a great controversy as to whether differences between schools lead to significant
differences in terms of student outcomes. This may surprise you. After all, it seems only common
sense that the better the school, the greater its positive impact on students. A deep faith in the
power of education to overcome ignorance and inequality virtually requires one to believe that
there is a close and powerful relationship between the characteristics of schools and their effects
on students. Untangling this issue is a complex intellectual challenge.
The essential problem can be stated as follows: To what degree can student outcomes, whether
they be cognitive or affective, be attributed directly to the organizational characteristics of schools?
How can family influences, maturation, and peer influences be separated from the organizational
influences of schools on students? Obviously, this is not an either/or proposition—hence, the
complexity of the problem. This problem is compounded by the fact that schools have direct and
indirect effects on students’ lives. For example, one direct effect is the amount of cognitive growth
that can be attributed to years of schooling. Indirect effects are more difficult to measure but,
nonetheless, are significant because they relate to the social consequences of having attended
certain types of schools. Thus, the graduate of a socially elite private school may have gone to
school the same number of years as the graduate of an inner-city public school, but the social
marketability of their degrees is quite different. The higher the social status of a school, the more
likely the school will be able to increase the social statuses of its graduates. Considering what is
known about the class system, this should not be totally surprising, even though it may be somewhat
repugnant. This issue was raised briefly in Chapter 4, when we discussed the difference between
educational amount and educational route.
There are two major rivaling hypotheses concerning the relationship between school
characteristics and student outcomes. The first hypothesis states that there is a strong, positive
correlation between school quality and student achievement. Curiously, conservatives, liberals,
and radicals all seem to subscribe to this hypothesis. Conservatives and liberals see this positive
correlation as an expression of meritocracy, whereas radicals see this correlation as an expression
of oppression. The second hypothesis is not popular in the educational community or with the
public at large. This hypothesis states that there is a very weak relationship between school
characteristics and student outcomes. That is, the organizational characteristics of schools are not
strong enough to undo the cognitive and social consequences of class background. In other words,
degrees simply credentialize students; the actual content of what they have learned is not terribly
significant (Meyer, 1977; Collins, 1975). Testing these rivaling hypotheses is a demanding
empirical task.
In this section, we examine the issues raised by the preceding rivaling hypotheses. Not all
of the evidence is in; therefore, hard-and-fast conclusions cannot be drawn. But the debate is
significant because in the balance lie consequential policy decisions.
The Coleman Study (1966)

If you were to pick up almost any textbook on education, you would most likely read that differences
among schools account for a variety of student outcomes. Almost everybody in education and
in the public at large is committed to the civil religion that education is meritocratic and trans-
formative. Most educational reform movements rest on this assumption. To say that differences
among schools do not really matter that much in terms of student cognitive outcomes is close to
civil heresy. Up until the 1960s, no one really challenged the assumption that school characteristics
were extremely important in determining student outcomes. It seemed common sense that the
more books a school had and the more degrees the teachers had, the more the students would
learn.
With the advent of computers, large-scale survey analysis became possible by the mid-1960s.
Researchers could collect huge amounts of national data and analyze the data relatively rapidly.
On the forefront of this type of research was the sociologist James Coleman. During this period,
Coleman received an extremely large grant to study the relationship between the organiza-
tional characteristics of schools and student achievement. The motivation behind this grant was
to demonstrate that black students and white students had fundamentally different schooling
experiences. It was hoped by policy makers that Coleman’s study would provide the rationale for
federally funding those schools that were primarily attended by students of color.
The results of Coleman’s study were shocking because what he found, in essence, was that the
organizational differences between schools were not particularly important in determining student
outcomes when compared to the differences in student-body compositions between schools. On
average, students who attended schools that were predominantly middle class were more likely
to do better on tests of achievement than students who attended school where middle-class students
were not a majority. Peer group association could be more important than the number of books
in the library. It should not surprise you at this point that Coleman’s findings caused a tremendous
controversy. After all, if differences among schools are only weakly related to student outcomes,
what did this say about the power of education to overcome inequalities?
Responses to Coleman: Round One

There were two major responses to Coleman’s findings. On one hand, other sociologists examined
and reexamined Coleman’s data. On the other hand, a group of minority scholars, led by Ron
Edmonds of Harvard University, set about the task of defining those characteristics of schools
that made them effective. Edmonds argued strongly that all students could learn and that differences
between schools had a significant impact on student learning. We will discuss in some depth the
“effective school” movement in Chapters 9 and 10.
Within the sociological community, the debate concerning Coleman’s findings produced a
number of studies that, when all the dust settled, more or less substantiated what Coleman and
his colleagues had found. Despite the nation’s best intentions, differences among schools are not
powerful predictors of differences in student outcomes. After an extensive review of the literature,
McDill (1978, p. 2) concluded:
In the past twelve years a body of empirical knowledge has accumulated, beginning with the Equality
of Educational Opportunity survey (Coleman et al., 1966), and based on both cross-sectional and longi-
tudinal studies, which unequivocally indicates that, overall, between school differences in any
measurable attribute of institutions are only modestly related to a variety of outcome variables.
In other words, where an individual goes to school has little effect on his or her cognitive growth
or educational mobility. This seems to be a case where the data and common sense separate. Can
it be true that the characteristics of an academically elite school are relatively insignificant in
terms of student outcomes? Clearly, the implications of these findings would lead one to believe
that the road to equality of opportunity does not go through the schoolhouse door. The political
nature of these findings was explosive. After all, if student-body composition has such a major
effect on student learning, then the policy implication is clearly that poor students should go
to school with middle-class students in order to equalize their educational opportunities. This
assumption was the foundation that justifies busing students between schools and between
school districts.
During the 1970s, this debate continued and some researchers began to examine the effects
of magnet schools on student learning, arguing that schools that were innovative, learner centered,
and mission driven could make a difference in what students learned and how they learned it.
These studies were intriguing and provided a ray of research hope for those optimists who still
believed in the efficacy of education to provide equal opportunities for all children. Still, from a
research point of view, these findings were not terribly convincing. At this point, James Coleman
and his colleagues at the University of Chicago reentered the debate.
The Coleman Study (1982)

In 1982, James Coleman, Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore published High School Achievement:
Public, Catholic, and Private Schools Compared. Like the first Coleman report, this book set off a
firestorm of controversy. Coleman and his associates found that when they compared the average
test scores of public school and private school sophomores, there was not one subject in which
public school students scored higher than private school students. In reading, vocabulary,
mathematics, science, civics, and writing tests, private school students outperformed public school
students sometimes by a wide margin. Coleman and his associates (1982, p. 177) concluded:
In the examination of effects on achievement, statistical controls on family background are introduced,
in order to control on those background characteristics that are most related to achievement. The
achievement differences between the private sectors and the public sector are reduced (more for other
private schools than for Catholic schools) but differences remain.
In other words, differences among schools do make a difference. The Coleman findings of 1966
were challenged by the Coleman findings of 1982. Coleman and his colleagues argued that private
schools were more effective learning environments than public schools because they place more
emphasis on academic activities and because private schools enforce discipline in a way that is
consistent with student achievement. In short, private schools demand more from their students
than do public schools. As in 1966, the more recent Coleman findings were challenged by a number
of sociologists and other scholars. And, as in 1966, Coleman’s findings essentially withstood the
criticisms leveled at them. However, the interpretations of these findings are still a matter of debate.
Responses to Coleman: Round Two

The debate over the High School Achievement findings has centered on the interpretations attached
to the magnitude of the findings. What Coleman and his associates saw as significant, others saw
as nearly insignificant. For example, Jencks (1985) used Coleman’s findings to compute the
estimated yearly average achievement gain by public and Catholic school students. He estimated
that the annual increment attributable to Catholic schooling was tiny. To put it simply, the
differences that do exist between public and Catholic schools are statistically significant, but in
terms of significant differences in learning, the results are negligible. The interpretation was echoed
by Alexander and Pallas (1983, p. 122):
What then of Coleman, Hoffer, Kilgore’s claim that Catholic schools are educationally superior to public
schools? If trivial advantage is what they mean by such a claim, then we suppose we would have to
agree. But judged against reasonable benchmarks, there is little basis for this conclusion.
Subsequent studies that have compared public and private schools have also found that private
schools seem to “do it better,” particularly for low-income students (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Bryk,
Lee, & Holland, 1993). The same criticisms that have been directed at Coleman and his colleagues,
however, can be directed at Chubb and Moe. Yes, private schools seem to have certain organ-
izational characteristics that are related to student outcomes, but are these relationships as
significant as some researchers claim? This debate is not resolved, and one can expect that more
research and more controversy will surface. For example, a 1998 article by Baker and Riordan argued
that Catholic schools in the 1990s have become more elite, belying the argument that they are
modern common schools (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Greeley, 1982). In a scathing response,
sociologist and priest Andrew Greeley argued that Baker and Riordan’s evidence ignores the past
two decades of findings that support a democratic view of Catholic schools. It appears that there
is evidence to support parts of both views. Catholic schools seem to advantage low-income minority
students, especially in urban areas. However, they are also becoming more elite and like suburban
public schools. Given this trend, it will be interesting to see if they continue to serve the poor.
Responses to Coleman: Round Three

More than forty years after the publication of Coleman’s Equality of Educational Opportunity,
Geoffrey Borman and Maritza Dowling applied the most sophisticated statistical tools to evaluate
educational data in a manner similar to that of Coleman in 1966. Borman and Dowling’s findings
partially confirm both Coleman’s original data from 1966 and his 1982 study. According to Borman
and Dowling (2010, p. 1202):
Formal decomposition of the variance attributable to individual background and the social composition
of the schools suggests that going to a high-poverty school or a highly segregated African American
school has a profound effect on a student’s achievement outcomes, above and beyond the effect of
individual poverty or minority status. Specifically, both the racial/ethnic and social class composition
of a student’s school are 1 3/4 times more important than a student’s individual race/ethnicity or social
class for understanding educational outcomes.
In other words, where an individual goes to school is often related to her race and socioecono-
mic background, but the racial and socioeconomic composition of a school has a greater effect
on student achievement than an individual’s race and class. Borman and Dowling, similar
to Coleman in his 1966 study, argue that race and class are predictors of academic success. How-
ever, Borman and Dowling break from Coleman’s 1966 argument that schools don’t matter. Instead,
Borman and Dowling argue that school segregation based on race and socioeconomic status and
within-school interactions dominated by middle-class values are largely responsible for gaps in
student achievement. Borman and Dowling’s study concludes that education reform must focus
on eliminating the high level of segregation that remains in the United States’ education system
and that schools must bring an end to tracking systems and biases that favor white and middle-
class students.
In 2016 the journal Sociology of Education published a symposium on the 50th Anniversary of
the first Coleman study. Downey and Condron wrote the main article and called for a rethinking
of the findings of the Coleman Report based on contemporary data. They argue that although
outside-school factors continue to play an important role in explaining educational inequality,
schools and school programs play an important role in ameliorating these inequalities (Downey
& Condron, 2016). Then a number of well known sociologists of education responded, each giving
their own perspective on the original Coleman Report (Carter, 2016; Gamoran, 2016; Jencks,
2016; Meyer, 2016; Schneider, 2016; Torche, 2016). As a whole, the symposium indicated that
schools and outside factors interact to explain educational inequalities.
Conclusion
Do school differences make a difference in terms of student outcomes? At this point, probably
the best answer to this question is a highly qualified and realistic yes. Schools that are less
bureaucratic and more academically oriented are better learning environments for students. But,
and this is a big but, these findings should not be interpreted to mean that private schools are
substantially superior to public schools and therefore the public system should be privatized. On
a related note, if people think of school organizations and student outcomes within the class
structure, it is quite likely that differences among schools matter for middle-class children because
they are the beneficiaries of the meritocratic scramble for educational advantage. For very wealthy
students, the schools they attend bear almost no relationship to the money they will inherit, and
for very poor students, their economic and social disadvantages are so profound that schools have
little hope of altering their life chances.
The relationship between social class, race, and achievement is a complex one. Although higher
social class is correlated with higher achievement, the degree to which this is due to factors inside
or outside schools is the subject of significant research.
Tables 8.1 and 8.2 (about Long Island, New York) and Figures 8.19 through 8.22 (about New
Jersey, below) present a simple and at the same time complex view of equality of educational oppor-
tunity and educational inequalities. First, these data suggest that although funding is important,
the socioeconomic level of communities is the most powerful explanation of unequal performance,
Table 8.1 School Wealth, Funding, and Achievement in Nassau County, Long Island, Eastern Suburbs of New York
City (Funding Figures Are for the 2010–2011 School Year; Regents Data Are for the 2010–2011 School Year)
Contiguous Districts1 District Spending per % Proficient % Graduates % Graduates

Wealth Ratio Student Algebra I Planning to Planning to
(2013–2014)2 (2013–2014) Common Core Attend 4-Year Attend 2-Year
(2015–2016)3 Colleges Colleges
(2015–2016) (2015–2016)
Freeport 0.675 $22,496 61% 31% 43%
Baldwin 0.976 $24,729 73% 62% 24%
Roosevelt 0.554 $25,286 59% 36% 37%
Bellmore-Merrick 1.182 $23,430 95% 74% 20%
Carle Place 1.593 $36,609 96% 63% 23%
East Williston 2.318 $33,590 99% 94% 5%
Hempstead 0.454 $22,618 40% 11% 24%
Garden City 2.487 $27,194 99% 91% 4%
Glen Cove 1.522 $24,490 71% 53% 34%
North Shore 2.168 $34,959 99% 86% 10%
1
The grouped districts border each other.
2
District wealth ratio compares each district’s wealth to the state average, which is defined as 1.0. Wealthier districts
have a ratio higher than 1.0, while poorer districts are below 1.0.
3
Regents examinations are statewide tests in New York State required to graduate from high school. State standards
require that all students take and pass five regents examinations in order to graduate.
Notes on School Districts
Freeport is a racially-mixed community on the South Shore of Long Island, which is lower middle to middle class.
Baldwin is a majority white community, contiguous to Freeport, which is middle class.
Roosevelt is a predominantly black community in the middle of Nassau County on Long Island, which is predominantly
poor and lower middle class. The Roosevelt School District was taken over by the New York State Education
Department in the mid-1990s due to poor academic performance and is currently being managed by the State
Education Department. Bellmore-Merrick is a predominately white community contiguous to Roosevelt. It is a central
secondary school district, with feeder elementary schools from Bellmore and Merrick. Its three high schools serve a
population that ranges from lower middle class to upper middle class.
Carle Place is a predominantly white middle-class community in the middle of Nassau County. East Williston is a
predominantly white upper middle-class district contiguous to (north of) Carle Place.
Hempstead is a predominantly black community, which ranges from poor to middle class. Garden City is a
predominantly white upper middle-class community contiguous to (immediately northwest of) Hempstead.
Glen Cove is a mixed-racial community on the North Shore of Nassau County (Long Island), which ranges from lower
middle class to upper middle-class. North Shore is a predominantly white, upper middle-class community contiguous to
(southeast of) Glen Cove.
Source: New York State Department of Education, as cited in “School by School Report Card” (2016) and New York
State Department of Education, as cited in “Fiscal Profile Reporting System” (2014)
http://www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/Profiles/profiles_cover.html
.
Table 8.2 School Wealth, Funding, and Achievement on Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties) by Social Class
and Race
District Spending per % Proficient % Graduates % Graduates
Wealth Ratio Student Algebra I Planning to Planning to
(2013–2014) (2013–2014) Common Core Attend 4-Year Attend 2-Year
(2015–2016)3 Colleges Colleges
(2015–2016) (2015–2016)
North Shore Districts (>80% White and Asian; High SES)
Great Neck 3.286 $32,505 96% 88% 10%
Jericho 2.589 $35,792 98% 95% 4%
Locust Valley 3.707 $36,906 93% 81% 15%
Manhasset 3.033 $26,745 98% 95% 3%
Roslyn 2.194 $31,604 98% 91% 7%
“Urban”-like Suburban Districts (>80% Black or Hispanic; Low SES)
Hempstead 0.454 $22,618 47% 11% 24%
Roosevelt 0.554 $25,286 59% 36% 37%
Uniondale 0.863 $25,659 61% 34% 43%
Note: The North Shore of Long Island is considered the metropolitan area’s Gold Coast, made famous in F. Scott
Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. The term “urban”-like suburban districts is used to describe districts that are demographic-
ally similar to the urban districts described in Kozol’s Savage Inequalities, as well as to illustrate that these inequalities
are not limited to urban–suburban differences, but are found within suburbs, as well. As we noted in Chapter 1, rural
schools often mirror the problems found in many urban schools. See Singer (1999) for a detailed analysis of Long Island
school districts and educational inequality.
Source: New York State Department of Education, as cited in “School by School Report Card” (2016) and New York
State Department of Education, as cited in “Fiscal Profile Reporting System” (2014) http://www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/
Profiles/profiles_cover.html
often independent of funding. Second, they indicate that because race is so strongly correlated with
socioeconomic level, race is also strongly associated with achievement, but not always independent
of social class. Third, although schools with lower socioeconomic levels clearly have lower academic
achievement, there are enough examples of schools (Ann Street, Science Park High School, North
Star Academy Charter School, and Robert Trent Academy Charter School, all in Newark, New
Jersey) to suggest that schools have the ability to overcome the external nonschool factors and
make a significant difference (see Figures 8.19 through 8.22 on pages 339–340).
New Jersey’s public schools and public charter schools provide excellent examples. Newark
(under state takeover since 1995), all other low-income urban Abbott districts, and the I and J
highest wealth districts illustrate the relationship among race, ethnicity, social class, and academic
achievement. As a result of New Jersey’s Abbott v. Burke decision that has mandated that the state’s
high-need, low-income urban districts are funded at the average of the state’s highest socioeconomic
districts, New Jersey’s urban Abbott districts receive more money than all but the highest-income
districts. As these data indicate (see Figures 8.19 through 8.22 on pages 339–340), even with equal
spending, students in low-income districts still perform at significantly lower levels, although there
have been significant improvements, especially at the fourth-grade level. However, in Newark,
there are sometimes significant achievement differences among schools with similar socioeconomic,
race, and ethnic characteristics, with some schools having high achievement and others much lower
achievement. This is true for both public and charter schools (Barr, 2004a, 2004b). At the high
school level, the major differences are between selective magnet schools such as Science Park
High School, where students are admitted based on test scores, and comprehensive schools, where
all students are admitted. However, the achievement scores of a number of nonselective schools,
such as the Ann Street School, in Newark that are at or above the state, district, and districts with
100
90
81.5%
Percent meeting or exceeding expectations
80 75.6%
69.3%
70
60
50
41.2%
40
30 25.0%
19.8%
20
10
0
Newark All other J Districts Science Park North Star New Jersey
Abbotts High School Academy
Figure 8.19 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) 2016 Algebra I
Percent Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.
100
90.0%
90
80 75.6%
70
60
52.2%
50
40.0%
40
30.2% 30.9%
30
20
10
0
Newark All other J Districts Science Park North Star New Jersey
Abbotts High School Academy
Figure 8.20 PARCC 11th Grade English Language Arts Percent Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.
100
90 88.0%
83.5%
80
70
60 57.9%
51.7%
50
40
27.6% 28.7%
30
20
10
0
Newark All other J Districts Ann Street Robert Treat New Jersey
Abbotts Academy
Figure 8.21 PARCC 3rd Grade Math Percent Meeting or Exceeding Expectation.
100
90
80.0%
80 77.2%
70
60
50 47.6% 46.5%
40
30
24.0% 24.1%
20
10
0
Newark All other J Districts Ann Street Robert Treat New Jersey
Abbotts Academy
Figure 8.22 PARCC 3rd Grade English Language Arts Percent Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.
similar socioeconomic level (District Factor Groups DFG) average (see Figures 8.19 through 8.22
on pages 339–340) demonstrate that schools can make a difference independent of the social class,
race, and ethnicity of their students. In the final analysis, in New Jersey—ranked by the Education
Trust (www.edtrust.org) as one of the most equitable states with respect to funding of low-income
schools—social class, race, and ethnicity remain powerful predictors of academic success. The
complex intersection among social class, race, and ethnicity, as well as how school and nonschool
factors affect achievement, are the subject of the next chapter.
School Segregation
As we noted in Chapter 4, schools have become increasingly segregated over the past two decades.
The Harvard Civil Rights Project (www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu) and the UCLA Civil Rights
Project (www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu) provide data on the racial and ethnic composition of
school districts throughout the United States. Research indicates that, despite the fact that schools
are less segregated than 40 years ago, the degree of racial and ethnic segregation is increasing.
Although there is disagreement about the effects of integration on achievement, there is
considerable evidence that students in highly segregated schools have lower achievement and
graduation rates and that minority students in integrated schools have higher levels of achievement
(Orfield & Lee, 2004, pp. 24–25; UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012; Wells, Duran, & White,
2008). Even though there was widespread dissatisfaction with busing for desegregation, there is
evidence that students attending integrated schools received educational and social benefits.
In a study of students who attended desegregated high schools in the early 1980s in five cities—
Austin, Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; Montclair, New Jersey; Pasadena, California; and
Topeka, Kansas—20 years after their graduation, Wells et al. (2008) found that the majority of
these students looked back favorably at their experiences, despite the difficulties of being the ones
to integrate formerly segregated schools. Moreover, the majority of both whites and blacks stated
that they now live in segregated neighborhoods and that their children attend more segregated
schools than they did. More recent research on desegregation has indicated its limits and
possibilities, but has argued for its implementation (Erickson, 2016; Grant, 2011).
Educational Attainment and Economic Achievement

As we saw earlier, college graduates are likely to earn higher salaries than high school graduates,
and it should be noted here that high school graduates are likely to be paid more per hour than
people who have not graduated from high school (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Jencks
and colleagues (1979, p. 230) wrote:
The best readily observable predictor of a young man’s eventual status or earnings is the amount of
schooling he has had. This could be because schooling is an arbitrary rationing device for allocating
scarce jobs; or because schooling imparts skills, knowledge, or attitudes that employers value; or because
schooling alters men’s aspirations.
That education is related to employment and economic achievement is undeniable. In 2015, for
instance, the median annual earnings for a person with less than a high school degree was $25,636,
whereas: the median annual earnings for a person with a high school degree was $35,256; the
median annual earnings for a person with an associate’s degree was $41,496; the median annual
earnings for a person with a bachelor’s degree was $59,124; the median annual earnings for a
person with a master’s degree was $69,732; and the median annual earnings for a person with
a professional degree was $89,960. These median earnings include all people over the age of 25.
It is important to note that for full-time workers, on average, women earn 81% of what men do.
Race and ethnicity exacerbate this gap even more: black women earn 67% of what white men
earn and Hispanic women earn 41% of what white men earn (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2016). Looking at the relationship between educational attainment and economic achievement
in another light, one can see a strong inverse relationship between unemployment and educational
attainment. That is, the more highly educated an individual is, the more unlikely it is that he or
she will be unemployed. As the labor market creates more high-skill jobs and fewer manufacturing
jobs, the economic value of a college education will become even more pronounced.
From our previous discussion, you are aware of the fact that educational attainment alone does
not explain economic achievement. Class background is a powerful predictor of economic
achievement. The higher an individual’s class background, the more likely he or she is to earn
more money than individuals from other classes. Moreover, the higher the prestige of the
occupation, the more likely it is to be filled with people with relatively high academic credentials.
In surveys of occupational prestige, the professions are consistently rated to be more prestigious
than other occupations, and to become a professional usually requires a great deal of education.
Not withstanding this discussion, it is not clear what it is about education that makes it so
economically valuable. Jencks and associates (1979) posed three possible explanations for the
close relationship between educational attainment and economic achievement. It could be that
education is simply a sorting device. That is, educational credentials signal to employers the market
value of a prospective employee, with little reference to what the employee actually knows. Another
possible explanation for why education is related to economic achievement is that educated people
actually know something that is valuable to employers. The employer hires the individual with
more education because he or she is more expert. The third explanation that Jencks offered
concerning the relationship between education and economic achievement is that there is an
interaction between years of schooling and aspirations. That is, motivated people stay in school
and staying in school motivates people to achieve. There is, among some people, a hunger for
education that far exceeds the rational need for a marketplace credential. After all, most college
professors make relatively small amounts of money when compared to their years of education.
Some people simply enjoy learning.
Sociologists have tested these rivaling explanations. Collins (1971), for instance, asked
employers why they hired college graduates for managerial jobs. Did employers actually inquire
into what prospective employees knew? Was there a test of potential employees’ expertise?
Or was it simply the credential that seemed to matter in the decision-making process? You
may remember our discussion of the differences between functional and conflict theorists in
Chapter 4. Collins was testing the relative efficacy of these two theories. If employers made em-
ployment decisions based on what prospective employees knew, this would substantiate the
functionalist perspective because it would support the argument that the amount of schooling
was a reliable index for expertise. On the other hand, if employers made employment decisions
simply on the basis of a prospective employee’s paper credentials, then this would be an argument
for the conflict perspective. In effect, employers would be hiring individuals based on the social
status of possessing a credential, rather than on the individuals’ knowledge and expertise.
Collins found that, on balance, the conflict perspective was supported. Employers seldom even
knew what prospective employees had studied in school, nor did they consider such knowledge
to be particularly relevant in making their employment decisions. A businessman who saw
education primarily as an initial screening device said:
Industry places a high value on the college degree, not because it is convinced that four years of schooling
insure that individuals acquire maturity and technical competence, but rather because it provides an initial
point of division between those more trained and those less trained; those better motivated and those
less motivated; those with more social experience and those with less. (cited in Persell, 1977, p. 159)
In his book Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery (1970), Ivar Berg found that years
of schooling are generally related (and sometimes negatively related) to job performance ratings.
That is, his findings were very similar to those of Collins: education counts but mostly as a social
credential and not as an academic indicator of presumed expertise. Berg (1970, p. 185) wrote:
Educational credentials have become the new property in America. Our nation, which has attempted to
make the transmission of real and personal property difficult, has contrived to replace it with an inheritable
set of values concerning degrees and diplomas which will most certainly reinforce the formidable class
barriers that remain, even without the right within families to pass benefits from parents to their children.
It seems that, from the available evidence, one can conclude that although educational attain-
ment is directly related to economic achievement, the reason for this relationship has very little
to do with technical competence but a great deal to do with social acceptability. These findings
may surprise you—even shock you. Nobody maintains that the intrinsic value of an education is
of no economic or social value. What is being said is that in a class system, educational credentials
are valuable assets in the great status race, above and beyond their intrinsic intellectual value.
Education and Inequality: Mobility or Reproduction?

In this chapter, we have put to the test the American belief in equality of educational opportunity
and found that this belief is based partly on reality and partly on blind faith. The amount of
education an individual receives is directly related to his or her life chances. But life chances are
also directly related to where an individual is located in the class structure, as well as being directly
related to race and, to a somewhat lesser degree, gender. Organizational characteristics of schools
do have a slight impact on student outcomes such as achievement, but these differences are quite
small. The larger truth is that differences between the organizational characteristics of schools
only marginally affect the life chances of students, especially if social class is held constant.
Although educational credentials are good predictors of economic achievement, the reason for
this relationship has less to do with the amount of learning that has taken place than it has to
do with the power of credentials to send social signals of respectability.
From this account, it should be clear that although education provides a method of economic
and social mobility, in the main, education reproduces the existing class structure. Marxist scholars,
such as Bowles and Gintis (1976), have argued that there is a direct correspondence between the
class system and the educational system. Although we do not subscribe to a deterministic or
mechanical view of the relationship between school and society, it does appear that educational
opportunities are closely related to one’s social class position and that, for the overwhelming
majority of people, there is little likelihood that their educational credentials will lift them out
of their social class of origin.
The issues that have been raised in this chapter are so fundamental and so related to the concept
of democracy that they will continue to shape U.S. educational policy for the foreseeable future.
The passionate belief of Americans that education can resolve economic and social problems will
be put to the test in the years ahead. Although one’s heart wants to believe that, through education,
the United States can achieve equality of opportunity, one’s head must remain skeptical. The
empirical evidence indicates that the United States is a long way away from achieving equal
educational opportunity.
In this chapter, we have touched on many important issues regarding the relationship between
education, occupation, and the reproduction of social inequalities. We include three articles that
highlight some of the issues that have been discussed in this chapter. The first article, “Class and
the Classroom: Even the Best Schools Can’t Close the Race Achievement Gap,” written by
journalist Richard Rothstein, analyzes the black–white achievement gap and the limits and
possibilities of schools in reducing them.
The second article, “Fifty Years since the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship
between Schools and Inequality,” written by sociologists Douglas B. Downey and Dennis J.
Condron, reconsiders the relationship between schools and social inequality that James Coleman
explored in his 1966 report. This article argues that schools have the ability to both exacerbate
and ameliorate existing inequalities depending on a range of conditions and practices.
The third article, “A Social Constructionist Approach to Disability: Implications for Special
Education,” by scholars Dimitris Anastasiou and James M. Kauffman, rethinks the education
system’s approach to students classified as disabled and the preeminence of inclusion rather than
an approach that prioritizes individual educational needs. The authors contend that instead of
focusing on the inclusion of disabled students, schools should consider both the specific
instructional needs of a child and the goal of social inclusion on equal footing.
Class and the Classroom

Even the Best Schools Can’t Close the Race Achievement Gap
Richard Rothstein
The achievement gap between poor and upon examination, to be flawed. In some cases,
middle-class black and white children is widely these “schools that beat the odds” are highly
recognized as our most important educational selective, enrolling only the most able or most
challenge. But we prevent ourselves from solving motivated lower-class children. In other cases,
it because of a commonplace belief that poverty they are not truly lower-class schools—for
and race can’t “cause” low achievement and that example, a school enrolling children who qualify
therefore schools must be failing to teach for subsidized lunches because their parents are
disadvantaged children adequately. After all, we graduate students living on low stipends. In other
see many highly successful students from lower- cases, such schools define high achievement at
class backgrounds. Their success seems to prove such a low level that all students can reach it,
that social class cannot be what impedes most despite big gaps that remain at more meaningful
disadvantaged students. levels.
Yet the success of some lower-class students It seems plausible that if some children can
proves nothing about the power of schools to defy the demographic odds, all children can, but
close the achievement gap. In every social group, that belief reflects a reasoning whose naiveté we
there are low achievers and high achievers alike. easily recognize in other policy areas. In human
On average, the achievement of low-income affairs where multiple causation is typical, causes
students is below the average achievement of are not disproved by exceptions. Tobacco firms
middle-class students, but there are always some once claimed that smoking does not cause
middle-class students who achieve below typical cancer because some people smoke without
low-income levels. Similarly, some low-income getting cancer. We now consider such reasoning
students achieve above typical middle-class specious. We do not suggest that alcoholism does
levels. Demography is not destiny, but students’ not cause child or spousal abuse because not all
family characteristics are a powerful influence on alcoholics are abusers. We understand that
their relative average achievement. because no single cause is rigidly deterministic,
Widely repeated accounts of schools that some people can smoke or drink to excess
somehow elicit consistently high achievement without harm. But we also understand that, on
from lower-class children almost always turn out, average, these behaviors are dangerous. Yet
despite such understanding, quite sophisticated inability of schools to overcome the disadvantage
people often proclaim that the success of some of less-literate homes is not a peculiar American
poor children proves that social disadvantage failure but a universal reality. The number of
does not cause low achievement. books in students’ homes, for example, consist-
Partly, our confusion stems from failing to ently predicts their test scores in almost every
examine the concrete ways that social class country. Turkish immigrant students suffer from
actually affects learning. Describing these may an achievement gap in Germany, as do Algerians
help to make their influence more obvious—and in France, as do Caribbean, African, Pakistani,
may make it more obvious why the achievement and Bangladeshi pupils in Great Britain, and as
gap can be substantially narrowed only when do Okinawans and low-caste Buraku in Japan.
school improvement is combined with social and An international reading survey of 15-year-
economic reform. olds, conducted in 2000, found a strong relation-
ship in almost every nation between parental
occupation and student literacy. The gap
The Reading Gap
between the literacy of children of the highest-
Consider how parents of different social classes status workers (such as doctors, professors, and
tend to raise children. Young children of edu- lawyers) and the lowest-status workers (such as
cated parents are read to more consistently and waiters and waitresses, taxi drivers, and mech-
are encouraged to read more to themselves when anics) was even greater in Germany and the
they are older. Most children whose parents have United Kingdom than it was in the United
college degrees are read to daily before they begin States.
kindergarten, but few children whose parents After reviewing these results, a U.S. Depart-
have only a high school diploma or less benefit ment of Education summary concluded that
from daily reading. And, white children are more “most participating countries do not differ
likely than black children to be read to in their significantly from the United States in terms of
prekindergarten years. the strength of the relationship between socio-
A 5-year-old who enters school recognizing economic status and literacy in any subject.”
some words and who has turned the pages of Remarkably, the department published this
many stories will be easier to teach than one who conclusion at the same time that it was guiding
has rarely held a book. The second child can be a bill through Congress—the No Child Left
taught, but with equally high expectations and Behind Act—that demanded every school in the
effective teaching, the first will be more likely to nation abolish social class differences in achieve-
pass an age-appropriate reading test than the ment within 12 years.
second. So the achievement gap begins. Urging less-educated parents to read to
If a society with such differences wants all chil- children can’t fully compensate for differences in
dren, irrespective of social class, to have the same school readiness. Children who see parents read
chance to achieve academic goals, it should find to solve their own problems or for entertain-
ways to help lower-class children enter school ment are more likely to want to read themselves.
having the same familiarity with books as middle- Parents who bring reading material home from
class children have. This requires rethinking the work demonstrate by example to children that
institutional settings in which we provide early reading is not a segmented burden but a seamless
childhood care, beginning in infancy. activity that bridges work and leisure. Parents
Some people acknowledge the impact of such who read to children but don’t read for them-
differences but find it hard to accept that good selves send a different message.
schools should have so difficult a time over- How parents read to children is as important
coming them. This would be easier to understand as whether they do, and an extensive literature
if Americans had a broader international confirms that more educated parents read aloud
perspective on education. Class backgrounds differently. When working-class parents read
influence relative achievement everywhere. The aloud, they are more likely to tell children to pay
attention without interruptions or to sound out adult conversations so the children can prac-
words or name letters. When they ask children tice expressing their own opinions. Being
about a story, the questions are more likely to be included in adult conversations this early
factual, asking for names of objects or memory of develops a sense of entitlement in children;
events. they feel comfortable addressing adults as equals
Parents who are more literate are more likely and without deference. Children who ask for
to ask questions that are creative, interpretive, reasons, rather than accepting assertions on
or connective, such as, “What do you think will adult authority, develop intellectual skills upon
happen next?” “Does that remind you of what we which later academic success in school will rely.
did yesterday?” Middle-class parents are more Certainly, some lower-class children have such
likely to read aloud to have fun, to start conversa- skills and some middle-class children lack them.
tions, or as an entree to the world outside. Their But, on average, a sense of entitlement is based
children learn that reading is enjoyable and on one’s social class.
are more motivated to read in school. Parents whose professional occupations entail
authority and responsibility typically believe
more strongly that they can affect their environ-
The Conversation Gap
ments and solve problems. At work, they explore
There are stark class differences not only in alternatives and negotiate compromises. They
how parents read but in how they converse. naturally express these personality traits at home
Explaining events in the broader world to when they design activities in which children
children at the dinner table, for example, may figure out solutions for themselves. Even the
have as much of an influence on test scores as youngest middle-class children practice traits
early reading itself. Through such conversations, that make academic success more likely when
children develop vocabularies and become they negotiate what to wear or to eat. When
familiar with contexts for reading in school. middle-class parents give orders, the parents are
Educated parents are more likely to engage more likely to explain why the rules are reason-
in such talk and to begin it with infants and able.
toddlers, conducting pretend conversations long But parents whose jobs entail following orders
before infants can understand the language. or doing routine tasks show less sense of efficacy.
Typically, middle-class parents ask infants They are less likely to encourage their children
about their needs, then provide answers for to negotiate over clothing or food and more
the children. (“Are you ready for a nap now? likely to instruct them by giving directions
Yes, you are, aren’t you?”) Instructions are more without extended discussion. Following orders,
likely to be given indirectly: “You don’t want after all, is how they themselves behave at work.
to make so much noise, do you?” This kind of Their children are also more likely to be fatalistic
instruction is really an invitation for a child about obstacles they face, in and out of school.
to work through the reasoning behind an order Middle-class children’s self-assurance is
and to internalize it. Middle-class parents impli- enhanced in after-school activities that some-
citly begin academic instruction for infants times require large fees for enrollment and
with such indirect guidance. almost always require parents to have enough
Yet such instruction is quite different from free time and resources to provide transporta-
what policy-makers nowadays consider “aca- tion. Organized sports, music, drama, and dance
demic” for young children: explicit training programs build self-confidence and discipline in
in letter and number recognition, letter-sound middle-class children. Lower-class parents find
correspondence, and so on. Such drill in basic the fees for such activities more daunting, and
skills can be helpful but is unlikely to close the transportation may also be more of a problem.
social class gap in learning. Organized athletic and artistic activities may not
Soon after middle-class children become be available in their neighborhoods, so lower-
verbal, their parents typically draw them into class children’s sports are more informal and less
confidence-building, with less opportunity to of six encouragements per reprimand. Working-

learn teamwork and self-discipline. For children class children had two. For welfare children, the
with greater self-confidence, unfamiliar school ratio was reversed—an average of one encourage-
challenges can be exciting. These children, who ment for two reprimands. Children whose
are more likely to be from middle-class homes, initiative was encouraged from a very early age
are more likely to succeed than those who are less are more likely, on average, to take responsibility
self-confident. for their own learning.
Homework exacerbates academic differences
between these two groups of children because
The Role Model Gap
middle-class parents are more likely to help with
homework. Yet homework would increase the Social class differences in role modeling also
achievement gap even if all parents were able make an achievement gap almost inevitable. Not
to assist. Parents from different social classes surprisingly, middle-class professional parents
supervise homework differently. Consistent with tend to associate with, and be friends with,
overall patterns of language use, middle-class similarly educated professionals. Working-
parents—especially those whose own occupa- class parents have fewer professional friends.
tional habits require problem solving—are more If parents and their friends perform jobs requiring
likely to assist by posing questions that break little academic skill, their children’s images of
large problems down into smaller ones and that their own futures are influenced. On average,
help children figure out correct answers. Lower- these children must struggle harder to motivate
class parents are more likely to guide children themselves to achieve than children who
with direct instructions. Children from both assume, on the basis of their parents’ social
classes may go to school with completed home- circle, that the only roles are doctor, lawyer,
work, but middle-class children are more likely teacher, social worker, manager, administrator,
to gain in intellectual power from the exercise or businessperson.
than lower-class children. Even disadvantaged children usually say they
Twenty years ago, Betty Hart and Todd plan to attend college. College has become such
Risley, two researchers from the University of a broad rhetorical goal that black eighth-graders
Kansas, visited families from different social tell surveyors they expect to earn college degrees
classes to monitor the conversations between as often as white eighth-graders do. But despite
parents and toddlers. Hart and Risley found that, these intentions, fewer black than white eighth-
on average, professional parents spoke more than graders actually graduate from high school four
2,000 words per hour to their children, working- years later; fewer enroll in college the following
class parents spoke about 1,300, and welfare year; and fewer still persist to get bachelor’s
mothers spoke about 600. So by age 3, the degrees.
children of professionals had vocabularies that This discrepancy is not due simply to the cost
were nearly 50 percent greater than those of of college. A bigger reason is that while disad-
working-class children and twice as large as those vantaged students say they plan to go to college,
of welfare children. they don’t feel as much parental, community, or
Deficits like these cannot be made up by peer pressure to take the courses or to get the
schools alone, no matter how high the teachers’ grades they need to become more attractive to
expectations. For all children to achieve the college admission offices. Lower-class parents say
same goals, the less advantaged would have to they expect children to get good grades, but they
enter school with verbal fluency that is similar to are less likely to enforce these expectations, for
the fluency of middle-class children. example with rewards or punishments. Teachers
The Kansas researchers also tracked how and counselors can stress doing well in school to
often parents verbally encouraged children’s lower-class children, but such lessons compete
behavior and how often they reprimanded their with children’s own self-images, formed early in
children. Toddlers of professionals got an average life and reinforced daily at home.
As John Ogbu and others have noted, a efforts of their white peers is rational for the
culture of underachievement may help explain majority of black students who do not expect to
why even middle-class black children often complete college. Some will reduce their aca-
don’t do as well in school as white children from demic efforts as a result. We can say that they
seemingly similar socioeconomic backgrounds. should not do so and, instead, should redouble
On average, middle-class black students don’t their efforts in response to the greater obstacles
study as hard as white middle-class students and they face. But as long as racial discrimination
blacks are more disruptive in class than whites persists, the average achievement of black
from similar income strata. students will be lower than the average achieve-
This culture of underachievement is easier ment of whites, simply because many blacks
to understand than to cure. Throughout Ameri- (especially males) who see that academic effort
can history, many black students who excelled has less of a payoff will respond rationally by
in school were not rewarded for that effort in the reducing their effort.
labor market. Many black college graduates could
find work only as servants or Pullman car porters
The Health and Housing Gaps
or, in white-collar fields, as assistants to less-
qualified whites. Many Americans believe that Despite these big race and social class differences
these practices have disappeared and that blacks in child rearing, role modeling, labor market
and whites with similar test scores now have experiences, and cultural characteristics, the
similar earnings and occupational status. But lower achievement of lower-class students is
labor market discrimination continues to be a not caused by these differences alone. Just as
significant obstacle—especially for black males important are differences in the actual social and
with high school educations. economic conditions of children.
Evidence for this comes from employment Overall, lower-income children are in poorer
discrimination cases, such as the prominent 1996 health. They have poorer vision, partly because
case in which Texaco settled for a payment of of prenatal conditions and partly because, even
$176 million to black employees after taped as toddlers, they watch too much television,
conversations of executives revealed pervasive so their eyes are poorly trained. Trying to read,
racist attitudes, presumably not restricted to their eyes may wander or have difficulty tracking
executives of this corporation alone. Other print or focusing. A good part of the over-
evidence comes from studies that find black identification of learning disabilities for lower-
workers with darker complexions have less class children may well be attributable to
success in the labor market than those with undiagnosed vision problems that could be
identical education, age, and criminal records but easily treated by optometrists and for which
lighter complexions. special education placement then should be
Still more evidence comes from studies in unnecessary.
which blacks and whites with similar qualifica- Lower-class children have poorer oral
tions are sent to apply for job vacancies; the hygiene, more lead poisoning, more asthma,
whites are typically more successful than the poorer nutrition, less-adequate pediatric care,
blacks. In one recent study where young, well- more exposure to smoke, and a host of other
groomed, and articulate black and white college health problems. Because of less-adequate dental
graduates, posing as high school graduates with care, for example, they are more likely to have
identical qualifications, submitted applications toothaches and resulting discomfort that affects
for entry-level jobs, the applications of whites concentration.
with criminal records got positive responses more Because low-income children live in com-
often than the applications of blacks with no munities where landlords use high-sulfur home
criminal records. heating oil and where diesel trucks frequently
So the expectation of black students that their pass en route to industrial and commercial
academic efforts will be less rewarded than the sites, they are more likely to suffer from asthma,
leading to more absences from school and, when White families are also likely to own far more
they do attend, drowsiness from lying awake at assets that support their children’s achievement
night, wheezing. Recent surveys in Chicago and than are black families at the same income level,
in New York City’s Harlem community found one partly because black middle-class parents are
of every four children suffering from asthma, a rate more likely to be the first generation in their
six times as great as that for all children. families to have middle-class status. Although
In addition, there are fewer primary-care the median black family income is about two-
physicians in low-income communities, where thirds the median income of white families, the
the physician-to-population ratio is less than assets of black families are still only 12 percent
a third the rate in middle-class communities. those of whites. Among other things, this
For that reason, disadvantaged children—even difference means that, among white and black
those with health insurance—are more likely to families with the same middle-class incomes,
miss school for relatively minor problems, such the whites are more likely to have savings for
as common ear infections, for which middle-class college. This makes white children’s college
children are treated promptly. aspirations more practical, and therefore more
Each of these well-documented social class commonplace.
differences in health is likely to have a palpable
effect on academic achievement; combined,
Narrowing the Gaps
their influence is probably huge.
The growing unaffordability of adequate If we properly identify the actual social class
housing for low-income families also affects characteristics that produce differences in aver-
achievement. Children whose families have age achievement, we should be able to design
difficulty finding stable housing are more likely policies that narrow the achievement gap.
to be mobile, and student mobility is an import- Certainly, improvement of instructional practices
ant cause of failing student performance. A 1994 is among these, but a focus on school reform alone
government report found that 30 percent of the is bound to be frustrating and ultimately
poorest children had attended at least three unsuccessful. To work, school improvement
different schools by third grade, while only 10 must combine with policies that narrow the
percent of middle-class children had done so. social and economic differences between chil-
Black children were more than twice as likely as dren. Where these differences cannot easily be
white children to change schools this often. It is narrowed, school should be redefined to cover
hard to imagine how teachers, no matter how well more of the early childhood, after-school, and
trained, can be as effective for children who move summer times, when the disparate influences of
in and out of their classrooms as they can be for families and communities are now most powerful.
those who attend regularly. Because the gap is already huge at age 3, the
Differences in wealth are also likely to be most important new investment should no doubt
important determinants of achievement, but be in early childhood programs. Prekindergarten
these are usually overlooked because most classes for 4-year-olds are needed, but they barely
analysts focus only on annual family income begin to address the problem. The quality of early
to indicate disadvantage. This makes it hard to childhood programs is as important as the
understand why black students, on average, score existence of such programs themselves. Too
lower than whites whose family incomes are the many low-income children are parked before
same. It is easier to understand this pattern television sets in low-quality day-care settings. To
when we recognize that children can have narrow the gap, care for infants and toddlers
similar family incomes but be of different econo- should be provided by adults who can create the
mic classes. In any given year, black families with kind of intellectual environment that is typically
low income are likely to have been poor for longer experienced by middle-class infants and toddlers.
than white families with similar income in that This requires professional caregivers and low
year. child-adult ratios.
After-school and summer experiences for services are relatively inexpensive, such as school
lower-class children, similar to programs middle- vision and dental clinics. A full array of health
class children take for granted, would also be services will cost more, but it cannot be avoided
needed to narrow the gap. This does not mean if we truly intend to raise the achievement of
remedial programs where lower-class children lower-class children.
get added drill in math and reading. Certainly, The connection between social and eco-
remediation should be part of an adequate nomic disadvantage and an academic achieve-
after-school and summer program, but only a ment gap has long been well known. Most
part. The advantage that middle-class children educators, however, have avoided the obvious
gain after school and in summer comes from implication: Improving lower-class children’s
the self-confidence they acquire and the aware- learning requires ameliorating the social and
ness of the world outside that they develop economic conditions of their lives. School board
through organized athletics, dance, drama, members—who are often the officials with the
museum visits, recreational reading, and other closest ties to public opinion—cannot afford to
activities that develop inquisitiveness, creativity, remain silent about the connection between
self-discipline, and organizational skills. After- school improvement and social reform. Calling
school and summer programs can be expected to attention to this link is not to make excuses for
narrow the achievement gap only by attempting poor school performance. It is only to be honest
to duplicate such experiences. about the social support schools require if they
Provision of health-care services to lower- are to fulfill the public’s expectation that the
class children and their families is also required achievement gap will disappear.
to narrow the achievement gap. Some health
Fifty Years since the Coleman Report

Rethinking the Relationship between Schools and Inequality
Douglas B. Downey and Dennis J. Condron
The authors of the 1966 Coleman Report summer growth suggests that socioeconomic
famously concluded that variation in academic achievement gaps in cognitive skills are more a
performance was strongly linked to children’s product of factors outside of schools than pernici-
family environments but hardly at all to per pupil ous school processes (Downey, von Hippel, and
expenditures or other measurable school Broh 2004; Entwisle and Alexander 1992; Heyns
characteristics (Coleman et al. 1966). In the 1978). The evidence that schools temper the
decades following the report, many social science growth of socioeconomic inequality in academic
scholars resisted this position and articulated the skills presents a serious challenge to the critical
ways in which schools reinforce or even promote perspective. Black/white learning gaps, however,
inequality (e.g., Bourdieu 1977; Bowles and may grow faster when school is in session versus
Gintis 1976; Cookson and Persell 1985; Kozol out, complicating the picture regarding how
1992). This “critical perspective” uncovered a schools matter (Condron 2009). These patterns
wide range of school practices favoring the have led to a state of theoretical vertigo in the
advantaged. sociology of education; it remains unclear where
More recent scholarship has called the critical the pendulum currently rests. Do schools simply
perspective into question. Compelling evidence reproduce preexisting inequalities, do they
from studies comparing school-year growth to magnify them, or do they help reduce them?
The Critical View of Schools In our view, it is important to distinguish

From the perspective of a body of scholarship between whether schools reproduce inequality or
much too expansive to review in detail here, exacerbate it. If schools reproduce inequality,
schools either reproduce or exacerbate the then they pass on the inequalities received at
inequalities that students bring with them (for kindergarten largely unchanged as children pass
useful overviews, see MacLeod 1995; Mehan through the education system. Much of the
1992). Bowles and Gintis’s (1976) argument that “reproduction” literature, however, articulates
schools provide the capitalist economy with an even more pernicious—exacerbatory—role
workers who know their place and are prepared for schools. Both sides describe a critical
for their roles, along with Bourdieu’s (1977) perspective on schools and inequality, but the
perspective that schools favor the “cultural two are distinct. And while reproductive and
capital” of middle-class and elite students, form exacerbatory positions are sometimes mixed
the basis of a “reproduction” paradigm, in which in the literature in a confusing way, a third
schools are seen as part of the process through possibility, that schools may reduce inequality,
which advantage and disadvantage are passed on has been largely overlooked.
from one generation to the next. Numerous
sociological studies of education draw on this The Challenge to the Critical
paradigm to investigate how schools reproduce Perspective
inequalities (e.g., Paino and Renzulli 2013;
Roscigno 1998). The 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity
Others go a step further and argue that schools (EEO) study influenced a separate line of scholar-
do not simply reproduce inequality but rather ship that placed less importance on schools
exacerbate it. This position has gained stature themselves and greater emphasis on non-school
for good reason, as scholars have documented a sources of disparities in children’s educational
wide range of school practices and mechanisms opportunities and outcomes. Often referred to as
that favor high socioeconomic status (SES) the Coleman Report, the study was commis-
children. Prominent among them are “savage sioned by the Department of Education and
inequalities” in funding (Kozol 1992), which can involved more than 650,000 students and 4,000
lead to poorer school facilities, dated textbooks, schools. One finding that had the greatest
and larger classrooms for disadvantaged children influence on future work was summarized as
(Darling-Hammond 2010; Mosteller 1995). follows (Coleman et al. 1966:325):
More recently, the narrative has shifted toward
the unequal distribution of teacher quality in the One implication stands out above all: That
wake of evidence from experimental studies schools bring little influence to bear on a child’s
suggesting that children improve 10 percentile achievement that is independent of his back-
points in a year if assigned a top- versus bottom- ground and general social context; and that this
quartile teacher (Gordon, Kane, and Staiger very lack of independent effect means that the
2006). In addition, residential segregation results inequalities imposed on children by their home,
in concentrations of disadvantaged children neighborhood, and peer environment are carried
in the same schools, which has been shown to along to become the inequalities with which they
contribute to achievement gaps (Berends, confront adult life at the end of school.
Lucas, and Peñaloza 2008; Card and Rothstein
2007). Finally, curriculum differentiation prac- Further supporting this claim, Jencks (1972:
tices within schools (e.g., ability grouping and 53) explored the same question with different
tracking) might exacerbate preexisting skill data and agreed with the broad conclusion about
differences as some children are exposed to more schools: “Educational inequality does not explain
challenging material and more effective learning cognitive inequality to any significant extent.”
environments than others (Condron 2008; Some misinterpreted Coleman’s and Jencks’s
Gamoran 1992; Oakes 1985). research as arguing that schools do not matter;
but more accurately, Coleman and Jencks effects is to statistically equalize children across
posited that schools play only a minor role in measurable dimensions of family background,
shaping achievement gaps. such as socioeconomic status, family structure,
Even 10 years before Bowles and Gintis’s and race/ethnicity. Another approach is to pre-
(1976) book, Coleman and colleagues (1966) dict how much children change (e.g., learning
produced evidence suggesting non-school gains over a year) rather than predict an outcome
environments are the primary force behind at one point in time. By predicting learning
achievement gaps. In subsequent decades, how- gains, scholars effectively start all children at zero
ever, the sociology of education has focused and give schools no credit (or punishment) for
more on school factors, and the Coleman Report children’s beginning skills. These strategies are
fell out of favor, stemming in part from only partly effective, however, because why some
methodological criticisms. Critics pointed out, children learn faster than others is largely
correctly, that Coleman and Jencks may have unknown. For example, in models attempting to
left unmeasured the most critical aspects of estimate as much variation in children’s summer
schools that generate inequality (e.g., teacher learning as possible, Burkam and colleagues
quality). Enthusiasm for understanding families’ (2004) used both methods and explained less
role in inequality was already diminished due than 15 percent of the variance, highlighting
to a hostile response to the 1965 Moynihan how most of the non-school characteristics that
Report, which was critiqued as “blaming the influence children’s learning go unmeasured in
victim” (Ryan 1976; see also Skrentny 2008). large surveys. Studies attempting to understand
Ironically, while the Coleman Report initially how schools matter using these traditional
was seen as conservative for implicating families techniques likely overestimate school effects
and communities as the source of socioecono- because their statistical adjustments for non-
mic achievement gaps and Bowles and Gintis school factors are insufficient.
were seen as radically left, by the early 1980s, The second hurdle for understanding how
conservatives had embraced the view that schools influence inequality is that we need
schools are the problem (e.g., National Commis- to consider how all school processes—both
sion on Excellence in Education 1984). exacerbatory and compensatory—stack up
against each other. Some studies address the first
problem (i.e., isolating school effects) by using
Understanding How Schools Influence
random assignment, but these studies typically
Inequality
target a single school process (e.g., the Tennessee
It is difficult to adjudicate between the varying Project Star experiment on classroom size),
perspectives on schools and inequality without which constitutes just one piece of the larger
thinking carefully about the kind of evidence puzzle. This kind of research has value—we learn
that is most useful. We identify three hurdles. something about whether a particular school
First, children are influenced in important practice increases inequality—but it is limited for
ways by both their families and their schools, helping us understand schools’ overall effect on
so how do we separate the two? The average inequality. We are left wondering whether the
18-year-old in the United States has spent just magnitude of all exacerbatory school processes
13 percent of their waking hours in school outweighs that of compensatory ones (those that
(Walberg 1984), highlighting the importance reduce inequality).
of non-school environments. Children are not The third hurdle is crucial—even if we
randomly distributed to schools, so it is difficult successfully isolate school effects and determine
to know whether outcome differences between whether exacerbatory school processes outweigh
schools are a function of school processes or the compensatory ones, we still need to know
widely disparate homes and neighborhoods whether school inequality outweighs non-school
where children spend most of their time. A inequality. Scholars traditionally have framed
common strategy scholars use to isolate school the question narrowly, such as, “How well
would a particular student perform if they method assumes there is little treatment spill-
attended school A versus school B?” This over. We must assume that school practices in
approach identifies variation in school quality, the spring have little influence on summer
but it tells us little about how schools matter learning so that the school treatment does not
within the stratification system. Instead, we contaminate estimates of non-school learning. In
recommend that scholars broaden their scope by practice, this assumption is nearly always
considering the counterfactual: “What would violated because students are not tested precisely
inequality look like if schools did not exist?” on the first and last days of school. Scholars try
(Raudenbush and Eschmann 2015). This is to reduce the extent of this problem by modeling
important because schools may vary greatly in the school segments of learning and subtracting
quality, but non-school environments may vary them from estimates of summer learning. In
even more (Downey et al. 2004). If this is the addition, school practices in the spring, like
case, even unequal schools could be equalizing sending children home with a summer reading
forces by reducing the level of inequality we list, could influence summer learning. Although
would observe in their absence. The traditional there is little evidence of this kind of contamin-
counterfactual, however, does not account for ation among young children (Downey et al.
that possibility. 2004), it remains difficult to assess. In addition,
comparing whether group A, starting low on a
scale, gains more than group B, starting high,
Seasonal Comparisons
requires interval-level scales where gains at the
Seasonal comparison study designs offer one bottom are comparable to those at the top— like
way of meeting these methodological hurdles. equal stair steps. Some of the better scales of
The seasonal nature of the U.S. school calendar cognitive skills may approach this requirement
—nine months of school followed by a three- and reduce problems associated with ceiling
month summer break—provides a natural effects that trouble longitudinal comparisons,
experiment for understanding how schools but the field would benefit from greater dis-
matter (Gangl 2010). Similar to a crossover cussion of this issue and perhaps greater use of
design in medical research, where patients are nonparametric methods that do not depend on
observed on and off treatment, seasonal com- interval assumptions (Ho and Reardon 2011).
parison researchers observe how achievement Finally, are the patterns we observe in the
gaps change when children are on treatment summer really a good indicator of what would
(in school) versus out (summer). This method happen if there were no schooling? If parents
circumvents the problem of trying to identify knew their children would not return to
all the various school processes at stake. The school in the fall, would they behave the way
overall consequence of all mechanisms (both they do in the summers? The field would benefit
exacerbatory and compensatory) is observable from a more energetic discussion of these assump-
in how inequality changes when school is in tions. Nevertheless, we believe they are more
session versus out of session. And seasonal plausible than the assumptions required for
comparisons provide a way of estimating what more traditional methods, that is, (1) models
inequality would look like if children did not predicting learning gains and/or statistically
attend schools by leveraging the summer as an controlling for observable differences in family
estimate of that counterfactual. Finally, unlike background can successfully isolate school
randomized experiments, which can be weak in effects, (2) we know how all exacerbatory and
generalizability, seasonal comparisons can be compensatory mechanisms stack up against each
applied to nationally representative data, other, and (3) school inequality is greater than
producing results strong in both internal and non-school inequality. As a result, seasonal com-
external validity. parison studies prompt great interest.
Like all empirical methods, seasonal com- What do we learn from seasonal comparison
parisons require assumptions. For example, the studies? Remarkably, they find that socio-
economic gaps in cognitive skills grow faster More recent analyses of the newer ECLS-K 2011
when school is out than when it is in. Evidence data replicate these patterns (von Hippel
of this pattern began to emerge as early as the and Workman n.d.). Downey, Workman, and
1970s. Heyns’s (1978) analysis of over 3,000 von Hippel (2016) analyzed the ECLS-K 2011
sixth and seventh graders in 42 Atlanta schools data for seasonal patterns of social and behavi-
during the 1971 to 1972 school year and summer oral outcomes: Teachers rated children in
uncovered a groundbreaking key insight— terms of a set of learning behaviors (e.g., keeps
children’s learning during the summer is a belongings organized, shows eagerness to learn
product of non-school factors, whereas learn- new things, works independently, easily adapts
ing during the school year is a product of both to changes in routine, persists in completing
school and non-school factors (for other early tasks, pays attention well, and follows class-
seasonal comparison studies, see Hayes and room rules); gaps in these social and behavioral
Grether 1983; Klibanoff and Haggart 1981; skills are large across SES, race, and gender
Murnane 1975). Observing how achievement at kindergarten entry but show little evidence
gaps change between the seasons thus provides of increasing faster when school is in versus
important leverage for understanding how out of session between kindergarten and second
schools matter. Subsequently, Entwisle and grade.
Alexander brought even greater attention to To date, the seasonal comparison method
seasonal patterns with their analyses of children’s points to schools as compensatory when it
progression through Baltimore schools in the comes to socioeconomic gaps in cognitive skills
1980s (Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson 2007; and children’s obesity and as neutral with respect
Entwisle and Alexander 1992, 1994). The to social/behavioral skills, but the patterns for
credibility of the seasonal pattern was bolstered race and cognitive skills are less clear. Heyns
by the first nationally representative, seasonally (1978) found that black/white gaps grew faster
collected data, the Early Childhood Longi- in the summer than in the school season in
tudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort of 1998 Atlanta, suggesting that schools are also com-
(ECLS-K) (Downey et al. 2004). The magni- pensatory with respect to race, but black/white
tude of the patterns differs from one study to patterns were less clear in Baltimore (Entwisle
another, but each has produced the same over- and Alexander 1994). And in the nationally
all finding: Socioeconomic gaps in skills grow representative ECLS-K data, the black/white gap
faster when school is out versus in. Alexander grew faster during kindergarten and first grade
(1997:12) explains the ramifications of the than during the summer in between, consistent
seasonal comparison patterns: When it comes with the view that schools generate inequality
to inequality, “schooling is more ‘part of the (Downey et al. 2004). Muddying the waters
solution’ than ‘part of the problem.’” further, black/white skill disparities are well
Scholars also have begun to apply seasonal formed at kindergarten entry (Downey et al.
methods to other dimensions of inequality, 2004). Black/white gaps in cognitive skills
and the results are provocative. von Hippel and appear to grow before kindergarten because of
colleagues (2007) analyzed the ECLS-K data non-school factors, whereas the data from
and found that children gained body mass kindergarten through first grade implicate
index (BMI) roughly twice as fast in the summer schools. There is also provocative evidence from
than during the school year. Black, Hispanic, the ECLS-K and Northwest Evaluation
and low SES children were especially vulner- Association (NWEA) data that schools may
able to BMI gain during the summer months. undermine the performance of Asian Americans
Although it is tempting to infer that schools (Downey et al. 2004; Yoon and Merry 2015); the
promote childhood obesity, given what is often patterns for Hispanics are unclear. Overall,
available for children to eat and drink at school, early seasonal studies suggested that schools are
clearly schools reduce the level of childhood probably compensatory with respect to race, but
obesity that we would observe in their absence. the more recent analyses of larger-scale ECLS-
K and NWEA data reveal more troubling here on the case for schools as compensatory
patterns— white children may benefit more from because this view is the least developed.
school than do black or Asian children.
The evidence for the racial patterns leans
Schools as Compensatory
in the direction of schools as exacerbatory, but
the patterns for socioeconomic achievement In the nineteenth-century United States, educa-
gaps challenge the critical view of schools. tion reformers argued that mass education would
Are schools driving some inequalities while provide a common experience for children and
simultaneously reducing others? Once seasonal therefore an avenue for social mobility (Giroux
comparison studies expand to consider outcomes 2005). U.S. proponents of public schooling con-
beyond cognitive skills (e.g., health, graduation, trasted the system they were creating with their
and earnings), will schools’ pernicious effects European counterparts, whose education system
become more apparent? We suggest that the time remained closely linked to social class. Horace
has come for a new framework for theorizing Mann (1848), the well-known advocate for
and analyzing schools and inequality that can public schooling, wrote,
accommodate the provocative compensatory
seasonal patterns for socioeconomic gaps in According to the European theory, men are
cognitive skills and children’s obesity yet has divided into classes—some to toil and earn,
the flexibility to consider how schools’ effect on others to seize and enjoy. According to the
inequality may vary across other dimensions of Massachusetts theory, all are to have an equal
inequality. chance for earning, and equal security in the
enjoyment of what they earn . . . Education then,
beyond all other devices of human origin, is a
The Refraction Framework
great equalizer of the conditions of men.
At the core of our framework is the idea that
schools are “refractors” of inequality. Much like This view continues to have credibility
light is refracted when it enters a new medium among the general public, with some caveats.
(e.g., from air to water), we argue that inequal- In the 1984 General Social Survey (GSS), the
ities are refracted when children enter schools. last year the question was asked, over 70 percent
Light refracts in different ways, depending on of respondents answered yes to the question:
whether it enters a slower, faster, or similar speed “Does everyone in this country have an oppor-
medium. Similarly, how inequality changes tunity to obtain an education corresponding to
once children enter schools depends on how the their abilities and talents?” The public view
new medium (schools) influences inequality’s appears to be that schools serve as a vehicle for
trajectory vis-à-vis the previous medium (the social mobility—the school system is a reason-
non-school environment). Schools’ role could ably fair institution that rewards hard work. At
be (1) neutral (no change to inequality), the same time, however, most people acknow-
(2) exacerbatory (makes inequality worse), or ledge large disparities in school quality and try
(3) compensatory (reduces inequality). One very hard to get their own children into “good”
advantage of this perspective is that it elevates schools (Johnson 2006). Although the public
the compensatory possibility to a position where views the system as rewarding people fairly, they
it can compete with the other, more dominant also put the onus of responsibility on individuals
views. It also underscores how inequality is well to find the best schools and work hard while in
established and on a meaningful trajectory them.
prior to school entry, elevating the importance In academia, seasonal comparison research
of early childhood experiences (Caudillo and provides the strongest evidence that schools
Torche 2014; Heckman and Masterov 2007). are compensatory with regard to socioecono-
We believe schools potentially can influence mic gaps in cognitive skills. Of course, it may
inequality in all three of these ways, but we focus not be clear why seasonal comparison evidence
is viewed as supporting the compensatory that are potentially compensatory when it

position, given that high and low SES children comes to socioeconomic learning disparities.
typically learn at roughly the same rate when First, schools may reduce achievement gaps
school is in session. Does that not suggest a via curriculum consolidation. Sociologists may
neutral role for schools? In some cases, high SES be more familiar with the term curriculum
children even learn a little faster than low differentiation, referring to school practices in
SES children, yet scholars still conclude that which some children are exposed to different
schools are compensatory (e.g., Downey et al. material and learning conditions than others,
2004). If schools are not reducing achievement such as ability grouping, tracking, and retention
gaps in the absolute sense, and sometimes even practices. But schools also consolidate children’s
allowing them to continue to grow a bit, how learning experiences, grouping them together
can schools be compensatory? even when their skills are disparate. For
An analogy may help. Suppose we assess a example, schools can organize children in many
year-long weight loss program by randomly ways, but children’s chronological age is the
assigning subjects to either treatment or control default basis upon which children are grouped.
groups. And suppose that upon completion, the We do not disagree with that practice but
treatment group has not lost any weight. On its note that the result is a powerful mechanism
surface, this result suggests that the treatment by which children of widely varying skills are
failed. But the proper way to assess the causal exposed to the same curricular challenges. To
effect of the treatment is in comparison to results understand how important this mechanism
for the control group. If the control group is for promoting equality, we can consider the
gained five pounds, on average, then the weight distribution of cognitive skills among chil-
loss program had a positive effect even if the dren in kindergarten, first, and fifth grades
treatment subjects lost no weight. One can even in the ECLS-K. We see substantial overlap in
imagine a scenario where the control group cognitive skills across grades: 40 percent of
gained, on average, five pounds during the study kindergartners outperform the bottom 10 per-
while the treatment group gained two. Even cent of first graders in reading, and a nontrivial
though the treatment group experienced weight number of kindergartners read better than
gain, we would still define the treatment as a fifth graders (authors’ calculations). What do
success because it reduced the weight the treat- schools tend to do with these high-performing
ment group would have gained in its absence. kindergartners? A few are accelerated through
Similarly, the proper way to assess schools’ the system by skipping a grade, but even this
effect on achievement gaps is not to focus solely practice is unlikely to expose them to
on school year patterns but to compare the challenging material. Some of these children
school year (treatment) and summer (control) are so far ahead of their age-based peers that
patterns. Schools are compensatory whenever they would need to skip multiple grades to find
achievement trajectories are more equal when curriculum in their sweet spot. Most remain
school is in versus out of session. with their age-group peers, a practice that is
likely compensatory because it is difficult for
these students to produce academic gains
Compensatory Mechanisms
while exposed to material mostly below their
Given that many of the patterns from seasonal level.
comparison research suggest that schools are Second, schools may reduce achievement
compensatory with respect to socioeconomic gaps by targeting resources toward disadvant-
gaps in cognitive skills, we begin by considering aged children. It is important not to over-
possible school mechanisms that might reduce look the many education policies designed to
inequality. Our goal here is not to identify all improve school conditions for disadvantaged
compensatory school mechanisms. Rather, we children. Title 1, Head Start, the Rehabilita-
merely initiate a discussion of school processes tion Act of 1973, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act in 1990 all were intended to The Cost to Research

improve the quality of school experiences for Underestimating schools’ compensatory role
low SES children (and to varying degrees can lead researchers to overlook the important
have succeeded in doing so; see Ludwig and role that social conditions outside of school play
Miller 2007). Most school funding comes from in shaping the magnitude and malleability of
local and state sources, so a look at how achievement gaps. For example, it turns out
resources are distributed across children with that socioeconomic-based achievement gaps
special needs versus honors students at the state are mostly formed prior to the onset of formal
level is informative. As one example, in 2007 schooling. Perhaps the strongest evidence comes
in Kentucky, the average child with special from the 1998 ECLS-K study, which provides the
needs received an additional $11,970 per year, best data on a large sample of children followed
whereas the average child deemed gifted from kindergarten through several years of
received an additional $62 per year (Seiler school. The 90th to 10th income-based achieve-
et al. 2008). ment gaps in reading grew about 12 percent
Finally, it is possible that although much is between kindergarten and eighth grade, and the
made of the cultural mismatches between teach- math gap actually narrowed (Reardon 2011; see
ers and disadvantaged students, many teachers also Duncan and Magnuson 2011). If socioeco-
operate in a mostly egalitarian manner. The nomic-based achievement gaps form primarily
kinds of people attracted to teaching are dis- prior to kindergarten and then increase only
tinct from the general population—they are modestly (and sometimes even narrow) once
more interested in helping others and more children are in school, then most of the action
likely to endorse relatively egalitarian views. regarding achievement gaps occurs in early
For example, in the GSS data, 47 percent of childhood.
non-teachers said that “lack of effort” is a “very Another way to understand how broader
important” reason why some people are poor, social conditions matter is by comparing
compared to just 32 percent of teachers achievement gaps across countries. Significant
(authors’ calculations). And a national survey cross-national work has explored variations
of teachers found that when asked who was in test scores for children already exposed
most likely to receive one-on-one attention, 80 to schools, but these studies mix the effects of
percent of teachers said “academically struggling school and non-school conditions in unknown
students” while just 5 percent said “academic- ways. It is especially useful, therefore, to compare
ally advanced” students (Duffett, Farkas, and gaps in skills among children who have yet to
Loveless 2008). Teachers may favor the advant- start school. A study of U.S. and Canadian
aged under some conditions, but overall, teacher children’s reading skills highlights this point.
behaviors exacerbating inequality may be out- Merry (2013) documents how Canadians are
weighed by teachers’ greater tendency to favor ahead of U.S. children by a sizeable .30 stand-
the disadvantaged. ard deviation units (nearly a year’s worth of
learning) in the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) reading test given
The Costs of Ignoring Schools’
to 15- to 16-year-olds. Merry also compared simi-
Compensatory Potential
lar-cohort Canadian and U.S. children on the
We believe that the best evidence currently Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)
indicates that schools play a meaningful com- reading test at ages 4 to 5, before formal school-
pensatory role with respect to socioeconomic ing had started, and found that a similar gap of
gaps in cognitive skills, and schools’ com- .31 standard deviation units was already in place
pensatory role might extend further. If schools at that age.
are playing a more significant compensatory role This pattern prompts us to rethink school-
than is currently appreciated, what are the costs based explanations for differences in inter-
of this mistake? national test scores and consider forces outside
the control of the education system (e.g., access schools serving low SES children. As a result,
to health care, income inequality, racial/ethnic education scholars are likely overestimating the
inequality, racial- and income-based housing extent to which school reform is the most attrac-
segregation, the strength of organized labor, tive mechanism for reducing achievement gaps.
family structure, immigrant status, mass incar- If socioeconomic gaps are mostly formed prior to
ceration, the real value of the minimum wage, formal schooling and change little after that,
unemployment benefits, and family leave then it makes more sense to target early child-
options). Merry’s (2013) study raises the possi- hood policies that will prevent large gaps from
bility that international differences in test scores emerging in the first place rather than focus on
among adolescents may have little (or maybe school policies aimed at remediating those gaps.
nothing) to do with schools. Perhaps Finland’s Yet, a significant portion of current education
impressive test scores, which have prompted research emphasizes the importance of teacher
great interest in their teachers and schools, are quality (Goldhaber 2016; Hanushek 2010). We
mostly a product of its successful social welfare agree that some teachers raise children’s skills
programs. more effectively than others, and improving
Finally, it is unclear how conditions outside teacher quality is a laudable goal. But what are
of schools shape schools’ compensatory power. the implications for achievement gaps? Most
Downey and colleagues (2004) suggest that scholars assume that low SES children endure
as inequality outside of school grows, schools’ poorer teachers and that this plays an important
compensatory power also increases because the role in explaining gaps. If we measure teacher
difference in school versus non-school environ- quality in terms of qualifications, experience, or
ments becomes more acute—schools become whether teachers majored in the subject area
an even more important haven for the dis- they teach, then we find evidence consistent
advantaged. But does schools’ compensatory with this view—low SES children are exposed to
power really increase, ad infinitum, as social poorer teachers than high SES children. But
conditions outside of schools become more these observable teacher characteristics hardly
disparate? One might expect a limit to this predict students’ learning. Most scholars now
relationship—that when social conditions be- agree that when measuring teacher quality, we
come highly unequal, children arrive at kinder- should focus on what really matters: how much
garten with achievement gaps so large and students learn.
entrenched that schools’ compensatory power If we evaluate teacher or school quality via
begins to wane. Have we reached that point? how much students learn, the evidence is more
These kinds of contextual questions—how the mixed regarding whether low SES children
gap at kindergarten entry changes over time, how endure substantially poorer learning environ-
it compares across countries, and how schools’ ments. Some data support the notion that high
compensatory power changes over time—are SES children enjoy more effective teachers. For
where sociologists shine, yet they have received example, a report from the Tennessee Depart-
insufficient attention. ment of Education, which uses a value-added
approach for evaluating teachers, concludes
that “Tennessee’s teacher effectiveness data
The Cost to Policy
indicate that students in high poverty/high
It is one thing if academics develop the wrong minority schools have less access to the ‘most
explanations for inequality; it is another if those effective’ teachers and more access to the ‘least
explanations frame public discussions that lead effective’ teachers than students in low poverty/
to suboptimal policy advice. If we are currently low minority schools” (Tennessee Department
underestimating schools’ compensatory power of Education 2007). A similar analysis in
to the extent that the seasonal comparison Louisiana found comparable patterns, although
evidence suggests, then education policy is it did not replicate in Massachusetts (DeMonte
misinformed by underestimating the quality of and Hanna 2014).
The value-added models favored by many also receive poor information about which
researchers, however, may not adequately iso- schools are the best, undermining market
late teachers’ contributions to learning. One mechanisms that might promote better schools
problem is that they usually gauge learning from (Downey et al. 2008).
one year to the next, for example, between the If low SES children currently enjoy roughly
spring of third grade and the spring of fourth similar learning environments relative to their
grade, and so the summer in between biases the high SES peers, what does this mean for reducing
estimate because high and low SES children’s the achievement gap via school reform? It means
skills diverge for reasons unrelated to schools. that reducing gaps would require more than just
Growth models constructed with 9-month data raising the quality of schools serving low SES
remove summer noise and correlate only around children to the level of those serving high SES
.50 with traditional growth models using 12- children—it would require creating substantially
month data, demonstrating that summer noise is better school learning environments for low SES
a nontrivial problem (Atteberry 2011). children. This may be what happens when small-
There is not yet consensus over which kind scale projects are able to close achievement gaps
of value-added model is most valid for isolating to some degree. For example, black children who
teacher or school effects, but as education were chosen via lottery for the Harlem
scholars develop better techniques, one pattern Children’s Zone and experienced several years in
stands out—models that more persuasively the program demonstrated eighth-grade skills on
isolate these effects suggest that the differences par with white children in New York City while
in effectiveness between schools serving high their counterparts who were not chosen
and low SES children are modest or even non- continued to lag behind (Dobbie and Fryer
existent (Downey, von Hippel, and Hughes 2009). The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)
2008; Lauen and Gaddis 2013). For example, charter schools also have raised disadvantaged
analyzing a nationally representative sample children’s skills, in part by increasing the amount
of 287 schools, Downey and colleagues found of time children spend in school and perhaps by
no relationship between their measure of school attracting high-quality teachers (“Student
quality (i.e., the difference in schools’ summer Characteristics and Achievement” 2010). It is
vs. school-year learning rates) and the percen- important to note that these occasional “high-
tage of children in the school receiving free or flying” schools probably succeed by providing
reduced lunches (Downey et al. 2008). Along disadvantaged children with substantially better
the same lines, other work notes that private schools than their advantaged peers attend. An
schools do not produce more learning than obstacle for reducing inequality via school
public ones (Lubienski and Lubienski 2013). reform therefore is that doing so would require
These studies lead to a remarkable conclusion scaling up similar efforts and, importantly,
—the distribution of teacher or school effective- making them available to low SES children
ness (defined as promoting cognitive skills) while denying them to high SES children. Or, at
may be only weakly related to socioeconomic the least, low SES children would need to enjoy
status. The traditional story is that low SES greater benefits than high SES children from the
children attend dramatically poorer schools school treatments provided.
and, as a result, are far behind their high SES Relatedly, one of the best investments U.S.
peers. It is probably more accurate to say that low policymakers could make would be to move away
SES children arrive at kindergarten far behind from the current, agriculturally based school
but then mostly stop losing ground once in calendar and extend the school year. Yet policy-
school. Current accountability schemes there- makers, influenced by popular school-based
fore most likely underestimate the performance rhetoric, reasonably ask, “Why spend money
of teachers and administrators serving dis- increasing the quantity of schooling when the
advantaged children, leading to undeserved quality of schools serving disadvantaged chil-
labels and sanctions. Parents and policymakers dren is so poor?” Scholars have promoted
the view that schools serving low SES children most other outcomes, we would need to explain
are of very poor quality, thereby undermining why the school mechanisms that reduce SES-
support for increasing school exposure. This based cognitive skill gaps do not extend to these
is unfortunate because a longer school year, other outcomes, highlighting the need to
with school quality distributed as it currently understand schools’ compensatory mechanisms
is, would improve the cognitive skills of U.S. better. This gap in the sociology of education
children in general and benefit the disadvant- literature remains a significant obstacle.
aged the most (i.e., by lengthening the period Another possibility, and one we find more
of time in which they lose less ground to high persuasive, is that schools are considerably
SES children). more compensatory than previously thought.
Of course, even if schools are already compen- Coleman’s conclusion—that schools play a
satory and not the source of socioeconomic gaps, largely neutral role in influencing achievement
they still may be an attractive policy lever for gaps—was wrong, but for a different reason
reducing gaps further. Through school reform, we than most critiques of his work suggest. Coleman
can readily influence a broad range of children. may not have measured what matters about
But recall that these gaps emerge during early schools well, but he also did not measure the
childhood and are nearly completely formed by non-school environment well, and that error was
kindergarten entry. When we consider school- even greater.
based reforms for reducing achievement gaps, The primary need for change, in our view, lies
we need to know more about the cost-benefit in how education scholars frame their questions.
analysis of broader societal policies that could Scholars tend to ask, are there school processes
prevent gaps from emerging in the first place that favor advantaged children? If they find
versus school reforms aimed at remediating them, then they conclude that schools are
gaps. The question is not whether it is possible culprits. We do not dispute that some school
via school reform to reduce achievement gaps; practices likely make inequality worse, and
the question is whether school reform is the indeed we both have researched some of these
best strategy for reducing them. practices ourselves (Condron 2008; Downey
and Pribesh 2004). But we contend that the
literature typically fails to compare the magnitude
Conclusions
of exacerbatory school mechanisms against that
Fifty years after the Coleman Report, a critical of compensatory ones, resulting in a one-sided
view of schools has come to dominate the view of schools and inequality. In addition, even
sociology of education, with scholars identifying if exacerbatory school mechanisms do outweigh
a wide range of school mechanisms thought to compensatory ones, we still need to know if the
reproduce or exacerbate inequality. The field is inequality produced by schools is worse than that
now at a crossroads. The dominant ideas con- produced by non-school environments.
tinue to support the notion that schools We call for a more contextual understanding
reproduce or exacerbate inequality, but compel- of how schools matter, a view that was initially
ling empirical evidence suggests that schools are undermined by the No Child Left Behind
compensatory when it comes to a key dimension legislation. When No Child Left Behind was
of educational inequality—socioeconomic first implemented, it was clear that schools
achievement gaps. were to be evaluated on the basis of children’s
It may turn out that socioeconomic gaps in test scores at one point in time, and there would
cognitive skills (and children’s body mass index) not be any adjustments based on varying non-
are the exceptions, the only dimensions of school environments. This made no sense, of
inequality for which schools are compensatory. course, given that between-school achievement
Maybe schools are an engine of socioeconomic gaps are significantly established at the onset
inequality for most other outcomes. But if future of kindergarten. But to their credit, many
work finds that schools promote inequality for states abandoned evaluations of schools based
on test scores at one point in time and have toward schools when the source of the problem
moved toward value-added assessments, in is elsewhere.
which statistical models more persuasively isolate Education scholars have been complicit in
schools’ contribution to children’s learning. promoting school reform as the answer. Based on
This change represents a noteworthy acknow- evidence that almost certainly fails to separate
ledgment by policymakers that context school from non-school effects, they have
matters. encouraged the notion that schools serving
Can this victory for the “context” side be advantaged children promote more learning
expanded? Two more shifts are necessary. First, than schools serving disadvantaged children,
the public needs to understand that socio- and they have downplayed the fact that skill
economic achievement gaps form primarily gaps are mostly formed prior to schooling
before formal schooling and schools probably and schools, as currently constituted, do more
do more to reduce than increase them. If the to reduce than increase these gaps. They have
public and policymakers knew this, they likely highlighted how better teachers promote
would acknowledge that achievement gaps are much more learning than weaker teachers and
generated and maintained primarily by forces then implied that improving the teachers
outside a school’s purview, and they might be black students are exposed to could readily close
more inclined to address the broader social the black/white achievement gap (Gordon
conditions generating those gaps. Second, the et al. 2006) even though they lacked evidence
public needs to understand that, once compared that teachers serving black children are poorer
fairly, schools serving low SES children provide than those serving white children. Economist
learning environments roughly on par with Eric Hanushek (1992:106) explains the focus
schools serving high SES children. When we say on schools: “While family inputs to education are
this, we do not mean to suggest that schools indeed extremely important, the differential
serving disadvantaged children are perfect and impacts of schools and teachers receive more
would not benefit from improvement or that attention when viewed from a policy viewpoint.
certain practices within schools are not This reflects simply that the characteristics of
advantageous for high SES children. What we schools are generally more easily manipulated
mean is that when school effects are carefully than what goes on in the family.”
isolated, there is surprisingly little evidence that But should current political conditions
schools serving high SES children do a better job regarding what is considered the easiest policy
promoting math and reading learning than do reform shape scholars’ willingness to identify
schools serving low SES children. Sociologists the real causes of achievement gaps? The
should be at the forefront of making this more assumption that policy affecting families and
contextual understanding of schools better neighborhoods is out of bounds and school
known. policy is the only lever available has been a
We recognize that the U.S. public is excep- significant obstacle to understanding how
tional in the way they view public investment in schools really matter. This focus promotes the
schools as a legitimate action of the welfare state narrative that social conditions outside of
yet are skeptical of state involvement via other schools are somehow natural and independent
means. People in the United States are more from policy decisions. They are not (Fischer et
reluctant than Canadians or Europeans to help al. 1996). Earlier we mentioned that Canadian
families via non-school policies (e.g., increasing 4- to 5-year-olds outperform U.S. children on
the minimum wage, greater public trans- reading tests before schools have a chance to
portation, more generous family leave policies, matter. It is noteworthy that Canadians are
broader access to health care, pro-worker legis- ahead by the largest margin at the bottom of
lation, and reducing mass incarceration) (Katz the performance distribution—the United
2013; McCall 2013). This cultural position has States has a longer tail of poor performers
consequences and too often directs policy efforts (Merry 2013). The Canadian people have made
a wide range of different policy decisions that Funding

have made it easier to be poor in Canada than The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following
in the United States. financial support for the research, authorship,
A cynical—and entirely plausible—inter- and/or publication of this article: “How Big Are
pretation of the greater emphasis on reforming Summer Learning Gaps? Using Seasonal
schools relative to reforming other institutions Comparisons to Understand Whether Schools or
is that it serves a purpose: It distracts people from Other Settings Are the Primary Source of Test-
the real sources of inequality, thereby serving Score Inequality” with Paul von Hippel, William
the interests of those who benefit from current T. Grant Foundation, ($426,923), June 1, 2013–
social arrangements. Spring (2013:14), for May 30, 2015. “Do Gaps in Test Scores,
instance, posits that school-based reform is Behavioral Skills, and Health Grow Faster in
inherently conservative because it avoids the School or out? New Analyses Using the ECLS-
more central conflict between the interests of K 2011” Russell Sage Foundation, ($100,297),
labor and capitalists: “One reason schools have May 1, 2016–August 31, 2017. “The Distribution
gotten involved with so many social problems of School Quality” Spencer Foundation,
is that the school is the most available insti- ($43,452), June 1, 2014–May 30, 2015.
tution and the one least likely to affect other
parts of the social system.” If this is so, then
school policy provides an arena where reformers’ References
energies can be “cooled out” with little chance Alexander, Karl L. 1997. “Public Schools and the
of undermining existing power structures. Public Good.” Social Forces 76(1):1–30.
The current weakness in the sociology of Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Linda
education literature—underestimating the Steffel Olson. 2007. “Lasting Consequences of the
Summer Learning Gap.” American Sociological
compensatory role of schools—stems from
Review 72(2):167–80.
unwarranted certainty among scholars that Atteberry, Allison. 2011. Defining School Value-added:
schools promote inequality. It would be equally Do Schools That Appear Strong on One Measure
problematic to replace that position with one Appear Strong on Another? Evanston, IL: Society for
that contends that schools are uniformly Research on Educational Effectiveness.
compensatory, especially because currently we Berends, Mark, Samuel R. Lucas, and Roberto
Peñaloza. 2008. “How Changes in Families
only have evidence that schools are com- and Schools Are Related to Trends in Black-white
pensatory with regard to socioeconomic gaps in Test Scores.” Sociology of Education 81(4):
cognitive skills and BMI and that they play a 313–44.
neutral role with respect to social and behavioral Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. “Cultural Reproduction and
skills. Instead, we call for a more balanced under- Social Reproduction.” pp. 487–511 in Power and
Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A.
standing of the relationship between schools and
H. Halsey. New York: Oxford University Press.
inequality, one where neutral, exacerbatory, and Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis 1976. Schooling
compensatory possibilities are all given serious in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the
consideration and scholars acknowledge that Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic
inequality between groups is already on a strong Books.
trajectory when children arrive at kindergarten. Burkam, David T., Douglas D. Ready, Valerie E.
Lee, and Laura F. LoGerfo. 2004. “Social-class
We need to know more about how schools Differences in Summer Learning between
refract that trajectory. In the past half century, we Kindergarten and First Grade: Model Specification
have made less progress on this question than we and Estimation.” Sociology of Education 77(1):1–31.
should have. In the next 50 years, we can do Card, David, and Jesse Rothstein. 2007. “Racial
better by rigorously isolating school effects, Segregation and the Black-white Test Score Gap.”
Journal of Public Economics 91:2158–84.
carefully weighing the magnitude of exacer-
Caudillo, Monica L., and Florencia Torche. 2014.
batory and compensatory mechanisms, and “Exposure to Local Homicides and Early
placing school effects in context. Educational Achievement in Mexico.” Sociology of
Education 87(2):89–105.
Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Entwisle, Doris R., and Karl L. Alexander. 1992.
Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, “Summer Setback: Race, Poverty, School Com-
Frederick D. Weinfield, and Robert L. York. 1966. position, and Mathematics Achievement in the
Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, First Two Years of School.” American Sociological
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Review 57(1):72–84.
Condron, Dennis J. 2008. “An Early Start: Skill Entwisle, Doris R., and Karl L. Alexander. 1994.
Grouping and Unequal Reading Gains in the “Winter Setback: The Racial Composition of
Elementary Years.” The Sociological Quarterly Schools and Learning to Read.” American
49(2):363–94. Sociological Review 59(3):446–60.
Condron, Dennis J. 2009. “Social Class, School and Fischer, Claude S., Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez
Non-school Environments, and Black/White Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and
Inequalities in Children’s Learning.” American Kim Voss. 1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking
Sociological Review 74(5):683–708. the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Cookson, Peter W. Jr., and Caroline Hodges Persell. University Press.
1985. Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Gamoran, Adam. 1992. “Is Ability Grouping Equit-
Schools. New York: Basic Books. able?” Educational Leadership 50(2):11–17.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2010. The Flat World and Gangl, Markus. 2010. “Causal Inference in Sociologi-
Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity cal Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:
Will Determine Our Future. New York: Economic 21–47.
Policy Institute and Teachers College. Giroux, Henry. 2005. Schooling and the Struggle for
DeMonte, Jenny, and Roberta Hanna. 2014. Looking Public Life: Democracy’s Promise and Education’s
at the Best Teachers and Who They Teach. Retrieved Challenge. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
May 13, 2016 (https://www.americanprogress.org/ Publishers.
issues/education/report/2014/04/11/87683/looking- Goldhaber, Dan. 2016. “In Schools, Teacher Quality
at-the-best-teachers-and-who-they-teach/). Matters Most.” Education Next 16(2):56–62.
Dobbie, Will, and Roland G. Fryer. 2009. Are High Gordon, Robert, Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O.
Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Staiger. 2006. “Identifying Effective Teachers
Gap? Evidence from a Social Experiment in Harlem. Using Performance on the Job: The Hamilton Pro-
Cambridge, MA: NBER.
ject, Discussion Paper 2006–01.” The Brookings
Downey, Douglas B., and Shana Pribesh. 2004.
Institution, Washington, DC.
“When Race Matters: Teachers’ Evaluations of
Hanushek, Eric A. 1992. “The Trade-off between
Students’ Classroom Behavior.” Sociology of
Child Quantity and Quality.” Journal of Political
Education 77(4):267–82.
Economy 100(1):84–117.
Downey, Douglas B., Paul T. von Hippel, and Beckett
Hanushek, Eric A. 2010. “An Effective Teacher in
Broh. 2004. “Are Schools the Great Equalizer?
Cognitive Inequality during the Summer Months Every Classroom: A Lofty Goal, but How To Do
and the School Year.” American Sociological Review It?” Education Next 10(3):47–52.
69(5): 613–35. Hayes, Donald P., and Judith Grether. 1983. “The
Downey, Douglas B., Paul T. von Hippel, and Melanie School Year and Vacations: When Do Stu-
Hughes. 2008. “Are ‘Failing’ Schools Really dents Learn?” Cornell Journal of Social Relations
Failing? Using Seasonal Comparisons to Evaluate 17:56–71.
School Effectiveness.” Sociology of Education Heckman, James J., and Dimitriy V. Masterov. 2007.
81(3):242–70. “The Productivity Argument for Investing in
Downey, Douglas B., Joseph Workman, and Paul T. Young Children.” Applied Economic Perspectives and
von Hippel. 2016. “Do Socioeconomic, Racial/ Policy 29(3):446–93.
Ethnic, and Gender Gaps in Social and Behavioral Heyns, Barbara Lee. 1978. Summer Learning and the
Skills Grow Faster during the School Year or Effects of Schooling. New York: Academic Press.
Summer?” Working paper. Ho, Andrew D., and Sean F. Reardon. 2011.
Duffett, Ann, Steve Farkas, and Tom Loveless. 2008. “Estimating Achievement Gaps from Test Scores
High-achieving Students in the Era of No Child Left Reported in Ordinal ‘Proficiency’ Categories.”
Behind. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics
Institute. 37(4):489–517.
Duncan, Greg J., and Katherine Magnuson. 2011. Jencks, Christopher S. 1972. Inequality; a Reassessment
“The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New
Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems.” York: Basic Books.
pp. 47–69 in Whither Opportunity: Rising Inequality, Johnson, Heather Beth. 2006. The American Dream
Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, edited by and the Power of Wealth: Choosing Schools and
G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane. New York: The Inheriting Inequality in the Land of Opportunity. New
Russell Sage Foundation. York: Routledge.
Katz, Michael. 2013. Public Education under Siege. Social Inequality?” Annual Review of Sociology
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 41:443–70.
Klibanoff, Leonard S., and Sue A. Haggart. 1981. Sum- Reardon, Sean. 2011. “The Widening Academic
mer Growth and the Effectiveness of Summer School. Achievement Gap between the Rich and the
Washington, DC: Office of Program Evaluation. Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations.”
Kozol, Jonathan. 1992. Savage Inequalities: Children in pp. 91–115 in Whither Opportunity? Rising
America’s Schools. New York: Harper Perennial. Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances,
Lauen, Douglas Lee, and S. Michael Gaddis. edited by G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane. New
2013. “Exposure to Classroom Poverty and Test York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Score Achievement: Contextual Effects of Selec- Roscigno, Vincent J. 1998. “Race and the Reproduc-
tion?” American Journal of Sociology 118(4):943–79. tion of Educational Disadvantage.” Social Forces
Lubienski, Christopher A., and Sarah Theule 76(3): 1033–61.
Lubienski. 2013. The Public School Advantage: Why Ryan, William. 1976. Blaming the Victim. New York:
Public Schools Outperform Private Schools. Chicago, Vintage Books.
IL: University Of Chicago Press. Seiler, Marcia Ford, Ken Chilton, Deborah Nelson,
Ludwig, Jens, and Douglas L. Miller. 2007. “Does Head Albert Alexander, Brenda Landy, Sabrina Olds,
Start Improve Children’s Life Chances? Evidence and Pam Young. 2008. Review of Special Education
from a Regression Discontinuity Design.” The in Kentucky. Frankfort, KY: Legislative Research
Quarterly Journal of Economics 122:159–208. Commission: Office of Education Accountability.
MacLeod, Jay. 1995. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations & Skrentny, John D. 2008. “Culture and Race/Ethnicity:
Attainment in a Low-income Neighborhood. Boulder, Bolder, Deeper, and Broader.” The Annals of the
CO: Westview Press. American Academy of Political and Social Science
Mann, Horace. 1848. “Horace Mann on Education 619:59–77.
and National Welfare.” Retrieved May 13, 2016 Spring, Joel. 2013. American Education. New York:
(http:// www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/horace_ McGraw-Hill.
mann.htm). Tennessee Department of Education. 2007. Tennessee’s
McCall, Leslie. 2013. The Undeserving Rich: American Most Effective Teachers: Are They Assigned to the
Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribu- Schools That Need Them the Most? Nashville, TN:
tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Author.
Merry, Joseph J. 2013. “Tracing the U.S. Deficit in Tuttle, C. C.; Teh, B.; Nichols-Barrer, I.; Gill,
PISA Reading Skills to Early Childhood: Evidence Brian P.; & Gleason, P. (2010). Princeton, N.J.:
from the United States and Canada.” Sociology of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. “Student
Education 86(3):234–52. Characteristics and Achievement in 22 KIPP
Mehan, Hugh. 1992. “Understanding Inequality in Middle Schools.” 2010. Retrieved May 13, 2016
Schools: The Contribution of Interpretive (http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=
Studies.” Sociology of Education 65(1):1–20. W WCQRKIPP0910).
Mosteller, Frederick. 1995. “The Tennessee Study of von Hippel, Paul T., Brian Powell, Douglas B.
Class Size in the Early School Grades.” The Future Downey, and Nicholas J. Rowland. 2007. “The
of Children 5(2):113–27. Effect of School on Overweight in Childhood:
Murnane, Richard J. 1975. The Impact of School Gain in Body Mass Index during the School Year
Resources on the Learning of Inner City Children. and during Summer Vacation.” American Journal
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. of Public Health 97(4):696–702.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. von Hippel, Paul T., and Joseph Workman. n.d. “US
1984. A Nation at Risk: The Imperatives for Educa- Children’s Overweight and Obesity Prevalence
tional Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Increase during Summer Vacations, but Not
of Education. During School Years, from Kindergarten through
Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Second Grade.” Working paper.
Structure Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Walberg, Herbert J. 1984. “Families as Partners in
Press. Educational Productivity.” Phi Delta Kappan 65(6):
Paino, Maria, and Linda A. Renzulli. 2013. “Digital 397–400.
Dimension of Cultural Capital: The (In)Visible Yoon, Aimee, and Joseph J. Merry. 2015. “Academic
Advantages for Students Who Exhibit Computer Success Despite Discrimination?: Asian Americans
Skills.” Sociology of Education 86(2):124–38. in US Schools.” Paper presented at the Meetings
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Robert D. Eschmann. of the American Sociological Association,
2015. “Does Schooling Increase or Reduce Chicago, IL.
A Social Constructionist Approach

to Disability: Implications for Special
Education
Dimitris Anastasiou and James M. Kauffman
The basic concepts of the “social” (social con- constructionists have called an individual or
structionist) model were developed initially by medical model (Barnes, 1991; Hahn, 1985;
the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Oliver, 1996).
Segregation (UPIAS), an organization in the In the view of social constructionists, the
United Kingdom advocating for the rights of so-called individual/medical model underpins
people with physical disabilities, beginning in the “medicalization” of disability. Proponents of
the 1970s (see Abberley, 1996; Barnes, 1991; the constructionist model have six complaints
Shakespeare, 2006, for historical details). Vari- about an individual/medical model:
ous theorists and activists—such as Paul Hunt,
Vic Finkelstein, Paul Abberley, Colin Barnes, 1. It implies that “within-individual” (physical
and especially Michael Oliver, an academic and psychological) factors are the primary or
sociologist with a physical disability—also played exclusive causes of disability (Barnes, 1991;
roles in the development and extension of this Oliver, 1996).
model to other disabilities. Oliver has been 2. It de-emphasizes the role of social factors in
prominent since the mid-1980s in the promotion creating disabilities (Barnes, 1991; Hahn,
of his social constructionist approach. 1985; Oliver, 1996).
It is important to scrutinize the claims of the 3. It creates a taxonomic system for categor-
constructionist model articulated by its leading izing disabilities, and an identification pro-
authors and examine the consequences of their cess that results in labeling people with
assertions for special education. As persons not disabilities (Barnes, 1991).
identified as having disabilities, we respect the 4. It connotes the treatment of people with dis-
direct experience of persons with disabilities, abilities by medical and paramedical profes-
their endeavors to produce a viable theoretical sions and creates powerful, vested interests
work, and their contribution to the disability in the medical industry for finding a “cure”
movement. We also believe that publicly for disability or preventing it (Oliver, 1996).
expressed ideas should be subject to the same 5. It connotes a cruel professional attitude
kind of testing, regardless of whether their toward people with disabilities, a paternal-
originators or proponents have disabilities. istic relationship between the professional
and the clients with disabilities, and it
invades people’s privacy (Oliver, 1990,
The Nature of the Social
1993; Oliver & Barnes, 1993).
Constructionist Model
6. It implies the medical treatment of disabil-
ity, which, in turn, is equated with stigma,
Reaction Against the Medicalization of
unnecessary hospitalization, and asylums
Disability
(Barnes, 1991; Oliver & Barnes, 1993).
We use the term social constructionist model (or,
more simply constructionist model) to refer to These are all seen as historical “sins” of psychiatry
what some writers have called the “social and the medical profession more generally.
model” of disability. The social constructionist Social constructionists (Barnes, 1991; Oliver,
model has been juxtaposed with what social 1990; Pfeiffer, 1998) regard even the tripartite
International Classification of Impairments, for interviews and observations designed by

Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) definition researchers with no experience or sensitivity to
of the World Health Organization (1980) as a the day-to-day reality of disability—a situation
version of the medical/individual model. Hurst which, whilst it may be of benefit to researchers,
(2000) characterized it as the “official, internatio- does nothing to serve the interests of disabled
nal underpinning of the medical model of people.
disability” (p. 1083). But according to Burry (Oliver, 1996, p. 139)
(2000)—one of the three people who worked
for the ICIDH taxonomy—the ICIDH aim Oliver (1996) also maintained that “Con-
was to overcome the medicalization of disability sequently, most of this research is considered
and recognize the social consequences of at best irrelevant, and at worst, oppressive”
health-related matters with the focus on the (p. 139). On the other hand, it seems that the
“handicap” part of the classification. On balance, close connection of life with disability to political
Shakespeare (2006) found it unfair to equate the activism and social movement has increased the
ICIDH with medicalized approaches to disability. popularity of models constructed by people
For years, the tenets of the social construc- with disabilities. In other words, when people
tionist model were considered to be heresy, with disabilities construct a model by and for
challenging the official views of disability and themselves, its personal construction alone is
common attitudes towards people with dis- assumed to confirm its face validity.
abilities. But, as Oliver and Barnes (1993) put No social theory or movement seems to
it bluntly, the social constructionist model of remain static. French (1993), an academic with
disability is now “the new orthodoxy” (p. 274). visual impairment, expressed her serious
We fear that these ideas—the constructionist reservations about the adequacy of the construc-
model, which has now become orthodoxy— tionist model to catch the most profound
will not be a liberating force. In fact, the con- problems of people with disabilities linked to the
structionist model of disability may contribute impairment itself. Low (2006), who has served
not only to a zealous pursuit of inclusion at the as chair of the Royal National Institute of the
expense of effective instruction but also to Blind and president of the European Blind
the demise of special education. Union, expressed doubts about a political
strategy based on the social model. Shakespeare,
a distinguished theorist and activist who has a
Prevalent Ideas in the Cultural Zeitgeist physical disability, was a defender of the social
The Zeitgeist includes, apparently, the notion model in the past (see Shakespeare & Watson,
that theorizing about disability by recounting 1997) but also has strongly criticized it, calling
personal experience (rather than rigorous for a more balanced approach (Shakespeare,
scientific study) gives strength to one’s ideas. 2006; Shakespeare & Watson, 2002). Thus, the
This is exemplified by the writings of Abberley, now orthodox constructionist model has already
Barnes, Oliver, and Finkelstein, all indivi- been challenged from within.
duals with disabilities who use their personal
experiences to construct propositions that they
Personal and Public Truths
generalize to all individuals. Social construc-
tionists have repeatedly criticized “mainstream Some theorists and activists with disabilities
disability research” (Barnes, 2003), especially (e.g., Oliver, 1996) have clearly stated that they
empiricist research designed by researchers constructed their own personal truths, their
without disabilities: unique perceptions and interpretations, because
no person without a disability can better
Research on disability has consistently failed to represent the likes and interests of people with
involve disabled people except as passive objects disabilities. But, as Haack (2003) has suggested,
personal belief is often mistaken for public 2010, 2011). The public truths of science are
knowledge. Although truth is not easily access- more helpful to others in most cases than is the
ible or recognizable, and even good theories personal, “situated” knowledge often claimed by
can fail, it is possible to approximate truth, and particular individuals or groups (Nanda, 1998).
“to make rational assessments of such cognitive As special educators we are committed to
process” (Niiniluoto, 1999, p. 10). Reality can seeking public truths about disabilities and using
be approached by scientific methods, and com- the methods of science to promote the best
mon knowledge or public truth can be demon- education we can for learners with disabilities. By
strated in a scientific manner (e.g., Kauffman, seeking public truths, as well as excellence in the
2010, 2011; Kauffman and Sasso, 2006a, 2006b). services offered, ultimately serves the cause of
The use of the self-corrective methods of science social justice. We cannot morally justify advo-
in the long run has been and also can be cacy for students with disabilities based on
progressive in the cognitive sense (Niiniluoto, anything other than common knowledge—
1999). public truths. From this perspective, we scrutinize
The alternative to common or public know- how the ideas embodied in the constructionist
ledge is testimony, personal assertion, or model are (or are not) justified.
authoritarian insistence. This in no way denies
the personal; it is simply to say that the personal
The Constructionist Roots of the “Social
is just that and cannot be generalized the way
Model” of Disability
common knowledge or public truth can be.
Bauman (1994) asserted that people some- The leading theorists of the social construc-
times generalize inappropriately from what they tionist model (e.g., Abberley, 1987; Finkelstein,
experience personally. It is not accidental that 1980; Oliver, 1990, 1996) tend to use Marxism-
Oliver (1990, 1993, 1996), having a spinal cord inspired concepts (e.g., social oppression),
injury and using a wheelchair, has emphasized especially those considered Gramscian (e.g.,
exclusion from the workforce and barriers in ideological hegemony). Still, as we analyze
the workplace. Nor is it surprising that Susan further, their point of view is an idealistic rather
Wendell, who has myalgic encephalomyelitis/ than materialistic extension of Karl Marx and
chronic fatigue syndrome, has stressed her Andonio Gramsci to disability phenomena
experience of pain and physical exhaustion (Bunge, 1991; cf. Abberley, 1996; Priestley,
(cited in Shakespeare, 2006). But personal 1998).
experience sometimes helps people think beyond The British theorists of the model have
their own circumstance in other ways that get at named it social, but their approach to under-
public truths. For example, Shakespeare—who standing disability has specific sociological roots,
has the genetic condition achondroplasia, the mainly in social constructionism as introduced
commonest form of dwarfism—has admitted that by Berger and Luckmann (1966). Social
he considered biological factors when he began constructionism, in turn, draws its ideas from the
suffering from serious back pains because of his neo-Hegelian historicism of the 19th century,
genetic condition. However, his reflections on Nietzsche’s philosophy, and the ancestors of the
this new personal experience changed his mind sociology of knowledge (Max Weber, Emile
about the social constructionist model of dis- Durkheim, George Herbert Mead, Robert
ability, and he became increasingly critical of Merton) in the early 20th century (see Bunge,
that model (compare Shakespeare & Watson, 1991; Hruby, 2001). According to Bickenbach,
1997, to Shakespeare & Watson, 2002, and Chatterji, Badley, and Üstün (1999) other
Shakespeare, 2006). underpinnings in the formation of what the
Any personal or private truth cannot replace British have called the social model can be traced
public truth for scientific purposes. Every public back to the 1960s or earlier, especially to the
truth should be open to careful logical analysis sociological accounts of the “sick role” by
and empirical verification (Kauffman, 1996, Talcott Parsons (1951), Goffman’s (1963) study
of social stigma, Becker’s sociological perspec- tool, not a theory” (Oliver, 2004, p. 30), or “a
tive on deviance (1963) and similar work by tool for gaining insight into the way that society
Safilios-Rothschild (1970), and generally to the disables” people with impairments (Finkelstein,
long tradition of medical sociology. 2001, p. 10). Thus, Oliver (1996, 2004) and
The adjective social, which leads to the Finkelstein (2001) have argued that their models
“social model,” is not justifiable. Sociology, the neither constitute a complete social theory of
study of social life, groups, and societies, cannot disability nor explain disability in totality.
be equated with social life itself. The sociological Such a use of the term model may imply a
level differs from the social level; the former prudent attitude or simply organize a defensive
refers to scientific discourse on a phenomenon, tactic to avoid critiques. It is quite common
and the latter refers to the phenomenon itself. In for social model or constructionist model to refer
the same way, the study of biology differs from to every type and degree of disability, to organ-
the natural processes performed by living things, ize available data, to offer an account of the
and the study of psychology from the human life and experience of all people with disabilities,
mind and people’s behavior. The equation of and to cover such issues as the political strategy
scientific disciplines with the phenomena that of the disability rights movement. All things
they study reveals a flawed logic. Thus, we think considered, the constructionist model constitutes
the proper name for the model would be “the a small-scale theory (Llewellyn & Hogan,
social constructionist model,” as French (1993) 2000) or a theoretical system (Shakespeare,
has called it. 2006)—even if the designation theory is abjured
In the last two decades, social construc- by its leading proponents. Oliver (1996) and
tionism from both sides of Atlantic met Hughes and Paterson (1997) provided tables of
“postmodernism,” and several social construc- the key concepts of the social/constructionist
tionists have been enchanted by poststructuralist model and contrasted them to the concepts of
or postmodernist writers such as Foucault and the medical/individual model. Apparently, these
Derrida (see, e.g., Hughes & Paterson, 1997; lists of binary opposites fulfill a function of
Liggett, 1988; Simmons, Blackmore & Bayliss, simplified codifications of a more complicated
2008; Skrtic, 1995). This is not surprising, as theory.
ontological relativism and epistemological Specifically, Hughes and Paterson (1997,
subjectivity are the common philosophical basis p. 330) provided the following coupled opposites:
of social constructionism and postmodernism. biological—social; impairment—disability; the
Kauffman (2002, 2010, 2011); Kauffman and body—society; medicine—politics; therapy—
Sasso (2006a, 2006b); Mostert, Kauffman, emancipation; pain—oppression; medical model
and Kavale (2003); and Sasso (2001, 2007) —social model. Oliver (1996, p. 34) offered his
have analyzed and criticized the conceptual own long list of paired comparisons: the
foundations of the postmodern arguments, individual model—the social model; personal
underlining what they believe to be the negative tragedy theory—social oppression theory;
implications for present-day special education personal problem—social problem; individual
services. treatment—social action; medicalization—self-
help; professional dominance—individual and
collective responsibility; expertise—experience;
Construction of a Sociological Model
adjustment—affirmation; care—rights; indi-
or Theory
vidual adaptation—social change.
Oliver (1996, 2004) and Finkelstein (2001) have It is characteristic that Oliver (1996) and
distinguished the concept of “model” from Hughes and Paterson (1997) merely listed these
“theory.” For them, a model has fewer require- dichotomies without analytically operational-
ments than a theory, as it can explain only some izing each of them; this approach makes do with
planes of experience, not the whole pheno- provoking emotional reactions, without provid-
menon. The term model is used as “a practical ing further explanatory comments (Shakespeare,
2006). Although a tendency to see issues in black moting the social inclusion of people with
and white might be appropriate for political disabilities, creating a barrier-free society,
activism (e.g., to generate simple emotion- and developing a positive identity for those
laden political slogans), it is inappropriate for with disabilities (Finkelstein, 1980; Oliver,
scientific purposes. 1990, 1993, 1996).
5. Disability is not a personal tragedy. Nothing
is wrong with people with disabilities that
The Foundational Claims of the needs to be fixed. On the contrary, what is
Constructionist Model needed is a change in society (Oliver, 1990,
The social constructionist model’s arguments 1996). W. I. Thomas (as cited in Oliver,
can be condensed into five foundational, inter- 1996, p. 103) succinctly put it thus: “if men
connected theses: define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences.” As far as disability is con-
1. There is a sharp distinction between impair- cerned, if it is seen as a tragedy, then disabled
ment and disability. Impairment refers to people will be treated as if they are the
physical/bodily dysfunction, and disability to victims of some tragic happening or circum-
social organization (Barnes, 1991; Oliver, stance. This treatment will occur not just in
1996; see Anastasiou & Kauffman, in press). everyday interactions but also will be
In a postmodern version of the social con- translated into social policies attempting to
structionist model, impairment is considered compensate these victims for the tragedies
culturally produced and socially structured that have befallen them. Alternatively, it
(Hughes & Paterson, 1997). logically follows that if disability is defined
2. Disability is not a product of bodily path- as social oppression, then disabled people will
ology, but of specific social and economic be seen as the collective victims of an
structures (Oliver, 1992). uncaring or unknowing society rather than
3. Social and economic structures disable as individual victims of circumstance. Such
impaired people, excluding them from full a view translates into social policies geared
participation in mainstream social activ- towards alleviating oppression rather than
ities (Oliver, 1990, 1993, 1996). People with compensating individuals (Oliver, 1990,
disabilities are an oppressed social group pp. 2–3).
(Abberley, 1987; Oliver, 1986, 1993,
1996). According to Abberley (1987), the We note with some distress that if people
“theory of disability as oppression [attempts] with disabilities are not in a predicament, then
to flesh out the claim that historically an organized society need not offer them any
specific categories of ‘disabled people’ were additional (special) supports not offered to
constituted as a product of the development others. But this is the antithesis of providing
of capitalism, and its concern with the com- special education and related supports to stu-
pulsion to work” (p. 17). In the American dents with disabilities. Faulty logic does, indeed,
version of the model, people with disabilities lead to distressing results for both general and
are considered an oppressed minority group special education (Kauffman, 2010).
(e.g., Hahn, 1985, 1989; Liggett, 1988;
Silvers, 1994).
Steps in Arguments for Social
4. The political goal of the disability rights
Constructionism
movement should be the removal of barriers
imposed by social structures and attitudes. According to social constructionists, disabil-
Therefore, the movement should aim at ities are defined by arbitrary decisions of those
addressing issues of oppression and discrimi- empowered to designate them; thus, disabil-
nation against people with disabilities, pro- ities are labels determined by public policy and
professionals (Hahn, 1985) or products of think- The second step in the social constructionist
ing influenced by the capitalist mode of produc- process is to accept that X is quite bad as it is. As
tion and an oppressive system of social relations relates to ID:
(see Kliewer, Biklen, & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2006;
Oliver, 1990, 1993; Smith, 1999, 2001). It puts Labeling and testing provide a cloak of scientific
the onus of labeling disability on others. For legitimacy to social control and oppression. The so-
example, Kliewer et al. (2006) wrote, “We do not called mentally retarded are a surplus population.
believe a person has an intellectual disability; . . . That is to say those who are called retarded often
rather, the person is defined by others as having do not easily fit into society . . . . As Braginsky and
the condition” (p. 188). Braginsky (1971: 176) put it: ‘“mental retardation’
Social constructionists usually build their is, in fact, a sociopolitical not a psychological
argumentation in three steps. First, for them it is construct. The myth, perpetuated by a society
enough in the beginning that something (X) which refuses to recognize the true nature of its
is considered by most people to represent a real needed social reforms has successfully camouflaged
condition and has the status of a current the politics of diagnosis and incarceration.
scientific concept (initial condition). Then, they (Bogdan & Taylor, 1982, p. 15)
challenge the actual existence of X, arguing
that X is simply a social construction shaped The concept of mental retardation has been des-
by specific social events, forces, or history. Some cribed as a social construction which exists in the
of them go so far as to maintain that X is quite minds of mental health professionals and others.
bad as a social construction. The bad social (Lea, 1988, p. 63)
construction should be eliminated as a category
or radically transformed (Hacking, 1999). When at the end of an assessment report a school
For example, instead of asking, “What is psychologist speaks (or writes) the words, “This
intellectual disability (ID)?,” social construction- child has an IQ of 62,” he or she also does some-
ists are more likely to raise questions about the thing more than just utter some words. The
validity of the “official” definition of ID and statement by that person, in that context, makes
the relevance of the social context of ID (or the child mentally retarded. As a consequence, the
any label). Mercer (1973) described such child’s experience of life, and of schooling,
questions as nonsensical; the definition of changes.
intellectual disability (in Mercer’s time mental (Ferguson & Ferguson, 1995, p. 114)
retardation), like other definitions, is not abso-
lute, but a social consensus. Thus, how intellec- If we think something is quite bad, we should
tual disability is understood and, consequently, do what we can to eliminate or transform it.
who is disabled, depends on the underlying Given acceptance of the first two arguments,
paradigm or theory. Frequently, such theories some social constructionists do the morally
are implicit and unformulated (St Claire, 1986, justified thing and move on to the third step of
p. 233). the continuum of social constructionism: trying
But even if the relevance of social context is to transform radically ID as social category or
of great importance for the invention of a con- simply eliminate any label for it. Oliver’s (1990)
cept, the primary question from a scientifically arguments, summarized in Thesis 5, exemplify
realistic perspective is whether and how much a Step 3, as do his comments about special educa-
theoretical concept reflects real but atypical tion in our later section about special education
human conditions. From the social construc- being under siege. Kliewer and Biklen wrote,
tionist perspective, the first step is to consider “Labels block the essential agenda of good
that ID is simply a social construction—“mental teaching, namely inquiry through dialogue and
retardation is conceptualised as a social con- interaction, teacher and student. . . . Who
struct rather than within individual pathology” wants to be called retarded?” (1996, pp. 93–94).
(St Claire, 1986, p. 234).
Premises and Applications of the Social of social construction ([a] and [b] in the preceding
Constructionist Model list). The third interpretation incorporates the
Generally speaking, social constructionists share dimensions of relativity, variability in time and
an antirealistic view of both the living and the place, and subjectivity of judgment (components
social world (see analysis by Bunge, 1991). As of a critical culture-context analysis), but
Gergen (1985) succinctly put it: includes external mind-independent realities
(the realist point of view) that can be approached
Social constructionism views discourse about the through scientific self-correction (the scientific
world not as a reflection or map of the world but component; see Niiniluoto, 1999, for details on
as an artifact of communal interchange. Both as critical scientific realism).
an orientation to knowledge and to the character Undoubtedly, concepts are mental constructs
of psychological constructs, constructionism that are built in society and baptized in cultural
forms a significant challenge to conventional representations. Sometimes concepts are in
understandings. direct correspondence to external realities and
(p. 266) can be rough approximations to the truth;
sometimes they are simply weak correlations
Even the very idea of social construction is with the natural and social worlds and, under
obscure. With the overuse of social-construct talk certain circumstances, can lead to strong
it has taken on different nuances of meaning (see stereotypes and prejudices (e.g., sexism, racism,
Kauffman & Hallahan, 2009). In relation to nationalism, homophobia). Although we have a
disabilities, this can mean (a) an arbitrary critical attitude towards some aspects of current
narrative based on folk beliefs—a kind of cultural or past legislation of our respective countries and
fairy tale (postmodern view) in which disabilities have doubts about the usefulness of some
may be created or destroyed by words or beliefs; legislative concepts for special education services
(b) an arbitrary social creation, which varies in (see Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977; Kauffman,
time and place according to social expectations 2010), we consider that some basic contempor-
and sociopolitical context (Oliver, 1990, 1993); ary scientific notions about disabilities are both
or (c) a collective representation that may cor- well established and useful.
respond, less or more successfully, to some real Mental retardation/ID is a case in point. The
“socialized biological” conditions, a representa- borderline between ID and normal range of
tion that is partly variable in time and place, intelligence depends certainly on cultural
usually according to changes in cultural expecta- representations and social values, but it cannot
tions and values, techno-science, and socio- be avoided (Kauffman & Lloyd, 2011). Even
political context. Despite the inherent variability more important, drawing this line depends
of the act of representing human conditions, on political priorities (tolerance, willingness to
scientific constructs (e.g., scientific definitions of offer educational and other services, opportunity
specific disabilities)—a special kind of collective to work, etc.). Though the issue of “borderline”
representation—are the best way to approach is not trivial, as it applies most obviously to
truth; they are products of scientific enquiry and people with milder ID, the essence of cog-
are scrutinized constantly for their truth and nitive disability goes beyond ambiguous border-
falsity by using the self-corrective methods of lines. Moderate, severe, and profound ID are
science (Hacking, 1983; Niiniluoto, 1999). usually defined by restrictions in learning speed
We see legitimacy in the critical scientific or in the need for assistance; these restrictions
realistic approach ([c] in the preceding list), can be set at almost any level we may choose.
especially in the case of intellectual disabilities, The arbitrariness of the designation of the
autism, behavioral disorders, blindness, deafness, borderline between ID and typical intelligence
physical disabilities, speech or language impair- is not enough to reject the concept of ID itself
ments, and specific learning disability. However, in a rational way, any more than the arbitrariness
we have strong objections to the other meanings of the borderline between obese and not-obese
is a sufficient reason to reject the concept of labeling requires silence about an issue, and we
obesity. are unwilling to take a vow of silence regarding
Social constructionists develop their argu- disabilities (and we surmise that the critics of
ments by pointing out the relative nature of labeling are, too, regardless of the irony of their
phenomena related to disability, their variability protestation).
in time and place, as well as on the subjective
judgments involved. Murder, rape, torture, and
Disabilities in the Universe of Social
child abuse are atypical and harmful social
Constructionism
interactions, and from many aspects they could
be viewed as social constructions (Kauffman & Although Berger and Luckmann (1966) did
Hallahan, 2009). For example, the concept of not stake a claim for any form of universal con-
child abuse had a different nuance in Britain’s structionism, for some of today’s social construc-
industrial revolution in the late 18th and early tionists potentially everything and anything
19th centuries, when Britons made ample use of is socially constructed, from the taste of honey
child labor. Every day, courts in many nations to the Holocaust, quarks, and the planet Mars
have to decide whether someone is guilty or not (Hacking, 1999). Hacking (1999), a philos-
guilty for murder, rape, torture, or child abuse. opher, posed the question, “The social con-
And quite often not all the members of a jury struction of what?” For universal construction-
arrive at the same conclusion. Besides, most ism—a strong form of social constructionism
people acknowledge that in spite of the relativity —this “what” is a continuously enlarged list of
and variability of legal definitions and disputes social and physical entities. Among the prime
of the members of a jury, the fact that subjectivity examples are ethnicity, race, gender, and sexual
is involved is not enough for the aforementioned orientation. So far, so good . . . maybe: These
concepts (murder, rape, torture, etc.) to be categories, now widely accepted as social
characterized as social myths (narratives) or constructions to a greater or lesser degree, are
fictions (false ideologies). Changing a label to followed by a list of numerous other social
make it more attractive or less harsh does not constructions: nature, facts, reality, quarks, tech-
change the reality to which the words refer nological systems, urban schooling, emotions,
(Kauffman, 2011). If we take relativity, vari- authorship, danger, illness, women refugees, and
ability, and arbitrariness very seriously, then we so on (see Hacking, 1999). To the list relevant
have to speak about the social construction of to special education we might add such things as
murder, rape, torture, pedophilia, etc., which inclusion and diversity, as well as all categories
trivializes the concepts. of disability.
Despite the dimensions of relativity, vari- Usually, such an approach is deemed to be
ability, and subjectiveness, we can acknowledge “liberal,” as it calls into doubt the acceptability
that murder, rape, torture, child abuse, and so of any status quo in social life. Indeed, sometimes
on can be helpful ideas, as they bring tangible it is liberal. Hacking (1999) argues for mother-
benefits to the person and society whose wel- hood as a fixed and inevitable thing, and he
fare is in question. Applying this instrumental reaches the conclusion that the theses of social
approach to disabilities, “there is more to be construction “are liberating for those who are on
gained for the child with a disability by recog- the way to being liberated—mothers whose
nizing it than by ignoring or denying it or argu- consciousness has already been raised, for
ing that it is merely socially constructed” example” (p. 2).
(Kauffman & Hallahan, 2009, p. 53); it is simply Unfortunately, analyses of the social con-
impossible to talk about something without struction type do not always liberate. For
naming (labeling) it (Kauffman, 2011). Even example, some historical revisionists deconstruct
those who decry labeling (e.g., Bogdan & Taylor, the Holocaust, that is the genocide of Jews during
1982; Kliewer & Biklen, 1996; Kliewer et al., World War II, and express their doubts that gas
2006) label what they write about. In fact, not chambers were used in mass murder. Indeed, such
analyses may be used to deny murder (e.g., Disabilities Act (IDEA), the presence of a dis-
Grann, 2008) or any scientific knowledge (see ability does not automatically qualify a student
Specter, 2009). The moral depravity of some for special education. The student must have
applications of social constructionism has been both a disability and a special educational need
noted by some philosophers (e.g., Blackburn, deriving from the disability.
2005; Niiniluoto, 1999).
In the universe of social constructionism, Disability is a problematic category
disabilities are not exceptions. Both disability as for scientific purposes, including
a general notion and different types of disabil- education, simply because it constitutes
ities—such as deafness (Lane, 1995), learning a very abstract and general concept.
disabilities (Sleeter, 1986), mental retardation/
intellectual disability (Kliewer & Biklen, 1996; The basic problem with the term disability,
Lea, 1988; St Claire, 1986), and Asperger’s in the singular, is that it refers to a huge range
syndrome (Molloy & Vasil, 2002)—have been of more specific conditions. As Danermark and
viewed as mere social constructions. Coniavitis Gellerstendt (2004) have under-
lined:
Disability as a Conglomeration of
There are huge differences not only between
Different Disabling Conditions
diverse groups of disabled people, for example,
Disability, in the singular, is useful because we can between people with mental and physical impair-
use a unique term to describe any severe ments, but also within a group of people with
restriction or lack of ability to perform a usual, similar limitation in function, for instance a
critical activity of human beings. With just one person with hearing impairment caused by
word, we refer to human conditions that require conductive hearing loss as compared to a person
special services. Under a unified label, several with sensorineural hearing loss. In the first case,
local, national, and international organiza- a hearing aid usually compensates the hearing loss
tions have formed a strong movement that and the person concerned therefore has no or
pushes societies toward sensitivity to the rights limited problems in communicating, while in the
of people with disabilities, as well as toward second case the specific type of hearing loss can-
measures to facilitate the full inclusion of people not be compensated by using a hearing device.
with disabilities into ordinary social life. Thus, (p. 344)
the general concept of disability and the word
disability are valuable for advocacy and self- Disability as a single category does not allow
advocacy groups struggling for the rights of theorists to communicate with each other with
people with disabilities (Oliver & Zarb, 1989; clarity because it conceals the heterogeneity of
Shakespeare, 1993). various disabling conditions. Many different
However, disability is a problematic category models have been built on the singular concept
for scientific purposes, including education, of disability (e.g., medical, social, sociopolitical,
simply because it constitutes a very abstract and minority group models), all of which theorize a
general concept. It requires generalization from “unified disability” (Pfeiffer, 2001). In fact, the
other concepts such as hearing impairments idea of a single “unified disability” allows critical
and deafness, visual impairments and blindness, differences across several disabilities to be
deaf-blindness, physical disabilities (orthopedic ignored and the enormous variability among
and other health impairments), mental retarda- disabilities to be denied (Shakespeare & Watson,
tion or intellectual disability, emotional and 2002). If theorists want to ensure the explanatory
behavioral disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, power of their models, they should turn back
speech or language impairments, specific to the varied conditions and experiences of
learning disability, traumatic brain injury, and so people with disabilities to whose lives their
on. Moreover, under the Individuals With models refer.
Overall, disability is a highly complex term. To understand this it is necessary to grasp the
It is difficult to reflect on the multiplicity of distinction between the physical impairment and
its dimensions (biological, cognitive-behavioral, the social situation, called ‘disability’, of people
social, environmental) and their interaction with such impairment. Thus we define impair-
for each of the many disabilities included in one ment as lacking all or part of a limb, or having a
term. Thus, the generality, vagueness, and defective limb, organism or mechanism of the
complexities of the notion of disability do not body and disability as the disadvantage or restric-
contribute to a general agreement on its tion of activity caused by a contemporary social
definition. Instead, the general term generates organisation which takes little or no account of
several misconceptions and confusions in people who have physical impairments and thus
science. What should be our response to the use excludes them from participation in the main-
of this higher order notion— disability? stream of social activities. Physical disability is
One danger is to respond to the conceptual therefore a particular form of social oppression.
difficulties involving the term disability by (UPIAS, 1976, pp. 3–4)
replacing it with oversimplifications. Social
constructionists reduce the idea of disability to Comparing this quotation with the basic
something simply sociological, committing the claims of the social/constructionist model, it is
mirror image of the error of biological determin- easy to understand that concepts and strategy
ism (e.g., social Darwinism, eugenics, the cog- devised for a specific disability group were
nitive elite theory of Herrnstein and Murray, subsequently extended to other disability groups.
1994). Replacing biological determinism with How appropriate is this extension?
cultural determinism, social constructionists In general, the constructionist approach can
build theoretical speculations about people with help us understand the experiences of people
disabilities who, paradoxically, are assumed by with physical disabilities. Also, the minority
the model to be empty of biological features. group approach (Hahn, 1985, 1989; Liggett,
Their next logical error is to analyze all types of 1988; Silvers, 1994) seems to apply to many of
disabilities (physical, cognitive, emotional/ the social problems of people who are deaf. The
behavioral) with the same single-dimensional analogy between language or ethnic minorities
way of thinking—that of social constructionism. and sign language communities seems to be
strong. If for the sake of argument we forget some
constraints, people with physical disabilities and
Social Constructionist Model of
deafness are right to protest and struggle against
Disabilities: One Size Fits All
the barriers of a social world designed only for
The history of the social/constructionist model people without disabilities. Although the impair-
is crucial to understanding its inability to ment/disability distinction can lead to a dualism
encompass each and every one of many of existence, the accessibility political strategy
disabilities. As we have noted, the “model” was can be rather beneficial for people with physical
coined by the Union of the Physically Impaired and sensory disabilities (Oliver & Zarb, 1989).
Against Segregation (UPIAS) in 1976, and sub- Indeed, in most cases of people with physical
sequently developed by Oliver (1990, 1996) and disabilities, important barriers can be perceived
other people with physical disabilities to meet as social (coming from the outside world).
the needs of the disability movement.
Accepting the limitations imposed by physical
In our view, it is society which disables physic- disabilities without trying to see how much
ally impaired people. Disability is something people can learn or how the environment can be
imposed on top of our impairments by the way changed to allow them to respond more
we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from effectively is an insulting and dehumanizing way
full participation in society. Disabled people of responding to physical differences.
are therefore an oppressed group in society. (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2009, p. 513)
However, a disabling context cannot be ences to all people with disabilities. Even if
equated with socially oppressive structures. Oliver (1990, 1996) makes infrequent reference
Natural environments, such as sandy or very to “people with learning difficulties” (a British
rocky soils or icy roads, are sometimes the label for people with intellectual disabilities),
hardest places for wheelchairs and nearly walkers he tends to speak in the name of all people
because these environments restrict their with disabilities. Sometimes, an idiosyncratic
mobility (Shakespeare, 2006). But they increase interpretation of what people with intellectual
the difficulty of ambulation of people without disabilities would like, based on qualitative
disabilities, too. Devices necessary for con- data, tries to bridge the gulf between the con-
struction, such as ladders and scaffolding, do not structionist model’s claims and experiences of
oppress anyone, even though non-walkers those people (see Chappell, Goodley &
cannot use them. The conceptualization of Lawthon, 2001). The problem here is that
society as a hostile place for non-walkers (or people with physical disabilities and their organ-
nearly walkers) is not exact for several reasons, izations, in alliance with deaf people (and their
which have been extensively analyzed by organizations), apply their specific view to other
Shakespeare (2006). types of disabilities, some of which have no
public voice at all—or a very weak one. In this
A disabling context cannot be equated endeavor, social constructionists do not speak for
with socially oppressive structures. and by themselves; on the contrary, they speak
on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities,
Today’s society does have many defects. It autism, emotional or behavioral disorders, and
structures many unfair social relationships, others who do not share their particular type of
including those based on gender, wealth, disability. In doing so, they commit (perhaps
ethnicity, and disability. But a view of disability unwittingly) the very act to which they have so
as a matter of social oppression separates people strongly objected: others (i.e., people without
with disabilities from people without them disabilities) speaking for them.
who could help to maximize functioning or
overcome much of their disablement (e.g.,
A Utopian “Barrier-Free World”
medical and paramedical professionals, special
educators, engineers who develop assistive A crucial question is, “If all the social dimensions
technologies). Despite the sins of the medical of disability could be resolved, would there
industry and medical professions, they can be be any other dimensions left and, if so, how
allies and not enemies in the existential and important they would be?” (Harris, 2000, p. 95).
political struggle for a better life. Also, positive Social constructionists seem to conclude that in
changes in social attitudes and the sociopolitical the absence of social barriers, people with
context are hopes for a better environment impairments would no longer have disabilities.
for people with physical disabilities. Scientific They also seem to assume that their under-
and technological improvements (e.g., artificial standing or perspective is shared by all people
limbs, orthoses, hearing aids, assistive technolo- with disabilities; if disagreement is expressed by
gies) can lead to a beneficial social mediation people with disabilities, then the assumption of
of initially disadvantaged individual traits. If the social constructionists is that their critics
disabilities include diseases and disorders of all simply do not understand why a point of view
bodily systems and functions, then surely the should be embraced. True understanding is
ideas that nothing about people with disabilities assumed to be indicated only by agreement with
needs fixing and that disabilities should not be their propositions.
prevented are not merely irrational but morally One example is Finkelstein’s fable of an
perverse. imaginary, self-organized village with wheelchair
Social/constructionist model pioneers with users (1981, pp. 34–36). Once upon a time,
disabilities have generalized from their experi- wheelchair users started to plan their lives
according to their needs. They constructed Janet Radcliffe Richards has put it, an ability
their buildings in tune to their mobility, lowering cannot be turned into a disability, just as no
gradually the doors to a height of 5 ft and ceilings change of values turns an ability into a disability.
to 7 ft 4 in. Then, a minority of able-bodied in An accessible environment minimizes the incon-
the village met many barriers in their adaptation, venience of impairment, but does not equalize
as they constantly began to knock their heads on disabled people with non-disabled people.
the door lintels. Doctors who used wheelchairs (Shakespeare, 2006, p. 51)
examined these residents’ forehead bruises and
identified “a reduction of functional ability.” Finkelstein’s (1981) fable is useful in
Special aids were designed for the able-bodied illustrating the profound difference between
disabled and helmets were provided free to them. cognitive and mental disabilities on the one
An army of professionals tried to cure these poor hand and deafness or physical disabilities on the
sufferers and one specialist went so far as to other. In our view and experience, an imaginary
suggest amputation to bring the able-bodied autonomous village with a thousand people with
down to the right height. At work the poor able- moderate and severe intellectual disabilities
bodied had to meet prejudice and barriers. At the would likely become unsustainable after only
end of the fable, the able-bodied decided to form a few weeks. An autonomous village with a
a union to struggle for their rights, arguing that thousand people with emotional and behavioral
their disabilities could disappear with social disabilities would be a dystopian world in which
changes. life would be extremely cruel and harsh. An
Finkelstein’s (1981) mythical village under- autonomous village with a thousand people with
lines the accessibility problems of people with typical autism would be simply a village without
mobility and sensory problems and makes us sense of community. After all, implementing the
reflect on the concept of universal design and the same script in the case of cognitive and mental
importance of removal of architectural barriers disabilities, Finkelstein’s (1981) fable becomes
(Center for Universal Design, 1997). Promoting quite distasteful.
accessibility in houses and public buildings, Following Shakespeare (2006), it is difficult
amenities, and transport; creating working to see what social barriers should be removed to
environments; and providing alternative systems accommodate the needs of people with autism.
of communication (e.g., sign language inter- The cardinal difficulties of people with autism
preters) would partly mitigate social exclusion. involve qualitative impairments in social
But the development of universal design is not interaction and communication, and repetitive
enough to address barriers erected by economic stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and
inequalities and unequal distribution of power activities. Hence, some people with autism may
(Shakespeare, 2006). prefer self-isolation to social participation. Social
However, the fundamental conceptual weak- arrangements that could be made are the training
ness of the Finkelstein’s (1981) fable is that the of the social milieu to be more accepting and
problems of the able-bodied in his imaginary supportive in the direction of facilitating social
wheelchair world are not comparable with the interaction and communication. But certainly,
problems of wheelchair users in the current such social arrangements follow the logic of
world: special needs’ treatment in an individualized way
rather than a barrier-free social model
No village for wheelchair users would be (Shakespeare, 2006).
inaccessible to non-disabled people, for the
simple reason that non-disabled people always
Neither Biological Nor Cultural
have the choice to use wheelchairs, just as
Determinism
hearing people have the choice to learn sign
language. Disabled people have less flexibility The social model of disability denies the role
and fewer choices than non-disabled people. As of biology, representing an extreme form of
cultural determinism. The pendulum seems to his general ideological position irrespective of
swing from biological to cultural determinism, personal experience. Such strong ideological
from one extreme to the other. Disability is the commitment to the theory, above and beyond
sole product of neither biological nor societal available data, is rather astonishing. But we do
constraints. Contrary to cases of social/cultural not want to be unfair in our criticism of Oliver’s
difference (e.g., ethnicity, “race,” social class), (2000) critique. A careful examination of his
intrinsic factors (i.e., socialized biological writings reveals criticisms from several sources,
factors) are the best explanation of disabilities perhaps the most relevant being the new-
(see Anastasiou & Kauffman, in press). In the Weberian sociological critique of special
explanation of disability phenomena, biological education in which Tomlinson (1982) argued
reductionism is inappropriate because it does not that special education does not serve the needs
integrate biological with functional and social of students with special educational needs but
factors (Williams, 1999). those of educational systems, as well as the inter-
ests of professionals and practitioners (teachers,
educational psychologists, medical officers).
Educational Implications
However, we should provide some clarifi-
cations about special education, based primarily
Special Education Has Been Under Siege
on data from the United States. We do not have
Those who adopt a social/constructionist model an idealized view of what special education
have depicted special education as segre- actually does. But we considered that the
gationist and discriminatory. Consequently, aforementioned accusations against special
they claim that it legitimizes school failure, education are not only false but also are a
promotes the internalization of inadequacy, and simplistic conceptualization of educational
contributes to the discrimination experienced justice, fairness, and equity (Kauffman, 2009).
by students with disabilities (Barnes, 1991; Special education, as a scientific field, has
Oliver, 1996, 2000): produced instructional methods for atypical
students and, above all, has empirically validated
Thus, many young disabled people have little their effectiveness (Zigmond & Kloo, 2011).
choice but to accept a particular form of segre- What is “special” about special education, as an
gated “special” education which is both educa- institutional practice, is that the continuum of
tionally and socially divisive and fails to provide places (co-teaching, team teaching, consultation
them with the necessary skills for adult living. By services, resource room, special class, special
producing educationally and socially disabled school, hospital-bound education) allows the
adults in this way, the special educational system delivery of appropriate instruction geared to the
perpetuates the misguided assumption that individualized needs of atypical students. There
disabled people are somehow inadequate, and is no magic in the place itself but the choice in
thus legitimates discrimination in all other areas structures, and consequently the placement
of their lives. flexibility can provide a functional advantage of
(Oliver, 1996, p. 64) special education in comparison with general
education. Special educators are able to give
Oliver (2000) conceded that his critique of spe- more explicit, carefully controlled and moni-
cial education was not based on direct personal tored, intensive, and sustained instruction for
experience, as he never attended a special atypical learners than are general educators
school. His derogation of special education is (Bateman, 2011; Zigmond & Kloo, 2011).
based solely on general sociological analysis.
Moreover, he separated his attitude from his
The Mistake of Not-Special Education
experience of special education as a scholar.
It is rather unusual for a scholar to confess that General education has much less flexibility
his attitude towards special education is based on than special education in accommodating the
educational needs of atypical children because of Learners, for girls. We fought to have some
curriculum constraints. The general education students with disabilities treated differently,
curriculum matches the needs of assumed given more opportunity, more intensive instruc-
“average” students, not the diverse knowledge tion, more individually tailored curriculum,
and skills needed by students with disabilities more carefully designed instruction. It’s time to
(Kauffman, Landrum, Mock, Sayeski & Sayeski, renew the commitment to students with disabil-
2005; Zigmond, 2003). The ultimate test of ities and to ensure the programs and resources
good education should be whether a particular necessary to fulfill that commitment.
student is receiving good instruction that (p. 170)
matches his or her needs, not the student’s place-
ment. However, placement can act as a Ideology and Not-Special
facilitator or stumbling block to this effort Education
(Kauffman, 2010, 2011; Kauffman et al., 2005). Special education is not beyond criticism.
Besides, from a historical perspective, general Nevertheless, the hostile ideological attitude
education has failed to meet the special towards special education represented by social
educational needs of students with disabilities constructionists fails to do two critical things:
(Kauffman & Landrum, 2006; Zigmond, 2003). (a) identify the complexity and multidimen-
If general education could not do the job in the sionality of disabilities, the plurality of levels of
past and the near-present, who can guarantee its explanation of disability, and especially the
success in the near future? Moreover, the role of a “socialized” biology and (b) recognize
empirical data on effectiveness of inclusive the multiplicity of ways that social justice in
settings (e.g., co-teaching, consultation) indicate education can lead to a common aim—appro-
that they do not “work” for many students with priate social inclusion that is also consistent with
diverse educational needs, in terms of academic the most effective instructional practices.
achievement (see Andrews-Tobo, 2009; Baker Unfortunately, in the name of ideology, social
& Zigmond, 1995; Cole, 2009; Fox & Ysseldyke, constructionists give unconditional support to
1997; Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005b; Zigmond, inclusion regardless of an individual’s instruc-
2003; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). tional needs, and avoid dealing with practical
Perhaps Zigmond and Kloo (2011) have stated issues such as the effectiveness of inclusive
most eloquently the reason we need special practices.
education and how the derogation of special Special education is at a crossroads. The
education is disgraceful (see also Kauffman & motto of Hippocrates, “Above all, do no harm,”
Hallahan, 2005a): is ideally suited to many of the dilemmas of our
field. Nearly two centuries ago, in 1834,
The disgrace is not that general education Charles Darwin dismissed the inevitability of
teachers are not adequately prepared to deliver both poverty and slavery with the following
a special education to the students with words: “If the misery of our poor be caused
disabilities in their large and diverse classrooms. not by the laws of nature, but by our institu-
The disgrace is that we have come to believe that tions, great is our sin” (cited in Gould, 1996,
special education is so not-special that it can be p. 19). Today, we have to contemplate the fact
delivered by a generalist, busy teaching 25 other that great will be our sin if we eliminate a good
students a curriculum that was generated at the institution such as special education, replacing
school board, or state, or federal level. The it with an ineffective, inappropriate, and uniform
disgrace is that we have forgotten that special education for children with disabilities.
education is supposed to be special and that
wherever it is delivered, it is supposed to be
different. That’s what we fought for. That’s what References
makes IDEA different from other civil rights Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and
legislation—for minorities, for English Language the development of a social theory of disability.
Disability, Handicap & Society, 2, 5–20. doi: 10. Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles
1080/02674648766780021 of universal design. Retrieved from http://www.
Abberley, P. (1996). Work, utopia and impairment. design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.
In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society: Emerging htm
issues and insights (pp. 61–79). Harlow, United Chappell, A. L., Goodley, D., & Lawthon, R.
Kingdom: Longman. (2001). Making connections: The relevance of
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (in press). The the social model of disability for people with
social model of disability: Dichotomy between learning difficulties. British Journal of Learning
impairment and disability. Journal of Medicine & Difficulties, 24, 45–50. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-3156.
Philosophy. 2001.00084.x
Andrews-Tobo, R. A. (2009). Coteaching in urban Cole, V. S. (2009). The effects of co-teaching on student
middle school classrooms: Impact for students with test performance and attitudes towards science in high
disabilities in reading, math, and English/language arts school biology (Doctoral dissertation, University of
classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Capella Alabama). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.
University). Retrieved from http://gradworks. com/ 33/85/3385363.html
umi.com/33/44/3344906.html Danermark, B., & Coniavitis Gellerstendt, L. C.
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and (2004). Social justice: Redistribution and
practice of inclusion for students with learning recognition—a non-reductionist perspective on
disabilities: Themes and implications from five disability. Disability & Society, 19, 339–353. doi:
cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 163–180. 10.1080/09687590410001689458
doi: 10.1177/002246699502900207 Ferguson, P. M., & Ferguson, D. L. (1995). The inter-
Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and pretivist view of special education and disability:
discrimination. London, United Kingdom: The value of telling stories. In T. M. Skrtic,
Hurst. Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special)
Barnes, C. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: education for postmodernity (pp. 104–121). New
Reflections on doing “emancipatory” disability York, NY: Teachers College Press.
research. Disability & Society, 18, 3–17. doi: Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people.
10.1080/713662197 New York, NY: Word Rehabilitation Fund.
Bateman, B. D. (2011). Individual education programs Finkelstein, V. (1981). To deny or not to deny
for children with disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman & disability. In A. Brechin, P. Liddiard, & J. Swain
D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (Eds.), Handicap in a social world (pp. 34–36).
(pp. 91–106). New York, NY: Routledge. Sevenoaks, United Kingdom: Hodder &
Bauman, Z. (1994). Alone again: Ethics after certainty. Stoughton.
London, United Kingdom: Demos. Finkelstein, V. (2001). A personal journey into disability
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology politics. United Kingdom: University of Leeds,
of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press. Centre for Disability Studies. Retrieved from
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/
construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of archiveuk/finkelstein/ presentn
knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Fox, N. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). Implementing
Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from
Üstün, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64,
universalism and the international classification of 81–98.
impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social French, S. (1993). Disability, impairment or
Science & Medicine, 48, 1173–1187. doi: 10.1016/ something in between. In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein,
S0277-9536 (98)00441-9 S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barriers,
Blackburn, S. (2005). Truth: A guide. New York, NY: enabling environments (pp. 17–25). London, United
Oxford University Press. Kingdom: Sage.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1982). Inside out: The social Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist
meaning of mental retardation. Toronto, Canada: movement in modern psychology. American
University of Toronto Press. Psychologist, 40, 266–275. doi:10.1037/0003-
Braginsky, D., & Braginsky, B. (1971). Hansels and 066X.40.3.266
Gretels. New York, NY: Holt. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management
Bunge, M. (1991). A critical examination of the of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
new sociology of science. Part 1. Philosophy of the Hall.
Social Sciences, 21, 524–560. doi: 10.1177/ Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (Rev. and
004839319102100406 expanded ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Burry, M. (2000). A comment on the ICIDH2. Grann, D. (2008, February 11). True crime: A
Disability & Society, 15, 1073–1077. doi: 10.1080/ postmodern murder mystery. The New Yorker,
713662025 120–135.
Haack, S. (2003). Defending science within reason: Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005a). Special
Between scientism and cynicism. New York, NY: education: What it is and why we need it. Boston,
Prometheus Books. MA: Pearson Education.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (2005b).
Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed.).
University Press. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2009). Parental
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. choices and ethical dilemmas involving
Hahn, H. (1985). Disability policy and the problem disabilities: Special education and the problem
of discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 3, of deliberately chosen disabilities. Exceptionality,
293–318. doi:10.1177/000276485028003002 17, 45–62. doi: 10.1080/09362830802667835
Hahn, H. (1989). The politics of special education. In Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2006). Chil-
D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate dren and youth with emotional and behavioral
education: Quality education for all (pp. 225–241). disorders: A history of their treatment. Austin, TX:
Baltimore, MD: Brookes. PRO-ED.
Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1977). Labels, Kauffman, J. M., Landrum, T. J., Mock, D. R.,
categories, behaviors: ED, LD, and EMR Sayeski, B., & Sayeski, L. (2005). Diverse know-
reconsidered. The Journal of Special Education, 11, ledge and skills require diversity of instructional
139–149. doi: 10.1177/002246697701100202 groups. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 2–6. doi:
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. 10. 1177/07419325050260010101
(2009). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special Kauffman, J. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (2011). Statistics,
education (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: data, and special education decisions: Basic links
Pearson Prentice Hall. to realities. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan
Harris, J. (2000). Is there a coherent social conception (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 27–36).
of disability? Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 95–100. New York, NY: Routledge.
doi: 10.1136/jme.26.2.95 Kauffman, J. M., & Sasso, G. M. (2006a). Toward
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: ending cultural and cognitive relativism in special
Intelligence and class structure in American life. New education. Exceptionality, 14, 65–90. doi: 10.1207/
York, NY: The Free Press. s15327035ex1402_2
Hruby, G. G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and Kauffman, J. M., & Sasso, G. M. (2006b). Certainty,
new realism perspectives in social construction-ism: doubt, and the reduction of uncertainty:
Implications for literary research. Reading Research A rejoinder. Exceptionality, 14, 109–120. doi: 10.
Quarterly, 36, 48–62. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.36.1.3 1207/s15327035ex1402_4
Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (1996). Who wants to be
of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a retarded? In W. Stainback & S. B. Stainback
sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12, (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special
325–340. doi: 10.1080/09687599727209 education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp.
Hurst, R. (2000). To revise or not to revise? Disabil- 83–95). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
ity & Society, 15, 1083–1087. doi: 10.1080/ Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C.
713662026 (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and
Kauffman, J. M. (1996). Think about these things: resistance to the cultural denial of competence.
Gentleness, truth, justice, excellence. Education American Educational Research Journal, 43,
and Treatment of Children, 19, 218–232. 163–192. doi: 10.3102/00028312043002163
Kauffman, J. M. (2002). Education deform: Bright people Lane, H. (1995). Constructions of deafness. Disability
sometimes say stupid things about education. Lanham, & Society, 10, 171–189. doi: 10.1080/09687599
MD: Scarecrow Education. 550023633
Kauffman, J. M. (2009). Attributions of malice to Lea, S. J. (1988). Mental retardation: Social con-
special education policy and practice. In T. E. struction or clinical reality? Disability, Handicap &
Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in Society,3, 63–69. doi: 10.1080/02674648866780
learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 22, Policy and 051
practice (pp. 33–66). Bingley, United Kingdom: Liggett, H. (1988). Stars are not born: An interactive
Emerald. approach to the politics of disability. Disability,
Kauffman, J. M. (2010). The tragicomedy of public Handicap & Society, 3, 263–275. doi: 10.1080/
education: Laughing, crying, thinking, fixing. Verona, 02674648866780261
WI: Attainment. Llewellyn, A., & Hogan, K. (2000). The use and abuse
Kauffman, J. M. (2011). Science and rogue science in of models of disability. Disability & Society, 15,
education. Verona, WI: Attainment. 157–165. doi: 10.1080/09687590025829
Low, C. (2006). Some ideologies of disability. Journal Oliver, M. & Zarb, G. (1989). The politics of
of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6, 108–111. disability: A new approach. Disability, Handicap &
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2006.00066.x Society, 4, 221–239. doi: 10.1080/02674648966
Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded: 780261
Clinical and social system perspectives on mental Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York, NY:
retardation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Free Press.
Press. Pfeiffer, D. (1998). The ICIDH and the need for its
Molloy, H., & Vasil, L. (2002). The social construc- revision. Disability & Society, 13, 503–523. doi:
tion of Asperger syndrome: The pathologizing of 10.1080/09687599826579
difference. Disability & Society, 17, 659–670. doi: Pfeiffer, D. (2001). The conceptualization of disability.
10.1080/0968759022000010434 Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 29–52.
Mostert, M. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Kavale, K. A. doi: 10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80019-1
(2003). Truth and consequences. Behavioral Priestley, M. (1998). Constructions and creations:
Disorders, 28, 333–347. Idealism, materialism and disability theory.
Nanda, M. (1998). The epistemic charity of the social Disability & Society, 13, 75–94. doi: 10.1080/
constructivist critics of science and why the third 09687599826920
world should refuse the offer. In N. Koertge (Ed.), Safilios-Rothschild, C., (1970). The sociology and social
A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths psychology of disability and rehabilitation. New York,
about science (pp. 286–311). New York, NY: NY: Random House.
Oxford University Press. Sasso, G. M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and
Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical scientific realism. New knowledge in special education. The Journal of
York, NY: Oxford University Press. Special Education, 34 , 178 – 193 . doi: 10 . 1177/
Oliver, M. (1986). Social policy and disability: Some 002246690103400401
theoretical issues. Disability, Handicap & Society, 1, Sasso, G. M. (2007). Science and reason in special
5–17. doi: 10.1080/02674648666780021 education: The legacy of Derrida and Foucault.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. In J. B. Crockett, M. M. Gerber, & T. J. Landrum
Basingstoke, United Kingdom: MacMillan. (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman
research production? Disability, Handicap & (pp. 143–167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Society, 7, 101–114. doi: 10.1080/02674649266 Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). The social
780141 model of disability: An outdated ideology. Research
Oliver, M. (1993). Disability and dependency: A in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28. doi: 10.
creation of industrial societies. In J. Swain, V. 1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X
Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Shakespeare, T. W. (1993). Disabled people’s self-
Disabling barriers, enabling environments (pp. organization: A new social movement. Disability,
49–60). London, United Kingdom: Sage. Handicap & Society, 8, 249–264. doi: 10.1080/
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From 02674649366780261
theory to practice. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Shakespeare, T. W. (2006). Disability rights and
Macmillan. wrongs. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Oliver, M. (2000, July). Decoupling education policy Shakespeare, T. W., & Watson, N. (1997). Defending
from the economy in late capitalist societies: Some the social model. Disability & Society, 12, 293–300.
implications for special education. Paper presented doi: 10.1080/09687599727380
in the International Special Education Con- Silvers, A. (1994). “Defective” agents: Equality,
gress 2000, University of Manchester, United difference and the tyranny of the normal. Journal
Kingdom. Retrieved from http://www.leeds. of Social Philosophy, 25, 154–175. doi: 10.1111/
ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Oliver/ j.1467-9833.1994.tb00353.x
SENMAN1.pdf Simmons, B., Blackmore, T., & Bayliss, P. (2008).
Oliver, M. (2004). The social model in action: If I had Postmodern synergistic knowledge creation:
a hammer. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Extending the boundaries of disability studies.
Implementing the social model of disability: Theory Disability & Society, 23, 733–745. doi: 10.1080/
and research (pp. 18–31). Leeds, United Kingdom: 09687590802469222
The Disability Press. Skrtic, T. M. (1995). Deconstructing/recon-
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (1993). Discrimination, structing public education: Social reconstruction
disability and welfare: From needs to right. In in the postmodern era. In T. M. Skrtic (Ed.),
J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French, & M. Oliver Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special)
(Eds.), Disabling barriers, enabling environments education for postmodernity (pp. 233–273).
(pp. 267–277). London, United Kingdom: New York, NY: New York Teachers College
Sage. Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The Williams, S. J. (1999). Is anybody there? Critical
social construction of a special education category. realism, chronic illness and the disability debate.
Exceptional Children, 53, 46–54. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21, 797–819. doi:
Smith, P. (1999). Drawing new maps: A radical 10.1111/1467-9566.00184
cartography of developmental disabilities. Review World Health Organization. (1980). International
of Educational Research, 69(2), 117-144. doi: 10. classification of impairments, disabilities, and han-
2307/1170672 dicaps: A manual of classification relating to the
Smith, P. (2001). Inquiry cantos: Poetics of develop- consequences of disease. Geneva, Switzerland:
mental disability. Mental Retardation, 39, 379–390. Author.
doi: 10.1352/0047-6765(2001)039 Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with
Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How irrational thinking disabilities receive special education services? Is
hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and one place better than another? The Journal of
threatens our lives. New York, NY: Penguin. Special Education, 37, 193–197. doi: 10.1177/
St Claire, L. (1986). Mental retardation: Impair- 00224669030370030901
ment or handicap? Disability, Handicap & Society, Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2011). General and special
1, 233–243. doi: 10.1080/02674648666780261 education are (and should be) different. In J. M.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of
London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan special education (pp. 160–172). New York, NY:
Paul. Routledge.
Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What,
(1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London, where, and how? Special education in the climate
United Kingdom: UPIAS. of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189–204.
9 Explanations of
Educational Inequality
In Chapter 8, we explored unequal educational outcomes among various groups in U.S. society.
The data suggest that there are significant differences in educational achievement and attainment
based on social class, race, gender, and other ascriptive characteristics. Further, such unequal
outcomes call into question the country’s ideology of equality of educational opportunity and the
ethos that schooling provides an important mechanism for social mobility. Although the data
indicate that there has been mobility for individuals and that schooling has become increasingly
tied to the labor market as a credentialing process, they do not support the democratic-liberal
faith that schooling provides mobility for entire groups. In fact, the data indicate that the
relationship between family background and economic outcomes has been fairly consistent, with
family background exerting a powerful effect both on educational achievement and attainment,
and on economic outcomes.
Given the persistent inequalities of educational outcomes—especially those based on race, class,
and gender (although, as we noted in the previous chapter, social class remains the most powerful
factor in explaining educational inequalities)—the next step is to explain these unequal outcomes
of the schooling process. In a society that is at least ideologically committed to the eradication
of educational inequality, why do these differences continue to persist, often in the face of explicit
social policies aimed at their elimination?
In this chapter, we will review the complex explanations of the problem. As you will see, there
are numerous conflicting theories of educational inequality. We will present an overview of each
and then offer our own multidimensional approach to understanding this most difficult situation.
Let us note at the outset that there are no simple explanations and no simple solutions, despite
experts’ claims to the contrary. More often than not, the literature on educational inequality is
filled with ideological explanations devoid of evidence. It is incumbent, however, to sift through
the polemics and examine the research in order to reach reasonable conclusions. Given the
complexity of the problem, this is no easy task; given the enormity and gravity of the problem,
there is no choice but to continue to attempt to solve it.
Explanations of Unequal Educational Achievement

The two major sociological theories of education provide a general understanding of the problem,
although from very different directions. Both theories are also concerned about the existence of
profound and persistent inequalities, albeit from different vantage points. Functionalists believe
that the role of schools is to provide a fair and meritocratic selection process for sorting out the
best and brightest individuals, regardless of family background. The functionalist vision of a just
society is one where individual talent and hard work based on universal principles of evaluation
are more important than ascriptive characteristics based on particularistic methods of evaluation.
Functionalists expect that the schooling process will produce unequal results, but these results
ought to be based on individual differences between students, not on group differences. Thus,
although there is a persistent relationship between family background and educational outcomes,
384 Explanations of Educational Inequality
this does not in and of itself mean that the system fails to provide equality of opportunity. It is
possible that even with equality of opportunity there could be these patterns of unequal results,
although most functionalists would agree that this is highly unlikely. Therefore, functionalists
believe that unequal educational outcomes are the result, in part, of unequal educational
opportunities. Thus, for functionalists, it is imperative to understand the sources of educational
inequality so as to ensure the elimination of structural barriers to educational success and to provide
all groups a fair chance to compete in the educational marketplace. This perspective has been
the foundation of liberal educational policy in the United States since the 1960s.
Conflict theorists are not in the least bit surprised by the data. Given that conflict theorists
believe that the role of schooling is to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality, the fact that
educational outcomes are to a large degree based on family background is fully consistent with
this perspective. Nonetheless, conflict theorists are also concerned with inequality and its
eradication. Whereas functionalists focus on the attempts to provide equality of opportunity and
to ensure a meritocratic system, conflict theorists are concerned with both equality of opportunity
and results. That is, conflict theorists, who usually fall into the more radical political category,
do not believe that equality of opportunity is a sufficient goal.
A system that could guarantee equitable and fair treatment to all would not necessarily produce
equal results, as individual differences (rather than group differences) would still play an important
role in creating significant inequalities. Although most radicals do not believe that complete
equality of results is possible or even desirable, they do want to reduce significantly the degree of
educational, social, and economic inequalities. Thus, conflict theorists call for more radical
measures to reduce inequality; also, they are far more skeptical than functionalists that the problem
can be solved.
Despite these differences, both functionalists and conflict theorists agree that understanding
educational inequality is a difficult task. Further, it is clear that the third sociological approach,
interactionist theory, is necessary to grasp fully the problem. Interactionism suggests that one
must understand how people within institutions such as families and schools interact on a daily
basis in order to comprehend the factors explaining academic success and failure. Thus, in addition
to studying empirical data on school outcomes, which often explains what happens, one must
also look into the lives and worlds of families and schools in order to understand why it happens.
Many of the research studies of educational inequality that are discussed in this chapter use an
interactionist approach based on fieldwork in order to examine what goes on in families and schools.
The next step is to explain race-, class-, and gender-based inequalities of educational attain-
ment and achievement. Researchers have posed two different sets of explanations. The first is
centered on factors outside of the school, such as the family, the community, the culture of the
group, the peer group, and the individual student. These explanations are often termed student-
centered (Dougherty & Hammack, 1990, p. 334) or extra-school (Hurn, 1993, p. 161) explanations.
The second is centered on factors within the school, such as teachers and teaching methods,
curriculum, ability grouping and curriculum tracking, school climate, and teacher expectations.
These explanations are often termed school-centered (Dougherty & Hammack, 1990, p. 334) or
within-school (Hurn, 1993, p. 162) explanations.
Although there is merit in both approaches, the dichotomy between what are inexorably linked
spheres is somewhat shortsighted. As Hurn (1993, pp. 161–162) has pointed out, functionalists
tend to support extra-school explanations because these provide support for the view that the
schooling process is somewhat meritocratic and that educational inequalities are caused by factors
outside the schooling process. Conflict theorists, although not denying the deleterious impact of
extra-school factors such as poverty, believe that schools play an important role in reproducing
the problems. The attempt to pigeon-hole the explanation into one explanatory system denies
the connection between schooling and other societal institutions.
Explanations of Educational Inequality 385
We prefer a more multidimensional approach, such as the one outlined by Persell (1977), which
argues that educational inequality is the product of the relationship between societal, institutional,
interactional, and intrapsychic variables. Thus, in order to understand education and inequality,
one must explore not only what goes on within society and its institutions (such as the family
and the school), but also the connections between them and their effects on individuals and groups.
In the following sections, we outline the major student-centered and school-centered explanations
and then propose a more multidimensional synthesis of these explanations.
Before we begin, it is important to discuss briefly the interconnection between race, class, gender,
and ethnicity. As we noted in Chapter 8, individuals have more than one ascriptive status. For
example, in terms of gender, men and women belong to different social classes and races, and
come from different ethnic groups. In terms of race and ethnicity, members of different racial
and ethnic groups may belong to different socioeconomic classes. Thus, there are differences in
educational attainment and achievement between working-class and middle-class women or men,
between working-class and middle-class blacks or whites, and between different ethnic groups
based on social class position.
Sociological research on educational outcomes attempts to separate the independent effects
of these variables, although their relationship is often difficult to distinguish. It is clear, however,
that although gender, race, and ethnicity have independent effects, and although women, blacks,
and other ethnic groups are often negatively affected by societal and school processes, social class
background has the most powerful effect on educational achievement and attainment. This is not
to say that women or blacks as groups may not be disadvantaged in schools, independent of social
class background; only that social class appears to be the more powerful explanatory variable in
explaining educational attainment and achievement.
On one hand, given the powerful relationship between social class and educational attainment
and achievement, much of the sociological research on educational outcomes has focused on class
issues. On the other hand, given the significant relationship between social class and race, the
problems of blacks’ achievement, and the important political movements aimed at ameliorating
conditions of black poverty and improving black educational performance, this research has also
focused on the relationship between race and education. In the following sections, we do not
treat issues of race and class separately. Rather, we look at research that sometimes examines race
as a separate category, sometimes looks at class as a separate category, and sometimes looks at
them together. The following discussion assumes that groups that fare less well in school do so
because of their subordinate position in society, with race, class, gender, and ethnicity important
components of a group’s position. As the bulk of research concentrates on race and class, the
following discussion concentrates on these studies.
We are not implying that gender and ethnicity are unimportant. A growing body of literature
is interested in the educational performance of different ethnic groups, including Asians, Italians,
Latinos, and others (Doran & Weffer, 1992; Lee & Zhou, 2015; Lomawaima, 1995; Nieto, 1995;
Pang, 1995; Perez, 2015; Wong-Fillmore & Valdez, 1986). Additionally, the problems faced by
students whose first language is not English are increasingly the subject of educational research
(Hakuta & Garcia, 1989; Nieto, 1995; Pang, 1995; Rumberger & Gandara, 2008; Thornburg &
Karp, 1992; Wong-Fillmore & Valdez, 1986). The following discussions of student-centered and
school-centered explanations, although not directly related to particular ethnic groups, assume
that the student- and school-related processes that affect working-class and black students also
affect other ethnic groups in a similar manner.
The research on gender and education is crucial for understanding how schooling affects
particular groups (American Association of University Women, 1992; Arnot, 2012; Buchmann,
2009; Buchmann, DiPrete & McDaniel, 2008; Legewie & DiPrete, 2014; Miller, 2016).
Unlike the research on ethnicity, this research cannot be easily subsumed under the student- or
school-centered rubric. As we noted in Chapter 8, although there are some differences in the
educational attainment and achievement of men and women, these differences are less than those
based on race and class. Women do better in the humanities and men do better in math and
science. However, the key difference is not in education but rather in economic outcomes, with
women, despite somewhat equal levels of education, doing significantly less well economically.
Part of the reason for this is related to labor-market issues and gender discrimination in the
workplace. Some of it is due to the different occupational choices made by men and women, with
traditionally female positions rewarded less well than those occupied by men. Why women select
different career paths, many of which pay less well than those selected by men, is an important
question. It can be examined through the research on gender and education, which looks
specifically at the ways schools socialize men and women differently.
Whereas much of the research on education and inequality focuses on the cognitive outcomes
of schooling and concentrates on educational attainment and achievement, research on gender
and education also focuses on the noncognitive outcomes of schooling. Thus, this research looks
at the ways in which schooling affects the manner in which men and women come to view
themselves, their roles, and society. Feminist scholarship on schooling examines questions of
unequal opportunity for women, the differential socialization processes for boys and girls in schools,
and the ways in which the hidden curriculum unequally affects women. Although feminists argue
that these differential socialization patterns begin in the family and that girls bring cultural
differences to the school, the bulk of educational research focuses on school-related processes.
Hence, in the subsequent discussions of student-centered and school-centered explanations, we
discuss gender inequalities under the school-centered rubric.
Student-Centered Explanations
In the 1960s, sociologists of education interested in educational inequality often worked from a
set of liberal political and policy assumptions about why students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds often did less well in school than students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
The conventional wisdom of the time suggested that economically disadvantaged students attended
inferior schools—schools that spent less money on each student, schools that spent less money
on materials and extracurricular activities, and schools that had inferior teachers. The argument
continued that if school differences and financing were responsible for the problem, then the
solution was simply to pump resources and money into schools with children from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds.
A number of research studies in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated, however, that the
conventional liberal wisdom was far too simplistic and that solutions were far more complex.
Coleman and colleagues (1966), in Equality of Educational Opportunity, commonly referred to as
the Coleman Report, argued that school differences were not the most significant explanatory
variable for the lower educational achievement of working-class and nonwhite students. Rather,
the report suggested that it was the differences among the groups of students that had a greater
impact on educational performance. Additionally, research by Jencks and colleagues (1972)
indicated that the differences between schools in privileged areas and in economically
disadvantaged areas had been exaggerated. Moreover, where significant differences did exist, they
did not sufficiently explain the inequalities of educational performance.
This research suggested that there were far more significant differences in academic performance
among students in the same school than among students in different schools. This latter finding
on what is termed within-school differences (as opposed to between-school differences) does not rule
out the possibility that schools affect educational inequality, as it is possible that differences in
the school such as ability grouping and curriculum tracking may explain these differences.
Nevertheless, the research by Coleman and by Jencks cast doubt on the claim that differences
between schools explained the performance gap among students from different socioeconomic or
racial backgrounds. We will return to the question of school differences later in this chapter, but
for now, it is important to discuss the consequences of these findings.
If school differences and financing did not explain unequal educational performance, then
perhaps the schools themselves were not the most important factor. Based on the Coleman Report,
educational researchers and policy makers concluded that the reason students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds did less well in school had more to do with the students themselves,
their families, their neighborhood and communities, their culture, and perhaps even their genetic
makeup. These student-centered explanations became dominant in the 1960s and 1970s, and are
still highly controversial and politically charged.
Genetic Differences
The most controversial student-centered explanation is the genetic or biological argument. From
a sociological and anthropological perspective, biological explanations of human behavior are
viewed as limited because social scientists believe that environmental and social factors are largely
responsible for human behavior. Recent advances in the understanding of mental illnesses such
as schizophrenia, however, suggest that there may be biochemical and genetic causes. This research
indicates that although social and psychological factors are crucial, biological factors cannot be
ruled out entirely. Having said this, the question remains as to whether there is evidence to support
the argument that differences in school performance among groups of students are due to genetic
differences among these groups, particularly in intelligence.
The argument that unequal educational performance by working-class and non-white students
is due to genetic differences in intelligence was offered by psychologist Arthur Jensen in a highly
controversial article in the Harvard Educational Review (1969). Jensen indicated that compensatory
programs (i.e., programs aimed at improving the educational performance of disadvantaged
students) were doomed to failure because they were aimed at changing social and environmental
factors, when the root of the problem was biological. Jensen, based on sophisticated statistical
analyses, argued that blacks, genetically, are less intelligent than whites and therefore do less well
in school, where intelligence is an important component of educational success. Given these data
and his conclusions, Jensen was pessimistic about the likelihood that the academic performance
of blacks could be substantially improved.
Hurn (1993, pp. 142–152) provided a detailed and balanced assessment of the IQ controversy.
Given the sensitivity of the subject, more often than not, the debate about Jensen’s work consisted
of polemical attacks accusing him of being a racist and dismissed his claim that there is a biological
basis of intelligence, rather than carefully considering his arguments. Hurn demonstrated through
a careful analysis of Jensen’s thesis that although there is evidence that a genetic component to
human intelligence exists, and that although a small percentage of the social class differences in
intelligence may be attributed to genetic factors, the most significant factor affecting intelligence
is social. Moreover, he argued that there is no persuasive evidence that social class and racial
differences in intelligence are due to genetic factors. Additionally, Hurn and others have indicated
that these differences in intelligence are due in part to the cultural bias of IQ test questions, the
conditions under which they are given, and cultural and family differences (Bowles & Gintis,
1976, Chapter 4; Kamin, 1974; Persell, 1977, pp. 58–75). In the 1990s, the genetic argument
reemerged with the publication of The Bell Curve (1994) by Richard Herrnstein and Charles
Murray. This book presented many of the same arguments made in the 1960s by Jensen and was
greeted with similar criticism (Kincheloe, Steinberg, & Gressom, 1996).
Given the weakness of the genetic argument, how does one explain unequal educational
performance by working-class and nonwhite students? As we stated earlier, as a result of the
Coleman and Jencks studies, researchers looked to the family and the culture of the students for
answers. Cultural deprivation and cultural difference theories have been two related approaches.
Although these theories are more widely accepted by social scientists, because they view social
and cultural factors as essential, they have been no less controversial.
Cultural Deprivation Theories

In light of the Coleman Report’s findings that school differences and resources did not adequately
explain unequal performance by working-class and nonwhite students, some educational researchers
argued that these students came to school without the requisite intellectual and social skills
necessary for school success. Cultural deprivation theory, popularized in the 1960s, suggests that
working-class and nonwhite families often lack the cultural resources, such as books and other
educational stimuli, and thus arrive at school at a significant disadvantage.
Moreover, drawing on the thesis advanced by anthropologist Oscar Lewis (1966) about poverty
in Mexico, cultural deprivation theorists assert that the poor have a deprived culture—one that
lacks the value system of middle-class culture. According to this perspective, middle-class culture
values hard work and initiative, the delay of immediate gratification for future reward, and the
importance of schooling as a means to future success. The culture of poverty eschews delayed
gratification for immediate reward, rejects hard work and initiative as a means to success, and
does not view schooling as the means to social mobility. According to cultural deprivation theorists
such as Deutsch (1964), this deprivation results in educationally disadvantaged students who
achieve poorly because they have not been raised to acquire the skills and dispositions required
for satisfactory academic achievement (Dougherty & Hammack, 1990, p. 341).
Based on this etiology, policy makers sought to develop programs aimed not at the schools but
rather at the family environment of working-class and nonwhite students. Compensatory
education programs such as Project Head Start—a preschool intervention program for education-
ally and economically disadvantaged students—are based on the assumption that because of the
cultural and familial deprivation faced by poor students, the schools must provide an environment
that makes up for lost time. If these students are not prepared for school at home, then it is the
role of the preschool to provide the necessary foundation for learning. Further, programs such as
Head Start attempt to involve parents in their children’s schooling and to help them develop
parenting and literacy skills necessary for their children’s academic development.
Cultural deprivation theory was attacked vociferously in the 1960s and 1970s by social scientists
who believed it to be paternalistic at best and racist at worst. Critics argue that it removes the
responsibility for school success and failure from schools and teachers, and places it on families.
Further, they suggest that it blames the victims of poverty for the effects of poverty rather than
placing the blame squarely where it belongs: on the social and economic processes that produce
poverty (Baratz & Baratz, 1970; Dougherty & Hammack, 1990, p. 341; Ryan, 1971).
Another criticism of cultural deprivation theory concerned the relative failure of many of the
compensatory education programs that were based on its assumptions about why disadvantaged
children have lower levels of achievement than more advantaged children. Although Project Head
Start has received mixed evaluations (with early findings somewhat negative and later research
providing more positive results; cf. Weikert & Schweinhart, 1984), compensatory programs, as a
whole, have not improved significantly the academic performance of disadvantaged students. Given
these criticisms and the weakness of the geneticist argument, a third student-centered explanation
emerged: cultural difference theory.
Cultural Difference Theories

Cultural difference theorists agree that there are cultural and family differences between working-
class and nonwhite students, and white middle-class students. Working-class and nonwhite students
may indeed arrive at school with different cultural dispositions and without the skills and attitudes
required by the schools. This is not due to deficiencies in their home life but rather to being part
of an oppressed minority. The key difference in this perspective is that although cultural difference
theorists acknowledge the impact of student differences, they do not blame working-class and
nonwhite families for educational problems. Rather, they attribute cultural differences to social
forces such as poverty, racism, discrimination, and unequal life chances.
There are a number of different varieties of cultural difference theory. First, researchers such
as anthropologist John Ogbu (1978, 1979, 1987) argue that black children do less well in school
because they adapt to their oppressed position in the class and caste structure. Ogbu argued that
there is a “job ceiling” for blacks in the United States, as there is for similar caste-like minorities
in other countries, and that black families and schools socialize their children to deal with their
inferior life chances rather than encourage them to internalize those values and skills necessary
for positions that will not be open to them. Although this is a complex, and at times a hidden,
process, the results are lower educational attainment and performance.
Ogbu’s later work (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) suggests that school success requires that black
students deny their own cultural identities and accept the dominant culture of the schools, which
is a white middle-class model. black students thus have the “burden of acting white” in order to
succeed (Fordham, 1997). This explanation, as we will see later in this chapter, rejects the argument
that school-centered explanations are unimportant, and proposes the interaction of school and
student variables to explain educational achievement. The view that there are cultural differences
between the culture of the school and the culture of working-class and non-white students has
resulted in calls for changes in school curriculum and pedagogy to more adequately represent the
cultures of minority children. As we stated in Chapter 7, the demand for multicultural curricula
is rooted in the belief that the schools need to reflect the cultures of all the students who attend,
not just the culture of dominant social groups.
Ogbu’s macrosociological perspective is similar to those of Bowles and Gintis (1976), whose
correspondence theory suggests that working-class students adapt to the unequal aspects of the
class structure, and to Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) and Bernstein (1977), whose theories point
out the ways in which class and cultural differences are reflected in the schools. Bernstein, in
particular, has often been accused of being a cultural deprivation theorist because of his theory
that working-class students in England have a different language and communication code, which
disadvantages them in the schools. Bernstein (1990) has consistently denied that working-class
language is deficient. Rather, he has stated that cultural and class differences are a product of an
unequal economic system and that the schools reward middle-class communication codes, not
working-class codes. This viewpoint is a complex one, as it sees educational inequality as a product
of the relationships between the economic system, the family, and the schools, with cultural
differences turned into deficits by the schooling process. As with Ogbu’s theories, Bernstein’s theory
insists on looking at the schools as sources of educational inequality, not just the culture or families
of working-class students.
Bourdieu’s concepts of social and cultural capital are also important in understanding how
cultural differences affect educational inequality (Swartz, 1997). More affluent families give their
children access to cultural capital (e.g., visits to museums, concerts, travel, etc.) and social capital
(e.g., networks for access to educational resources, college admissions, parental involvement, etc.).
Although Bourdieu recognizes that economic capital (income and wealth) are still paramount in
providing affluent families with an educational advantage, social and cultural capital are more
subtle ways that social class advantages reproduce educational inequalities. Lareau (1989, 2003,
2011) uses Bourdieu’s concepts to examine social class differences in child rearing, and the
relationship between family and schools. Lareau argues that working-class families use a natural
growth model of child rearing in which children are encouraged to be independent and play on
their own. Middle-class families use a model of concerted cultivation in which children’s time is
rigidly planned by their parents and where formal classes and activities are utilized to enhance
their class advantages.
Ogbu’s research also examines the relationship between language and educational achieve-
ment among low-income, inner-city black students (Ogbu, 1999). Based on an extensive
ethnographic study of a low-income community in Oakland, California, Ogbu documents the
tensions between the standard English required for school success and the “slang-English” (Black
English) used in the community. Consistent with Bernstein’s analysis of restricted (working-class)
and elaborated (middle-class) codes, Ogbu argues that although black students and parents believe
it is important that schools teach standard English for educational and occupational mobility,
they are ambivalent about its use within the community. Such ambivalence results in difficulties
in using standard English and is an important factor in explaining educational inequalities for
these students.
Just as Bernstein does not see British working-class language as inferior, Ogbu does not see
black linguistic codes as culturally deficient. Black English is a different dialect that is defined as
deficient by the dominant linguistic codes of schooling and society. The question is how low-
income black students can be successfully bidialectic—that is, be able to use standard English for
academic and occupational mobility, and not feel they are committing cultural or racial suicide.
The film Educating Rita illustrates this problem for a British working-class woman who enrolls in
the Open University. Eventually, she must choose between continuing her education or losing
her husband, who rejects her new use of middle-class codes. Ultimately, she leaves her husband
and working-class community and attains academic success. The question is: Is the price of losing
one’s culture too high a price to pay?
Ogbu’s article appeared after the Oakland School District’s 1996 Ebonics (Black English)
controversy. The Oakland School Board voted (and subsequently rescinded) a policy to teach
Ebonics as a second language as a way of promoting standard English language literacy. The policy
resulted in a national controversy in which many black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, stressed
the importance of standard English. Ogbu’s work demonstrates that the issue is far more complex
than telling low-income black students to simply learn standard English. Rather, linguistic codes
are at the heart of unequal power relations between dominant and subordinate groups and represent
one’s definition of cultural identity. Clearly, standard English is necessary for academic and
occupational success; internalizing and acting on this is a more difficult social psychological
problem.
Ogbu’s last book, completed shortly before his death in 2003, examined the persistence of
the black–white achievement gap in middle and upper middle-class communities. Asked by the
black parents in Shaker Heights, Ohio, to help them understand why their children were
performing at lower levels than their white classmates, Ogbu spent a year studying the community
and its schools. He concluded that although there were school-based reasons for unequal achieve-
ment, especially the underrepresentation of black students in honors and advanced placement
classes and their overrepresentation in regular classes, the main reasons had to do with student,
parental, and community cultures. Black students studied less, watched more television, and had
lower aspirations than their white classmates. They were also more likely to be affected by an
anti-school culture and received less pressure from their parents to excel in school. Ogbu did not
discount school factors, but argued that they are related to powerful cultural differences (Ogbu,
2003). Tyson’s research, however, does not fully support Ogbu’s findings. In her studies of integrated
schools in North Carolina, she found mixed evidence of the burden of acting white and more
importantly found that black students were more negatively affected by race-based tracking in
the schools than by cultural or racial attitudes learned at home or in their communities (Tyson,
2011; Tyson et al., 2005).
A second type of cultural difference theory sees working-class and nonwhite students as resisting
the dominant culture of the schools. From this point of view, these students reject the white
middle-class culture of academic success and embrace a different, often antischool culture—one
that is opposed to the culture of schooling as it currently exists. Research by Willis (1981) on
working-class boys in England shows that these students explicitly reject middle-class values and
enthusiastically embrace a working-class culture, which eschews the values of schooling. They
consciously reject schooling and resist academic success. This resistance results in dropping out
of school and into the world of work—that is, the world of the factory floor, which they romanticize
as the proper place for men.
A study of suburban life in the New York–New Jersey metropolitan area (Gaines, 1991)
documents the antischool culture of working-class suburban adolescents, for whom heavy
metal, rock and roll music, and “souped-up” automobiles are the symbols of adolescent culture,
with the academic life of schooling consciously rejected and scorned. According to this type of
cultural difference theory, these cultural norms are not inferior to middle-class norms, only differ-
ent. Thus, the fact that society and its schools demand middle-class cultural norms places these
students at a distinct disadvantage. Cultural difference theorists, such as Ogbu, suggest that
subordinate groups often see little reason to embrace the culture of schooling, as they do not
believe it will have value for them. Given the labor market barriers to these groups, Ogbu has
argued that this type of resistance may, in fact, be a form of cultural adaptation to the realities of
economic life.
The problem with cultural difference theory, according to Hurn (1993, pp. 154–155), is that
it is too culturally relativistic. That is, in its insistence that all cultures are equally valid, and that
all values and norms are acceptable in the context of the culture that generated them, cultural
difference theorists too often deny cultural problems and dysfunction. Although it is fair to
acknowledge that cultural deprivation theorists are often ethnocentric and biased, and that the
culture of schooling often alienates students from working-class and nonwhite families, it is
apparent that cultural patterns may negatively affect school performance. That these patterns are
often caused by social and economic forces does not eliminate them, nor reduce their negative
impact on academic achievement. As Hurn (1993, p. 154) stated:
The claim that lower-class environments are not deficient in their provision of resources for intellectual
growth but reflect differential valuations of ideal family forms is also problematic. While we may grant
some of the characterizations of lower-class family life as pathological are ethnocentric and insensitive
to cultural differences, much research has shown that poverty and unemployment make it extremely
difficult for lower-class families to maintain relationships they define as satisfactory. Among poor black
families, for example, over 50% of the households are headed by women, and illegitimacy rates exceed
60 percent. There is little evidence that blacks regard such families as desirable, and indeed there is
increasing evidence that in the 1980s the black community began to define this situation as a crisis in
the black family. The causes of that crisis undoubtedly lie in the legacy of discrimination and in poverty
and unemployment. But it is hard to deny that the instability of family life in many lower-class black
households makes for an unpropitious environment for the development of intellectual skills.
Lemann (1991), in his journalistic history of the black migration from the Mississippi Delta
to Chicago in the post-World War II years, chronicled the cycles of poverty, hopelessness, and
despair that mark life in the public housing projects of Chicago. Although he argued that economic
transformations and conditions are the root causes of poverty, and that racism and discrimination
exacerbate the problems, he nonetheless pointed out that the culture of the projects—with their
rampant violence, drug abuse, and hopelessness—is part of the problem. Although it is important
not to blame the poor for their situation and to understand that what Lemann described is a result
of poverty, it is equally important to acknowledge that such life-styles should not be celebrated
as “resistance.” Rather, as Lemann noted, public policy must simultaneously address the elimination
of the social and economic conditions responsible for poverty and the behaviors that serve to
reproduce it.
In Chapter 8, we presented data on the academic success of Asian students. Political decisions
in California to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions to state universities and to end
bilingual education have placed Asian achievement in a national spotlight. With respect to
bilingual education, why do Asians do better than other students whose first language is not
English? With respect to affirmative action, ending affirmative action in California has resulted
in a significant increase in the percentage of Asians attending the state’s flagship institutions such
as Berkeley and UCLA, with over 60 percent of Berkeley’s first-year classes now comprised of
Asians; and a subsequent decline in the percentage of black and Hispanic students (Orfield &
Miller, 1998; UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2012). Sociologists disagree about the causes of Asian
academic success (Lee and Zhou, 2015). One explanation is that as voluntary immigrants (Ogbu,
1999), Asians come to the United States willing to adapt to the dominant culture in order to
succeed. Another explanation is that a large number of Asians come from the educated middle
classes of their native countries and already possess the skills and dispositions necessary for academic
success. A third is that Asians possess family values that place enormous emphasis on educational
achievement and have high expectations for their children.
Critics of cultural theories argue that blaming poor people for their problems is “blaming the
victim” (Ryan, 1971). They argue that poor people suffer dramatically from the ravages of poverty,
which affects their academic performance. Richard Rothstein (2004b) argues that poor people
suffer from significant health problems, including high rates of asthma, exposure to lead paint,
smoking and alcohol use, poor vision and nutrition, lower birth weight, and inadequate health
care. These poverty-related health problems can have significant effects on academic achievement.
For example, exposure to lead paint or to smoking, alcohol, or drugs can lower IQ and limit
cognitive development. Rothstein argues that investments in improving the health of low-income
children will significantly reduce the achievement gaps based on income. Although some may
see this explanation as cultural deprivation theory in reverse, it is difficult to ignore the relationship
between family beliefs in the importance of academic success and Asian academic achievement.
Lew (2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Lee and Zhou, 2015), however, argues that the “model minority”
explanation of Asian student success overlooks the variation among these students. According
to Lew, there are significant numbers of failing Asian students. Lee and Zhou (2015), although
highlighting the factors that explain high Asian achievement also indicate that their achievement
is variable and that high socioeconomic status explains a significant part. Successful Asian students
are more likely to come from more affluent families and to make use of social capital, including
community networks that help them navigate the academic world. Stanton-Salazar’s (2001)
research on Mexican-American students supports the importance of social capital for immigrant
students.
It is important to transcend the often emotional and political arguments that accompany
discussions of cultural deprivation and differences. Too often, those who point to the negative
impact of cultural differences on academic achievement are accused of class and racial bias, when
such ethnocentrism is not part of their analysis. Clearly, the poor should not be blamed for their
problems, as the causes of poverty are more social and economic than they are cultural. Neither
should the cultural differences related to school success and failure be denied. The key is to move
past the ideological and to eliminate the social and educational barriers to school success for
working-class and nonwhite students. Perhaps more importantly, one must recognize that unequal
educational achievement cannot be explained by looking at students and their families alone;
one must also look at the schools themselves.
School-Centered Explanations
Earlier in this chapter, we reviewed the early research of Coleman and Jencks on the relation-
ship between school quality and resources, and unequal academic attainment. Although their
research questioned the conventional wisdom that between-school differences are the key factor
in explaining differences in student performance between groups, it did not exclude the possib-
ility that schools have significant effects on students. Although Coleman’s early work concluded
that student differences were more important than school differences, a conclusion that his
subsequent work on public and private schools rejects (Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982; Coleman
& Hoffer, 1987), and Jencks concluded that school effects were minimal, both researchers found
that there are significant within-school differences that suggested schools may indeed make a
difference.
For example, how does one explain differences in academic performance among groups of
students within the same school? A completely individualistic explanation states that these differ-
ences are the result of individual differences in intelligence or initiative. Another student-centered
explanation sees these differences as the result of student differences prior to entering school.
School-centered explanations, however, suggest that school processes are central to understanding
unequal educational performance. In the 1980s, educational researchers examined carefully the
myriad processes within schools that explain the sources of unequal academic achievement. This
school-centered research focused on both between- and within-school processes.
School Financing
Jonathan Kozol (1991), in his muckraking book Savage Inequalities, compared public schools in
affluent suburbs with public schools in poor inner cities. He documented the vast differences
in funding between affluent and poor districts, and called for equalization in school financing. In
Chapter 8, we presented recent data on differences in funding between affluent and poor school
districts. As these data indicated, in 2013–2014, significant differences between affluent suburban
and poorer urban districts remained, with New York City schools receiving a little more than
$22,000 per student and affluent Long Island schools receiving on average over $26,000 per
student (see Table 9.1). These differences have remained consistent in most states through 2014,
with the exception of a number of states, including Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, and New Jersey. In order to comprehend why these inequalities exist, it is important
to understand the way in which public schools are financed in the United States.
Public schools are financed through a combination of revenues from local, state, and federal
sources. However, the majority of funds come from state and local taxes, with local property taxes
a significant source. Property taxes are based on the value of property in local communities and
therefore are classed as a proportional tax. Since property values are significantly higher in more
affluent communities, these communities are able to raise significantly more money for schools
through this form of taxation than poorer communities with lower property values. Additionally,
since families in more affluent communities have higher incomes, they pay proportionately less
of their incomes for their higher school taxes.
Thus, more affluent communities are able to provide more per-pupil spending than poorer
districts, often at a proportionately less burdensome rate than in poorer communities. This unequal
funding has been the subject of considerable legal attack by communities that argue that funding
based on local property taxes is discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment and that it denies equality of opportunity.
In Serrano v. Priest (1971), the California Supreme Court ruled the system of unequal school
financing between wealthy and poor districts unconstitutional. It did not, however, declare the
use of property taxes for school funding illegal. Five other state courts (in Arizona, Minnesota,
Table 9.1 School Funding in New York City and Selected Long Island Districts: 2013–2014 School Year
District Wealth Ratio Spending per Pupil

(higher = more wealth) (Including Special
Education Students)
New York City (Bronx, King’s, New York, 1.029 $22,589
Queen’s, and Richmond Counties)
Nassau County
Baldwin 0.976 $24,729
Bellmore-Merrick 1.182 $23,430
East Williston 2.318 $33,590
Franklin Square 1.074 $18,206
Freeport 0.675 $22,496
Garden City 2.487 $27,194
Hempstead 0.454 $22,618
Long Beach 2.192 $34,222
Malverne 1.217 $31,015
Manhasset 3.033 $26,745
New Hyde Park 1.299 $21,470
Oyster Bay 3.832 $34,408
Roosevelt 0.554 $25,286
Roslyn 2.194 $31,604
Suffolk County
Amagansett 19.213 $50,000
Amityville 1.047 $27,262
Central Islip 0.553 $27,974
Copiague 0.68 $21,193
Hauppauge 1.505 $27,423
Huntington 1.688 $25,349
Miller Place 0.949 $24,035
Northport 1.746 $28,068
Quogue 22.338 $41,228
Rocky Point 0.716 $22,891
Shoreham-Wading River 1.125 $31,660
South Huntington 1.09 $24,524
West Islip 0.977 $24,408
Wyandanch 0.405 $25,957
Note: Nassau County is directly east of New York City’s borough of Queens and stretches approximately 30 miles to
the Suffolk County border. Nassau County includes the wealthy Gold Coast made famous by F. Scott Fitzgerald in the
Great Gatsby; Jones Beach, planned by famous planner Robert Moses; Levittown, one of the first planned communities
built for GIs returning from WWII; Roosevelt Field, one of the first and still among the largest shopping malls in the
country; and Mitchell Field, the departure site of Charles Lindberg’s historic cross-Atlantic flight. The county has
communities of great wealth, great poverty, and many middle-income communities. Although western Suffolk County
is suburban, it becomes more rural the further east you go. It has numerous farms and vineyards, as well as the famous
beach resort areas of Fire Island and the Hamptons. It, too, has communities of great wealth, great poverty, and many
middle-income communities. For a more detailed analysis, see Singer (1999).
Source: New York State Department of Education, as cited in “Fiscal Profile Reporting System” (2014).
www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/Profiles/profiles_cover.html
New Jersey, Texas, and Wyoming) rendered similar rulings within the next year. However, in
1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in San Antonio (Texas) Independent School District v. Rodriguez
reversed a lower-court ruling and upheld the use of local property taxes as the basis for school
funding. In a 5–4 opinion, the Court ruled that this method of funding, although unjust, was not
unconstitutional. Justice Thurgood Marshall, in a dissenting opinion, stated that the decision
represented a move away from a commitment to equality of opportunity (Johnson, 1991, p. 308).
Although the Supreme Court decision has made it unlikely that the federal government will
intervene in local financing of public schools, individual states have taken on the responsibility
of attempting to decrease inequalities in school financing. The Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming state courts have ruled against their states’ system of school financing. The Kentucky
decision called for a shift to state funding of schools to ensure equality of educational opportunity.
In Abbott v. Burke (1990), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the funding differences
between rich and poor districts were unconstitutional. This resulted in the Quality Education
Act (QEA), which was implemented (Anyon, 1997; Firestone, Goertz, & Natriello, 1997). As a
result of Abbott V (1998), New Jersey’s 31 urban districts receive the highest per-pupil funding
anywhere in the country (> $20,000 per student). Although Abbott has been replaced by the
state’s new funding formula, SFRA, the urban districts still receive at or above the average of the
state’s wealthiest districts. In the future, it appears that more states will begin to use state funding
to close the gap between rich and poor districts. The use of foundation state aid programs, which
seeks to make sure all districts receive a minimum standard of funding, with more state aid going
to poorer districts in order to enable poorer districts to meet this minimum level, is one way of
providing equality of opportunity. Although wealthier districts are still able to go above this
minimum by taxing themselves at higher rates through property taxes, the use of foundation aid
programs, at the very least, attempts to guarantee that all districts have the minimum necessary
to provide a quality education (Johnson, 1991, pp. 314–320).
The use of federal aid to equalize school funding is a controversial issue. Proponents argue that
such aid has occurred historically, as in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
They also argue that it is the fairest and most progressive system of school financing, as it would
guarantee equality of opportunity regardless of residence. Advocates of a federal system of financing,
such as Kozol (1991), believe that schools should be financed through federal income taxes. Critics,
however, believe that, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, education is a state
and local matter, and that federal financing would threaten local decision making.
It is clear that the present reliance on local property taxes and state aid has not reduced
inequalities of financing. Thus, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not receive
equality of opportunity, at least in terms of funding. Although, as we note in the next sections,
differences in academic achievement among students from different social classes cannot be
understood in terms of funding alone, there is a moral as well as educational question at issue.
Even if, as some researchers suggest (e.g., see Jencks et al., 1972), equalization of funding would
not reduce inequalities of achievement among groups, is it fair that some students have signi-
ficantly more money spent on them than others?
Critics of school financing believe equalization is a moral imperative, but there is not widespread
agreement on this matter. For example, when New York Governor Mario Cuomo, faced with
severe budgetary shortfalls during the recession in 1991, cut state aid to education more severely
in affluent suburbs than in poorer cities, such as New York City, the hue and cry in the suburbs
was extraordinary. Affluent suburban districts—faced with dramatic reductions in state aid, which
resulted in teacher layoffs and cutbacks in services—argued that such proportionate cutbacks
threatened their ability to maintain their academic excellence. Governor Cuomo responded that
state aid should be cut in districts spending sometimes over twice as much per pupil than in city
districts. Thus, the question of funding is not a moral issue alone; it is a political issue, as different
communities struggle to give their children what they consider the best possible education. In
doing so, however, critics maintain that affluent communities continue to defend their advantages
over poorer communities. In 2004, New York state’s highest court mandated an additional $5.6
billion for the New York City public schools in its ruling in the decade-long Campaign for Fiscal
Equity lawsuit. Today, although the legislature agreed to more adequately fund New York City’s
schools, budget crises have prevented the state from fully implementing the formula. In the same
year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger settled the Williams v. State of California case by agreeing
to set new state standards to ensure an adequate education to all the state’s children.
Although the question of the morality of unequal school financing is an important one, its effect
on unequal achievement is equally important. There is disagreement over the extent to which school
financing affects unequal academic achievement, but it is clear that school factors other than
financing have an important impact on achievement. Nonetheless, there is increasing evidence
that school financing matters (Baker & Welner, 2010, 2011; Firestone, Goertz, & Natriello,
1997; Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994; Rebell, 2009; UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2017).
The broad-based mandates of Abbott V, in New Jersey, including in all 31 poor urban districts
(Abbott districts), resulted in the following: (1) parity funding equal to the state’s highest wealth
districts; (2) full-day preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds; (3) comprehensive whole school reform;
(4) supplemental funding for school health and other student needs; and (5) a multi-billion-dollar
school facilities and construction plan. However, under SFRA many of these reforms have been
discontinued. New Jersey’s school achievement results under Abbott demonstrated improvements
in the Abbott districts at the fourth-grade level. Some of these are surely a result of the Abbott
reforms. Although improvements were slower at the higher grades, there is evidence to suggest
that similar improvements might follow if the state continues its historic commitment to its poorest
children. Under SFRA, this is less than clear. More importantly, in 2016, Governor Christie
proposed what he termed a fairer and more equal funding system with all districts, regardless of
socioeconomic level, receiving the same amount of funding. Critics of his plan argue that such
“equal” funding will turn back the clock and severely disadvantage low-income districts. At this
point, it appears that the plan will not pass the Legislature.
Effective School Research

The findings of Coleman and Jencks that differences in school resources and quality do not
adequately explain between-school differences in academic achievement was viewed by teachers
as a mixed blessing. On one hand, if student differences are more important than school differences,
then teachers cannot be blamed for the lower academic performance of nonwhite and working-
class students. On the other hand, if schools’ effects are not significant, then schools and, more
specifically, teachers can do little to make a positive difference. Although Jencks’s admonition
that societal change was necessary to improve schools may have made teachers feel less directly
responsible for problems that were often beyond their control, it also left teachers with a sense
of hopelessness that there was little, if anything, they could do to improve schooling from inside
the schools. Critics of the student-centered findings went further. They argued that this research
took the responsibility away from schools and teachers, and placed it on communities and families.
Common sense, they believed, suggested that there were differences between good and bad schools,
and between good and incompetent teachers. These differences certainly had to have some effects
on students. The difficult empirical task, however, is to untangle the ways in which school processes
affect student learning.
The concern with unequal educational performance of nonwhite and working-class students
is at the heart of such inquiry. The finding that within-school differences are at least as significant
as between-school differences raised questions about the common-sense argument that students
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do poorly simply because they attend inferior schools.
Ronald Edmonds (1979a), a black former school superintendent and Harvard professor, suggested
that comparing schools in different socioeconomic communities was only part of the puzzle. He
argued that researchers needed to compare schools within lower socioeconomic communities as
well. If all schools in such neighborhoods produce low educational outcomes, and these lower
outcomes could not be explained in terms of school differences in comparison to schools in higher
socioeconomic communities, then the student-centered findings could be supported. Conversely,
if there are significant differences in student performance between schools within lower
socioeconomic neighborhoods, then there have to be school effects. That is, how is it possible
that homogeneous groups of students (i.e., in terms of race and socioeconomic class) in a lower
socioeconomic community perform differently depending on the school that they attend?
Student-centered explanations would suggest that the factors outside the schools that affect
nonwhite and working-class students are the same in different schools within the same
neighborhood. Thus, if students from the same racial and socioeconomic backgrounds attending
different schools within the same community perform at significantly different rates, then
something within the schools themselves must be affecting student performance.
Based on this logic, Edmonds and other effective school researchers (Austin & Garber, 1985;
Brookover et al., 1979) examined schools that produced unusually positive academic results given
what would be expected, based on the socioeconomic composition of the school and/or schools
that are unusually effective in general. The effective school literature, as it is termed, suggests that
there are characteristics of unusually effective schools that help to explain why their students
achieve academically. These characteristics include the following (Stedman, 1987):
• A climate of high expectations for students by teachers and administrators.

• Strong and effective leadership by a principal or school head.
• Accountability processes for students and teachers.
• The monitoring of student learning.
• A high degree of instructional time on task, where teachers spend a great deal of their time
teaching and students spend a great deal of their time learning.
• Flexibility for teachers and administrators to experiment and adapt to new situations and
problems.
These phenomena are more likely to be found in effective schools than ineffective ones,
independent of the demographic composition of the students in the school. Given the differences
between students in schools in lower and higher socioeconomic neighborhoods, these findings
may suggest that there are a higher number of schools with these characteristics in higher
socioeconomic communities. Or, given the extra-school factors in these neighborhoods, it is easier
for schools in higher socioeconomic communities to develop such characteristics within their
schools. More importantly, these findings suggest that there are things that schools can do to
positively affect student achievement in lower socioeconomic communities (Thernstrom &
Thernstrom, 2003; The Education Trust, 2004a).
The effective school research suggests that there are school-centered processes that help to
explain unequal educational achievement by different groups of students. It supports the later
work of Coleman and his colleagues (Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982; Coleman & Hoffer,
1987) that argues that Catholic schools produce significantly better levels of academic achievement
because of their more rigorous academic curriculum and higher academic expectations. Ironically,
Coleman has thus moved full circle from his earlier work, which stated that students—not
schools—were the most significant explanatory variable, to his recent work, which states that
schools make a significant difference independent of the students who attend. Critics of Coleman’s
recent work (see Chapter 8), however, suggest that he has insufficiently controlled for student
and parental effects and that such extra-school differences may be more important than the
differences between public and Catholic schools. What these ongoing debates indicate is that
school and student effects cannot be isolated and that the interaction between these factors must
be addressed more completely. We will return to this point later in this chapter.
Although the effective school literature has attracted much support from policy makers and
is often cited in the educational reform literature as the key to school improvement (Stedman,
1987), the road from research to implementation is not a clear one. The effective school researchers
do not provide clear findings on implementation, nor do they provide answers to how effective
schools are created. Additionally, some critics of the effective school movement argue that its
definition of effective schools is based on narrow and traditional measures of academic achievement,
such as standardized test scores, and that such a perspective defines educational success from a
traditional back-to-basics perspective. Such a view may result in school reform that emphasizes
success on standardized tests, and overlooks other nontraditional and progressive measures of school
success, which may emphasize artistic, creative, and noncognitive goals as well (cf. Cuban, 1983;
Dougherty & Hammack, 1990, p. 339; Stedman, 1985, 1987). In order to respond to these
criticisms, effective school researchers are attempting to replicate their findings in numerous schools
(New Jersey Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, 2011).
Between-School Differences: Curriculum and Pedagogic Practices

The effective school research points to how differences in what is often termed school climates
affect academic performance. Much of this research looked at differences between schools in inner-
city, lower socioeconomic neighborhoods in order to demonstrate that schools can make a
difference in these communities. Although there are problems with the research, most researchers
agree that its findings support the argument that schools do affect educational outcomes, at times,
independent of extra-school factors.
Nonetheless, one is still faced with the task of explaining why a larger proportion of students
who attend schools in higher socioeconomic communities achieve well in school. Is it because a
larger proportion of schools in these communities have school climates conducive to positive
academic achievement? This is a difficult question and the data are insufficient to support unequi-
vocally such a claim. A number of theorists, however, argue that there are significant differences
between the culture and climate of schools in lower socioeconomic and higher socioeconomic
communities.
Bernstein (1990), examining the situation in England, suggested that schools in working-class
neighborhoods are far more likely to have authoritarian and teacher-directed pedagogic prac-
tices, and to have a vocational or social efficiency curriculum at the secondary level. Schools in
middle-class communities are more likely to have less authoritarian and more student-centered
pedagogic practices and to have a humanistic liberal arts college preparatory curriculum at the
secondary level. Upper-class students are more likely to attend elite private schools (in England,
they are called public schools), with authoritarian pedagogic practices and a classical-humanistic
college preparatory curriculum at the secondary level. Bernstein’s theory is similar to Bowles and
Gintis’s view that the type of schooling corresponds to the social class of students in a particular
school, with such differences a vehicle for socializing students from different social class
backgrounds to their different places in society. Anyon’s (1980) research on U.S. schools supports
these findings.
Although Bernstein’s work is theoretical and needs further empirical support, especially as it
relates to U.S. education, there is a growing research literature that supports the existence of
class-based school differences. Rist’s (1970, 1973) work on urban schools, Fine’s (1991)
ethnography of urban school dropouts, MacLeod’s (1995) description of urban schooling, Cookson
and Persell’s (1985) analysis of elite boarding schools, Powell, Farrar, and Cohen’s (1985)
descriptions of U.S. secondary schools, and Lightfoot’s (1983) portraits of urban, suburban, and
elite high schools all document important class-related differences in school climate, curriculum,
and pedagogic practices. Moreover, journalistic portraits—including Freedman’s (1990) description
of a New York City high school, Kidder’s (1989) discussion of a Massachusetts elementary school,
and Sachar’s (1991) portrait of a New York City middle school—further support the existence
of these differences.
What this research does not explain is why these differences exist and precisely how they affect
the different academic achievement of their students. Do schools reflect differences in student
cultures that exist prior to entry into school, thus supporting student-centered explanations? Or
do students respond to the different curricula, pedagogic practices, and expectations that exist in
different types of schools? Finally, is there sufficient evidence to support the argument that differ-
ences in academic achievement are caused by the differences in curricula, pedagogic practices, and
expectations in the different schools? These are important questions. Unfortunately, there is con-
flicting evidence concerning these overall conclusions. There is, however, reason to conclude that
these school differences are part of the complex explanation of unequal educational achievement.
For example, a high school student at a “select 16” boarding school, such as Groton, St. Paul’s,
Hotchkiss, or Andover (for a complete list of the select 16, see Cookson & Persell, 1985), attends
a school with a large campus in a bucolic country-like setting. His or her parents pay a hefty
tuition (over $50,000 with room and board per year) to support small class size, extracurricular
activities, the latest in technological and curricular innovations, and support services, including
counseling, tutoring, and college advisement. In addition, students are socialized to believe their
hard work results in a meritocratic justification of their acceptance to elite colleges and universities
rather than their advantaged family position (Khan, 2013). A high school student in an upper
middle-class suburb attends a school with many of these features, although he or she lives at home,
not at school. His or her parents pay high taxes to support the level of funding necessary to provide
these types of services. A high school student in a poor urban neighborhood attends a school that
is often overcrowded, with large classes, a student/counselor ratio of sometimes 400 to 1, and
without the latest in technology and curricula innovations.
In his book Savage Inequalities (1991), Jonathan Kozol portrayed these significant differences
in per-student spending between suburban and urban schools. Cookson, Persell, and Catsambis
(1992) documented the achievement differences between boarding schools, private day and
parochial schools, and public schools. Although sociologists of education differ as to whether these
achievement differences are caused by school differences, independent of student background
factors, school differences must play a significant role.
The 17-year-old sitting on the ninth green on the Hotchkiss Golf Course, looking at the fall
foliage on the rolling hills of Connecticut, sees a very different set of possibilities than the 17-year-
old sitting in the schoolyard at Seward Park High School in New York City (the subject of
Freedman’s book Small Victories). Of course, these different life chances begin with their differ-
ent class backgrounds, but their different school environments teach them to dream a different
set of dreams. Research on the relationship between schooling and life expectations (Cicourel &
Kitsuse, 1963; MacLeod, 1995; Ogbu, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1976) suggests that schooling can elevate
or limit student aspirations about the future. It seems obvious that these two students receive very
different sets of aspirations from their schooling—aspirations that more often than not translate
into educational achievement, college choices, and eventual occupational destinations. Whether
schooling is the causal factor is beside the point—that it is part of the process seems evident.
Within-School Differences: Curriculum and Ability Grouping

As we have stated, not only are there significant differences in educational achievement between
schools but these exist within schools, as well. The fact that different groups of students in the
same schools perform very differently suggests that there may be school characteristics affecting
these outcomes. As we argued in Chapter 7, ability grouping and curriculum grouping (often
referred to as tracking by ability or curriculum tracking) is an important organizational component

of U.S. schooling.
At the elementary school level, students are divided into reading groups and separate classes
based on teacher recommendations, standardized test scores, and sometimes ascriptive
characteristics such as race, class, or gender. For the most part, elementary students receive a
similar curriculum in these different groups, but it may be taught at a different pace, or the teachers
in the various groups may have different expectations for the different students. At the secondary
school level, students are divided both by ability and curriculum, with different groups of students
often receiving considerably different types of education within the same school.
There is considerable debate among educators and researchers about the necessity, effects,
and efficacy of tracking. From a functionalist perspective, tracking is viewed as an important
mechanism by which students are separated based on ability and to ensure that the “best and
brightest” receive the type of education required to prepare them for society’s most essential
positions. For functionalists, the important thing is to ensure that track placement is fair and
meritocratic—that is, based on ability and hard work rather than ascriptive variables. Conflict
theorists, conversely, suggest that tracking is a mechanism for separating groups, often based on
ascriptive characteristics, and that it is an important mechanism in reproducing inequalities.
Debates concerning the pedagogical necessity of ability and curriculum grouping abound. Many
teachers and administrators argue that heterogeneous groups are far more difficult to teach and
result in teaching to the middle. This results in losing those with lower abilities and boring those
with higher abilities. Critics of tracking (Oakes, 1985; Sadovnik, 1991b) suggest that homogeneous
grouping results in unequal education for different groups, with differences in academic outcomes
often due to the differences in school climate, expectations, pedagogic practices, and curriculum
between tracks.
Echoing this view, Albert Shanker (1991) stated that education in the United States assumes
that students in the lower tracks are not capable of doing academic work and thus schools do not
offer them an academically challenging curriculum. When these students do not perform well on
examinations measuring their skills and knowledge, it confirms those expectations. The problem,
Shanker suggested, is that students cannot learn what they have not been taught. Further, he
pointed out that these students are capable of far more than teachers realize, and suggested that
if teachers demanded and expected more, students would meet the raised expectations. Hallinan
(1994b) argued that although tracking does produce inequalities based on curriculum differences,
it need not do this. She suggested that tracks with equally demanding curriculum need not produce
such negative results.
Much of the debate concerning tracking is emotional and ideological. Moreover, proponents
of each view often lack sound empirical evidence to support their claims. It is important, then,
to explore what the research states about ability and curriculum grouping by asking four import-
ant questions. First, is there evidence to support the claim that there are significant differences
between tracks? Second, are there significant differences in educational attainment by students
in different tracks? Third, are track placements based on discriminatory practices founded on
ascriptive characteristics or are they founded on meritocratic selection mechanisms? Fourth, do
the differences in the tracks explain the differences in academic attainment between tracks?
With respect to differences between tracks, many researchers (Braddock, 1990a, 1990b;
Catsambis, 1994; Dougherty, 1996; Gamoran, 1987, 1993; Grant, 2011; Lucas, 1999; Oakes, 1985,
1990; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992; Sadovnik, 1991b; Tyson, 2011) stated that there are
significant differences in the curricula and pedagogic practices of secondary school curriculum
groups. Oakes (1985, 2005) suggested that the lower tracks are far more likely to have didactic,
teacher-directed practices, with rote learning and fact-based evaluation. Higher tracks are more
likely to have more dialectical, student-centered practices, with discussion and thinking-based
evaluation. These differences hold even when the tracks are based on ability rather than curricu-
lum (i.e., when students in different ability tracks learn the same material, it is usually taught in
a very different manner in the lower tracks). When the tracking is based on different curricula,
students in different curriculum groups receive essentially different educations within the same
school.
With respect to the effects of tracking and track placement, tracking has a significant effect
on educational attainment at both the elementary and secondary levels. Although the effects
appear to be larger for elementary school ability grouping than for high school tracking, most
researchers agree that tracking affects educational attainment and achievement, independent of
student characteristics (Alexander & Cook, 1982; Catsambis, 1994; Dougherty, 1996; Oakes, 1985,
1990, 1994b). Additionally, track placement is associated with student race and social
characteristics, with working-class and nonwhite students more likely to be assigned to lower tracks
(Alexander & Cook, 1982; Dreeben & Gamoran, 1986; Hallinan, 1984; Oakes, Gamoran, &
Page, 1992; Rosenbaum, 1980a, 1980b). There is insufficient evidence, however, to prove that
track placement is based on discriminatory rather than meritocratic practices.
Although some researchers (Oakes, 1985, 2005) argue that the race and social class-based
composition of tracks is evidence of discrimination, Hurn (1993, pp. 165–167) has contended
that high school tracking placement, as well as its effects, is a far more complex process. He
suggested that the evidence on track placement and outcomes is mixed, but that, on the whole,
track placement is based more on previous ability and aspirations than on discriminatory practices.
Although this may suggest that student characteristics prior to schooling or to high school
placement are important factors, it also suggests that ability is an important part of high school
track assignment. Hurn pointed out, however, that high school track placement may be dependent
on elementary school processes, including ability grouping and teacher expectations, which may
be far less meritocratic.
Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy of teacher expectations (Rist, 1970; Rosenthal &
Jacobson, 1968) and of elementary school ability groups and reading groups (Eder, 1981; Felmlee
& Eder, 1983; McDermott, 1977) point to the impact of teacher expectations and ability grouping
on student aspirations and achievement at the elementary school level. Persell (1977), in her
review of the teacher expectations literature, argued that teacher perceptions of students and their
abilities have an impact on what is taught, how it is taught, and, ultimately, student performance.
Although more research is needed to determine clearly the extent to which these different
expectations are based on ascriptive rather than meritocratic factors, there is reason to believe
that such processes are not entirely meritocratic (Rist, 1970).
Finally, research indicates that differences in tracks help to explain the variation in academic
achievement of students in different tracks. Some researchers argue that discrepancies in the
amount of instruction are responsible for these differences (Barr & Dreeben, 1983; Dreeben &
Gamoran, 1986); others point to differences in the quality of instruction (McDermott, 1977; Oakes,
1985, 2005; Persell, 1977); still others point to both (Allensworth, Nomi, Montgomery, & Lee,
2009; Riegle-Crumb & Grodsky, 2010; Lucas, 1999; Spade, Columba, & Vanfossen, 1997; Tyson,
2011). It seems clear that differences in the curriculum and pedagogic practices between tracks
are partly responsible for the diverse academic achievement of students in different tracks. Given
that more working-class and nonwhite students are placed in the lower tracks, it is evident that
such school-related practices have a significant effect on their lower academic achievement. What
is not entirely clear is the degree to which such placement is unfair and discriminatory or
meritocratically based on ability or on characteristics such as ability and aspirations brought by
students to the school. This brings you full circle to the question of student-centered versus school-
centered explanations. As we have noted, neither one, by itself, is sufficient to explain unequal
educational performance. What is needed is a more integrated and multidimensional approach.
Gender and Schooling

In October 1991, during the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence
Thomas, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, charged that Judge Thomas
sexually harassed her when he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and later at
the EEOC (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The charges and subsequent Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings on the allegations pointed to significant differences between how
men and women see the world. When the all-male, 14-member committee originally voted to
pass the nomination on to the Senate without investigating Professor Hill’s charges, women
throughout the country were outraged, charging that “men just don’t get it” (meaning that they
do not take sexual harassment seriously). This episode pointed to a much larger question: If
men and women see the world differently, why does this occur? (See Confirmation, the 2016 HBO
movie on the Thomas–Hill episode, for a detailed account of her allegations and the Senate
hearings.) Feminist scholarship on gender differences, in general, and gender and schooling, in
particular, has concentrated on this issue.
Although the feminist movement in the United States dates back at least to the mid-nineteenth
century (cf. Leach, 1980), the second wave of feminism began in the 1960s. Influenced by the
French feminist Simone de Beauvoir (1952) and reacting to the narrowly defined gender roles of
the 1950s, feminists in the 1960s and 1970s—including Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Ellen
Willis, Germaine Greer, and Kate Millett—challenged the view that biology is destiny. Vivian
Gornick (1987) in her poignant essay “The Next Great Moment in History Is Theirs,” argued
that differences between men and women are cultural, not biological, and that women deserve
equality in the public and private spheres of life (the family and the workplace). Thus, the feminist
movement challenged unequal treatment of women in all aspects of society and worked actively
to change both attitudes and laws that limited the life chances of women.
Feminist scholarship on schooling has attempted to understand the ways in which the schools
limit the educational and life chances of women. It has focused on achievement differences
(Buchmann, 2009; Fennema, 1974; Legewie & DiPrete, 2014; Sadker & Sadker, 1985), on women
and school administration (Shakeshaft, 1986, 1987), on the history of coeducation (Tyack &
Hansot, 1990), on the relationship between pedagogy and attitudes and knowledge (Belenky et al.,
1986), and other related issues. A significant aspect of this literature concerns gender differences
in how men and women see the world, their cultural causes, and the role of schools in perpetuating
or eliminating them.
Carol Gilligan, a psychologist formerly at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, now a
Professor at New York University’s School of Law, has been one of the most influential feminist
scholars working in the area of gender differences. In her book, In a Different Voice (1982), she
criticized the view asserted by the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg that there is a developmental
hierarchy in moral decision making. Kohlberg placed a justice orientation to moral reasoning
(based on universal principles) on a higher plane than a caring orientation (based on interpersonal
feelings). Gilligan argued that women are more likely to adopt a caring orientation, in part because
they are socialized to do so, and that Kohlberg’s hierarchical categories judged women unfairly.
She continued that women do reason in a different voice and that this female voice as an important
component of the human experience should not be devalued. Gilligan’s work pointed to the
differences and their relation to gender socialization and how society rewards men for “male”
behavior and negatively affects women for “female” behavior.
Gilligan’s work has been extremely controversial among feminists. Many scholars have adopted
her concept of caring as a part of female psychology and argue that the schools devalue
connectedness and caring in favor of male behaviors such as competition (Martin, 1987; Noddings,
1984). Many feminists argue that schools should revise their curricula and pedagogic practices to
emphasize caring and connectedness (Belenky et al., 1986; Laird, 1989). Other feminists (Epstein,
1990) are troubled by the conservative implications of Gilligan’s work, which they argue reinforces
traditional gender differences by attributing behaviors as typically female and male. The argument
that women are more caring and connected, and men more competitive and intellectual, may
reproduce sexist stereotypes that historically justified the domestic roles of women. These feminists
believe that traditional male and female characteristics are part of the full range of human
possibilities, and that schools should socialize both boys and girls to be caring and connected.
Despite these differences, feminists agree that schooling often limits the educational opportun-
ities and life chances of women in a number of ways. For example, boys and girls are socialized
differently through a variety of school processes. First, curriculum materials portray men’s and
women’s roles often in stereotypical and traditional ways (Hitchcock & Tompkins, 1987). Second,
the traditional curriculum, according to Bennett and LeCompte (1990) “silences women” by
omitting significant aspects of women’s history and women’s lives from discussion. As with other
groups calling for multicultural curriculum, feminists call for a more gender-fair curriculum. Third,
the hidden curriculum reinforces traditional gender roles and expectations through classroom
organization, instructional practices, and classroom interactions (Bennett & LeCompte, 1990,
pp. 234–237). For example, research demonstrates that males dominate classroom discussion
(Brophy & Good, 1970; Martin, 1972) and receive more attention from teachers (LaFrance, 1985;
Lippitt & Gold, 1959; Sikes, 1971), and that teachers are more likely to assist males with a task
but to actually do the task for female students (Sadker & Sadker, 1985).
A fourth way that schooling often limits the educational opportunities and life chances of
women is that the organization of schools reinforces gender roles and gender inequality. For
example, the fact that women are far more likely to teach elementary grades and men secondary
grades gives the message to children that women teach children and men teach ideas. The fact
that men are far more likely to be administrators, despite recent advances in this area, reinforces
the view that men hold positions of authority. Although some research on single-sex and
coeducation indicates that females do better in single-sex schools (Datnow & Hubbard, 2002;
Shakeshaft, 1987; Tyack & Hansot, 1990) and are given more leadership opportunities in women’s
colleges (Miller-Bernal, 1993, 2000; Miller-Bernal and Poulson, 2006), recent research does not
support the conclusion that females do better in single-sex schools (American Association of
University Women, 1998; Datnow & Hubbard, 2002; Shmurak, 1998), with the exception of
females from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Riordan, 1994, 1998). Nonetheless, legal scholar
Rosemary Salomone (2003) argues that although “the research as a whole does not refute or support
single-sex schooling . . . voluntary single-sex schooling is a legally acceptable option, especially
for disadvantaged children” (Publishers Weekly, 2003). These unequal processes help to explain
gender differences in both attitudes and academic achievement.
Given the role that schools play in reproducing gender inequalities, feminists argue that school
organization, curriculum, and pedagogic practices need to be changed to address more adequately
the needs of females. For example, Gilligan’s study of the Emma Willard School (Gilligan et al.,
1990), a private girls school in Troy, New York, concludes that by adolescence, girls receive an
education that devalues their inner voice and limits their opportunities. That this occurs in a
single-sex school devoted to the education of females suggests that females face more significant
problems of educational opportunity in coeducational institutions.
Interestingly, research in Great Britain (Arnot, 2002, 2012; Arnot, David, & Weiner, 1999;
Arnot & Dillabough, 2000) and the United States (American Association of University Women,
1998; Riordan, 1999) indicates that the gender gap in achievement has diminished greatly, if not
disappeared. In both countries, females outperform males in almost all academic areas (with the
exception of secondary chemistry and physics) and females have higher high school graduation
rates and higher levels of college attendance and graduation, and boys are significantly
overrepresented in special education classes. In both countries, educational policy makers have
begun to analyze the “boy problem” in order to understand the reasons that boys have begun to
lag behind girls.
Do Schools Reproduce Inequality?

The research on educational inequality, as you have read, is quite complex and perplexing. There
is a significant difference of opinion as to the role of the school in affecting student performance,
with school-centered explanations stressing the role of schools and student-centered explanations
stressing the importance of what students bring to school. Additionally, the research is conflicting
concerning the central hypotheses of functionalism and conflict theory. Some researchers believe
that the schools unfairly perpetuate social inequalities and thus confirm conflict theorists’ belief
that schools advantage the dominant groups in society. Other researchers believe that there is
insufficient evidence to support much of conflict theory, at least in regard to school processes,
and that some of the evidence supports the functionalist view that school selection processes are
meritocratic (Hurn, 1993).
How does one reconcile these apparent contradictions? First, we suggest that school-centered
and student-centered explanations are not diametrically opposed, but rather need to be
incorporated into a multidimensional theory of education and inequality. Second, we suggest that
although there is evidence to support some of the functionalists’ hypotheses, on the whole, there
is more evidence to support conflict theorists’ claim that schools help to reproduce inequality.
Schools are only part of this process, and must be seen within the context of a larger set of
institutional forces affecting social stratification.
Persell’s (1977) model for understanding education and inequality, presented in Chapter 4,
outlines the relationship between four levels of sociological analysis: the societal level, the
institutional level, the interactional level, and the intrapsychic level. The social stratification
system, at the societal level, produces structures of domination and societal level ideologies. The
structures of domination affect the institutions within a society, including the family, the schools,
the churches and synagogues, the media, and others. The important point is that different social
groups, based on their position in the societal hierarchy, have different institutional experiences,
and are affected in different ways by the social structure. Thus, families from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds face different problems and have different life chances than families from higher
socioeconomic backgrounds. Much of the student-centered literature focuses on these processes.
Children from different classes also attend different types of schools, which often vary in terms
of school climate, quality, and outcomes. Much of the school-centered literature focuses on
these processes.
The relationships between families and schools at the institutional level, and what goes on
within schools at the interactional levels, are not isolated from each other but are dialectically
intertwined. Clearly, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face significantly different
problems in their communities due to factors such as racism, poverty, and other societal and
institutional processes. To argue whether they are different or deficient is beside the point; that
they negatively impact on children is the point. Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds
thus have significantly lower life chances before they enter schools. Once they enter, they often
attend schools that are inferior and have significantly less funding, and encounter school processes
that limit their educational chances. That the evidence does not overwhelmingly support the view
that school funding and climate are independently responsible for their lower achievement does
not eliminate these as part of the problem. It only means that there are other nonschool variables
that also affect educational performance. It is clear that at the intrapsychic level, students from
different social class backgrounds leave school with different educational outcomes, both cognitive
(in terms of learning) and noncognitive (in terms of values and self-esteem). Research on within-
and between-school differences demonstrates how school processes may affect such outcomes.
Student-centered theories suggest that these unequal outcomes are the result of differences at
the societal and institutional levels, but that families and communities are more important than
schools. School-centered theories stress the importance of schooling in reproducing inequality.
Persell’s (1977) model suggests that society, communities, families, and schools cannot be separated
from each other. Societal forces unequally affect families and schools. The result is a complex
process through which students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have lower levels of
educational attainment and achievement.
Research that attempts to connect the four levels of sociological analysis is needed to more
clearly understand the role of schooling in the reproduction of inequality. Studies by Annette
Lareau (1989, 2003, 2011) on social class differences in the relationship between family and school
document the importance of both family and schools. She also demonstrates how the differences
in schooling for working-class and middle-class students are an important factor in unequal out-
comes. Using Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital (the cultural symbols and resources a
group has), Lareau demonstrated that those with cultural capital have significant advantages in
the schooling process. More ethnographic research of this type—which explores the processes
within schools, families, and communities, and their relationship to educational outcomes—is
needed. Alexander, Entwisle & Olson’s (2014) The Long Shadow of Work provided evidence from
a 25-year longitudinal study of children in Baltimore as they grew into adulthood. Their findings
indicate that although schools were important in explaining why white working class adults did
better than their black counterparts, outside school factors such as poverty, crime, family life and
other things were very important. Another book on low-income adolescents and their pathways
to adulthood supports their conclusions about the multiple factors affecting social mobility
(DeLuca, Clampet-Lundquist & Eden, 2016). In addition, Makris’ research on public housing
and education in a gentrifying community demonstrated the complex relationships among family
and schools and how these advantage affluent families and disadvantage low-income families
(Makris, 2015). Finally, Putnam's book on social mobility examines the complex relationships
among family, schools, and work and outlines the reasons for the lack of social mobility, especially
for low-income students over the past two decades (Putnam, 2015).
Do schools reproduce inequality? Based on the evidence reviewed in this chapter, our
conclusion is they do not, solely by themselves. Schools are part of a larger complex process in
which social inequalities are transmitted across generations. Although there is evidence of social
mobility for individuals through schooling and of a degree of meritocracy within schools, there
is insufficient evidence to support the functionalist argument that schools are a means for the
meritocratic selection of individuals based on talent and hard work. Rather, there is more powerful
evidence to support the conflict view that schools are part of the process through which dominant
groups maintain their advantages.
The first of the articles below, “It’s Not ‘a Black Thing’: Understanding the Burden of Acting
White and Other Dilemmas of High Achievement,” written by sociologists Karolyn Tyson, William
Darity, and Domini Castellino, analyzes the effects of tracking on black students in integrated
schools in the context of the burden of acting white thesis.
The second article, “‘How You Bully a Girl’: Sexual Drama and the Negotiation of Gendered
Sexuality in High School,” written by social scientist Sarah A. Miller, provides an analysis of the
problems high school girls face with regard to sexuality and how these negatively affect them.
The third article, “The Rules of the Game and the Uncertain Transmission of Advantage:
Middle-class Parents’ Search for an Urban Kindergarten,” written by sociologists Annette Lareau,
Shani Adia Evans, and April Yee, examines the trials and tribulations of middle class families in
getting their children into urban kindergartens in a gentrifying city and how social, cultural and
economic capital help determine the outcomes.
The fourth article, “A Black Student’s Reflection on Public and Private Schools,” written by
Imani Perry, provides a poignant analysis of a black student’s struggle with issues of race and
schooling. Written when she was a high school student, Perry’s article discusses the differences
between her education at both public and private schools, and the miseducation of blacks in U.S.
society. She went on to complete a J.D. and Ph.D., and is currently a Professor of African-American
Studies at Princeton University.
It’s Not “a Black Thing”

Understanding the Burden of Acting White and Other
Dilemmas of High Achievement
Karolyn Tyson, William Darity, Jr., and Domini R. Castellino
Almost 20 years have passed since Fordham and only a small minority of the older informants
and Ogbu (1986) published the article, Black did so. Moreover, high-achieving black students
Students’ School Success: Coping with the across the sample schools were not deterred
“Burden of Acting White.” Yet it remains among from taking advanced courses or striving to do
the most influential publications addressing well because they feared accusations of acting
the academic underachievement of black stu- white or other teasing. Equally interesting, in
dents and the black–white achievement gap. some schools, high achieving white students
Social scientists have produced little empirical experienced a similar but more pervasive
evidence to substantiate the claim that an “burden” of high achievement. That is, both
“oppositional peer culture” or a “burden of act- black and white high-achieving students some-
ing white” is pervasive in the black community, times encounter forms of hostility from lower-
or that either explains the underachievement achieving peers.
of black students or some part of the black– This study contributes to the current debate
white achievement gap. Still, there is strong on the burden of acting white hypothesis in
public belief in these assertions. Indeed, as we several important ways. First, few qualitative
found in this study, the acting white theory studies addressing this hypothesis have focused
significantly influences how schools address on more than one or two schools. We gathered
problems related to black underachievement, qualitative data from students and staff at
which, in turn, helps to determine whether these eight secondary schools. The multisite design per-
solutions ultimately can be effective. Thus, fur- mitted greater attention to the potential
ther assessment of this hypothesis is a critical step influence of contextual aspects of schools.
toward understanding and addressing the prob- Second, the in-depth nature of the interviews
lem of the black–white achievement gap. allowed us to probe more deeply and specifically
In this article, we review the burden of acting into issues related to a burden of acting white,
white hypothesis, describe the current debate, including particular academic behaviors and
and use interview data from eight secondary decisions, factors that large-scale surveys
schools in North Carolina to assess the hypo- generally do not capture. In particular, our focus
thesis. We find that a burden of acting white on the decisions students make with regard to the
exists for some black students, but that it is not academic level of the courses they take (e.g.,
prevalent among the group. None of the black electing honors versus regular classes) is unique.
middle-school informants reported discussions Finally, we attempted to distinguish a burden of
or expressed any concern about acting white acting white from other more generic dilemmas
related to academic behavior or performance, of high achievement. We argue that the burden
of acting white cannot be attributed specifically list of items the students identified included
to black culture. Rather, it appears to develop “being in honors or advance placement classes,”
in some schools under certain conditions that in addition to “speaking Standard English,
seem to contribute to animosity between high- dressing in clothes from the Gap or Abercrombie
and low-achieving students within or between and Fitch rather than Tommy Hilfiger and
racial and socioeconomic groups. This may help FUBU, [and] wearing shorts in the winter.”
to explain the mixed research findings regarding Fordham and Ogbu (1986), drawing on
the existence of an oppositional peer culture or Fordham’s qualitative study of one predomi-
a burden of acting white among black students. nantly black urban high school and the narra-
For example, studies by Ainsworth-Damell tives of eight academically capable black
and Downey (1998), Downey and Ainsworth- students, posited that acting white was part of a
Damell (2002), Ferguson (2001), and Kao, larger oppositional peer culture constructed
Tienda, and Schneider (1996) have discounted by black Americans in response to their history
the oppositional culture hypothesis. Similarly, of enslavement, and the discrimination and
Cook and Ludwig (1998) found no support for the persistent inequality they face (including
related burden of acting white hypothesis. discriminatory treatment in the labor market).
Conversely, Farkas, Lleras, and Maczuga (2002) The oppositional identity was said to be “part of
and Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) a cultural orientation toward schooling which
claimed to find evidence of an oppositional exists within the minority community” (p. 183).
culture among black students. Yet researchers Academic achievement is not valued in the
generally have not paid attention to the process community because it is perceived as conforming
by which all students absorb and interpret vari- to standard norms of success among white
ous messages from their school environments. Americans (see Spencer et al. 2003 for a counter-
In particular, experiencing and witnessing argument). Moreover, it does not pay off for
inequality within schools may foster the type of blacks as it does for others. Consequently, black
animosity evidenced in the oppositional attitudes students striving for academic success have
of teenagers toward school. their cultural authenticity as blacks called into
question and are accused of acting white.
Fordham and Ogbu (1986) claimed that
The “Burden of Acting White”
the choice between representing an authentic
Hypothesis
“black” self and striving for academic success
Among black Americans, the term “acting creates a “burden of acting white” and contri-
white” is used in reference to blacks who use butes to the relatively low academic perform-
language or ways of speaking; display attitudes, ance of black students (for examples of similar
behaviors, or preferences; or engage in activities assertions, see Herbert 2003; McWhorter
considered to be white cultural norms (Bergin 2000; Wasonga and Christman 2003; Weissert
and Cooks 2002; McArdle and Young 1970; 1999). However, the findings did not show that
Neal-Barnett 2001; Perry 2002; Tatum 1997). any informant in the original study related accu-
Although understandings of what comprises sations of “acting white” directly to academic
acting white may vary (by region, social class, or achievement, or ever used the term.
age, for example), some understandings remain
remarkably constant (e.g., listening to heavy
Empirical Assessments of the Hypothesis
metal music is almost always considered a “white”
preference). The term also has come to be used Only within the past 10 years have the main
with respect to indicators of academic perform- propositions of the oppositional culture thesis,
ance and success (Bergin and Cooks 2002; Neal- including “the burden of acting white,” been
Barnett 2001). For example, using focus groups examined empirically. Two high-profile studies
to understand how black teenagers define “acting (Ainsworth-Damell and Downey 1998; Cook
white,” Neal-Barnett (2001:82) reported that the and Ludwig 1998), both using data from the
National Educational Longitudinal Study achievement, 26 percent reported being rejected

(NELS), found little evidence of either an when they made good grades, and 16 percent
oppositional culture or a burden of acting reported not having as many friends when they
white among black adolescents. For example, achieved. However, because reference to acting
Ainsworth-Darnell and Downey’s (1998) white was not included in the survey and the
analysis of NELS data showed that blacks sample was all black, it is not clear whether these
actually had more pro-school attitudes than peer-related achievement problems were peculiar
whites, and Cook and Ludwig (1998) reported to black students. On the surface, the reported
finding little difference between black and white behaviors appeared to be indistinguishable from
adolescents in the degree to which they valued the general culture of mediocrity that “shuns
academic achievement. The results of the academic excellence,” which a number of studies
latter study also suggested that there were more have reported among students of all ethnicities
social benefits than costs to high academic (Coleman 1961; Cookson and Persell 1985;
achievement for black students. Steinberg 1996). The latter explanation would
Another more recent analysis of survey be consistent with the reports of Cook and
data from schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, also Ludwig (1998), Ainsworth-Darnell and Downey
found little evidence of a black adolescent (1998), and Ferguson (2001), all of whom found
peer culture oppositional to achievement black and white students sharing similar attitudes
(Ferguson 2001). Ferguson found that black and toward school.
white students with similar family background Fordham and Ogbu (1986) used quotes from
characteristics were not very different in terms of eight students to describe how a burden of acting
their satisfaction with school, interest in their white undermines blacks’ academic performance.
studies, or opposition to achievement (2001: Their informants said they attempted to down-
387). Qualitative studies (2003; Carter forth- play or camouflage their ability using such stra-
coming; Tyson 2002), too, have failed to sub- tegies as being the class clown, being involved in
stantiate the acting white and oppositional athletics, or doing just enough to get by. The
culture hypotheses.1 Yet, there is empirical participants in Horvat and Lewis’ (2003) study
evidence consistent with some of Fordham and also attempted to camouflage and downplay their
Ogbu’s (1986) claims (Bergin and Cooks 2002; achievements in the presence of lower-achieving
Ford and Harris 1996; Mickelson and Velasco peers. However, students in virtually all racial
forthcoming; Steinberg et al. 1992). Neal and ethnic groups confront similar dilemmas
Barnett’s (2001) focus groups with black adoles- with respect to high academic achievement, and
cents showed that high-achieving black students they also tend to use similar strategies (Cookson
often encounter charges of acting white, and some and Persell 1985; Kinney 1993; Steinberg 1996).
respond in ways that undermine their academic As Coleman (1961) showed long ago, the
performance. In Horvat and Lewis’ (2003) study problem most high schools face is that learning
of two urban high schools, one racially diverse and achievement are not what matter most to
and one predominantly black, two of eight high- adolescents. Popularity and looking good are the
achieving participants reported being accused of top concerns, and doing well in school does not
acting white. Only in one instance, however, was do much for popularity. Dilemmas of high
the charge clearly in response to academic achievement are neither new nor unique to
behaviors, as opposed to speech or other behav- African Americans, yet many researchers have
iors. In that case, the student attended the not carefully separated the effects of being a
racially diverse school (43 percent white, 16 teenager from those of race, gender, and class.
percent black, and 41 percent other). The experience of being ridiculed because
In a survey of black fifth- and sixth-grade of high achievement is not identical in nature
students at an all-black, low-income school, Ford for all groups. As described earlier, some issues
and Harris (1996) found that half of the sample are peculiar to black students. However, to claim
knew students who were teased for academic that a distinctive burden of high achievement
exists for black students, we must be able to dis- than behaviors such as dress or speech), deci-
tinguish between the typical culture of medi- sions, or performance. However, even if those
ocrity found among students from all racial two conditions are met, the burden of acting
and ethnic groups i.e., general oppositionality) white cannot be implicated in the black–white
and a peer culture among blacks that specific- achievement gap unless such peer criticisms are
ally racializes and devalues achievement and demonstrably part of the local school culture
achievement-related behaviors. This important (i.e., widespread) and shown to affect black
distinction has been missed in other studies (Ford students’ academic behaviors (e.g., withholding
and Harris 1996; Fordham and Ogbu 1986; of effort) or decisions (e.g., electing not to take
Horvat and Lewis 2003). high-ability courses). Similarly, the burden of
Finally, in some cases, findings regarding the acting white cannot be implicated in the
link between black achievement and acting black–white achievement gap if the criticisms
white or an oppositional culture may reflect directed toward high-achieving black students
methodological problems. Farkas et al. (2002) are no more significant than those directed
reported that “very good” black females in high toward high-achieving students in general.
minority schools were more likely to be put down
by peers than were other students. The authors
Data and Methods
interpreted this as evidence of an oppositional
peer culture among black students. Downey In 2000–2001, we undertook a study for the
and Ainsworth-Darnell (2002), however, North Carolina Department of Public Instruc-
identified methodological flaws in the study tion (NCDPI) examining the underrepresen-
and argued that the data of Farkas et al. (2002) tation of minority students in rigorous courses
show an oppositional peer culture among about (advance placement [AP] and honors) and pro-
4 percent of blacks in the sample, a figure too grams (academically and intellectually gifted
small to explain the black–white achievement [AIG] and academically gifted [AG]) in public
gap. Again, we argue that all dilemmas of high schools throughout the state.2 The NCDPI
achievement are not properly defined as a study provided an opportunity to address the
burden of acting white. claims advanced by the burden of acting white
Differences in methodological approaches are hypothesis. However, these data were not collec-
important, but they do not fully explain the ted exclusively or specifically for that purpose.
conflicting results reported in the literature. Key
questions remain. Do high-achieving black
Sampling Schools
students experience a burden of high achieve-
ment distinct from that experienced by other We used data collected annually by the NCDPI
adolescents? Are black students concerned from all public schools to assess the extent of
about excelling academically because of a belief minority underrepresentation in rigorous courses
that academic striving and high achievement and programs statewide. For each school, we
is antithetical to black cultural authenticity, or developed a Disparity Index to calculate the
that it may be perceived as such by others and ratio of the percentage of minority students
therefore negatively sanctioned? in advanced courses and programs relative to the
We provide answers by drawing on data from percentage of minority students enrolled in the
a larger study investigating North Carolina school. We then measured underrepresentation
public schools. Specifically, we evaluate the evid- of minority students in the AP and honors
ence for a burden of acting white in light of the courses that most North Carolina high schools
following premises. To claim a burden of acting offer. Next, in cooperation with the NCDPI staff,
white, two primary conditions must be present: we designed a survey to assess the programs and
ridicule or criticism directed toward black courses available at each school, the criteria for
students must be racialized and it must be speci- enrollment, and the processes for identification.
fically connected to academic behaviors (rather Elementary/middle school surveys gathered
current (2000–2001) data on gifted programs at that level were dealing with slightly different
and enrollment by race and gender. High school issues. For example, as others have noted
surveys gathered data on advanced curricular (Spencer 1984; Tyson 2002), race was not a
offerings, but not enrollment.3 The surveys were salient category for the grade school children we
completed by principals, assistant principals, interviewed. Table 9.2 presents descriptive
or school counselors. information for each of the eight schools we
For a more detailed analysis, we selected a discuss. The generalizability of our findings is
subsample of 11 schools from the total sample of limited by the small number of schools. The
schools returning surveys and interviewed shortage of suburban schools in the sample
students, teachers, counselors, and principals at prevented a more thorough analysis of the
these schools. Our goal in the design of the influence exerted by locale effects.
original study was not to generate a representa-
tive sample of schools. We deliberately included
The Schools and Advanced Curricula
some schools that over- and underrepresented
Offerings
minority students in advanced courses and pro-
grams to learn more about the factors that might For this analysis,5 we focus on the presence
affect minority access to and participation in of black students, rather than all minorities, in
more challenging curricula. We also sought some rigorous courses and programs. As shown in
diversity in the subsample in terms of school Table 9.3, black students were underrepresen-
socioeconomic status, racial composition, and ted in the gifted program at one middle school
urbanicity.4 Because of our particular interest (Jackson) and well represented at the other
in the high school placement process, in which middle school (Kilbom).6 Both schools also
students presumably have a choice in the courses offered accelerated classes in math (pre-algebra
they take, we selected a larger number of high in seventh grade and algebra in eighth grade) and
schools than middle schools. Finally, in the language arts, open to any qualified student.
current analysis, we excluded the three ele- Kilborn Middle School also offered AP courses,
mentary schools because we found that students for which students received high school credit.
Table 9.2 Selected Characteristics of Schools, 1999–2000
Middle schools High schools

Jackson Kilborn Avery Banaker Clearview Dalton East Franklin
Student race
Black % 50 10 13 88 60 39 27 54
White % 49 87 85 8 38 60 71 30
Other % 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 16
Principal a WM WM WM BM BM WM WM WF
Lunch % b 37 48 8 12 38 28 17 43
School size 798 659 987 1,038 1,139 1,725 2,015 1,443
White income, $ 56,226 39,152 43,204 66,940 43,489 48,648 55,602 43,531
Black income, $ 27,203 26,483 32,057 39,287 26,960 27,362 28,266 28,993
Locale Suburb Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Urban
Notes: Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding. Data for 2000–2001 are similar in most cases and identical in
others (e.g., middle school figures are identical for both years). White and black incomes are of those living in school
county. WM = white male; BM = black male; WF = white female.
a Race and gender of school principal.
b Percent of lunches that are free or reduced priced.
Across the high schools, black students were 14 participants at Franklin High School were
underrepresented in all but 2 of 19 AP courses 11th graders. Our informants also tended to be
and 1 of 13 honors courses under consideration higher-achieving students, particularly the white
(Table 9.3), although in a few cases, the ratio students (Table 9.4).
approached parity. Dalton High School showed Few of the 36 white secondary school infor-
the most severe underrepresentation of black mants reported earning grades lower than C.
students in both AP and honors courses. A Only one earned grades below D, and a larger
general pattern of underrepresentation state- proportion of whites reported that they were
wide limited our ability to select a more varied academically gifted.8 The black informant group
subsample of schools. However, one school was more diverse, with a mix of high-achieving
(Banaker High School) showed a black majority and average students. Overall, there were few
in each of the courses studied. Most schools low-achieving students in the group. This is not
offered an average of 6 AP courses per year, but a limitation because the theory we are assessing
Avery High School offered just 3 and Banaker was developed with reference to the experiences
offered 10. Banaker also offered an Inter- of academically capable students, half (4) of
national Baccalaureate (IB) program that pro- whom were high achievers. Furthermore, we had
vides in prep classes, which are less exclusive 40 black participants attending eight different
than honors or AP courses.7 schools, whereas Fordham and Ogbu (1986)
studied the experiences of eight black students
attending one school.
Sampling Informants
Although we were required to work with school
Interviews
officials to identify students, the characteristics
of our sample mirrored the student population A team of three or four black female interviewers
of the schools as a whole, with only minor spent one day at each school conducting
exceptions. Specifically, the achievement, and in interviews. We interviewed a total of 85
two cases, the grade level, mix at the schools was secondary school students (Table 9.4): 40 black,
more limited than in the student population. For 36 white, and 9 other students of color (this
example, all the student participants at Kilborn report focuses on the black and white students
Middle School were 8th graders, and 12 of the only). The duration of the interviews was 45 to
Table 9.3 Disparity in Percent of Black Student Enrollment in High Ability Courses and Programs 1999–2000
Middle schools High schools

Percent black Jackson Kilborn Avery Banaker Clearview Dalton East Franklin
Student body 50 10 13 88 60 39 27 54
Academically gifted 9 11 NA NA NA NA NA NA
AP Biology NA NA 25 64 12 0 17 NA
AP English NA NA 9 75 0 7 12 46
AP Calculus NA NA NA 65 17 0 40 50
AP History NA NA 5 84 NA 9 10 40
Honors Biology NA NA NA NA NA NA 23 NA
Honors English NA NA 3 83 27 6 12 46
Honors History NA NA 0 89 30 12 11 42
Notes: The percent black in each school remains the same in 2000–2001 and in most cases the pattern of results is not
significantly different. Data for 2000–2001 are available from first author upon request. AP = advanced placement;
NA = not applicable or not offered.
Table 9.4 Selected Characteristics of Informants by Race and Gender
Black White Hispanic Native American Asian Female Total

Studentsa 40 36 3 I 5 52 (61%) 85
MS 9 12 1 0 2 14 (58%) 24
HS 31 24 2 1 3 38 (62%) 61
Previous gifted identification 22 25 I I 1 35 (70%) so
Ever taken AP (HS only) 15 13 1 0 2 22 (71%) 31
Ever taken Honors (HS only)b 11 8 0 0 0 11 (58%) 19
Mother’s educationc
Less than HS 1 0 0 0
HS 11 11 0 0 3
Some college 4 2 0 0 0
Technical/vocational 3 I 0 0 0
AAdegree 6 3 0 0 0
BA/BS degree 13 13 2 1 1
Advanced degree 1 3 0 0 0
School personnel 20 45 0 2 0 44 (66%) 67
Teachers 10 30 0 0 28 (68%) 41
Counselors 7 6 0 0 13 (93%) 14
Administrators 3 9 0 0 0 3 (25%) 12
Note: Data are shown as number (n) with exception indicated. MS = middle school; HS = high school; AP = advanced
placement.
a Data are based on school’s identification of a mix of white and minority students enrolled in different courses.
b This count does not include students who have ever taken AP.
c Information on mother’s education is more complete than that on father’s education.
75 minutes. Eight students requested not to be AI and A2 provide this data for each informant
tape-recorded. The remaining interviews were quoted).9
taped and transcribed. School staff self-selected into the study on the
The interviews were semistructured. We basis of their availability the day of our visit. At
asked students a standard set of questions each school, we interviewed principals, counsel-
addressing their grades; which courses they ors, and teachers. At the eight secondary schools,
were taking; how they made these choices; their 67 adults were interviewed (Table 9.4) about the
attitudes toward school, learning, achieve- selection of courses and programs offered by the
ment, peers, and teachers; and other related school, student placement and course selection
aspects of the school experience. We posed processes, student attitudes toward particular
questions to students regarding their own, courses and achievement, perceptions of and
their friends’, and their peers’ reactions to high- expectations for students, and efforts to increase
and low-achieving students and placement the participation of minority and low-income
in rigorous courses and programs, issues at the students in rigorous courses and programs.
center of the acting white phenomenon. Because
the NCDPI study did not contain individual-
Data Analysis
level socioeconomic status data, we also col-
lected information from students on parent We used two methods of textual analysis: manual
education and employment (Appendix Tables and computer-based (ATLAS) approaches. Two
research assistants and one of the authors read choices, students’ responses overwhelmingly
the transcripts and coded interviews for factors centered on how they thought they would fare
such as perceptions of students in particular in the class, including whether they thought they
courses and programs, self-perceptions, friends’ were academically prepared, how willing they
encouragement and support for academic were to take on the anticipated amount or level
endeavors, friend and peer response to achieve- of work, and whether they were likely to earn a
ment, and self-reported reasons why students good grade. The following statement highlights
took particular classes. Coders individually this trend:
summarized each interview in terms of these
factors and highlighted the corresponding As far as the honors class, don’t take it unless you
dialogue. They summarized the interviews by absolutely have to. [laughs] I wouldn’t advise that.
race and school and included quotes that best It’s not it will bring your grade point average
illustrated each interpretative point. The three down, just taking it will bring anybody’s grade
coders agreed on almost all interpretations and point average down. [Whitney, black female
generally chose the same quotes to illustrate senior at Avery High School]
particular points. We then identified the dom-
inant patterns across the interviews. Many black students opted out of advanced
The qualitative software program ATLAS classes, but none reported doing so because of
helped us uncover the process by which a concerns about negative peer reactions to
burden of acting white emerges by capturing the achievement, even when they encountered
achievement and related social experiences of such reactions.
students, their understanding of those experi- Each middle school offered a gifted program
ences, and the context in which they occurred. and accelerated classes for qualified students. We
The analysis focuses on students’ own accounts asked students whether they participated in these
and interpretations of their behavior, experi- courses and programs and whether they had a
ences, and decisions. For an alternative view- desire to do so. Shandra, a black female seventh
point, we also include excerpts from our inter- grade student at Jackson Middle School, gave the
views with school staff. following response when asked if she wanted to
be in the gifted program, which is one of the most
Results visible, and as far as students are concerned,
unequivocal signs of superior ability: “Well, not
We begin by addressing the achievement orien- really, because I’m lazy and you have to do more
tation of black students as assessed through their projects and stuff, but besides the projects, yes.”
course selection decisions.10 Then we address the Although Shandra had not been invited to
nature of black adolescents’ peer culture with participate, she was not opposed to being in the
regard to academic striving and achievement, gifted program, so long as it did not entail more
assessed through the experiences of high work for her. Shandra reported earning As and
achievers. Finally, we address similarities and Bs, and was enrolled in the seventh grade pre-
differences between black and white adolescent algebra class, so there was no evidence that she
peer cultures related to achievement. was averse to academic success. Another black
student at Jackson Middle School, Les, reported
dropping out of the gifted program “because,
Black Adolescent Achievement
like, some of the things, I couldn’t get it.” Con-
Orientation
sequently, Les decided to “start back on
Contrary to the notion that black students do general–on the basics.” He also opted to take
not value academic achievement, we found an general math instead of pre-algebra. Les’s grades
expressed desire to do well academically among (which included Cs and an F) were not as good
all informants. In explaining their course as those earned by most of the other black
informants. His decision to avoid the advanced James: Well it started out with I just wanted to
classes appears to have been motivated more by achieve, wanted to excel. I want to go to
his doubts about his ability to master the course college. I wanted to go to Chapel Hill [Uni-
materials than by an unwillingness to work hard. versity of North Carolina], so I knew that I
Marc, another seventh-grade black male at had to achieve, so I decided, okay, I will start
Jackson Middle School, pushed for an oppor- taking honors classes and they will help me
tunity to participate in the gifted program: out.
Interviewer: When your mom and dad were
Interviewer: So who recommended you in sixth helping you pick out classes and you decided
grade to take the test again? to do this IB program, did you have any reason
Marc: Nobody. It was my choice . . . I went, um, to take the classes?
to ask them to take the test again. ’Cause I Tyler: I wanted to stay ahead academically,
figured if nobody asked me, then I would you know, having a, have an edge on the
never be in AG, so, I decided to take the test competition. You know, I wanted to make
over again. I decided that, I guess if I didn’t sure I would be prepared for college. [black
take the test in sixth grade then I wouldn’t male junior at Banaker High School]
have another chance to take it again. Interviewer: Okay, and in, now that you’ve been
in high school, why did you choose to take the
Marc said he took the IQ and achievement tests honors and AP classes?
to hold himself “to a higher standard.” At the Tamela: Well I’m, I mean, I like challenges. You
same time, however, he elected not to take know what I’m sayin’? I don’t like to take just
pre-algebra because, as he put it, “I have trouble somethin’ that I could get by on, or whatever.
with the work I have now.” Opting into the And I also wanted to have some honors
gifted program but out of other advanced courses and AP courses under my belt depending
suggests that Marc may have been interested on which college I’m gonna apply to. [black
mainly in the gifted label. If holding himself female junior at Dalton High School]
to a higher standard had been his first pri-
ority, it seems likely he would have accepted These comments are at odds with theories
the challenge of taking pre-algebra. Yet, his positing that black students learn ambivalence
seeking the opportunity to participate in the toward academic achievement in their commu-
gifted program indicates that, like the other nities (Fordham and Ogbu 1986).11 Concerns
black informants, Marc was comfortable striving of black students about getting into the college
for academic success and being perceived as of their choice and doing well once there are not
smart. consistent with a fear of academic striving.
The narratives of the black high school For other black students, particularly the
students, though similar to those of their younger lower-achieving informants, doing well did not
counterparts, were more often tied to concerns require taking advanced courses. The goal was to
about the future, including getting into a “good get good grades, regardless of the class level.
college” and getting a “good job.” Thus, although
the desire to do well was clear, what that meant Interviewer: Why have you chosen the ones
varied for individuals. For some black adoles- [classes] that you have?
cents, doing well included taking higher-level Paul: They’re easier . . . [laughs] [black male
courses to improve college options, grade point junior at Avery High School]
averages, or both: Interviewer: Do you like being in those college
prep classes?
James: Almost every, every class that was honors Paul: Yes ma’am.
that I could take, I took. [black male senior at Interviewer: Why? What do you like about it?
Clearview High School] Paul: Everything. I mean—I mean I can do
Interviewer: And how did that come to be? honors, but I don’t know if I could be working
that hard. I’d probably slack off. So I just take Velasco (forthcoming) studied. At these schools,
regular college prep. black students reported receiving support for
Interviewer: Now where do the black kids fit into academic accomplishments and striving, espe-
these groups [of students who take honors or cially among friends, just as the black females did
regular classes-athletes, those considered in the study of Horvat and Lewis (2003). Our
popular or smart, or those who dress awk- black informants at Clearview High School, all
ward], into these groups that you just des- of whom were enrolled in advanced courses,
cribed? Are they a group on their own; are insisted that excelling academically was not a
they mostly what group? problem and said that they did not feel any
Jessica: I mean, they could fit in either [honors pressure to underachieve, even when they were
or regular classes] group. I don’t know, but the “only one” in a particular advanced course.
I think they’re more likely, say [in] regular The comments of their peers and friends mostly
classes. [black female senior at Clearview concerned the difficulty of the advanced courses.
High School]
Interviewer: How come? Interviewer: How do you think students in this
Jessica: I don’t know. Maybe they feel they school react to you personally and the AP
can’t do it or something. The people that group generally with respect to your being
I’m around, that’s the way they feel. They involved in the program?
wouldn’t be able to make the grade in the class James: That’s a wide variety of reactions. It ranges
to pass. from “Man, I can’t believe you’re taking
this, this is really hard. Why are you messing
Black adolescents appeared to be more afraid with it in your senior year? You should be
of failure than of success. Average and lower- relaxing” to “Oh man, you are taking that?
achieving students also had a desire to do well in You must be smart,” and stuff. And that kind
school, and for some, avoiding advanced classes of thing. [black male senior at Clearview High
was one strategy to ensure that they would. A School]
concern with poor academic performance is the Interviewer: What do other students in the school
opposite of what might be expected in a peer say about, you know, taking honors courses,
culture that demeans academic achievement. or anything. Does there seem to be any sort
Indeed, as Fordham and Ogbu (1986:196) noted, of um, you know, pressure not to take honors
doing poorly is one way for students to “minimize courses or AP courses?
the stress” of being perceived as a high achiever. Hakim: On some courses, I think, there might
Yet our informants and the peers they described not, I mean, there might be some pressure on
were more concerned about low than high with “Oh man, that’s just too hard.” You
achievement. No interviewee said or implied know. “You might fail this.” [black male
that reluctance to enroll in advanced courses on junior at Clearview High School]
their part was connected to an oppositional peer
culture. Rather, reluctance was connected to No ambivalence about achievement is evident
students’ self-perceptions of ability. in these statements. Instead of other blacks
sanctioning them for academic striving, peers
and friends in their comments give mostly cau-
Black Adolescent Peer Culture and High
tions about the difficulty of the advanced courses.
Achievement
We found a similar pattern at other schools.
None of the black informants at Avery, Franklin, At Banaker, the predominantly black high
Banaker, East, or Clearview high schools school, one APIIB teacher reported that her
reported problems with black peers related to regular instruction students “looked up to” the IB
high achievement. Some welcomed public students because they “appreciated” the fact that
recognition of their achievement, and even the IB courses were tough, and “admired” the
sought it, as did the students Mickelson and students who were able to meet the challenges
of the program. Banaker students, especially, dis- to be sure that we were not missing some part of
missed any suggestion that as high-achieving their experience. Many found these questions
black students, they were ostracized by their peers. somewhat amusing, because achievement simply
was not an issue.
Interviewer: Did your friends have any reaction
to you being in the IB program or at any time Interviewer: And here, do you get any sort of
during elementary and junior high? reaction from any of your friends about being
Tyler: Not really, not any negative reactions. You in the honors classes?
know, they always, you know, say, “You’re so Zora: No. [black female junior at Avery High
smart,” stuff like that, whatever. I don’t think School]
any had animosity towards me. [black male Interviewer: Not at all? Nobody ever says any-
junior at Banaker High School] thing?
Interviewer: Did your friends have any other types Zora: No. [laughs]
of reactions to you taking these classes? Interviewer: Okay, how about–
Michelle: They thought I was crazy for taking, Zora: Because a lot of them take them too. So,
[laughs] especially taking like the AP class, I mean, we don’t talk about it.
and plus honors classes. They thought I Interviewer: Right. Okay, how about students just
was crazy. And it was like, “Well, I just gotta around the school, not necessarily the people
handle it.” But they were pretty much you hang out with, but people who are just
supportive. [black female senior at Banaker kind of walking in the hall . . .
High School] Zora: Naw. [laughs a little]
Interviewer: Have your friends had any reaction Interviewer: Nothing? Why do you keep
to you being in these classes? laughing?
Kimmi: Well, you know how your friends do. Zora: It’s just funny, I mean, we don’t talk about
They just feel like, “We know you’re going that.
to take the honors classes or something.” Interviewer: How do your friends—how do your
And they’ll be like, “Don’t let yourself go down friends react to your being in college prep and
(in the rankings), because we know you got to not honors classes?
be third, fourth, or do something.”And they’ll Paul: We never talk about it. [black male junior
try to be like, “Yeah, you got the highest grade” at Avery High School]
or something. But not anything like, “You’re Interviewer: Okay. And how do you feel about
a nerd.” Nothing stupid like that. [black them being, you know, those who are in the
female junior at Banaker High School] honors–
Paul: We never talk about it.
High-achieving students appeared to enjoy a
certain level of respect among their friends at That some black students did not discuss their
Banaker High School, where informants also academic pursuits and achievements with friends
flatly denied that acting white was an issue. is not surprising. Steinberg (1996) reported
similar findings for a diverse sample of students.
Interviewer: Have you ever heard anybody in this Furthermore, in interviews with school person-
school accuse anybody else of acting white, or nel we found support for the claims of Avery
anything like that? High School students that high achievement
Ernest: No. [black male senior at Banaker High was not a problem for blacks at their school. For
School] example, a new assistant principal (a black
Interviewer: No? Ernest: Hunh-uh. woman) commented that she had not seen as
much peer pressure to underperform among
We pressed the black informants on the ques- minority students at Avery as she had seen at her
tion of peer and friend response to achievement previous school:
I was really impressed, last year, the first time Pelham’s discomfort with particular topics in
report cards went out and many of the minority the predominantly white advanced classes is not
students . . . walked up to me and said, “Ms. H, unlike that expressed by black adolescents in
look at my report card,” and saw As. That was a other studies (Hemmings 1996; Mickelson and
different experience. Velasco forthcoming; Tatum 1997). Inter-
estingly, however, Pelham’s and Crystal’s
In some schools, however, black students discomfort did not deter them from being in the
expressed concern over racial isolation in gifted program.
advanced classes, supporting Ferguson’s (2001: High-achieving black students at Dalton
352) assumption that “honors and AP courses High School also persisted in advanced classes
may be socially isolating for black students” and although they encountered similar problems of
Mickelson and Velasco’s (forthcoming) findings isolation. Note the similarity between the
in a study of high-achieving black students in the following description of students in the advanced
Charlotte-Mecklenberg School system in North classes at Dalton High School and that of
Carolina. This was the case for our informants Crystal’s peers in the gifted classes at Jackson
at the two middle schools and at Dalton High Middle School mentioned earlier:
School in particular. Crystal, the only minority
student in her eighth-grade gifted class at Tamela: You have the snooty people, who only
Jackson Middle School, found isolation from want to talk with you if you live in Eden
peers of similar background troubling. When Terrace, or if you like— [black female junior
asked whether she hung out with her gifted at Dalton High School]
classmates outside class, Crystal responded, Interviewer: What is Eden Terrace?
“Only a couple,” adding that she did not “get Tamela: That’s like the little preppy tow—,
along” with some of them “at all.” She called suburb—
these students “the other group . . . the preps” Interviewer: Uh-huh, and is that predomin-
and noted that “some can be snotty at times.” antly–
According to Crystal, the preps are “rich people,” Tamela: Yes, it is. It’s predominantly white. They
“white,” and “they, like, live in the Winston have a lot of teachers, a lot of prominent
neighborhood.” people in the community that live out there,
so—I mean, if you live in Eden Terrace, and
This sense of standing apart from the dominant if you make a certain amount of money, or
population in advanced courses, especially a whatever, you’re in their little clique group,
population perceived as arrogant, causes peculiar or whatever.
discomfort for some students. The other two
black informants in the gifted program at Jackson Tamela went on to explain that her class-
Middle School had one another for company in mates did things to offend her and to question
the seventh-grade gifted class. Neither expressed her presence in the advanced classes. She
any concerns about feeling different, isolated, or reported getting “certain vibes” from some of the
left out. white girls (whom she described as “really
snobby”), indicating that they did not want her
At Kilborn Middle School, Pelham, a black in the classes (e.g., they “make little gestures and
male, indicated that he had no problem being snicker” when Tamela gets “a higher test grade
labeled as gifted, but as one of only two blacks in than them”). Interestingly, having been class-
his gifted classes, he felt “a little bit odd being mates since middle school, neither removed the
there” when the topic of one class was slavery. racial boundary between the white students and
Elaborating, he said, “I don’t know—it’s like, Tamela nor erased their questions about her
you know, everybody looking at me, or some- ability.
thing like that, if it’s, you know, slavery.”
A Burden of Acting White Tamela: Oh man, they—a lot of people, well my

Dalton High School’s high-achieving black good friends that are, that are in my honors
students contended with more than social English class, most of them, we take almost
isolation. This rural school with more than 1,700 the same kinda course loads so, I mean, we
students was the only school in which we found support each other. And then I have some
evidence of a burden of acting white with respect other black friends that say that I’m too smart,
to achievement. Sociologically, this case is I’m trying to act white, or whatever, because
significant because, as Buroway (1991) has I’m in such hard classes. [black female junior
argued, as an exception to the pattern found at at Dalton High School]
the other seven schools, it can provide important
theoretical insight that may improve the theory Tamela did not seem upset by these remarks. She
as a whole. continued to hang out with some of the same
Both students and school personnel men- students who accused her of acting white. The
tioned oppositional attitudes among blacks. other student, Alicia (black female senior at
Teachers, principals, and counselors repeatedly Dalton High School), experienced harsher
traced the underrepresentation of minority treatment and reacted more strongly. She recalled
students in the school’s advanced courses to being called “white girl”and “Oreo” by fellow
aspects of an oppositional culture among blacks in middle school after she had been placed
minority students. Some adults noted that it is in an accelerated class with only whites. She
not “cool for minority students to be smart,” and described that period as “hell.” Alicia’s middle-
that black students are “embarrassed” about their class background, which differed from Tamela’s
ability. Others maintained that black students more modest socioeconomic status, further
“don’t place a high value on education,” and that distinguished her from the many black students
males, especially, are “averse to success” because at Dalton High School who lived in nearby
it constitutes “betraying their brothers.” Thus, to housing projects.13 It also may have contributed
address the problem of minority underrepre- to how Alicia’s white peers perceived her. She
sentation in advanced courses, the school sought quoted one white female as saying, “Alicia, you’re
to ease high-achieving black students’ isolation not black—you speak correct English, you take
in the courses and insulate them from the honors courses. You’re not what I picture as
criticisms of their peers by establishing a club for black.” High-achieving black students in other
these students to come together. research (Tatum 1997) report similar incidents.
Our two black student informants confirmed A black counselor at Dalton High School
the presence of an oppositional culture, and recalled that a few years earlier her daughter
particularly a burden of acting white, at Dalton “was the only black on the principal’s list” and
High School. Our interviewees, one senior and often “the only black in the core courses.” At the
one junior, were high-achieving females enrolled principal’s request, the counselor had conducted
in honors and AP courses. Both had been a survey of minority students and found that
accused of acting white by their black peers many were concerned about social and racial
because of their academic behaviors.12 We em- isolation in advanced courses:
phasize these cases to acknowledge that this
experience is real, and as many journalistic They did not like being in honors courses
accounts attest (see, for example, the New York because often they were the only ones . . . Also,
Times series “How Race Is Lived in America,” some of the kids felt that if they were in these
June to July 2000), it can be extremely difficult honors classes, that there appears, the black kids
and painful for some. look at them as if they were acting white, not
recognizing that you could be smart and black. A
Interviewer: Okay, do your friends have any lot of white kids looked at them, basically,
reaction to you being in the AP and honors “You’re not supposed to be smart and black, so
courses? why are you here?”
An important and often overlooked consequence do anything else but study . . . You are called
of the underrepresentation experienced by a betrayer of your race, and then you start
minorities in advanced classes is the perpetuation questioning your blackness as I did. And I was
among both blacks and whites of stereotypes like, “Well, what is wrong with me?’’
about black intellectual ability and the value of
education in the black community. Although Dalton High School was the only
Stark underrepresentation in honors and AP school at which informants explicitly linked
classes also leaves high-achieving black students academic achievement to accusations of acting
vulnerable to being perceived as arrogant by their white, one student at Jackson Middle School,
peers. As Alicia put it, “I’ve had to deal with located in a suburb of a county with a relatively
things from other black students, black students large gap in black–white median income, dis-
who see that I am smart; they seem to think that cussed acting white with regard to other, non-
I think I’m better than them.” Her conscious academic behaviors. This important distinction
efforts to avoid “com[ing] off like I think I’m is clear in the following exchange.
better than other people” were undermined by
the visual disparity of her presence in advanced Interviewer: What about different racial groups in
classes, leaving Alicia feeling frustrated and this school? Are there, is it integrated, do
angry: black and white students hang out together all
the time, or are they more separate? How does
I think when you walk by a door and see one or that work?
two spots [blacks] in a class, I think that’s when Marc: Most of the time, but a lot of the black
you start perceiving, “Oh, they must be stuck up, people think that they’re better than the
rich preppy people.” The problem comes from white people, or vice versa. Or the black
society because it is ingrained in us that blacks people will always pick on the white people
must act, speak, dress a certain way and if you about what they do [inaudible], and if you’re
deviate from those expected norms your black- black and you act like you’re white, then
ness is questioned. I question it myself I’m being they would hold it against you. The black
denounced and rejected by blacks and that’s people would not like you as much . . .
ridiculous . . . I’ve changed so much since ninth Well if you’re black and you act like you’re—
grade. I came in here timid because I am black, you do stuff that the white people do, then,
and I was the only black person in my honors then, like skateboarding and stuff like that,
classes. then they say that you’re white and that you,
I don’t know how to really say it, they just say
For some students, the visual image of racial that you’re really white and that you don’t
patterns of academic placement may mean care about everybody else that’s black. And
little. For others, however, it may be a constant stuff like that. Like if you surf or if you
reminder of the cultural system of white superi- talk differently, like “dude” or something
ority, prompting ideas that link whiteness with like that. ’Cause sometimes I say that. [black
certain academic behaviors. Thus, the threat male, seventh grade at Jackson Middle
posed to black students by such stereotypes School]
can extend beyond the test-taking situation Interviewer: Okay. So do black students tease you
that Steele (1997) described. Alicia found sometimes?
her most basic self-understandings called into Marc: Sometimes.
question: Interviewer: Are there other things besides
skateboarding or surfing that are labeled as
If you make all As, you’re white. If you’re not white?
coming in here with Cs and Ds and Fs, then Marc: Mm, just about everything that black
something’s wrong with you. You don’t have a people don’t do. Like if it’s not associated
life—that’s what it was. They thought I didn’t with, like—I’m not talking about with the
school—but drugs or shooting or something Ned: If they know you are in honors or AG, they
like that, then it’s considered black. think you are a genius. People see you in
Interviewer: What about AG? different ways, mostly it’s a good way, but they
Marc: AG is really mixed up. I mean, most of also see you as limited in scope, like some-
the people in AG that I know of are white. one that does nothing but study all day long.
I’m one of the few black people that are in [white male junior at Franklin High School]
AG. Maggie: There were like five of us in the [gifted]
Interviewer: Okay. So, does anybody say, “You’re class, and then in my [gifted] math class
in AG, you’re white, you act white”? there was about ten, it doubled for math,
Marc: No. but it was like I felt kind of left out from
Interviewer: They don’t associate that, only everybody else, and people would like, be like
when you say “dude” and talk about surfing? “You guys are too smart, y’all smarty-pants.”
Marc: Yeah, stuff like that. And it kind of got better like in the eighth
grade because a lot more people came into
In the schools we studied, a burden of acting the AG program . . . and in high school it’s
white was not pervasive in black peer groups. like more accepted and it’s okay to be in
Black students sometimes were teased for honors, but in fifth grade it was kind of like a
achievement or for being smart, but that teasing funny thing. [white female junior at Avery
was not usually racialized, and therefore was no High School]
different from the typical teasing (i.e., general
oppositionality) other high-achieving students Clearly, among both whites and blacks,
experience. Moreover, as the following quota- perceptions of high-achieving students are not
tions from black and white students illustrate, entirely positive. Nor is the experience of the
some of our informants perceived much of this white high achiever always positive. Comments
teasing as harmless, and most downplayed its such as “What’s wrong with you?” “Limited in
importance. scope,” “kind of a funny thing,” and “felt kind of
left out” highlight the negative side of being
Interviewer: What kind of reaction did your perceived as “too smart” and are consistent with
friends have about you being in this (IB) other research findings. Thus, contrary to the
program? You said most of your friends are in implications of the burden of acting white and
it, right? oppositional peer culture hypotheses—that
Barbara: Yeah. But like people that were my white students generally have superior standards
friends before I came here and stuff, are like, for academic achievement and are embedded in
“Oh, she’s a smart girl now.” And like, when peer groups that support and encourage academic
someone needs help, everyone comes to me striving—the experiences described by some of
and like, “I know you know how to do this, our white informants indicate the presence of a
cause you’re in IB.” And every—a lot of much less achievement-oriented academic
people joke about it and stuff. [black female culture. Our findings are consistent with those of
sophomore at Banaker High School] other studies showing black and white students
Interviewer: How do your friends react to your differing little in the degree to which they value
being in this program (honors and AP)? academic achievement (Cook and Ludwig 1998;
Lila: They’re like, “Geesh, what’s wrong with Ferguson 2001).
you?” [laughs] I don’t know. They make fun Hannah, a white female senior at Clearview
of me a lot for my grade point average. They High School, described a particularly egregious
call me by the number instead of my name. form of ridicule she experienced from white
But, I don’t know, it’s a lot of playful peers. Explaining that some girls at her school did
joking. [white female junior at Avery High not like her or her friends because they were
School] “smart” and played sports, Hannah reported that
one girl taunted her by saying, “I used to have a courses (Table 9.3), offered the following
friend like you who was perfect. She killed herself opinion:
. . . It just got to be too much for her; she was
number one in her class too; she played volleyball Well, you know, we’re from a very low-wealth
and everything and she ended up killing herself.” county and, uh, it’s not, the wealth is not, the
We asked if she thought a lot of people saw her whites don’t have all the money. It’s just as
as “perfect”: many poor whites as there are poor blacks or
poor Indians. We’re all in the same boat
Hannah: No, because I’m wild. together. So in some areas it may be a racial,
Interviewer: Wild, how? socioeconomic breakdown to it; it’s not here.
Hannah: I don’t try to act, it’s like I still want to We don’t really have an upper class.
be [Hannah], I don’t try to be like arrogant
and everything in front of everybody else, like At Dalton High School, few white students
I’ll be the first one to declare, “I’m going to mentioned animosity between high and low
write on this desk,” or “I’m stupid,” I don’t try achievers, but that omission may reflect the
that arrogance. fact that all white informants were high
achieving and, with the exception of one, Lexie,
Hannah’s strategy of acting “wild” is similar to all were socioeconomically advantaged (e.g.,
tactics described by black students in Fordham parents had at least a four-year degree). Lexie,
and Ogbu’s (1986) article. Hannah did not say whose parents had no more than a high school
she acted wild specifically to camouflage her education, had experiences in the advanced
achievement, but she acknowledged that this classes similar to those Tamela and Crystal
behavior deflected attention from her achieve- described. Lexie felt alienated from her AP
ment and reminded people that she was not classmates and did not socialize with them,
“perfect.” apparently because, beginning in middle school,
the social class differences between them created
a boundary. “I was the rejected alien, the one in
A Burden of High Achievement Among the corner,” she told us, and she continued to
Whites view her peers as not “approachable.” The
Hannah’s narrative uncovers a pattern of deep- group boundaries drawn between students in
seated animosity between higher- and lower- middle school carried over to high school. Even
achieving students in some schools, especially as a senior, Lexie continued to maintain distance
when the former group is perceived to be soci- from her more privileged peers.14
ally or economically advantaged. We found the Socioeconomically disadvantaged whites at
most striking cases of such animosity at Clearview High School told similar tales.15 For
Clearview High School and Kilborn Middle example, Ingrid, whose parents held working-
School. Evidence of similar animosity also was class jobs, explained why she was “not close to”
present at East High School and Dalton High fellow AP students:
School. All but East High School have relatively
large percentages of students eligible for free or We have like, out here we have like the high
reduced-priced lunches, and are located in rural spots [unclear], I guess you would say, the ones
areas. We found no animosity toward higher- that were well brought up with the wealthy
achieving students at Banaker or Franklin high parents and things like that. And then we have
schools. At Franklin, school staff emphasized the middle class and their parents work for what
that most students came from similar, modest they get, they work hard and everything, but
backgrounds (Table 9.2). One white teacher, they’re just not as well off, and then we have like
when asked to explain why minority students the low class, the ones that have hardly nothing
at Franklin were well represented in advanced and things like that. I would say, I’m not being
judgmental, not trying to be, but the majority of developing in the second grade has become open
the smarter kids taking the honors courses are the hostility by the sixth . . . What has happened,
well-off kids, because I think a lot of them are then, is that these children have directed their
pressured into it maybe by their parents. [white anger at their schoolmates who are rewarded as
female senior at Clearview High School] individuals rather than at the institution which
is withholding recognition of them.
Ingrid noted that “the low-class” students in
advanced classes sometimes were ridiculed for Among the older students in our sample
trying to be like the high-status “well-off” schools, hostility directed toward wealthy higher-
students: achieving students usually marked them as
snobs. For instance, a white student at East High
Interviewer: And would they [lower class School told us about a friend in advanced
students] typically be in honors classes? geometry who, she said,
Ingrid: Most of them aren’t. Now you have some
of them that are really smart and that are really didn’t want to be in the advanced class
[sounds like imitate] and they get picked on because she didn’t want to be categorized as
for it because they don’t look as nice as some one of the snobs. Because a lot of people in
of the other ones do. advanced geometry or the advanced classes
Interviewer: Who picks on them? are—this is kind of weird to put this—but
Ingrid: Different people, not necessarily the they’re kind of rich and they really are snobs.
people actually in the class with them but the [Anna Beth, white female sophomore at East
other people saying, “I don’t know why High School]
you’re in there, you’re not smart enough,
you’re not like them.” This perception of snobbery led some parents to
Interviewer: So they get picked on for being in the veto their children’s participation in gifted
honors classes? programs. Ingrid’s mother, for example, would
Ingrid: I guess for, because other people can look not let her participate in her elementary school’s
at them like they’re trying to be like them, but gifted programs: “She said that she didn’t want
you know you can’t be. me to think I was better than other kids.” Ingrid
explained:
The unmistakable similarity between this
account and the “burden” Fordham and Ogbu [Now] I understand why she did that . . . [A] lot
described as peculiar to black students suggests of the students, some of the smarter ones, think
that the composition of advanced courses may that they’re a lot better than the other ones that
encourage the development of these attitudes have learning problems and things . . . They just
and help breed animosity. exclude you from them as far as like everybody
Visible social status disparity in track place- has their own little clique, and they’re like,
ment appears to affect how students perceive “Well, we’re the smarter people and the other
those classes and the students who take them, people are dumb”; kind of thing. [white female
as other research also shows (Mickelson and senior at Clearview High School]
Velasco forthcoming; Tatum 1997). Sennett and
Cobb’s (1972:82) work on the sources of social Interviews at Kilborn Middle School revealed
class injury in schools discusses this sorting similar resistance to gifted placement among
process among younger students: low-income whites. According to school staff,
parents in the rural farming town where the
In the Watson school, by the time the children middle school is located sometimes refused to
are ten or eleven the split between the many and have their children tested for admittance into
the few who are expected to “make something of the gifted program because “they don’t want their
themselves” is out in the open; the aloofness kids to feel like they’re better than anybody else.”
The principal reported hearing this from parents kids who think they’re better than everyone
“all the time.” A teacher who mentioned this else because they have more money or
attitude among parents added that it came mostly whatever.
from low-income parents. The teacher, who
believed that low-income parents’ academic Students in the advanced classes at Kilborn
expectations were low, cited this and the fact Middle School also faced ridicule. According to
that parents did not want their kids identified as Linda, a white female in the eighth grade gifted
smart as possible explanations for low income program at Kilborn Middle School, AP students
children’s underrepresentation in Kilborn’s are “put down by others . . . because they’re
gifted program. smart,” and are teased “about just the way they
White student interviewees at Kilborn Middle look or something.” Carrie, also in the gifted
School identified a “high and mighty” attitude program, reported that students are embarrassed
(evidenced by “acting like you are better than to be known as smart:
everyone else”) among students taking acceler-
ated classes. Words like “snobby,” “snooty,” and Carrie: I think—they don’t—some people don’t
“snotty,” as well as comments about students who like to be known as smart. I don’t know why,
think they are “better than [others]” came up but that’s just how they feel. [white female,
often in descriptions of high-achieving students, eighth grade at Kilborn Middle School]
especially those perceived as “rich.” Joey, a white Interviewer: Are these people that you’re
male eighth grade student whose parents were thinking of, are they in fact “smart,” or are
high school graduates, told us he thought some they people who are not—who don’t think of
of his classmates in the AP classes were “kind of themselves as smart?
snobby” and explained that these students’ Carrie: They are smart. They are really smart
“parents have high up jobs, and they—they are and they can be—like a bunch of people
high-up people.”Adam, a white male eighth chose not to be in that class, because they
grade student from a working-class family, who didn’t—they just didn’t want to be known as
is taking advanced classes, concurred, noting that one of the smart kids, I guess. I don’t know.
some of his classmates “act like they are better Which, I mean, I just don’t see—there’s
than you in some ways.” nothing wrong with it. It’s something to be
We asked Sarah, a white female student proud of.
at Kilborn Middle School who was not taking Interviewer: Is there—do you perceive that
advanced classes, whether the students who had there’s a stigma attached to being smart in this
been in the gifted program of her elementary school?
school were the same people currently enrolled Carrie: I don’t—a bunch of people think there
in AP classes. Her response—“I really don’t know is, but there’s not, really. I mean, there used
because they’re more of the preppier people; to be. Like in elementary school, people that
I don’t hang out with the preppy people”—shows were smart, they’d get beat up a lot. [chuckles]
the distance between the “haves” and the “have . . . Well, not really with girls. With boys.
nots” at the school. Sarah added that some of the The, like, the puny, smart guys got picked on
AP students “are just snobbish” and noted the all the time.
arrogance of the “preps.”
Although Carrie insisted that she was proud to
Interviewer: Okay. Well, tell me about the be in the gifted program, she admitted that when
different groups of kids at the school. she was in the third grade, she had at first not
Sarah: Okay. There are people like me—just wanted to be in the program “because I thought
try and stay away from—we’re not really, my friends might not be my friends anymore
we’re not the rich, rich people, you know, just . . . I just thought that they might be embarrassed
like the normal, average kid, I guess you to hang out with me, because I would be one of
could say. And then we have preps, as we call the dorks.”
The sense that students enrolled in the larger sample of schools, including more with
accelerated classes were arrogant may partly characteristics similar to Dalton High School’s
explain why these students were ridiculed (e.g., racially mixed, large black–white income
by others, and why being smart might be bur- and placement gaps) would likely have shown
densome in some schools. At Kilborn Middle more evidence of a burden of acting white for
School, where nearly half of the student body black students. Significantly, however, despite
received free or reduced-priced lunches, and the real pain and frustration allegations of
where the accelerated classes were perceived as acting white may cause, it did not deter our
dominated by the “rich people,” low-status informants from enrolling in advanced courses
students seemed to turn academic striving and or striving for academic success. Thus, our data
smartness on its head, a process of inverted social provide little evidence to suggest, as Fordham
closure, demeaning what they once publicly and Ogbu (1986) claimed, that a burden of
valued. To the extent that students value acting white is a “major reason” why black stu-
smartness, its uneven distribution is problematic. dents do poorly in school and a key contributor
Studies investigating what happens when stu- to the achievement gap.
dents are not able to realize the goal of academic In constructing the theory of a burden of
success have found that some students construct acting white, Fordham and Ogbu (1986)
subcultures that reject, at least outwardly, the overlooked important similarities between the
school’s values and assessments (Sennett and experiences of their informants and those of
Cobb 1972; Stinchcombe 1964). Subsequently, white students. Indeed, the narratives of black
these students seek ways to earn respect and and white students at the eight schools in our
esteem that do not depend on the school’s study suggest that a burden of high achievement
valuation. Our findings show a similar pattern. (either racialized or class-based oppositionality)
Some groups of students—in this case, low may be a common experience in some schools
achievers, earn respect and esteem at the expense in which high-status groups are perceived to be
of others—in this case, high achievers. privileged in placement and achievement. Our
results support Blau’s (2003:54) assumption that
“the racial composition of a school’s body of
Discussion and Conclusion
retained students and low-status students sends
This study assessed the burden of acting white a signal to all students in the school,” because
hypothesis. Our interviews revealed ambivalence when socioeconomically advantaged students
toward achievement among black students at appear to be overrepresented in advanced
just one of eight secondary schools. Contrary courses, we also find a pattern of animosity
to the burden of acting white hypothesis directed at that group.
the black students in this study who avoided We do not have data on the social class com-
advanced courses did so for fear of not doing position of courses to substantiate the students’
well academically. Their decision to opt out views that “rich” students dominated the higher-
was motivated by their own concern that they level courses, but many studies on tracking
might not be able to handle the amount or level confirm their perception that these students have
of work required, and that their grades might an unfair advantage in course placement
suffer. With few exceptions (e.g., Spencer (Gamoran 1992; Gamoran and Mare 1989;
et al. 2003), researchers have not considered that Hallinan 1994; Lucas 1999; Oakes 1985). More-
black adolescents, like other students, need to over, given that “situations defined as real are real
feel competent, and that they work to preserve in their consequences,” it seems likely that some
a positive self-concept. students may choose lower-level academic
Racialized ridiculing of high-achieving classes, in which they can expect the comfort
black students was evident for only 2 of 40 of being among peers of similar background,
black adolescents, both of whom attended the rather than advanced courses, in which they may
same school.16 A similarly designed study with a anticipate feeling socially isolated or conspicuous
in their difference. Some students also seem schools. The combination of particular factors
especially concerned to avoid being perceived as (e.g., percentage of student body receiving free
exhibiting the arrogance of privilege. or reduced-priced lunches and the gap in
The charge of acting white directed toward black–white median income in the area) appears
black students striving for academic success to affect how students perceive inequality. The
involves much more than opposition to white patterns identified in this study suggest that
cultural norms. In a society characterized by institutional structures may shape how culture is
patterns of race and class privilege, the charge of enacted in school in response to a burden of high
acting white is loaded with the resentment achievement among black students, whether it
(misdirected) of the less privileged toward the manifests itself in opposition to white norms or—
few individuals among them who receive the as is common to most adolescents—as concern
coveted rewards bestowed by those in power. about being perceived as arrogant, a “dork,” or a
Where black students do possess oppositional “nerd.” Students in all racial and ethnic groups
attitudes, this orientation is not likely to arise confront similar dilemmas of high academic
merely from their having been born black. achievement, and they also tend to use similar
Rather, oppositional attitudes appear to be strategies of downplaying achievement (Harter
connected to everyday experiences of inequality 1990; Kinney 1993; Steinberg 1996). Thus,
in placement and achievement. Mickelson and we join Mary Patillo-McCoy (1999:208) in con-
Velasco (forthcoming) came to a similar concluding that “radical systemic changes, not
clusion in their study of high-achieving black the reorganization of people’s cultural beliefs,”
students. For black adolescents, academic are the solution to oppositional peer cultures in
achievement can become yet another charac- schools. Patterns of social inequality reproduced
teristic delineating the boundaries of whiteness and affirmed in tracking exacerbate the well-
—a conspicuous marker similar to “wearing documented antiachievement ethos among
shorts in the winter.” America’s youth.
We found a similar process among low-status Our study suggests that there are three
whites. Class distinctions provided a way for distinct types of oppositionality to high achieve-
them to understand their relative under- ment. The first is a general oppositionality, in
achievement while maintaining a sense of which peer taunts take the form of labels such
dignity and respect in the face of disparate out- as “nerd,” “dork,” or “brainiac,” and may cross
comes. For low-income white students, patterns racial and class lines. The second type, which
of placement and achievement can become is the form we set out to detect and explain in
another indicator of social class, marking the this study, is racialized oppositionality, in which
boundary between the “haves” and the “have peer taunts directed at black high achievers by
nots.” Most problematic for whites, similar to other blacks include labels such as “Oreo” or the
that for blacks who faced a burden of acting charge of “acting white.” The third type, also
white, was the perception that the low-status found in this study, is class-based (intraracial)
student was attempting to assume the charac- oppositionality, in which peer taunts include
teristics of the “other,” especially an air of “snooty” and charges of persons acting “high
superiority or arrogance. and mighty” or like they are better than others.17
Inconsistencies in research findings related The second type is more likely to be part of
to an oppositional peer culture among black the local school culture of schools in which
students become more understandable once socioeconomic status differences between blacks
the importance of context is recognized. Thus, and whites are stark and perceived as corres-
we speculate that a focus on school structures ponding to patterns of placement and achieve-
rather than culture may produce greater insight ment. Similarly, the third type of oppositionality
and more consistent results. As we found in is more likely to be part of the local school culture
the current study, the degree of inequality and of schools in which socioeconomic status
how it is perceived by students varies across differences among whites are stark and perceived
as corresponding to patterns of placement and will allow researchers to identify the nuances
achievement.18 Further research is needed to that distinguish a burden of acting white from
further refine and test these hypotheses. other more generic problems of high achieve-
Commonplace notions concerning the ment that confront the average teenager. The
burden of acting white have captured the socio- empirical foundation underlying the burden of
logical imagination.Yet, surprisingly, sociologists acting white thesis is fragile at best. Until we
have not paid enough attention to similarities recognize that these processes generalize beyond
in the daily experiences of black and white one specific group, we will continue to go astray
students in schools. Designing studies that in our efforts to understand the black–white
provide greater detail on students’ experiences achievement gap.
Appendix
Table A.I Demographic Information on Student Informants Quoted
Schools Student informant Grade Race Gender

Jackson Middle School Crystal 8 Black Female
Les 7 Black Male
Marc 7 Black Male
Shandra 7 Black Female
Kilborn Middle School Adam 8 White Male
Carrie 8 White Female
Joey 8 White Male
Linda 8 White Female
Pelham 8 Black Male
Sarah 8 White Female
Avery High School Lila 11 White Female
Maggie 11 White Female
Paul 11 Black Male
Whitney 12 Black Female
Zora 11 Black Female
Banaker High School Barbara 10 Black Female
Ernest 12 Black Male
Kimmi 11 Black Female
Michelle 12 Black Female
Tyler 12 Black Male
Clearview High School Hakim 11 Black Male
Hannah 12 White Female
Ingrid 12 White Female
James 12 Black Male
Jessica 12 Black Female
Dalton High School Alicia 12 Black Female
Lexie 12 White Female
Tamela 11 Black Female
East High School Anna Beth 10 White Female
Franklin High School Ned 11 White Male
Note: To ensure anonymity, the names of all schools and informants have been changed.
Table A.2 Demographic Information on Students’ Parents
Mother Father
Schools Student Education Employment Education Employment
Middle Schools
Jackson Crystal AD Administrator HS Factory Worker
Les HS Food Service NA NA
Marc Less Than HS Teacher DK Construction Worker
Shandra BA Teacher NA NA
Adam HS Nonemployed HS Plumber
Kilborn Carrie BA Educator BA Stock Broker
Joey HS Self-employed HS Manufacturing Position
Linda DK Nonemployed BA Manager
Pelham DK Assistant Principal HS Magistrate
Sarah Less Than HS Sample Person NA NA
High Schools
Avery Lila HS Homemaker Some College Quality Assurance
Position
Maggie HS Secretary HS Express Courier Position
Paul Some College Secretary Some College Butcher
Whitney Some College Nursing Assistant Some College Service Position
Zora BA Accounts Payable BA Contractor
Barbara BA Dietician DK Service Position
Banaker Ernest Some College Computers NA NA
Kimmi BA Teacher BA Laboratory Scientist
Michelle HS Machine Operator Tech/Voc Unemployed
Tyler BA Teacher AD Statistician
Clearview Hakim HS Machine Operator Tech/Voc Truck Driver
Hannah BA Teacher NA NA
Ingrid Some College Textile Less than HS Carpenter
James HS Mill Manager HS Construction
Jessica AA Film Technician NA NA
Dalton Alicia AA Self-employed BA Community College
Administrator
Lexie HS Lead Agent HS Coordinator
Tamela AA Nonemployed NA NA East
Anna Beth HS Secretary HS Manager
Franklin Ned AA Assistant Teacher AA Manager
Note: To ensure anonymity, the names of all schools and informants have been changed. AD = advanced degree;
HS = high school; Tech/Voc = technical/vocational.
• DK = informant doesn’t know; NA = not applicable (informant lives in single-parent home and has no contact with
other parent).
Notes a meeting of the school club for high-achieving

black students.
1. Akom’s research site was a 98 percent black urban
13. According to students’ reports, blacks at Dalton
high school. Carter’s study used interview and
High School were noticeably less well off than
survey data from black and Latino/a adolescents,
whites.
ages 13–20 years, in a low-income urban com-
14. Another white informant at Dalton High School
munity. Tyson studied two all-black elementary
indicated that because she was “smart” her friends
schools.
thought “I think I’m better than them.” She did not
2. Individual schools use either “academically gifted”
refer to status group distinctions, however, nor did
(AG) or “academically and intellectually gifted”
the white informant at Avery High School who
(AIG), so we use both terms in this study according
described an almost identical situation.
to which was used by a particular school or
15. Socioeconomic data by race for the schools were
informant.
not available, but our interviews with black
3. We received 866 (47%) completed elementary/
students at Clearview High School showed less
middle school surveys and 231 (52%) completed
perception of class differences between blacks
high school surveys. These mail-in rates are higher
and whites than found at Dalton High School
than average for school surveys (U.S. Department
(where we interviewed far fewer black students).
of Education 1997).
Intraracially, however, the interviews showed
4. School socioeconomic status is determined by
more animosity among white students at
participation in free or reduced-priced lunch
Clearview tied to a greater perception of class
programs.
differences among that group.
5. To ensure anonymity, the names of all schools and
16. We found evidence of a burden of acting white in
informants have been changed.
another study we conducted involving 65 high-
6. Data for 1999–2000 were used to assess the minor-
achieving black students at 19 high schools.
ity presence in rigorous courses in high school and
However, it was not widespread, and the school
to select the subsample of schools. The figures for
context mattered. For example, preliminary
most courses in 2000–2001 were not significantly
analyses identified about ten cases in which
different. However, we use the 1999–2000 figures
students reported encountering racialized oppo-
in this report (Table 9.3) because it takes time for
sitionality. All were cases of students attending
attitudes to form, and the attitudes we assess in the
racially mixed schools, and almost all the stu-
interviews likely developed from recent rather than
dents were isolated from other blacks in advanced
current experiences.
classes. Few of these students were in schools in
7. At Avery High School, the standard courses,
which an oppositional culture was embedded,
which generally do not have grade point average
however.
(GPA) enrollment requirements and have not
17. The accusation of acting as if you are “better than”
been weighted, are called “college prep.”
others usually is linked to charges of acting white
8. We asked principals to distribute consent forms to
as well. Among blacks, class-based condemna-
a mix of minority and white students at different
tions may also include the label “bourgie.”
grade levels, some enrolled in regular academic
18. Our data suggest that school locale (e.g., urban,
courses only and some enrolled in advanced
rural) also may be significant, but it is not clear
courses. School staff may have selected higher-
how or why. Moreover, other research (including
achieving students (possibly to have only their
our own and that of Mickelson and Velasco
“good” students participate), or higher-achieving
[forthcoming]) shows that a burden of acting
students may have been more likely than others to
white exists for black students in urban schools. It
return consent forms agreeing to participation in
seems likely that certain combinations of school
the study.
factors can create a “perfect storm” effect,
9. Parent educational and occupational data for all the
producing a burden of acting white for some
participants are available from the first author upon
students.
request.
10. Note that these decisions are not unconstrained.
Students’ ability to select advanced classes is, at
least in part, a cumulative effect of past curricular References
experiences. Ainsworth-Darnell, James W. and Douglas B. Downey.
11. There was no clear pattern with respect to students’ 1998. “Assessing the Oppositional Culture Expla-
family background and their course level. See nation for Racial/Ethnic Differences in School
Appendix, Table A2. Performance.” American Sociological Review
12. We do not know whether Dalton High School’s 63:536–53.
high-achieving black males encountered the same Akom, A. A. 2003. “Reexamining Resistance as
problems, but we did observe that some attended Oppositional Behavior: The Nation of Islam and
the Creation of a Black Achievement Ideology.” Harter, Susan. 1990. “Self and Identity Develop-
Sociology of Education 76:305–25. ment.” Pp. 352–87 in At the Threshold: The
Bergin, David and Helen Cooks. 2002. “High School Developing Adolescent, edited by S. S. Feldman and
Students of Color Talk About Accusations of G. R. Elliott. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
‘Acting White’.” The Urban Review 34:113–34. Press.
Blau, Judith R. 2003. Race in the Schools: Perpetuating Hemmings, Annette. 1996. “Conflicting Images?
White Dominance? Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Being Black and a Model High School Stu-
Publishers. dent.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly
Burawoy, Michael. 1991. Ethnography Unbound: 27:20–50.
Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis. Herbert, Bob. 2003. “Breaking Away.” New York
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Times, July 10, p. 23. Retrieved July 10, 2003 (http://
Carter, Prudence. Forthcoming. Not in the “White” www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/opinion/
Way: Identity, Culture and Achievement of Low 10HERB.html?ex=1058871290&ei=1&en=elae
Income African American and Latino Students. New 41358bf07ale).
York: Oxford University Press. Horvat, Erin McNamara and Kristine Lewis. 2003.
Coleman, James. 1961. The Adolescent Society: The “Reassessing the ‘Burden of Acting White’: The
Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact on Importance of Peer Groups in Managing Academic
Education. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Success.” Sociology of Education 76:265–80.
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. 1998. “The Burden Kao, Grace, Marta Tienda, and Barbara Schneider.
of Acting White: Do Black Adolescents Dispar- 1996. “Racial and Ethnic Variation in Academic
age Academic Achievement.” Pp. 375–400 in The Performance.” Research in Sociology of Education and
Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Socialization 11:263–97.
Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington, DC: Kinney, David A. 1993. “From Nerds to Normals: The
Brookings Institution Press. Recovery of Identity among Adolescents from
Cookson, Peter W. and Caroline Hodges Persell. Middle to High School.” Sociology of Education
1985. Preparing for Power: Americas Elite Boarding 66:21–40.
Schools. New York: Basic Books. Lucas, Samuel. 1999. Tracking Inequality: Stratifica-
Downey, Douglas B. and James W. Ainsworth Darnell. tion and Mobility in American Schools. New York:
2002. “The Search for Oppositional Culture Teachers College Press.
among Black Students.” American Sociological McArdle, Clare and Nancy Young. 1970. “Classroom
Review 61:156–64. Discussion of Racial Identity or How Can We
Farkas, George, Christy Lleras, and Steve Maczuga. Make It Without ‘Acting White’.” American
2002. “Does Oppositional Culture Exist in Journal of Orthopsychiatry 41:135–41.
Minority and Poverty Peer Groups?” American McWhorter, John. 2000. Losing the Race: Self Sabotage
Sociological Review 67:148–55. in Black America. New York: The Free Press.
Ferguson, Ronald. 2001. “A Diagnostic Analysis of Mickelson, Roslyn and Anne Velasco. Forthcom-
Black-White GPA Disparities in Shaker Heights, ing. “Bring it On! Diverse Responses to ‘Acting
Ohio.” Pp. 347–414 in Brookings Papers on White’ Among Academically Able Black
Education Policy 2001, edited by Diane Ravitch. Adolescents.” In Beyond Acting White: Reassessments
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. and New Directions in Research on Black Students and
Ford, Donna Y. and J. John Harris. 1996. “Perceptions School Success, edited by Erin McNamara Horvat
and Attitudes of Black Students toward School, and Carla O’Connor. New York: Rowman and
Achievement, and Other Educational Variables.” Littlefield.
Child Development 67:1141–52. Neal-Barnett, Angela. 2001. “Being Black: New
Fordham, Signithia and John U. Ogbu. 1986. “Black Thoughts on the Old Phenomenon of Acting
Students’ School Success: Coping with the White.” Pp. 75–87 in Forging Links: African
‘Burden of Acting White’.” The Urban Review 18: American Children: Clinical Developmental Perspec-
176–206. tives, edited by A. Neal-Barnett, J. M. Contreras,
Gamoran, Adam. 1992. “Access to Excellence: and K. A. Kerns. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Assignment to Honors English Classes in the Tran- New York Times. 2002. “How Race Is Lived in
sition from Middle to High School.” Educational America.” June 4–July 16. Retrieved March 26,
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14:185–204. 2005 (www.nytimes.com/library/national/race).
Gamoran, Adam and Robert D. Mare. 1989. “Second- Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools
ary School Tracking and Educational Inequality: Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
Compensation, Reinforcement or Neutrality?” University Press.
American Journal of Sociology 94:1146–83. Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1999. Black Picket Fences:
Hallinan, Maureen T. 1994. “Tracking: From Theory Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle Class.
to Practice.” Sociology of Education 67:79–91. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Perry, Pamela. 2002. Shades of White: White Kids Adolescent Achievement: An Ecological Perspec-
and Racial Identities in High School. Durham, NC: tive.” American Psychologist 47:723–29.
Duke University Press. Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1964. Rebellion in a High School.
Sennett, Richard and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Vintage Tatum, Beverly Daniel. 1997. “Why Are All the
Books. Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” And
Spencer, Margaret Beale. 1984. “Black Children’s Other Conversations about Race. New York: Basic
Race Awareness, Racial Attitudes, and Self Books.
Concept: A Reinterpretation.” Journal of Child Tyson, Karolyn. 2002. “Weighing in: Elementary-
Psychology and Psychiatry 25:433–41. Age Students and the Debate on Attitudes toward
Spencer, Margaret Beale, William Cross, Vinay School among Black Students.” Social Forces
Harpalani, and Tyhesha Goss. 2003. “Historical 80:1157–89.
and Developmental Perspectives on Black Aca- U.S. Department of Education. 1997. “Improving the
demic Achievement: Debunking the ‘Acting Mail Return Rates of SASS Surveys: A Review
White’ Myth and Posing New Directions for of the Literature,” Working Paper No. 97–18, by
Research.” Pp. 273–304 in Surmounting All Odds: Cornette Cole, Randall Palmer, and Dennis
Education, Opportunity, and Society in the New Schwanz. Washington, DC: National Center for
Millennium, edited by C. C. Yeakey and R. D. Education Statistics.
Henderson. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Wasonga, Teresa and Dana Christman. 2003. “Per-
Publishers. ceptions and Construction of Meaning of Urban
Steele, Claude M. 1997. “A Threat in the Air: How High School Experiences among African Amer-
Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and ican University Students: A Focus Group
Performance.” American Psychologist 52:613–29. Approach.” Education and Urban Society 35:
Steinberg, Laurence. 1996. Beyond the Classroom: 181–201.
Why School Reform Has Failed and What Parents Weissert, Will. 1999. “Report Cites Racial Gap in
Need To Do. New York: Simon and Schuster. Student Performance.” Chronicle of Higher
Steinberg, Laurence, Sanford M. Dornbusch, and Education, October 29, vol. XLVI(10), A4.
Bradford B. Brown. 1992. “Ethnic Differences in
“How You Bully a Girl”

Sexual Drama and the Negotiation of Gendered Sexuality in
High School
Sarah A. Miller
Over the past decade, sexual rumor spreading, against bullying (The Unslut Project 2013),
slut-shaming, and homophobic labelling have as well as at the center of debates about its
become central examples of bullying among criminalization (Marcus 2010). However, while
young women. Between 2006 and 2016, the these tragedies made their mark in U.S. con-
U.S. media covered the suicides of 24 adolescent sciousness, we empirically know little about the
girls1 who were the subjects of sexual rumors role sexual bullying practices play in girls’
or labeled “sluts,” “whores,” or “lesbians” in the relational lives.
months prior to their deaths. While these While adults increasingly classify this form
tragedies had many contributing factors, they of youth conflict as “bullying,” girls are more
were often reported as examples of “bully- likely to identify it as “drama”: conflict involv-
cide” (Bazelon 2013), a contemporary “youth ing a variety of relationally aggressive practices
crisis” garnering widespread media attention. that vary in severity, often with an audience
These cases have placed the intersecting both live and online (boyd 2014; Marwick
gendered and sexualized dimensions of girls’ and boyd 2014). This article explores girls’
conflicts at the forefront of national campaigns experiences with sexual forms of drama, which
involves a constellation of behaviors including abuse function as mechanisms for boys’ collective
sexualized rumor spreading and gossip, slut- construction and regulation of masculine gender
shaming, homophobic labeling, and targeted identities. Girls’ bullying practices are also often
avoidance tactics. Through interviews with mediated through discourses about gendered
54 class and racially diverse late adolescent girls, sexuality, including slut slander (Payne 2012)
I ask what this conflict does: what meanings and homophobic slurs (Poteat and Rivers
does it make, what functions does it serve, and 2010). Girls are also more likely to be targets
why it is useful to young women? I find that of bullying when they fail to conform to
while they reproduce inequality through these normative sexual behaviors and feminine gender
practices, sexual drama is a resource for girls: one presentations (Messerschmidt 2012). However,
that is valuable for making claims to, and sense while much has been published recently in the
of, gendered sexuality within the constraints of popular press about the intersections of gender
high school—an institutional setting that often and sexuality in girls’ experiences with bullying
reinforces traditional gender norms and limits (Cappiello et al. 2015; Lindin 2015; Sales 2016;
sexuality information. Tanenbaum 2015), academic studies have
largely left unexplored how this conflict contrib-
utes to girls’ gendering processes.
Bullying and Gendered/Sexual While bullying is often conceptualized as a
Hierarchies “youth problem,” its content often reflects
Bullying2 is both a gendered practice and a attitudes and ideologies pervasive among
gendering process. Contrary to dominant binary adults (Bazelon 2013; Klein 2012). Teens’
ideologies, boys and girls often resort to similar engagement with this content reflects what
bullying strategies, including insults and rumors Corsaro (1992) calls “interpretive reproduction,”
(Orpinas, McNicholas, and Nahapetyan 2015; a means through which children become part
Underwood 2003). However, their practices of adult culture by creatively appropriating
are routinely characterized as distinct. Boys’ information from the adult world within their
bullying is often described as physical and direct peer groups. Thus, rather than blaming them for
(Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel 2009), while girls’ their participation, it is essential to contextualize
is often labeled “relational aggression”—an in- teens’ bullying practices within broader adult
direct form of conflict including rumor spread- culture and examine closely the institutionally
ing, gossip, name calling, and social exclusion situated meanings they produce and reinforce
(Brown 2005; Grotpeter and Crick 1996). These (Pascoe 2013; Payne and Smith 2013). As
practices help youth negotiate status within their Pascoe argues, researchers should be attending
social spheres (Faris and Felmlee 2011, 2014). “to the way bullying often reflects, reproduces,
They also police and produce meanings about and prepares young people to accept inequalities
gender norms and expectations (Pascoe 2013), embedded in larger social structures” (2013, 9).
informing teens how gender should—and To do so, we need to pay closer attention to the
should not—be “done” (West and Zimmerman content youth share through these practices. This
1987). content illustrates how teens collectively make
Sexuality plays a significant role in many meaning through conflict—meanings that both
teens’ experiences with bullying (Duncan 1999; reflect and reproduce structural inequalities.
Rivers and Duncan 2013). Among boys, the
intersection of bullying, sexuality, and gender Rumors, Agency, and Gender
regulation has been widely documented (Klein Constraint
2012; Messerschmidt 2012; Pascoe 2007,
2013). For instance, both Pascoe (2007) and Rumor spreading is the most common form of
Chambers, Tincknell, and Van Loon (2004) bullying between girls (Lessne and Cidade
find that homophobic and misogynistic verbal 2015). However, we currently know little about
the content of girls’ rumors and the gossip that Popp 2003; Kreager and Staff 2009), along with
surrounds them, and even less about how this slut-shaming, homophobic labeling, and other
content contributes to their constructions of gendered discourses on sexual morality, impact
femininity and sexuality. Scholars have long girls’ relational lives. These narratives also
documented the many social functions of profoundly shape and constrain girls’ sexual
rumor and gossip in everyday life. People’s use subjectivities: their experiences of themselves as
of rumor and gossip often have agentic, though sexual beings and their abilities to make sexual
constraining, qualities: both provide a source choices founded on their entitlement to sexual
for connection and the strengthening of group safety, pleasure, and agency (Martin 1996;
bonds (G. A. Fine 1985; Gluckman 1963), and Schalet 2009; Tolman 2002).
a means of projecting a positive self-image by
discrediting others (Paine 1967). Both are also
Sluts, Lesbians, and Peer
mechanisms through which moral standards
Regulation
are established (G. A. Fine 1985) and function
as a form of social control by establishing and Rated the worst possible pejorative among girls,
reinforcing group norms (Eder and Enke 1991). and one of the most common among teens
Rumors and gossip are particularly useful (Tanenbaum 2015; Thurlow 2001), the specter
among youth, for whom other resources for of the “slut” has been widely recognized as an
attaining social power are limited. As children organizing principle (Attwood 2007) and a key
do not have access to objects or autonomy site where girls engage in boundary-work (Fjaer,
the way adults do, they develop their own Pedersen, and Sandberg 2015; Wilkins 2008).
economies within their peer groups (Thorne Much like the figure of the “fag” among boys
1993). These rhetorical strategies have trans- (Pascoe 2007), the “slut” achieves its rhetorical
actional value (Rosnow and Fine 1976) that power through abjection (Butler 1990), allowing
young people use to develop and reinforce girls to claim their own normative femininities
gender ideologies (Chambers, Tincknell, and by repudiating others for their sexual deviance.
Van Loon 2004; Eder, Evans, and Parker While boys and men have long used slut talk to
1997). Among teens, sharing rumors is a form discipline girls and women (Cappiello et al.
of currency, a means of exchanging stories 2015), it is also a discourse used between girls as
for acceptance, connection, and recognition they negotiate gendered status hierarchies
(Marwick and boyd 2014). Yet increasingly, this (Armstrong et al. 2014).
form of adolescent tender is traded in virtual Slut-shaming is not only a gendered and
spaces, as rumors are now spread via text sexualized discourse, but one that also reflects
messages and social media. These “networked existing racialized and classed hierarchies (Bettie
publics” make rumors more virulent, given their 2003; Wilkins 2008; Wilkins and Miller,
potential to be searchable, replicable, and forthcoming). These hierarchies are reinforced
visible to invisible audiences (boyd 2014). through a history of “controlling images” that
Because of these properties, rumors have the position white, middle-class women as sexually
potential to spread further for today’s youth “pure” in comparison to low-income whites
than those of earlier eras. and women of color (Collins 1990). However,
Sexual rumors are nothing if not delicious slut-shaming is not solely useful to those most
stories—stories that reflect the institutional advantaged. Low-income girls and young
contexts of their telling (Plummer 1995). In the women of color also employ talk about other
accounts that follow, girls’ rumors often reflect women’s sexual morality to reject racist and
dominant and negative cultural narratives about classist sexual stereotypes about their “inherent
women’s sexuality that circulate in the media, promiscuity” (Froyum 2010; Garcia 2012),
their schools, and communities. Many studies claiming a superior morality to that of “loose”
have captured these narratives and have shown white girls (Das Gupta 1997; Espiritu 2001),
how sexual double standards (Crawford and or “rich, bitchy sluts” (Armstrong et al. 2014).
Importantly, this body of literature shows how Methods and Data

judgmental talk about other girls’ sexual behavior This analysis draws on 54 semistructured in-depth
is useful within the context of girls’ particular interviews with cisgender women, aged 18 to 2
social location. 0, conducted between 2011 and 2014. Partici-
The “slut” is not the only sexual specter that pants were recruited from five geographically
threatens young women. They are also regulated proximate schools in the Northeast: an elite
by, and reinforce social hierarchies through, women’s college, an urban and a rural commun-
homophobic talk, judgment, and avoidance ity college, a private urban liberal arts college, and
tactics (Poteat and Rivers 2010; Renold 2002). a large public university. Initial participants were
For example, Chambers, Tincknell, and Van sampled through a pilot study at the women’s
Loon (2004) find that adolescent girls collec- college, while the majority were sampled through
tively define femininity by labeling deviant girls introductory courses that fulfilled general edu-
as both “sluts” and “lesbians” through gossip cation requirements across disciplines. I did not
rituals, while Hamilton (2007) and Stone and sample for individuals who had been “bullied,” but
Gorga (2014) find that heterosexual college rather I recruited by asking for young women
women distance themselves from lesbian peers. willing to talk about their friendships.
Like slut-shaming, homophobic labeling also This sampling strategy yielded a diverse pool
functions to shore up race and class boundaries. of participants who had recently attended high
Froyum (2007) finds that low-income Black girls school in 13 states across five regions of the
(and boys) use homophobic strategies to assert United States. Nearly half were working-class or
their heterosexual superiority to access privilege poor and nearly half identified as women of color
in ways they otherwise lack. Further, the specters (see Table 9.5). As participants were late adoles-
of sluts and lesbians, or what Schippers (2007) cents, class was assessed based on family of origin,
calls “pariah femininities,” often overlap for including parents’ occupations and highest
young women. In Lees’s (1993) study, girls who levels of education (if known). However, as all
contest the slut label are often labeled lesbians, of these young women were college students at
while Payne (2010) finds that lesbian adolescents the time of interview, they also were upwardly
are subjected to both homophobic slander and mobile. Forty-four participants identified as
slut-shaming. heterosexual, one as queer, two as lesbian, two as
Though they often have different outcomes, asexual, and five as bisexual.
sexual criteria determining women’s morality All interviews were conducted on campus and
and worth are persistent in young women’s lives, ranged from 45 minutes to three hours. Inter-
across social location. These criteria often give views contained questions about friendships,
the sexual elements of girls’ conflict substantial status, sexuality education, conflict, and school-
power, practices where stories about “sluts” and ing. After conducting and transcribing the
“lesbians” function to keep girls from deviating interviews, I used an inductive process to analyze
from race, class, gender, and sexual norms. This the data (Wolcott 1994). Upon review, I gen-
paper explores the social and institutional erated initial themes and identified common
mechanisms that make sexual drama useful to patterns that were refined in the analysis and
young women. While some of their experiences writing process.
clearly constitute bullying, and some do not, This paper focuses on young women’s retro-
their accounts indicate that sexual drama func- spective accounts of high school, as sexual
tions along a continuum that girls regularly have drama was most prevalent during that period of
to negotiate within their peer groups. Ultimately, their lives. The most common form was sexual
this conflict constrains girls’ sexual subjectivities rumor spreading. In some cases, girls describe
while informing their gendering processes as drama that circulated less than four months prior
they collectively negotiate gender and sexual to their interview, in others, a few years. While
norms. the retrospective nature of the data limits my
ability to analyze interactions, their accounts
Table 9.5: Young Women Interviewed, Aged 18–20
Asian Black Latina Mixed-Race White Total

Upper Middle Classa 1 2 3 9 15
Middle Classb 1 3 1 10 15
c
Working Class 1 2 4 1 9 17
d
Poor 4 1 2 7
Total 3 7 8 6 30 54
a. Participants defined as Upper Middle Class had one or both parents employed in professions that require an
advanced degree granting them authority, autonomy, and high wages (e.g., doctors, architects).
b. Participants defined as Middle Class had one or both parents employed in positions that require at least a bachelor’s
degree also granting them a certain level of authority, yet do not garner higher wages (e.g., social workers, teachers).
c. Participants defined as Working Class had one or both parents employed in blue or pink collar occupations that do
not require bachelor’s degrees (e.g., construction workers, certified nursing assistants).
d. The parent(s) of participants defined as Poor experienced unstable employment and received federal assistance.
offer insights on the meanings girls made through Gaby’s experience is unfortunately not
these experiences. These young women’s stories unique. The young women in this study attended
indicate that sexual drama was an instructive 52 different high schools in five regions of
element of their adolescence, as they developed the country, ranging from Catholic, single-sex,
attitudes and understandings about gendered Waldorf, charter and tech schools, to magnet
sexuality. math and science academies, elite boarding
schools, and urban, suburban, and rural public
schools. Some graduating classes were as small
“Like Trying to Catch Smoke”:
as 35, while others came close to a thousand.
The Pervasiveness of Sexual
Across contexts, all women had stories to share
Drama
about their experiences with sexual drama in
Early in our interview, Gaby,3 a working-class, their high schools, and nearly a third (n=16)
heterosexual Latina, told me: “That’s how you had been the subject of a rumor about their
bully a girl, that’s how you just get her. You get own sexual actions and/or orientations. All but
her by spreading a rumor about her. . . . Trying one of the girls targeted described significant
to stop bullying is like trying to catch smoke with disruption in their social lives and academic
your bare hands.” Gaby’s adamancy on this trajectories as a result of the rumors, including
point is connected to her personal experience. depression, changing courses, losing friendships,
During the beginning of her junior year of high quitting extra-curricular activities, or leaving
school, a rumor was spread by a girl friend that school altogether. In all, participants recalled
Gaby had given a blowjob to a boy in the theater a total of 213 rumors, 201 of which were both
prop room. She recalled, “It was just horrible, sexual and about a girl.4 Though not all girls
like horrible. . . . to have orally done something interviewed ended up subjects of a rumor, and
in the basement of our school?! Like—I’m a good many were simply bystanders, their direct and
girl!” Gaby’s emphasis on being a “good” girl is indirect experiences with sexual drama were
indicative of why sexual drama matters to young common, and nearly always perpetrated by girls.
women. As their narratives will show, these Unlike Gaby, many rejected the notion
practices are both threatening and useful to that they had experienced or participated in
girls because they often contain information “bullying.” Instead, more than half (n = 35)
about the intertwined boundaries of femininity, called these experiences “drama.” For example,
sexuality, and identity. Helen, a white, upper-middle-class, heterosexual
young woman, was often the target of girls’ slut authority figures), the quantity of sexual partners
rumors both online and live, resulting in she has (e.g., multiple boys, an entire team), or
isolation and unwanted sexual advances from sexual consequences (e.g., abortion, STIs).
boys. Yet she did not think she experienced Notably, these rumors were often unrelated to
bullying: “I know that it fits [the definition] knowledge of a peer’s actual identity or
but like what I see, girls like being mean and behaviors. In what follows, I offer an analysis of
talking about other girls, it’s girls being girls. I the two central typologies of sexual rumors:
don’t see it as bullying, I just see it as drama.” This lesbian/bisexual (n = 34) and slut (n = 167)
discursive move from “bullying” to “drama” both rumors. Throughout, I argue that both types of
normalizes girls’ behaviors while making them rumors help young women collectively make
seem inconsequential and unreflective of meaning about normative sexuality and
inequality. Note this rhetorical strategy is also normative femininity.
gendered: in their accounts, drama was uniformly
described as “a girl thing” or “girls being girls.”
Lesbian/Bisexual Rumors
Yet, while young women’s use of this rhetoric
reinforces gender norms that undervalue girls Half of the young women described rumors about
(Chesney-Lind and Irwin 2008; Ringrose 2006), girls’ nonheterosexual actions or orientations
its use can also be read agentically. If what they (n = 34). These rumors often focused on a girl
are experiencing is just “drama,” then girls are either having too much and/or the wrong kind
better capable of distancing themselves from of desire. For instance, Torielle, a Black, poor,
being labeled both “bullies” and “victims”: heterosexual young woman told me: “If we heard
adult-defined positionalities (Marwick and boyd a rumor that a girl was bisexual in my high
2014) signaling victimization, and increasingly school, we considered them a whore. Because we
criminality, that youth are understandably felt like they just . . . wanted both worlds, they
invested in avoiding. Further, young women’s were a whore.” For Torielle and her friends,
insistence that these practices are “girl” bisexual rumors offered sites to make claims
behaviors is instructive. If sexual drama is a “girl about the kind and quantity of desire that is, and
thing,” what is it telling girls about girlhood? is not, normative for girls. Likewise, Lisa, who is
white, middle class, and heterosexual, described
her friends spreading a rumor about a peer they
Negotiating What’s “Normal”
called “troll girl”:
The content of sexual drama is most visible in
young women’s accounts of rumors and the We wouldn’t say anything to her but we all talked
gossip that surrounded them. Examined closely, about it behind her back.
sexual rumors are case studies girls use to . . . We were just saying how gross it was that
negotiate both sexuality and gender norms. As she was a lesbian . . . about how oh, it’s nasty,
Zoey, a white, upper-middle-class, queer young carpet-whatever that word is? Carpetmuncher?
woman observed, the subjects of rumors “were Yeah, you know, like how gross she is.
girls who people knew . . . had done things that
weren’t considered normal.” In these stories, Lisa recalled how “fun” this gossip was for her
both girls’ heterosexual and homosexual activ- friend group at the time. By collectively marking
ities warranted other girls’ gossip and judgment. certain sexualities “gross,” they implicitly made
The 201 sexual rumors participants recalled claims about their own “normative” identities
delineated gendered sexual norms through and desires.
stories about a girl’s: sexual orientation, the sex Lesbian rumors also were often about the
acts she participates in (e.g., masturbation, oral violation of gender presentation norms. As
or anal sex), the context in which she has sex Charlotte, an upper-middle-class, heterosexual
(e.g., while drunk, in public), the sexual partners young woman explained: “in my town, if you
she has (e.g., their or someone else’s partner, weren’t a girlie girl, you were called a lesbian.”
Girls focused on targeted girls’ outward appear- her, and to make her the butt of jokes.” Kaya
ance and mannerisms, which were understood described this talk as compelling for her friend
to be implicit of their homosexuality. For group, a means of fitting in. She told me, “I guess
instance, Mary, a working-class, heterosexual I really wanted to fit in too . . . it was definitely
Latina, told me about Jacinda, an openly lesbian easier to pick on her and talk about her.” While
peer who was the target of homophobic rumors talk about other girls’ purported homosexual
spread by girls in their high school: exploits was described as “fun” for Lisa’s friends
and a “source of humor” for Kaya’s, these
[They] would never have the guts to say anything narratives served to bond girls while repelling
to her face but I know they would just be like others through the collective marking of
grossed out by it. She didn’t look like a girl, she gendered sexual boundaries.
didn’t have the feminine ideal, so it wasn’t okay. Girls at the center of these rumors were well
. . . I mean I don’t think anyone really like enjoyed aware of this function. Toni told me girls targeted
Jacinda and her outness . . . people didn’t even her “to feel like they were all on the same side
like give [her] the time of day. about something. That they have something to
connect about. To feel a part of something.” To
According to Mary, the focus on Jacinda was as make sense of what happened to her, Toni
much about her appearance as it was about her suggested that her peers bonded through the
attraction to women. Girls’ response was to process of drawing boundaries against her.
gossip about and avoid her. Likewise, Toni, a However, this bonding process also isolated
white, poor, lesbian, who was frequently targeted girls, with lasting effects. Toni eventu-
the subject of girls’ rumors told me girls talked ally left her high school to pursue a GED, in large
about her because “I was an outlier in the ways part due to girls’ homophobic ridicule. While
that they felt were most important at the time Toni was the only participant to leave school,
. . . I didn’t look like them, I didn’t dress like many targeted girls, regardless of their sexual
them, I didn’t have any interests that they did.” orientation, described isolation after rumors
Toni emphasizes how much her experience of spread about their sexuality.
girls’ homophobia was about being an “outlier” This was the case for Charlotte, who is hetero-
in both her gender presentation and sexual sexual but was the subject of a lesbian rumor:
orientation (see also Horn 2007). In both Toni’s “It bothered me. . . . I didn’t put myself out there
and Jacinda’s cases, girls’ homophobic rumors to try and be friends with people. I just kind of
reinforced to those sharing them the importance like internalized everything people said and just
of conforming to normative feminine ways of like blocked everyone out.” Charlotte
dressing and acting. intentionally isolated herself after the rumor
These young women’s accounts also indicate spread, “blocking everyone out” by smoking pot
that girls’ negotiation and regulation of gendered every day before school. She also described this
sexual norms was consequential to their isolation and fear of girls’ judgment lasting into
friendships. Through lesbian/bisexual rumors, college:
girls bonded over their (presumed) hetero-
sexualities while distancing themselves from It makes me really uncomfortable like even now
their peer and from homosexuality in general. . . . like, if you’re watching a movie, you’re laying
For example, Kaya, a mixed-race, upper-middle- on someone . . . I always feel like I can’t do that
class, heterosexual young woman, recalled because they would be like, “Charlotte was like
spreading a rumor with her girl friends about cuddling me, she must be a lesbian.”
Jackie, a peer they claimed was having sex with
a lesbian teacher. “It was definitely a source of Like Toni, Charlotte also described the lasting
humor for us . . . sometimes it was easy to get impact of homophobic rumors, which not only
caught up with it and make fun of her. It was shaped her relationships with other girls but also
ridicule definitely . . . it was made to humiliate her ability to succeed in school. Yet Charlotte’s
case also captures the regulatory work homo- who other girls believed “let boys use” them (see
phobia performs on heterosexual girls. She also Wilkins and Miller, forthcoming). Cailyn,
concludes, “you’d much rather be a slut than a who is Black, upper-middle-class, and lesbian,
lesbian in my town.” told me that rumors in her high school were
Ultimately, “lesbian” and “bisexual” rumors “often about girls being complacent to guys.”
function similarly to “slut” rumors. They often Likewise, Emma, a white, upper-middle-class,
operate like magnets: invigorating connections heterosexual young woman, recalled gossiping
between some girls, while repelling others with friends about Allison, who was often the
through their negotiations of “normative” target of girls’ slut rumors in high school
feminine sexuality. Their content centers not because “she would like be used by a lot of guys
just on what a girl does, but who she is, and [pause] for sex. . . . I would have to go pick her
what it means to occupy an abject position. It up from like guys’ houses because they refused
also emphasizes, through repudiation, what it to drive her home once they were like [pause]
means to be a “normal” girl. However, while done with her.” Emma’s narrative speaks to the
girls use lesbian and bisexual rumors to mark complexities of being a teenage girl navigating
and make sense of gendered sexual norms in unequal power dynamics in sexual encounters
many of the same ways they do heterosexual with boys, and yet she and her friends did not
rumors, the outcomes are different. Being empathize with Allison. Instead they judged her
labeled a slut still offers a girl heterosexual “willingness” to “let herself be used.” Sharing
privilege, just not the attendant acceptance or stories about Allison offered Emma’s friend
invisibility. Further, lesbian and bisexual rumors group the ability to collectively claim their own
were key sites where girls talked about other sexual choices as normal, while asserting that
girls’ desires. Ironically, this was largely not the they would never be the kind of girls who would
case in their stories about “sluts.” “let” themselves be treated badly by boys.
Slut rumors thus emphasize the notion that
“normal” heterosexual girls are simultaneously
Slut Rumors
not supposed to show or act on their own
All 54 participants recalled some version of a desires, nor submit to the desires of boys. Social
“slut” rumor—rumors that illustrate the boun- media provided a broad audience to reinforce
daries of both femininity and heterosexuality. this expectation. Davina, a Black, middle-class,
The young women shared 167 accounts of this heterosexual young woman told me about
form of drama. Slut-shaming and slut rumors multiple “exposure” cases on Twitter, when a
were, as Miranda recalled, “the most powerful girl sends a nude picture to a boy that requests it,
thing you could say about a girl at the time” who subsequently posts the picture publicly.
because they threatened a girl’s desirability and According to Davina, girls often used boys’
her femininity. Lisa told me that spreading exposure practices to slut-shame other girls on
rumors about girls’ “slutty behavior” is “definitely the social media site, which lead to rumors
degrading a woman’s femininity, them being spreading in her high school:
feminine, because if you’re nasty, who wants
you?” Here Lisa alludes to the notion that being I remember this one girl, she was arguing [online]
feminine is about being wanted (by men), not with another girl who got exposed and she was
wanting. According to her logic, for girls to like “You’re such a whore. Don’t forget where
effectively perform (hetero)normative feminin- you came from.” And then she like put the
ity and not be seen as sluts, they should be desired picture in the tweet. Girls, I think, are meaner
by boys but not openly desire sex themselves. than guys are.
However, the subjects of slut rumors were
rarely described as agents of their own desires, Here a boy’s offense offers an opportunity for girls
but rather as passive recipients of boys’. Many to shame other girls, both for being sexual and for
girls who ended up in the limelight were those trusting boys.
In all, 13 young women offered stories of girls This was the case for Heather, a white, upper-
using boys’ exposure practices to spread sexual middle-class, heterosexual young woman, who
rumors and slut-shame their peers, and most were described a rumor about a girl at a high school
not critical of this practice. For example, Lee, an scavenger hunt:
upper-middle-class, heterosexual, Asian young
woman described feeling justified for partici- On that list it would be things like “have sex with
pating in a rumor about an exposed girl: a freshman or get head from a freshman” or like
all this nasty stuff, like “have a threesome,” like
You put yourself into the situation . . . you’re just disgusting, disgusting, terrible, horrible, evil
asking for it. Like rumors were spread around things. . . . I was just like, “eeew.” . . . But this girl,
because . . . you put yourself up there. If you don’t like, was one of the girl freshmen in the pictures
want rumors spread around [pause], I mean like of things that seniors needed [pause] to do. . . . Like
that’s your own fault. we did not hesitate to make fun of [her], because
I was just like “you literally don’t care about
Like many young women who recalled these yourself, you’re so pathetic and it’s hilarious.”
cases, Lee is clear that when a girl gets exposed,
it is both her fault, and other girls’ right, to Heather is making meaning here about girls’
publicly shame her for her sexual actions and sexuality. The “we” in the narrative refers to
poor judgment. her girl friends, who she recalls collectively
Slut rumors routinely reinforced gender making fun of the girl, but notably not the boys
inequality by positioning girls as culpable, yet in the story. The sexual activities are described
passive, actors while rendering boys’ choices as “nasty,” outside the boundaries of what
and actions invisible. As Janelle, a mixed-race, Heather felt was normative, while the blame
middle-class, heterosexual young woman, rests on the girl, because she “doesn’t care” about
explained: “Most rumors had to do with sex. I herself. Meanwhile, Heather ignores the power
mean obviously a guy would be involved, but it differentials embedded in the position of being
was like the big thing was that it was the girl.” In the 14-year-old girl that a group of 17- and 18-
their accounts, the young women always remem- year-old boys “needed to do.” She then uses
bered the girl in question, but often couldn’t gossip to position herself and her friends as the
remember anything about the boy(s) involved in kind of girls who would never put themselves in
the story. For example, Carmen and Noelia, both such a position. Here the rumor makes visible the
heterosexual, poor, Latinas, told me nearly many inequities young women encounter
identical stories from their different high schools navigating adolescent heterosexuality, while
about “slutty” girls who were caught “giving simultaneously reinforcing them.
someone a blowjob” on school property. The Unfortunately, in some cases, boys’ “use” of
girls’ identities were clear—both remembered girls in these stories blended into unacknow-
their names and what happened to them after the ledged abuse. Nine young women recounted
rumor spread. But when asked who was receiving “train rumors,” where an intoxicated girl
oral sex, Noelia was unsure, while Carmen allegedly has sex with many boys sequentially
replied with a shrug, “I don’t know, just some in one setting. For example, Miranda, a white,
dude.” These responses are indicative of how middle-class, heterosexual young woman, re-
girls and boys encounter different standards in called hearing a rumor about two tenth-grade
their experiences of adolescent sexuality (Craw- girls who were “wicked drunk” at a party and
ford and Popp 2003). However, they also dem- “had a train run on them” by a group of boys:
onstrate that because of their awareness of these “I was like, ‘Oh boy! Ok. Well, these girls are way
standards, girls are paying attention to the into some crazy stuff.’ . . . I can’t deal with this.
girls—not the boys—in these stories to help Like these girls are sluts.” At no point in the
make sense of what is and is not permissible interview does Miranda acknowledge that the
sexual behavior for themselves. girls likely could not have given consent that
night, let alone to a group of boys. Rather than these conversations offer a crude road map for
expressing concern for their well-being, she navigating gendered (hetero)sexuality while
focuses on what she believes to be their avoiding emotional, social, or physical harm.
“choices,” reinforcing that those are not the kind Ironically, girls were far more likely to receive this
of choices she makes. Miranda was not the only kind of information in high school through the
participant to recall a story like this. Mel, who rumor mill than through a lesson plan.
is white, upper-middle-class, and bisexual,
recalled a rumor about a girl nicknamed “poopy
Filling a Void
pants” who got intoxicated at a party and ended
up “peeing and pooing and vomiting all over As we have seen, talk about other girls’ sexualities
herself” as a boy was having sex with her. Mel was common in girls’ accounts of adolescence.
told me, in retrospect, “You know in some levels Notably, talk about their own was not. For
I feel really bad for her. . . . I don’t know. It sucks example, Ebony, a Black, middle-class young
to be called ‘poopy pants’ in high school. But at woman, told me that talk about her and her
the same time, on some level, I want to believe friends’ heterosexual experiences “was sort of like
that she deserved it.” forbidden territory almost in high school.” Mel
In addition to marking the boundaries of what recalled not talking about her bisexual curiosities
is “normal” feminine sexual behavior, the kind with her friends because “I felt like it’s a really . . .
of slut rumors Mel and Miranda tell offer girls an taboo thing.” Mariame, a Black, working-class,
opportunity to distance themselves from the young woman who identifies as bisexual,
sexual violence that may be taking place in their remembered about her friends, “We talked
communities, as well as their own vulnerability. about guys a lot. . . . Sex? Not so much. I think
These stories reinforce the normalization of that was a little bit uncomfortable, but you did
sexual violence among young women (Hlavka know the girls who were having sex. Like you’ll
2014) by making these experiences seem hear rumors.” And Kaya told me: “I didn’t talk
commonplace, nonviolent, and common- about sex with my friends at all. I remember
sensically the girls’ fault. If it’s a girl’s “choice” to talking about other girls’ sex lives though. Just
“let herself be used” then, the logic goes, she about different sluts in school.” These kinds of
should obviously not be the sort of girl who responses were surprisingly common among
makes those kinds of choices. If you are the sort women across race, class, and sexual orientations.
of girl who does, you “deserve” the consequences. While many felt like they couldn’t share their
Because slut rumors always focus on girls’ choices, personal sexual experiences and curiosities with
they render boys’ choices invisible. The normal- their peers, sexual drama offered girls a site to
izing quality of these stories, as well as the acceptably talk about sex and sexuality during
naturalized judgments embedded within them, high school.
help make existing with the threat of (hetero) In many young women’s narratives, talk
sexual violence within their peer groups feel less about personal experiences with sexuality was
dangerous for young women (see also Armstrong, described as a liability, even among friends. This
Hamilton, and Sweeney 2006). was true for talk about sexual encounters and
While only some slut rumors alluded to sexual orientations. For example, Lindsay, who is upper
violence, most reinforced the gender inequities middle class and white, refused to tell her high
that often exist for girls engaged in hetero- school friends that she is bisexual: “It would have
sexual encounters. Notably, these inequities are definitely gotten around . . . it just was never okay
embedded in the gendered sexual norms girls to really even question it or to think about it, and
enforce among themselves. Though some of the certainly not to talk about it . . . cause of like, the
inherent cruelness in these stories may be hard to whole atmosphere.” Likewise, Casey, who is
digest, it is important to not blame young women white and poor, told me that she would never
for their engagement with this kind of drama. Girls share information about her own heterosexual
talk about other girls’ sexual “choices” because encounters because it was powerful information:
I’m not telling. . . . I don’t need the whole school Given this context, it is not surprising that
knowing my business. I’m sorry. And you knew the sexual rumor economy is valuable to girls: it
that. You tell somebody something, it doesn’t fills a void. In the absence of positive and diverse
matter who that person is, and how best of a friend sexuality and gender education, rumors offer
that person says they are, it’s gonna go around. . . . information about girls’ sexuality in a socially
It’s money! It’s like money! [emphasis mine] acceptable discursive package. Tales about “the
blow job girl,” “the slut,” “the dyke,” “the girl
It’s noteworthy that Casey likens this infor- who had a train run on her” are useful to girls
mation to currency (Rosnow and Fine 1976), a because they help define their own sexualities as
commodity to be exchanged for inclusion, normative in a respectable way. Yet, this is
attention, or status. However, this form of because they have little institutional and social
“currency” is valuable to young women because support to do so in other ways. It is not that girls
of the constraints of the “atmosphere” in which never talked positively about their own sex lives
it is exchanged. in high school—indeed, some told jovial stories
This phenomenon has to do with what girls about sharing the details of their virginity loss,
officially learn about gendered sexuality. Priya, coming out, and hookups with their close
an Asian, working-class, heterosexual young friends—but most also noted that there was more
woman told me, “Girls aren’t supposed to talk risk when they did. In sum, girls articulated
about their sexual conquests. They’re supposed feeling far more licensed to talk about their
to be, I don’t know, contained. . . . This is just sexual standards than their sexual experiences,
what I’ve learned.” Likewise, Lindsay posited: a message often reinforced through the formal
“There’s . . . a taboo about exploring your body and informal information they received about
and your sexual needs . . . it’s all about the men’s gendered sexuality at school.
sexual desire, not about the women’s. Espe-
cially in high school.” Both Lindsay and Priya
describe common perceptions about gendered
Conclusion
sexuality that circulate among teens and are Sexual drama flourished in participants’ experi-
reinforced in schools. In both comprehensive ences of high school— an institutional setting
and abstinence-based sex education classes, where girls are given limited sexual informa-
sex often is all about men’s desire and not tion and are rarely supported to talk about their
women’s, and also is frequently discussed solely own sexual experiences or curiosities. In this
in heterosexual terms (Bay-Cheng 2003; Fields context, sexual rumors offered girls the oppor-
2008). Girls learn far more about the respon- tunity to collectively negotiate and make
sibilities of being an object than the experiences meaning about gendered sexuality. This process
of being the subject of desire in school settings likely sounds familiar to gender scholars. Much
(M. Fine and McClelland 2006), a phenomenon research on masculinity has shown that bully-
further reflected in the media and surrounding ing offers sites for collective gendered meaning
culture. This was the case for nearly all of the making, as well as opportunities for boys to
young women in this study. Few reported define their own sexual selves in relation to the
learning anything about women’s sexuality ever-fluctuating boundary of what is “normal”
beyond information about STIs and pregnancy. (Pascoe 2007, 2013; Rivers and Duncan
Most recalled learning nothing about non- 2013). As we have seen, girls have similar strat-
heterosexual sexualities, and only two reported egies, with similar outcomes: sexual drama is a
hearing anything about women’s desire or vehicle for girls to make claims about their own
pleasure. Further, multiple young women femininities. However, this process is useful to
recalled their teachers telling girls to avoid girls for different reasons, as girls experience
“acting slutty” and participating in sexual rumors more limitations in making claims about desire
themselves, further reinforcing judgmental and sexual experiences in adolescence (Eder,
gendered messages about girls’ sexualities. Evans, and Parker 1997; Martin 1996). Thus,
in order to make respectable sexual claims about to be a luxury. For example, some low-income
the self, girls are left to make claims about other girls and young women of color described resist-
girls’ sexualities—naming what kind of girl they ing involvement in sexual drama in high school
are by naming what kind of girl they are not. because they wanted to avoid being stereo-
This paradox has to do with constraints on typed or criminalized, or had “bigger things to
girls’ sexual subjectivities. Feminist scholars worry about,” including physical and financial
have documented the many barriers young insecurity. Meanwhile, privileged girls’ accounts
women experience as they navigate desire and often illustrated greater access to drama, as they
their development of sexual subjectivity, empha- had more leisure time, and were less concerned
sizing the roles that schools, families, the media, about how their behavior would reflect on their
and politics play in shaping these constraints families, communities, or academic records.
(Bell 2013; M. Fine 1988; M. Fine and These findings complicate girls’ experiences with
McClelland 2006; Martin 1996; Schalet 2011; sexual drama, and I am currently exploring this
Tolman 2002). My findings indicate that these in depth in a separate paper. Still, the com-
barriers are also connected to girls’ relation- monalities that exist among this diverse sample
ships with each other. Collectively, these young of young women illustrate the pervasive role the
women’s accounts document how girls’ conflicts conflicts described here play in girls’ gendering
both constrain and shape their sexual sub- processes across social locations.
jectivities and their ability to discuss their own While sexual drama was most prevalent in
sexual desires and experiences. While structural these young women’s accounts of high school,
barriers create the context that makes sexual sexual judgment still persisted in early adulthood
drama a problematic yet potent resource for for some. This is not unlike the findings of
young women, we might better support them if Armstrong et al. (2014), Hamilton (2007), and
we also acknowledge the role that girls them- Wilkins (2008). Yet, I found that the volume of
selves play in reinforcing their own “dilemmas of sexual rumor spreading, reputational slander,
desire” (Tolman 2002). To do so, adults must and avoidance of girls perceived as doing sexual-
interrogate and adjust their institutional prac- ity “wrong” was markedly less in participants’
tices to better support girls in developing healthy accounts of college as compared to high school.
sexual subjectivities as well as critical conscious- This finding could be an outcome of the interview
ness about gendered sexuality. process. Participants may have felt compelled to
This article focused on the commonalities of present their current experiences as better than
girls’ use of sexual drama in order to explore its those in the past, sharing accounts of either
functions among them. Across race, class, and reformation or liberation in order to claim agency
sexual orientations, girls told surprisingly similar and position themselves in a more positive light.
stories about their experiences with this kind of However, I believe that sexual drama is an
conflict in their very different high schools. institutionally linked phenomenon. Nearly all of
However, in the interest of space, this paper has the young women narrate a significant change in
not explored the significant distinctions that their and others’ engagement with this kind of
existed between differently positioned girls in conflict at college. Across the different colleges
its use and outcomes. As documented by other they attended, participants described similar
scholars (Armstrong et al. 2014; Das Gupta shifts in their social landscape: sexual information
1997; Espiritu 2001; Froyum 2007; Wilkins flows more freely, LGBQ sexual orientations
2008), girls across positionalities in this study become less stigmatized, and sex evolves from
also used slut-shaming, rumors and gossip, and, something only some girls take part in to an
to a lesser degree, homophobic slander, to shore activity that all girls are expected to engage. In
up classed and racialized boundaries, compete most of their accounts of college, young women’s
for status, and make claims about themselves in sexualities are normalized, rendering conflicts that
contrast to girls who were not similarly focus on who and what is sexually “not normal”
positioned. Further, in some cases, drama appears less useful. While some of the underlying attitudes
and judgments persist, the function, outcomes, not supposed to be. Trying to stop these practices
and social reinforcement of these ideas trans- should not be, as Gaby tells us, “like trying to catch
formed in similar ways across college contexts. smoke.” Yet, given the institutional and cultural
Meanwhile, what their narratives collectively contexts girls inhabit, it is currently an uphill
indicate is that U.S. high schools— regardless of battle. Young women have the capacity to share
size, location, or kind—provided an institutional different, positive sexual stories. In order to sup-
setting for this kind of conflict to flourish. port them in doing so, adults need to provide them
Sexual drama illustrates how young women with more information and better templates.
connect through the reproduction of inequality
(see also Pascoe 2013). However, rather than Notes
pathologizing their behaviors, girls will be better
1. Cases include July Barrick, Sarah Butler, Amber
served if we critically acknowledge the contexts Caudel, Ashlynn Conner, Amber Cornwell,
in which these behaviors take place. Sexual Amanda Cummings, Rachel Ehmke, Felicia
drama is a powerful social currency that maps Garcia, Angel Green, Carla Jamerson, Samantha
onto the closed network structure, limited sex Johnson, Hailee Lamberth, Jessica Laney, Jessie
education, and restrictive gender norms that Logan, Gabrielle Molina, Alyssa Morgan, Alexis
Pilkington, Phoebe Prince, Meredith Rezak,
make up many U.S. schools (Bay-Cheng 2003; Ashley Rogers, Rebecca Sedwick, Amanda Todd,
Eder, Evans, and Parker 1997; Faris and Felmlee Sladjana Vidovic, and Hope Witsell.
2011; Fields 2008; Klein 2012). In this context, 2. Definitions of bullying vary. The U.S. Depart-
this currency is a resource girls use to compete for ment of Justice assesses bullying by asking
status while navigating the gendered peer “whether another student had made fun of you,
called you names, or insulted you; spread rumors
hierarchies that schools themselves reinforce about you; threatened you with harm; pushed or
(Armstrong et al. 2014). Schools are also shoved you; forced you to do something you did
embedded in a culture where teen girls are hyper- not want to do; excluded you from activities; or
sexualized in the media (APA 2010), receive destroyed your property” (DeVoe and Bauer
2011). Definitions also often involve repetition
limited and constrained sexuality information at
(Kann et al. 2014) and an imbalance of power
home (Elliott 2012; Schalet 2011), often experi- (Olweus 1993). However, scholars have called
ence unequal power dimensions in heterosexual these qualifiers into question (Faris and Felmlee
relationships (Holland et al. 2004), and are sub- 2011) and argued that current definitions are too
jected to the persistent threat of sexual violence narrow (Finkelhor, Turner, and Hamby 2012).
3. All identifying information has been changed.
(Hlavka 2014; Phillips 2000). Given these 4. The 12 unrelated rumors focused on drug use,
constraints, girls’ use of this kind of conflict is physical fights, or on a boy’s purported homo-
better understood as a reasonable reaction to the sexuality.
often sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic
culture that surrounds them. References
As Gary Alan Fine argues, “A society where
APA (American Psychological Association). 2010.
rumors spread is characterized by institutional
Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of
breakdown: either institutions are not communi- girls. Washington, DC: APA.
cating, or they are not believed to be providing Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Laura T. Hamilton,
accurate, fair or necessary information” (2009, Elizabeth M. Armstrong, and J. Lotus Seeley.
192). When young women are given limited and 2014. Good girls. Social Psychology Quarterly 77 (2):
100–22.
contradictory information about gendered sexual- Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Laura Hamilton, and Brian
ity, it is no wonder they use sexual drama to make Sweeney. 2006. Sexual assault on campus. Social
sense of and negotiate its complicated terrain. In Problems 53 (4): 483–99.
lieu of being institutionally and culturally Attwood, Fiona. 2007. Sluts and riot grrrls? Journal of
supported in articulating sexual stories that are Gender Studies 13 (3): 231–45.
Bay-Cheng, Laina. 2003. The trouble of teen sex. Sex
positive or agentic, girls are left to talk about what Education 3 (1): 61–74.
they are not supposed to do, what they are not Bazelon, Emily. 2013. Sticks and stones. New York:
supposed to say, and what “kind of girl” they are Random House.
Bell, Leslie. 2013. Hard to get. Berkeley: University of Fine, Michelle, and Sara McClelland. 2006. Sexuality
California Press. education and desire. Harvard Educational Review
Bettie, Julie. 2003. Women without class. Berkeley: 76 (3): 297–338.
University of California Press. Finkelhor, David, Heather Turner, and Sherry Hamby.
boyd, danah. 2014. It’s complicated. New Haven, CT: 2012. Let’s prevent peer victimization, not just
Yale University Press. bullying. Child Abuse & Neglect 36 (4): 271–74.
Brown, Lyn Mikel. 2005. Girlfighting. New York: Fjaer, Eivind Grip, Willy Pedersen, and Sveinung
New York University Press. Sandberg. 2015. I’m not one of those girls. Gender
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble. New York: & Society 29 (6): 960–81.
Routledge. Froyum, Carissa. 2007. At least I’m not gay. Sexualities
Cappiello, Katie, Meg McInerney, Jennifer 10 (5): 603–22.
Baumgardner, and Carol Gilligan. 2015. SLUT. Froyum, Carissa. 2010. Making “good girls.” Culture,
New York: Feminist Press. Health and Sexuality 12 (1): 59–72.
Chambers, Deborah, Estella Tincknell, and Joost Van Garcia, Lorena. 2012. Respect yourself, protect yourself.
Loon. 2004. Peer regulation of teenage sexual New York: New York University Press.
identities. Gender & Education 16 (3): 387–415. Gluckman, Max. 1963. Gossip and scandal. Current
Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Katherine Irwin. 2008. Anthropology 4 (3): 307–16.
Beyond bad girls. New York: Routledge. Grotpeter, Jennifer, and Nicki Crick. 1996. Relational
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought. aggression, overt aggression, and friendship.
New York: Routledge. Child Development 67:2328–38.
Corsaro, William. 1992. Interpretive reproduction in Hamilton, Laura. 2007. Trading on heterosexuality.
children’s peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly Gender & Society 21 (2): 145–72.
55 (2): 160–77. Hlavka, Heather. 2014. Normalizing sexual violence.
Crawford, Mary, and Danielle Popp. 2003. Sexual Gender & Society 28 (3): 337–58.
double standards. Journal of Sex Research 40 (1): Holland, Janet, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe,
13–26. and Rachel Thompson. 2004. The male in the head.
Das Gupta, Monisha. 1997. What is Indian about you? London: Tufnell Press.
Gender & Society 11 (5): 572–96. Horn, Stacey. 2007. Adolescents’ acceptance of
DeVoe, Jill, and Lynn Bauer. 2011. Student victimization same-sex peers based on sexual orientation and
in U.S. schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department gender expression. Journal of Youth & Adolescence
of Education NCES 2012-314. 36:363–71.
Duncan, Neil. 1999. Sexual bullying. London: Kann, Laura, Steve Kinchen, Shari Shanklin,
Routledge. Katherine H. Flint, Joseph Hawkins, William A.
Eder, Donna, and Janet Enke. 1991. The structure of Harris, Richard Lowry, Emily O’Malley Olsen, Tim
gossip. American Sociological Review 56 (4): 494–508. McManus, David Chyen, Lisa Whittle, Eboni
Eder, Donna, Catherine Evans, and Stephen Parker. Taylor, Zewditu Demissie, Nancy Brener, Jemekia
1997. School talk. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Thornton, John Moore, and Stephanie Zaza.
University Press. 2014. Youth risk behavior surveillance—United
Elliott, Sinikka. 2012. Not my kid. New York: New States, 2013. 63(4). MMWR Surveillance Sum-
York University Press. maries. Atlanta, GA. Centers for Disease Control.
Espiritu, Yen Le. 2001. We don’t sleep around like Klein, Jessie. 2012. The bully society. New York: New
white girls do. Signs 26 (2):415–40. York University Press.
Faris, Robert, and Diane Felmlee. 2011. Status Kreager, Derek, and Jeremy Staff. 2009. The sexual
struggles. American Sociological Review 76 (1): double standard and adolescent peer acceptance.
48–73. Social Psychology Quarterly 72 (2): 143–64.
Faris, Robert, and Diane Felmlee. 2014. Casualties of Lees, Sue. 1993. Sugar and spice. New York: Penguin.
social combat. American Sociological Review 79 (2): Lessne, Deborah, and Melissa Cidade. 2015. Student
228–57. reports of bullying and cyberbullying: Results from the
Fields, Jessica. 2008. Risky lessons. New Brunswick, NJ: 2013 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime
Rutgers University Press. Victimization Survey. NCES 2015-056. National
Fine, Gary Alan. 1985. Rumors and gossiping. In Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
Handbook of discourse analysis, edited by Teun Van US Department of Education.
Dijk. London: Academic Press. Lindin, Emily. 2015. UnSlut. San Francisco, CA: Zest.
Fine, Gary Alan. 2009. Does rumor lie? In Deception, Marcus, Ruth. 2010. Should we be criminalizing
edited by Brooke Harrington. Stanford, CA: bullies? The Washington Post, 7 April.
Stanford University Press. Martin, Karin. 1996. Puberty, sexuality, and the self.
Fine, Michelle. 1988. Sexuality, schooling, and New York: Routledge.
adolescent females. Harvard Educational Review 58 Marwick, Alice, and danah boyd. 2014. It’s just drama.
(1): 29–53. Journal of Youth Studies 17 (9): 1187–1204.
Messerschmidt, James. 2012. Gender, heterosexuality, Rosnow, Ralph, and Gary Alan Fine. 1976. Rumor and
and youth violence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & gossip. New York: Elsevier.
Littlefield. Sales, Nancy Jo. 2016. American girls. New York:
Olweus, Dan. 1993. Bullying at school. Oxford: Wiley- Knopf.
Blackwell. Schalet, Amy. 2009. Subjectivity, intimacy, and the
Orpinas, Pamela, Caroline McNicholas, and Lusine empowerment paradigm of adolescent sexuality.
Nahapetyan. 2015. Gender differences in trajec- Feminist Studies 35 (1): 133–60.
tories of relational aggression perpetration and Schalet, Amy. 2011. Not under my roof. Chicago:
victimization from middle to high school. University of Chicago Press.
Aggressive Behavior 41:401–12. Schippers, Mimi. 2007. Recovering the feminine
Paine, Robert. 1967. What is gossip about? Man 2 (2): other. Theory and Society 36 (1): 85–102.
278–85. Stone, Amy, and Allison Gorga. 2014. Containing
Pascoe, C. J. 2007. Dude, you’re a fag. Berkeley: pariah femininities. Sexualities 17 (3): 348–64.
University of California Press. Tanenbaum, Leora. 2015. I am not a slut. New York:
Pascoe, C. J. 2013. Notes on a sociology of bullying. Harper Perennial.
QED 1 (1): 87–104. The Unslut Project. 2013. http://www.unslutproject.
Payne, Elizabethe. 2010. Sluts. Educational Studies 46 com.
(3): 317–36. Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender play. New Brunswick,
Payne, Elizabethe. 2012. Slut. The Huffington Post. NJ: Rutgers University Press.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabethe- Thurlow, Crispin. 2001. Naming the “outsider
c-payne/slut-gender-policing-as-bullying- within.” Journal of Adolescence 24:23–38.
ritual_b_1952205. html. Tolman, Deborah. 2002. Dilemmas of desire.
Payne, Elizabethe, and Melissa Smith. 2013. LGBTQ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
kids, school safety, and missing the big picture. Underwood, Marion. 2003. Social aggression among
QED 1 (1): 1–36. girls. New York: Guilford.
Phillips, Lynn. 2000. Flirting with danger. New York: Wang, Jing, Ronald Iannotti, and Tonja Nansel.
New York University Press. 2009. School bullying among U.S. adolescents.
Plummer, Kenneth. 1995. Telling sexual stories. Journal of Adolescent Health 45 (4): 368–75.
London: Routledge. West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 1987. Doing
Poteat, V. Paul, and Ian Rivers. 2010. The use of gender. Gender & Society 1 (2): 125–51.
homophobic language across bullying roles during Wilkins, Amy. 2008. Wannabes, Goths, and Christians.
adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Psychology 31 (2): 166–72. Wilkins, Amy, and Sarah Miller. Forthcoming.
Renold, Emma. 2002. Presumed innocence. Childhood “Secure girls.” Sexualities.
9 (4): 415–34. Wolcott, Harry. 1994. Transforming qualitative data.
Ringrose, Jessica. 2006. The new universal mean girl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feminism & Psychology 16 (4): 405–24.
Rivers, Ian, and Neil Duncan. 2013. Bullying. New
York: Routledge.
The Rules of the Game and the Uncertain

Transmission of Advantage
Middle-class Parents’ Search for an Urban Kindergarten
Annette Lareau, Shani Adia Evans, and April Yee
[The school district] needs to do something to Social stratification studies have demonstrated
advertise how it works. I had to teach all my that parents transmit important advantages to
friends how to do it and walk them through it their children (Duncan and Murnane 2011).
and tell them where to go and what to do. . . . Scholars drawing on Bourdieu have explored
It’s not advertised at all. It’s like a secret. how parents transmit social class advantages to
—White middle-class urban parent children via social, economic, and especially,
cultural capital. For example, much work
examines the correlation between possession of mobility for children of the middle-class has
cultural capital (i.e., highly valued skills, know- not been sufficiently acknowledged (Pew
ledge, and information) and desirable outcomes Charitable Trust 2011). Although the frenzied
(see, e.g., DiMaggio 1982; Dumais 2006; Dumais nature of college admissions has received
and Ward 2010; Gabler and Kaufman 2006; attention (Stevens 2007), the numerous ways in
Jaeger 2009; Lareau and Weininger 2003; Pitzalis which middle-class families experience setbacks,
and Porcu 2016). Research also shows that social anxieties, and pressure in the transmission
(i.e., social ties) and economic (i.e., wealth and process have not (but see Demerath 2009). Put
income) capital is advantageous for children’s life differently, even parents rich in widely valued
chances (Dika and Singh 2002; Duncan and types of cultural, social, and economic capital
Murnane 2011; see also Bourdieu 1986; Coleman can encounter setbacks and fail to capitalize on
1988). their advantages (Blum 2015; Ramey and Ramey
Yet, Bourdieu (1984; Bourdieu and Passeron 2010; Stevens 2007). And, given that research
1979) was clear that the value of capital is not shows that social class shapes parents’ ability to
intrinsic. Rather, the actions of parents and chil- intervene in schooling (Brantlinger 2003; Lareau
dren gain value only in a specific field (Bourdieu 2000), if middle-class parents struggle to master
1984). Attention to the field, however, means the rules of the game, then we can speculate that
scholars’ focus needs to shift from looking at learning the rules of the game might be even
parents and children to also examining the “rules more challenging for working-class and poor
of the game.” It is these rules that determine what parents. In this article, we explore how the rules
actions are given value. Although some school of the game shape parents’ abilities to access
studies point to the importance of institutional high-status institutions, which they hope will
standards (Calarco 2011; Cucchiara 2013), this transmit advantages to their children.
focus on the rules of the game and parents’ The arena of school choice is an apt setting
actions is relatively unusual. As a result, many to investigate these matters. The very term school
educators and policy makers see middle-class choice implies that the power rests with parents
actions as inherently valuable, rather than and children. This is certainly true in some
looking at how the rules of the game privilege settings, but in many urban school districts,
some actions more than others. there is fierce competition among families for
In addition, many of these studies presume limited school slots (Hannah-Jones 2016; Saulny
that the process of gaining advantages (through 2003). In such areas, families do not ultimately
the application of this capital) is relatively choose schools; schools choose from interested
automatic. This is a shaky premise. For example, families (see Pattillo 2015). Too often, school
a significant outlay of cultural, social, and econo- choice scholars focus their attention on families’
mic capital may help parents secure advantages application and enrollment patterns across
that contribute to their children’s admission to different types of schools, as well as parents’
highly selective colleges, but it does not and characteristics in charter schools, traditional
cannot guarantee that outcome. Models need to public schools, or private schools, rather than
take into account both the situational meaning focus on the challenges of the selection pro-
of capital and the uncertainty in parents’ efforts cess (Billingham and Hunt 2016; Lauen 2007;
to use their capital to transmit advantages to Martinez et al. 1995; Phillips, Larsen, and
their children. Hausman 2015; Sikkink and Emerson 2008).
Furthermore, studies have overestimated the Thus, there is a need to understand more deeply
degree to which middle-class parents can control the complex rules that shape enrollment
the transmission of advantage to their children. decisions in urban settings.
Although Bourdieu (1976, 1984) was clear In this article, we use qualitative data to
about the importance of contingency, too often, illuminate how middle-class parents in a large,
studies suggest a seamless reproduction of social urban district went about enrolling their children
inequality. The consistent pattern of downward in kindergarten for the first time. The 45 middle-
class families in our study activated their cultural, within a specific field. The field influences
social, and economic resources as they sought to the kinds of cultural and social resources that
comply with the rules in the field to gain desired can be successfully activated. Put differently,
placements for their young children. We also the institutions in the field set “the rules of the
interviewed administrators in 18 of these schools game,” and capital gains its value only in light of
to learn more about the selection criteria. We the specific field in which it is put to use.
find the rules of the game to be complex, hard to Weininger (2005:81) explains that
learn about, and implemented inconsistently.
Inaccurate information was routinely handed out field [is] a notion intended to condense
by school officials. In this context, cultural, [Bourdieu’s] understanding of social structure. . . .
social, and economic capital that helped parents The term is meant to recall a battlefield or a
navigate these institutional rules had the playing field, and more specifically, the fact that
potential to be profitable. But even parents with the individuals who confront one another will
deep reservoirs of capital did not attain their first enter into conflict or competition with one
choice when they misunderstood the rules of the another, each from a more or less advantageous
game or faced an imbalance of supply and position.
demand for slots in highly desired schools.
In recent years, a number of U.S. researchers
have turned to the concept of field (Fligstein and
Literature Review: The Concept
McAdam 2012; Martin 2003). Empirical studies
of Field
often highlight tensions and divisions within
Bourdieu conceptualized social life as consist- fields such as urban land policy (Duffy, Binder,
ing of multiple, overlapping fields where, by and Skrentny 2010), organizations (Fligstein
definition, the standards or institutional “rules of and McAdam 2012), and think tanks (Medvetz
the game” are always in flux as actors compete 2014). Still, field scholars have paid scant
for resources. Given this core characteristic of attention to elementary education, focusing
change and struggle, Bourdieu emphasized that instead on the field of higher education (Grenfell
students of stratification needed to see social 2009; Maton 2005; Naidoo 2004; Yee forth-
agents as acting relationally within fields. Rather coming). Even here, however, limited empirical
than seeing the field as a static structure, attention has been paid to both the rules of the
Bourdieu conceived it as a dynamic, struggling, game and how actors seek to comply with these
social system: (shifting) standards.
The precise institutional rules for admission,
[T]he field as a structure of objective relations as well as the limits of parents’ power, also need
between positions of force undergirds and guides to be addressed in the extensive literature on
the strategies whereby the occupations of these school choice (Berends and Zottola 2009;
seek, individually or collectively, to safeguard or Bosetti and Pyryt 2007; Goldhaber 1999;
improve their position and to impose the Henig 1994; Wells 2002). Research shows that
principle of hierarchization most favorable to in school choice, parents’ advantages, including
their own products. The strategies of agents cultural capital, matter (Ball and Vincent 1998;
depend on their position in the field, that is, in Fuller, Elmore, and Orfield 1996). For example,
the distribution of the specific capital, and on the many studies show that parents are not equally
perception that they have of the field. likely to take advantage of school choice pro-
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:101) grams. Despite policy makers’ original intentions
to provide more alternatives for low-income
Some aspects of cultural, social, and economic families, middle-class parents are more likely to
capital may be valuable in all fields, but Bour- apply to programs and to enroll their children in
dieu’s theory encourages researchers to pay them (Goldring and Hausman 1999; Schneider,
attention to the values these resources have Teske, and Marschall 2000). In addition to
showing who attends what programs, the charter their preferences (Brantlinger 2003; Lareau
school literature has examined the programs’ 2000), our data are exclusively from white and
effects on performance (e.g., Hoxby and Murarka black middle-class parents. This focus reveals
2009). the power of the field in constraining even the
Yet, this approach neglects a crucial reality: most advantaged parents’ efforts and outcomes;
parents do not decide if their children are in the conclusion, we further consider the
admitted. Too few studies show that the likeli- implications of our research for working-class
hood of admission is limited in many urban parents.
settings (but see André-Bechely 2005; Kimelberg We recruited parents through two methods.
and Billingham 2013; Pattillo 2015; Reay, First, we used snowball sampling to recruit
Crozier, and James 2011), because school choice parents whose eldest child was approaching
success, at times, is connected to parents’ ability kindergarten. We began with three different
to comply with institutional standards (as well as acquaintances who lived in gentrified neighbor-
the relationship between demand and supply hoods where the local public school’s reputation
of slots). Nor do these studies sufficiently was disputed; these parents were thus positioned
highlight the work parents do before they ever to search for alternatives. Second, we sampled
file an application. Application rules for schools additional parents through two day-care centers.
are not the same across districts or even within As it emerged that a key finding of the study
one district. As such, the rules for applying to was the importance of social networks, we were
schools, and parents’ knowledge of the field, are concerned that the recruitment method might
a crucial, and understudied, part of the school have influenced the result, because the parents
choice process. recruited through our snowball sample were,
by definition, socially connected in their
neighborhoods. We found that the responses of
Data and Methods
parents recruited through day cares were similar
Our study uses qualitative methods to examine to the responses of parents recruited from the
the processes through which middle-class urban snowball sample, allaying our concerns that
parents sought to secure kindergarten spots for parents recruited through a snowball sample
their children. We draw on in-depth interviews might be distinctive. Furthermore, parents came
with 45 native-born middle-class families: 33 from multiple networks in six different
white families, 12 black families, and 1 inter- neighborhoods.
racial family. In each family, parents were in the We also interviewed 20 principals and
process of finding a kindergarten for their child, admissions officers at the 18 schools (traditional
or they had done so within the previous three public, charter, and private schools) parents
years. Interviews were conducted in the home deemed potentially worthy of consideration.
of each participant and lasted about 90 min- These interviews lasted 60 to 90 minutes each;
utes to two hours; respondents were given an they were conducted in the offices of the inter-
honorarium of $50 as well as a dessert, which viewees. We did not provide an honorarium, but
we brought as a friendly gesture. We mainly we did send a handwritten thank-you note to
interviewed mothers, as prior research indicates each administrator after the interview.
mothers are leaders in school matters (Blum We define social class in terms of the educa-
2015; Cooper 2007; Griffith and Smith 2004). tional requirements of respondents’ jobs and the
In a few instances, however, fathers joined the amount of supervision they experience at work.
interviews; we thus use the term parents rather The upper-middle class includes families in
than mothers. Qualitative researchers need to which at least one adult has a full-time job that
make hard choices in study design. Because the requires highly complex, educationally certified
literature on parent involvement suggests that, (advanced degree) skills and provides substantial
among a variety of parents, middle-class parents autonomy in the course of the work. The middle
generally have more advantages in realizing class includes families in which at least one
adult works full-time in a job that requires As part of the data analysis, we drew on
relatively complex, educationally certified skills transcribed interviews to develop a coding
(a bachelor’s degree or above) but that does scheme of emergent themes (e.g., admission
not provide high levels of autonomy. Because we processes, parents’ knowledge, anxiety, and
did not discern systematic differences in the strategies) and then coded all interviews using
process for upper-middle-class and middle- Atlas.ti. We also searched for disconfirming
class parents, we grouped them together in evidence as we read the transcripts and reviewed
the analysis. All the mothers have at least a the results of the coding and during the writing
bachelor’s degree; many have an advanced process. All names are pseudonyms.
degree. Whereas many middle-class parents
of young children move to the suburbs in search
The Urban Kindergarten Field:
of “good schools” (Holme 2002), our sample
An Uneven Landscape
is part of the growing number of middle-class
families choosing urban schools (Cucchiara and We define the kindergarten admissions field
Horvat 2009; Lareau and Goyette 2014; Posey- in this large, northeastern city as consisting of
Maddox 2014; Posey-Maddox, Kimelberg, and three systems of schools (private, charter,
Cucchiara 2014). and traditional public). The elementary schools
We carried out participant-observation of within these systems are organized into a
school events and parents as they navigated the hierarchy that, although contested, has a core
process of selecting a kindergarten. We attended number of schools about which respondents,
tours and open house events at traditional websites, and the local media agree on the
public schools, charter schools, and private relative ranking. As noted earlier, the field
schools. We observed the drawing of names includes the schools as well as the formal and
at charter school lotteries. We also examined informal criteria for admission to kindergarten—
school websites, collected documents related to these are “the rules of the game.” The rules varied
the admissions process, and read blogs created by in the three systems of schools, and there were
parents to help others navigate the process. The sometimes shadow systems, making it difficult for
blogs generally echoed the themes that emerged parents to master the rules (Table 9.6). But across
from interviews and observations. the systems, the overall pattern was the same: for
In addition, the third author carried out seven the schools to admit their children, parents
months of participant observation with two needed to master complex rules as well as have
families and a group of parents during the fall and some measure of good luck.
spring before their four-year-old children entered The field has many significant aspects,
kindergarten. This was the heart of the period including the varying levels of success these
when parents were considering school options. schools have in promoting children’s academic
One parent, Ms. Stevenson, and her son, achievement. We chose to focus, however, on
Jared, were followed once or twice a week. The only one aspect: the degree to which spots at
fieldworker visited Ms. Stevenson in her home desired schools were available to families. This
and accompanied her to school-related events is a particularly important element of this field,
(e.g., private school interviews, a charter school because parents see kindergarten as setting
lottery, and school tours) as well as to play children on an advantageous educational track.
dates and birthday parties. A second parent, The large, northeastern city in which the
Ms. Becker, was also observed along with her son. study took place is racially diverse, with large
This parent was a member of a group of “play- white and black populations and smaller Latino
ground moms,” most of whom did not work and Asian communities. In recent decades, a
outside the home. The fieldworker hung out with growing number of young, white professionals
Ms. Becker and this group of parents at the have moved into the city; however, the public
playground after they picked up their children school system enrolls relatively few white
from the same nursery school.1 children. Most neighborhood public schools in
respondents’ communities serve a majority- that largely serve students who are eligible for
black student body. Over two thirds of children free or reduced-cost lunch.
in the school district are poor or nearly poor. The The highly desired public elementary schools
district has many fiscal challenges, and many of enrolled more white and Asian students, and
the traditional public schools do poorly on state fewer black students, than did most district
exams (Table 9.7). About one third of students schools. Compared to the district overall, the
in the city are not enrolled in the public school percentage of children eligible for free and
district and instead attend private or parochial reduced-price lunch was much smaller at the
schools; there has been a dramatic rise in charter schools the middle-class parents considered
school enrollments. desirable (i.e., 50 percent at desired schools,
Table 9.6 shows admissions processes in dif- compared to about 75 percent in the district).
ferent types of schools. Our interviews with However, it is striking that schools with the
parents and educators, however, drew a portrait reputation as being the “best” did not necessarily
of a district with a limited number of schools have the highest test scores.2 For example,
with the reputation of being “good.” Among white and black parents uniformly described
scholars of education, the meaning of a “good Ledford, but not Grey, in glowing terms. Yet,
school” is subject to debate (Bryk et al. 2010). as Table 9.7 shows, the percentage of students
Scholars have also considered how race and achieving math proficiency was higher at
class shape parents’ perceptions of school Grey (84 percent) than at Ledford (78 percent).
quality (Byrne 2006; Johnson and Shapiro In addition, some elementary schools with test
2003). In this article, we do not attempt to report scores comparable to the highly desired schools
a ranking of the schools based on students’ enrolled primarily black students. None of the
outcomes; we were struck, however, by the white parents mentioned these schools as
relative consensus on school quality among the an option, but some black parents did consider
middle-class parents we interviewed, journalists, them, a point we will return to below.
and in social media.
A small number of private schools are con-
The Rules of the Game: What Schools
sidered to be at the top of the hierarchy. Ranked
Required
directly beneath the private schools are four
traditional public schools that middle-class Each of the three systems (i.e., traditional pub-
parents described as desirable (i.e., Brownside, lic, charter, and private schools) had multiple
Fullerton, Ledford, and Lab Public). These rules for gaining admission. Overall, information
schools also consistently appear on the media’s regarding kindergarten enrollment was scarce
“best schools” lists, and they receive relatively and difficult to find. Private schools provided
high rankings on websites and blogs. In addition, more information on websites than did char-
some up-and-coming traditional public schools ter schools or traditional public schools that
have a disputed status (e.g., Clayton, Connelly, accepted transfer students. None of the schools,
Filbert, Grey, and Lincoln). Some parents hoped however, provided the information parents most
these schools “would be ready” in the future; wanted: the criteria for admission, the best strat-
other parents in our study considered these egies for securing admission, and the actual
schools when their children were not admitted likelihood of their children being admitted.
to the more highly desired public schools and Moreover, there was no single source par-
they could not afford elite private school tuition. ents could consult to gain information about all
Although parents had many charter schools possible school choices, deadlines for applica-
to choose among, the parents in our sample tions, and criteria for admission. Instead, parents
considered only a small number of them, refer- in our study needed to find, collect, and make
ring to the same five or six over and over as the sense of information for each school they were
“good schools.” At the bottom of the status interested in. Most gathered information on
hierarchy are neighborhood elementary schools many schools and, to ensure a positive outcome,
Table 9.6 Types of Schools in the Field
Issue Elite, selective private schools Less selective privates Charter schools Public, neighborhood schools
receiving transfers
Age of child when Fall before prekindergarten Fall before kindergarten when Fall before kindergarten when Fall before kindergarten when
parents usually file year when children are most children are four most children are four most children are four
application three
Tuition Variable; often $11,000 to Variable; often $3,000 to Free Free
$19,000 $5,000
Deadlines Variable; most from October Variable; often in the spring Variable; each school has Complex: formal system has
to January; some are a different deadline but a deadline of October 31st;
rolling many are in the fall informal “shadow” system
has no formal deadline
Components of Application + $50 fee; Variable; sometimes similar Application (sometimes Application (variable)
application private IQ tests to selective privates, parents need to come in to
(costs $300); child visit, sometimes just an pick up the application);
parent interview, letter application and deposit usually not via online
from preschool teacher
Who makes decision? Admissions officer Admissions officer Lottery District office; principal
discretion
How do parents learn February; deposit due February; deposit due Variable; some April Often not until July or August
outcome? in March in March before kindergarten begins
applied to multiple schools. Some parents, for They got out of their contract and moved to
example, applied to more than 10 different a different house inside Brownside’s catchment.
schools. In this section, we seek to demonstrate Parents need knowledge (encompassed within
the sheer complexity of the process of securing Bourdieu’s conception of cultural capital), which
a kindergarten spot that middle-class parents they often learn from their social networks.3 In
found desirable within the urban district. this case, the parents’ social tie provided
extremely valuable information, given the rigid
Traditional public schools rule about attendance boundaries.
Some parents had the cultural capital to know
The most straightforward way for parents to about the highly desired neighborhoods, but they
enroll their children in kindergarten in this city lacked the economic capital to move there.
was to buy a home in the catchment area of a Buying a home within desired catchment areas
traditional public school they considered to be typically required paying a premium of $100,000
desirable. But this was accompanied by a rule: or more, compared to houses just outside the
houses had to be within the exact boundary, and catchment. For example, Ms. Carlton, a black
sometimes the boundary went down the middle graduate student and parent of two, was priced
of the street. School leaders generally enforced out of the catchment areas she desired. When
the rule strictly. Moreover, the school district asked whether she considered schools when
had the right to change boundaries over time. deciding where to live, she replied,
Hence, information about the exact boundary
was essential. I did, and I kind of felt like we couldn’t afford the
Accurate information, however, was hard to areas that had good neighborhood schools, and
find. Unlike other neighboring districts, this in my mind there’s only a handful of those. . . .
district did not post a clear map of the boundaries I know of some parents who live in the Lab Public
at the time of the study. (Today, the district has catchment and I was envious of them ’cause they
a website where parents can enter an address to had almost a guarantee of getting their child a
find the assigned school, but the website quality education.
admonishes parents not to rent or buy a home
based on the website information.) And informa- Without the economic capital needed to
tion from school officials could be inaccurate. For guarantee access to one of those schools,
example, Sophie Kandis (a white middle-class Ms. Carlton had feelings of “desperation” before
parent) reported calling Brownside School (a her child was admitted via lottery to a highly
highly desired public school) when she and her desired charter school. In short, economic
husband were purchasing a new home, to see if capital was essential to gain access to the highly
they would be in the catchment. She was told the desired public schools, but these resources were
new home was in the boundaries, so they “signed valuable only if parents complied with complex
the paper” for the purchase. Shortly thereafter, district boundaries.
as they chatted with another parent at the
playground while they pushed their three-year-
Traditional public school transfers:
old children on the swings, they were dumb-
Formal rules
founded to learn their new home was outside the
boundary. As the father, Lucas, explains, The public school district allowed families to
transfer to other neighborhood schools if a school
[We told her] “Oh yeah, we are moving a block had room. Highly desired neighborhood schools
away.” She said, “Oh, you just moved out of the had very few slots available for transfer stu-
Brownside district.” [I said,] “No, we didn’t. No, dents. In interviews, principals of three of the
we didn’t.” She’s like, “Yeah, you know, south of four highly desired neighborhood schools
whatever,” and Angie and I looked at each other reported that they were filled to capacity by
like, “Are we the biggest idiots to move? We were children in the catchment area, and they had not
in the district, and we move out!” admitted a single student from outside of the
neighborhood that year. The fourth school, not accepted any transfer students. Therefore,
Ledford, did accept some out-of-catchment knowledgeable parents did not “waste” a slot by
students; the number of transfer students varied listing one of these schools. In addition, the order
from year to year, but most years it was under 25. in which parents listed their choice of schools
This information was not publicly available. was important. Ms. Dixon, a white parent who
Trying to transfer children from their assigned worked as a high-level program administrator at
school to a more highly desired traditional a prestigious university recounted her experience
public school was a challenging enterprise that with the process:
required gathering elusive, time-sensitive
information; filling out forms; and in some cases, [When] I filled out the application, I didn’t realize
making in-person visits to schools. Formally, that you were supposed to be realistic . . . you
there is a districtwide lottery (held at the dis- were supposed to put your first choice at . . . what
trict office) for these coveted spots. The district you could reasonably get into. I thought it said to
website instructs parents to fill out a form, bring list it in your order of preference, so I put number
it to the district office, and have it stamped by a one, Lab Public School because if you’re gonna
particular date in early November. Parents may ask me, obviously where do I want this kid to go
list as many as five schools as transfer desti- to school, that’s where I want. Number two,
nations. These steps are clearly stated, but two Brownside, because . . . it’s the second best school
additional, key pieces of information are not in the city. That’s where I want my kid to go to
publicized. Three of the schools considered to be school. And then I . . . went down to the more
the best are at capacity; in recent years, they have realistic and I put Clayton as three and I put
Table 9.7 Test Score Data in Third Grade by School Status
Third-grade proficiency
School Status % Proficient in math % Proficient in reading
Charter schools
Global Charter Highly-desired charter 84 71
Adventure Charter Highly-desired charter 96 83
Artistic Charter Highly-desired charter 87 85
Sunrise Charter Disputed charter 96 71
Traditional public schools

District average 66 58
Fullerton Highly-desired public 90 76
Brownside Highly-desired public 95 89
Lab Public Highly-desired public 92 85
Ledford Highly-desired public 78 88
Grey Disputed public 84 79
Lincoln Disputed public 94 74
Connelly Disputed public 83 85
Kentline Disputed pubic 67 59
Clayton Disputed public 79 68
Filbert Low-status public 60 45
Walker Low status public 90 90
Ledford as four. I later learned that in order to get lottery forms for a charter school (discussed
your kid on the wait list at Ledford, you have to below), but her son was number 14 on the wait
put Ledford as one. list. The rejections were very difficult. She said,
“I cried. I was heartbroken.” Her son was
This parent possessed and activated quite a bit scheduled to go to her neighborhood school,
of capital: she had valuable knowledge. She where she felt “the teachers are not as patient
knew about the deadline. She knew that she with these children. . . . The whole school
needed to file with the district office as well as system is just—it sucks to be honest. . . . They
the school. She filled out the paperwork. She really do our kids a disadvantage.” At the last
delivered it. But she was missing one crucial minute, her coworker told her about a newly
piece of information. In addition, the district opened charter school, and her son was
had an oversupply of applications at Ledford. admitted. But although she had made multiple
She ultimately enrolled her son in Clayton, an phone calls (twice to the school district and to
up-and-coming school. three different schools), talked with her family
Ms. Thompson, a black parent of one son, members and coworkers, and read online
worked in an insurance office and was similarly extensively, her lack of knowledge about how
misled by incomplete information from the to fill out the form led to problems. In her view,
district website. Although she had a thick social she narrowly avoided disaster.
network with her siblings and extended family, The process even differed across specific
aside from a coworker, she knew very few other schools within the district. One exasperated
parents with children entering kindergarten. white parent, Ms. Dixon, reported the following
Almost all of her knowledge about the school experiences filing transfer applications with two
process came from her research online and local neighborhood schools:
telephone conversations with school district
officials. One official did not tell her how to fill They have different systems. So for Ledford, you
out the form correctly: fill out the application, you put Ledford as one,
and the earlier you mail your application, the
The reason why I found that out, I called the higher you are on their wait list. So you get
school district and I was asking them again about back a copy from the school district with a date
that form . . . and this is when he didn’t get into stamp. If you really are smart, you actually
Ledford and I was trying to get him into Laughlin. walk it in there yourself. You don’t trust it to the
And the [school district] said, “You know what, mail or trust it to a secretary. So then you get
because it’s out of your boundary you would have your date. You have your date stamp. You take
had to fill this out. You would have had to list it to Ledford. You give it to them and they
that school on that form.” put your on their wait list because chances are
you’re not gonna get in through the lottery.
At this time, Ms. Thompson had already sub-
Clayton’s system is different. Clayton, they
mitted the form, and the deadline had passed to
collect all of the transfer applications at the
list all of her preferred schools:
school. They hang onto them all and on the day
I found out that if I ever wanted him to go that they’re all due, they walk them [to the
[somewhere else] I still would have had to list district] as a group. . . .It’s like courting two prom
them on that form for the school district. So I dates. You’re trying not to let each school know
missed three opportunities. . . . I could have filled that you’re hedging your bets and so you try not
out that one form, put Ledford, Applewood, and to be insulting to the principal.
Watts, and Laughlin all on that one form that I
didn’t know about. Ms. Dixon’s reference to “courting two prom
dates” highlights the delicate nature of the
By listing only one school, she had limited her enterprise. It also highlights her deep knowledge
options. Ms. Thompson had also filled out of a highly nuanced system.
The information parents received from indi- public schools on the district transfer application.
vidual schools and the district office sometimes Her son was admitted to an expensive private
conflicted. Because these errors could have school (Madison), but her first choice was to
major consequences, some parents in our sample transfer to Ledford. However, she was aware of
felt they needed to double-check information a timing problem:
for accuracy, as Ms. Thompson, the black
middle-class parent quoted above, reported: You never find out about the transfers early. If
you’re shooting for public school with a private
I filed [the application] at the school. And then school backup you never find out from the public
I found out later on that I had to go down to school before you have to pay that deposit. So we
the school district by the end of October to sent in the 500 bucks . . . in January.
actually fill out this separate sheet of paper ’cause
when I inquired about that form the lady said, In late May, she learned her son was admitted
“No, just fill out the application. You don’t have to Ledford. It created a dilemma. In the end, she
to fill that out.” And then something said call and her husband forfeited the $500 deposit and
back ’cause I wanted to still just make sure I transferred their child to Ledford. Although
understood their whole process and him being the process was not without bumps, her family
out of the [catchment] area, and then someone had a successful outcome. But what mattered
said, “Yes, you do have to fill out that form and here was not simply the amount of their social,
you have to get it down to the school district.” cultural, and economic capital but their ability
to leverage that capital in accordance with
In another example, some parents who called school rules as well as some amount of luck.
Ledford were told they could walk in and apply, Other families fared less well. Ms. Woodley,
and they would likely get in because children a white stay-at-home mother married to a social
were “rarely” turned away from the school. In worker, had ruled out sending her daughter Kara
fact, parents needed to start by getting an appli- to her neighborhood school after a neighbor who
cation for the next school year and submitting it taught in the district warned against it. Because
by a specific (but varying) date in October. The the family could not afford private school
information that rejections were “rare” was also tuition, Ms. Woodley hoped to get Kara into a
false; most applicants were not admitted to the charter school or transfer to a “better” public
school. A parent–teacher organization (PTO) school. She scoured the Internet and used her
officer at Ledford, who led a school tour attended social networks, talking to other parents at her
by a member of the research team, seemed aware daughter’s preschool, to find out which schools
of the problem of erroneous information. When were “good” and which were most likely to
a parent on the tour complained that he had accept transfers. She and her husband toured
been misinformed by a receptionist, the PTO 13 traditional public and charter schools,
officer acknowledged that the Ledford School submitted a transfer application to the school
had one problematic employee: “[The tour district listing their top five schools, and entered
leader] says, ‘Honestly, they have two great the lotteries of six charter schools. At Ledford,
people in the office and one really bad person, Ms. Woodley followed up with a handwritten
and he probably got the bad person on the letter to the principal, begging for a spot. She
phone.’” Thus, conscientious parents could activated a formidable amount of cultural and
easily get inaccurate information. social capital on her daughter’s behalf. When
Still, some families had a successful out- Kara was not accepted at any of the schools to
come in the transfer process, although it often which the family applied, Ms. Woodley had a
came very late in the year. For example, Ms. “breakdown.” Having no other acceptable
O’Donnell, a white parent who works in pub- option, she secured a transfer for Kara to an up-
lishing and has two children under age five, and-coming public school with disputed status,
toured schools and applied to two private schools where a group of middle-class parents were
and two charter schools, as well as listing five working to bring about reforms that would make
the school more to their liking. Ms. Woodley parents to take their application to the district
described the entire experience as “a huge office, have it stamped, and then bring a copy to
nightmare” and “probably one of the worst times the school. This advice was offered during a tour
of my entire life.” for prospective parents attended by one of the
researchers:
Traditional public school transfers: The principal tells the group of prospective
Shadow system of informal rules parents about the lottery process. He repeats
A further complication was that district transfer [sounding somewhat frustrated] that the district
policies were often implemented inconsistently receives 700 applications for Ledford, but he won’t
or ignored. Some educators complained that know those people exist unless they bring a copy
parents who applied to their schools using the of the application directly to the school. Ledford
district form were never granted admission to puts [delivered applications] into a pile to form a
their schools even though they had room for waiting list. He says there are 60 applications in
transfers. Connelly’s principal explained, the waiting list at this point for kindergarten. He
says that he designates the number of slots that
If you’re in one school and you want to go to will be chosen through the [districtwide] lottery
another school, you have to file an application, and he intentionally requests fewer students
which goes [to the district office] downtown. than he can accommodate. After the district
What was happening was a lot of those parents conducts the lottery and sends a list of names to
put in an application but they didn’t get to the school, [the principal] will go to the wait list
Connelly. You know, they [the district office] to fill remaining slots. He tells the parents to call,
wouldn’t approve it. . . . I’m not quite sure how e-mail, get in touch [to find out the results] in
the process worked. whatever way works for them.
This principal’s solution was to innovate. She Through this strategy of underreporting the
counseled parents to bypass the district’s process number of slots available to the district, the
and come to her directly. In August, district rules Ledford principal was able to handpick know-
permitted her to admit students without a ledgeable, highly motivated parents from his own
district application. If she had space, she would waiting list. Hence, he created an institutional
admit the children: standard where parents who attended the tour,
or knew others who attended the tour, have
I just told parents, “Come in if you’re interested.” advantages not available to those who rely only
As long as I have room—’cause again, my thing on the website. Parents, such as Ms. Thompson,
was, my goal was to keep class size small, and if I who only sent an application to the district (and
started to go over [the desired class size], then I’d did not call the school until her son was not
say to a parent, “I’m sorry, I don’t have room, so admitted), had significantly lower odds of
you know, you can try me next year, or whatever, admission at Ledford.
but you have to go to your neighborhood school.” Parents who understood the transfer shadow
And, that’s been working pretty nicely. system, including when exactly to submit appli-
cations, possessed highly valuable capital. For
This principal’s comments reveal the con- example, Ms. Becker, a white stay-at-home
voluted nature of the district’s admissions pro- mom who had been researching schools since her
cess. Principals’ discretion could work easily at son was two, gathered extensive information and
some points of the year but not at others. We was seen as an “expert” on the topic by other
found evidence of a similar shadow system for parents. She applied to 14 private, public, and
transfers in other neighborhood schools. Other charter schools, but Ledford was her first choice.
principals, however, took a hybrid approach. At Unlike Ms. Thompson, she was aware that in
Ledford, the only highly desired public school addition to the district transfer office application,
that accepted transfers, the principal instructed Ledford had a shadow system where parents filed
photocopies of the district application at the the odds of admission. In some cases, admission
school. Ms. Becker came prepared to the school’s rates were similar to Ivy League universities. Our
kindergarten open house with a photocopy of her interviews with school officials revealed that two
district transfer application. She reported that highly desired charter schools, Global Charter
during the open house, the principal said, and Adventure Charter, had admission rates
between 11 and 16 percent. The admissions
“How we do it is how early you got your appli- director of Adventure Charter estimated that the
cation in.” So actually pretty much as he was school received approximately 275 applications
saying this I was filling out my application and I for 80 to 90 kindergarten slots. The school had
went and dropped it off while mostly everybody a sibling preference policy, and about half the
else was doing the tour. I was like, “I’ll get a tour slots were reserved for siblings of children
later, I’m just gonna drop this off now.” already attending the school, leaving only 40
to 50 slots for new families. Out of 275 appli-
Although leaving in the middle of an open cants, 45 admitted students is equivalent to a
house might be considered rude in other settings, 16 percent admissions rate. Global Charter
in this context, it was valuable for Ms. Becker to received approximately 350 applications for
presume that every moment she delayed could 85 kindergarten slots, but about 45 of those slots
affect her application. She later learned that were reserved for siblings. This left only 40 open
her son’s application was seventh in the pile; he slots and an admissions rate of around 11 per-
was admitted to the kindergarten class at cent. (At the time of our study, the numbers of
Ledford. Another parent in our study, Ms. applications and slots were not publicized on
Woodley, submitted her transfer application one Global Charter’s website. Today they are, but the
week later and was not admitted to Ledford. number of spaces taken up by siblings is not.) The
Hence, Ms. Becker’s knowledge and actions, and less desired charter schools were less competitive;
her shrewd playing of the information she still, one of these charter schools had a waiting
learned, paid off. list of 120 students, and another had a waiting list
It was difficult for us to assess how frequently of 141 students.
a shadow system was in effect, but there was clear Charter schools had only one major rule:
evidence that some principals used their own applications had to be submitted by the deadline.
approach to admitting children. The school According to educators, schools were inflexible
district website makes no mention of any about deadlines, as this extract from an interview
informal or alternative transfer processes. Parents with the Sunrise Charter school principal
who attended school tours, who had friends who indicates:
attended tours, or who learned about school-
specific informal admissions processes from other Principal: As the date starts rolling around, we
sources had highly valuable knowledge that, in shut down our receipt.
some instances, could be transformed into
Q: [What] if it’s only one day after the deadline?
gaining a slot in a highly desired kindergarten.
But advising parents to be actively involved in Principal: We don’t accept it.
learning about schools without focusing on the
forms, principals’ actions, and district rules Some parents understood how important it
offers an incomplete analysis. was to submit the application on time. Ms. Elliot,
who is black, a parent of three, and a social
worker, explained that she delayed submitting
Charter schools
her child’s application to Global Charter as
A commonality across charter schools was that, she mulled over the option of homeschooling,
according to state law, oversubscribed schools but when the deadline arrived, she knew she
had to admit students by lottery. However, the had to get to the school that day, despite bad
crucial lottery application deadlines varied, as did weather:
After doing months and months of research, I provided a secular education. These schools
came across Global Charter and I got an varied in cost, ranging between $8,000 and
application off the Internet, filled it out and $25,000 annually. Some black parents and a few
everything, and I just held onto it. So the last white parents also considered religious insti-
day of the lottery . . . I’m sitting here holding tutions, which tended to have lower tuition rates;
this application and this is March. It’s freezing for example, Catholic school tuition was
outside. It’s raining. And I’m like, “I don’t feel approximately $4,000 per year.
like going over there.” I get up and I walk from Many of the independent private schools
my office to the school, turn in the application where parents applied were oversubscribed. For
the last day, and he got accepted. So that’s why example, Arch received around 50 kindergarten
I said I’ll never forget that day as long as I live. applications, but only 8 to 10 children without
sibling preference were admitted (i.e., a 16 to 20
However, the principal at Global Charter percent acceptance rate). Acceptance rates at
confirmed that some parents were unaware of Madison (63 percent) and Riverdale (73
the application deadline. In August, a month percent) were higher, but even these private
before kindergarten began, some parents were schools typically denied admission for one
hoping to apply: quarter to one third of applicants. Nonetheless,
the odds of being admitted to an oversubscribed
We have people walking in saying, “Can I get private school were higher than being admitted
an application?” And they [the staff] will remind by transfer to a highly desired public school, such
them or the application will say when you need as Ledford, or by lottery to the most sought-after
to apply and deposit the application. But many charter schools.
people are shocked. To apply to private schools, parents had to
submit an application that often included several
Some parents missed the deadlines not by essay questions about the applicant. The appli-
hours or days but by months. The application cations had to be accompanied by an application
deadline for many charter schools was in the fee, typically $50, and submitted by each school’s
winter prior to the September of enrollment. deadline. Undersubscribed religious schools
Some charter schools announced the due date for would immediately enroll applicants, but for
applications on their websites very briefly in the oversubscribed schools, the process was more
fall—and at no other time. Most of the year, the involved (see Table 9.6). Some schools required
websites stated, “Applications are not being that students take and submit scores for a
accepted now; check back later for additional standardized academic ability test administered
information.” Parents who called the school were by a psychologist (which cost $300 and took
readily told the date; but parents needed to know a few hours). The oversubscribed schools then
to call. Because the school district did not send invited all applicants for an interview and
information to parents of children who were observation. During the interview, a teacher
three, four, or five years old, there was no stand- would take every student aside to individually
ard mechanism for parents to learn about the assess his or her academic skills. Parents worried
important, and inflexible, deadline for charter about how their children would behave in these
school admissions.4 Parents were on their own to visits, knowing they did not have control over
learn the inflexible rules of the charter school how their four-year-old would be perceived.
lottery game. School representatives also interviewed parents,
either during the student’s interview or at
another time, to assess the fit of families with the
Private schools
school. Several months after the interview, the
In addition to charter and “good” public schools, oversubscribed schools would send letters offer-
some parents applied to private schools. Most ing admission, denying admission, or offering a
parents considered independent schools that spot on a wait list.
The timing for applying to private schools was secondarily also applied [to] Artistic Charter,
significantly different from the charter school though they were definitely B choice. Oh—oh,
and public school transfer application processes. I did the normal thing of trying to—I got on the
To maximize their chances of admission at over- [transfer] lottery for Brownside and Fullerton. [In
subscribed independent schools, savvy parents the district transfer application] I applied to the
began the process when their children were three, top five [public schools] . . . in the area.
the year before they were eligible to enroll in
prekindergarten (pre-K). Admission rates were Ms. Terra’s son was not accepted at Arch or
much more favorable for applications to pre-K at any of the other schools where she had sub-
than to kindergarten. (At Arch, for example, the mitted applications. Ms. Terra and her husband
pre-K acceptance rate was 44 percent, compared were aware of other private schools, such as
to its kindergarten acceptance rate of 20 Madison (where two thirds of children were
percent.) Moreover, as the Riverdale admissions admitted), but she had “missed the deadline”
director revealed, entry into pre-K did not because she had been busy at work. When her
require the testing and evaluation required for son was not admitted to Arch or Artistic Char-
kindergarten: ter, Ms. Terra went into a tailspin. She could not
sleep, had nightmares of dinosaurs eating
It’s tricky because if you come in [for pre-K] . . . children, and then began eating obsessively. In
you don’t have to be tested. . . . And as the kids the end, Ms. Terra enrolled her son in the
get older, we get a little stricter about their testing kindergarten at their neighborhood catchment
scores because it’s just easier to quantify the school, which had up-and-coming status. She
abilities of older kids. was excited about her son’s teacher, who she felt
was the “best teacher in the district,” but she was
The advantage of applying to private schools for anxious about the future. If Ms. Terra had applied
pre-K and not waiting until kindergarten was to more private schools, she may have found a
not conveyed on websites, in application spot at a school she found desirable. Ms. Terra
packets, or during tours. possessed significant economic and cultural
Despite possessing abundant cultural and capital that would be valuable in many settings,
economic capital, some parents did not under- but because she lacked critically important, field-
stand the field well enough to deploy their capital specific information about the rules of the game
effectively. For example, Ms. Terra, a white and the scarcity of opportunities, her capital
parent, had a degree from an Ivy League uni- lacked value.
versity and, until a recent layoff, had worked in
a managerial position in graphic design. Her son
A “heartbreaking” process
attended an expensive nursery school that was
renowned for its elaborate art, puppet, and Middle-class parents found the process agonizing.
outdoor programs. Ms. Terra had believed that For example, Ms. Carlton, a black graduate
students at this nursery school had a near- student, explained how the timing of the choice
automatic admission to Arch, because a number process made the experience of rejection
of children in the nursery school had transitioned particularly difficult:
to Arch in previous years. As noted earlier,
however, Arch administrators estimated a 20 We toured the Arch School, went all the way
percent admittance rate for kindergarteners. Ms. through the application process, and didn’t
Terra lacked this crucial knowledge. Describing make it. And when you get those rejection
herself retrospectively as “overconfident,” she letters, that’s heartbreaking— especially when
said she filled out only a few applications, you haven’t gotten a single acceptance letter. . . .
thinking, “I’ll get in [to Arch] for sure”: We got the Arch School’s rejection before she
was accepted to Global Charter so that was
I thought [Arch] was a complete slam dunk. another . . . agony. . . . What if this happens again
. . . That was where I put most of my efforts. I and again?
Similarly, the following field note describes were a near-constant topic of conversation at
how Ms. Stevenson, a white art director (and playgrounds, at birthday parties, and during
a focus of the participant-observation portion informal interactions with neighbors, something
of our study), reacted to receiving—on the we also observed in our fieldwork. Mothers,
same day—rejection letters from both private especially, reported having frequent, long, and
schools to which she had applied (Arch and anxious conversations with other mothers about
Creekwood). The fieldworker was visiting the these topics. “The main conversation you would
evening the letters arrived: hear on the playground,” Ms. Adler, a white
stay-at-home mother married to a computer
It is a cold Wednesday night in February. Over programmer, told us, “is ‘Where [will] your kid go
dinner at her home, Amy tells me that when she to school? What have you heard about this
saw both letters were thin, she “kind of knew school? What have you heard about that school?
what was coming.” Her face is pale . . . [and she] And what are the options? What do you know?
looks shellshocked and in a daze. She stares into What about this one?’” Participating in social
the distance, where Jared is now playing on the and informational networks (including parenting
couch, but she doesn’t seem to see him. I watch groups) that shared this knowledge provided
as her face slowly contorts with emotion—her advantageous social capital.
brows knit together, her nose crinkles, and her Yet, some forms of social capital also failed to
upper lip curls. . . . I think she might start to cry provide expected advantages. The principal of
or get sick. Global Charter described some of the strategies
parents used: “I get letters from councilpersons
Ms. Stevenson second-guessed her actions: presenting somebody, saying, ‘We know you
“I just wonder if I didn’t do something that other have a lottery process, but my constituent would
people did, you know? Like, should I have called like to be considered—a wonderful kid.’ I [also]
every week?” She worried she should have done get personal letters [from VIPs].” In tossing these
more to activate her resources. In particular, letters aside, this principal was adamant that the
she wondered aloud if she should have asked her charter did not admit children in any way other
son’s nursery school teacher, who wrote a letter than a lottery. Others echoed this view.
of recommendation, to cite specific examples of A common complaint among the parents in
Jared’s strengths. Ms. Stevenson desperately our study was that they had no control over a
wanted the schools to provide a real explanation process whose outcome mattered deeply to
for the rejections, not “pat answers” about “the them. They did not, as Ms. Woodley noted,
numbers” and “creating a balanced class.” One “know what the future’s going to be, and it’s in
month later, which felt interminable to his someone else’s hands. You really don’t have any
mother, Jared was admitted to Arch from the control over it.” Indeed, as Table 3 (in the online
waiting list. He enrolled. Although ultimately appendix) reveals, parents reported the process
successful, Ms. Stevenson’s experience with to be stressful. In the uncertain landscape of
(temporary) rejection was anxiety producing kindergarten admissions, their capital did not
and deeply meaningful. Her experience also always have value, and their strategies for
highlights the uncertain pathways through activating capital often failed. The realization
which parents seek to transmit advantages to their that their class resources had limits was an
children. In private school admissions, as well as unexpected and unpleasant discovery for many
charter and public schools, the institutional parents. Although it is difficult to truly measure
standards and scarcity of spots, rather than the an “outcome” in this process, since parents’
parents, determine the process and outcomes. expectations kept shifting as the process
Middle-class parents described being con- unfolded, Table 3 reveals that in our sample of
sumed with anxiety about where their children 45 parents, 20 got their children into a highly
were going to kindergarten in the city. They desired school, 6 had not decided yet, and 19
reported that schools and admissions procedures were in disputed- or low-status schools. Of
course, when middle-class families failed to get Ms. Coleman, a black parent who worked in
their children into their first-choice school, education, had two children enrolled at Hickory
this did not mean these children were headed to Charter. Although pleased with her children’s
“bad” institutions; in fact, nearly all the chil- placements, when asked what her first choice
dren would attend schools that the parents was, she replied without hesitating:
considered better than the majority of schools
in the district. Nonetheless, the rejections To the private school that I went to, because I
demonstrate that profits are not automatic after do want them to have a Christian education.
the investment of capital. Yes, I definitely want them to have a Christian
education. In my book [it is] the biggest thing.
Differences between black and white

Other black parents echoed this view. This inter-
parents
est contrasted with white parents, who, with few
Overall, white and black middle-class parents exceptions, did not consider religious schools.
described similar experiences with the school White parents described frequent con-
choice process. All parents living outside the versations with other parents about schools and
catchment areas of a few “good” schools found the choice process, but black parents made fewer
their neighborhood school undesirable. They mentions of these types of conversations. Some
found the process frustrating and stressful, largely black parents were upset that the school district
because the rules of the game in the field were did not provide more information. A librarian,
complex and opaque. Ms. Lambert, a black parent, was told by her day
Yet, there were some differences in how white care of an information session sponsored by the
and black middle-class parents experienced school district in the winter. But at that meeting,
school choice. In our study, as in others, white she learned that many of the key deadlines had
parents defined schools with large numbers passed:
of black children as low quality (see, e.g.,
Billingham and Hunt 2016; Goyette 2014; What I found out was, is that I had the option for
Goyette, Farrie, and Freely 2012). Although my child to go to a different public school and
a number of parents discussed their desire for that really bugged me. It bugged me because what
“diversity,” white parents were overwhelmingly I didn’t know is that I would have needed to apply
averse to enrolling their children in predo- for that the whole year before he was going to
minantly black settings (Evans 2013). A few start kindergarten, which would have meant that
black parents spoke of avoiding majority-black I needed to do that in, um, September. They
schools, but most were less averse to such don’t notify parents about that, about that
schools than were white parents. As a result, option, nor do they notify parents about that
black parents viewed a wider set of school options deadline so I was very frustrated. . . . I was a bit
as acceptable if not “good.” Still, black parents upset that I didn’t have the opportunity to go to
hoped their children would be accepted in one even get my child somewhere else that could
of the few “good” schools. Generally, black have been a better fit.
parents could gain admission to such schools only
by being successful in the district transfer process Many (but not all) black parents mentioned
or charter school lotteries, which had uncertain solitary online searches when describing their
outcomes. Thus, although black parents had a process for learning about schools (Weininger
wider array of acceptable choices, this did not 2014). Although the school choice process
appear to reduce their anxiety and stress over the was complex and frustrating for all, we find
transfer process and the goal of enrolling in a some evidence that white parents were more
“good” school. connected to valuable social capital. At the
A number of the black parents were interested same time, black parents were willing to con-
in private, religious education. For example, sider a wider set of schools for their children.
Discussion available, deadlines are rigidly enforced. If

Despite the clear and important role that the charter lottery dates are widely announced, it
rules of the game play in children’s success, could potentially have a leveling effect. More-
sociologists have not always sufficiently show- over, a formal district policy that prevents
cased the importance of the field. Nor have principals from selecting transfer students would
scholars always had a “double vision” and reduce the benefits of dominant cultural, social,
examined both the rules of the game and how and economic capital.
class position helps children draw on their Our study highlights the contingency and
parents’ capital. But without this focus, scholars anxiety that may occur as middle-class parents,
risk treating particular social and cultural like other parents, are unable to ensure that
resources as inherently and unchangingly things unfold for their children in the way they
valuable. Researchers fail to consider how the would like. To be sure, the schools these middle-
field and the rules of the game matter for class children attended, although not the
determining what is capital and who is able to parents’ first choice, were higher performing than
successfully activate that capital. In contrast, many other schools in the district. For these
Bourdieu and Passeron (1990:8) argue that the middle-class parents, however, the knowledge
definition of culture is arbitrary, “not being that others were worse off than their own
linked by any sort of internal relation to ‘the children was cold comfort.
nature of things,”‘ its legitimacy coming only Indeed, in our sample, a number of middle-
from the state of competition in the field (see also class parents were unable to place their children
Bourdieu and Passeron 1979). in a highly desired school. In the spring before
In this article, we argued that social scientists kindergarten, many parents were out of options
must be clear-eyed about the precise nature of if they had not applied to a sufficient number of
the rules of the game in key institutions and schools or had listed only one school, rather than
interrogate how parents are able to activate five, on the public school transfer application.
capital to comply with these rules. We showed Some of these parents had late-breaking success,
that by activating their capital, parents can but others did not. As Frank (2016) argues, there
access desired high-status institutions for their is compelling evidence that luck can play a
children. At the same time, however, middle- crucial role in success and failure. Given that the
class parents can fail to leverage their consider- pool of applicants was significantly larger than
able capital by not complying precisely with the number of slots, it is undeniable that some
institutional standards. And in the context of parents were luckier than others. Having more
a limited number of highly desired options, there capital would not have changed the outcome.
are limited opportunities and actors have limited Without more details on the applicant pool and
power; as a result, middle-class parents can the admission decisions, it is hard for us to assess
comply with all institutional standards and still, the power that luck played here relative to other
at times, not get the outcomes they desired. factors.
In the case of school choice, researchers make Our point, however, is that middle-class par-
a mistake by not looking enough at the precise ents with quite a bit of widely valued capital
rules schools enact for admission, the formal and can still make mistakes in the process by not
informal implementation of these rules, and the complying with the formal and informal rules
degree to which schools, rather than parents, can of the game. Parents missed charter school
control the school choice process. As we have deadlines, misunderstood the district transfer
shown, the rules for applying to kindergarten are policy, or made small, but consequential, errors
not easy to learn or easy to follow, given the when filling out forms.
multitude of different procedures and deadlines. Future research might examine the complex
The lack of flexibility and transparency within interplay of cultural, social, and economic
each system exacerbates the challenges for capital with the precise institutional standards
parents. Although the information is not widely across fields and the ways parents of different
social classes are able to comply (see Small 2009). as displays of capital, sociologists can develop
For example, there are signs that working-class more sophisticated studies of the transmission
parents, although caring deeply about the quality of advantage. In addition, researchers may turn
of their children’s education, undertake a their attention to a deeper understanding of
much more truncated search for a kindergarten the processes of upward as well as downward
and rely heavily on information from family mobility. Not all parents are able to realize their
and friends (Lareau 2014; Rhodes and Deluca hopes and dreams for their children. Improving
2014; Weininger 2014). In addition, other our understanding of the mechanisms in various
research suggests that working-class families’ pathways for transmitting advantages from
networks, white and black, are much more kin parents to children is an important topic for
based and less interwoven with other (nonkin) future research.
parents (Horvat, Weininger, and Lareau 2003).
Thus, the challenges that working-class parents
Acknowledgments
face in complying with the rules of the game and
the ways institutions can foster the formation of The first author gratefully acknowledges the
cultural and social capital are important topics financial support of the Spencer Foundation as
for future work. One implication of our study, well as resources provided by the College of Arts
however, is that clear, easy-to-follow, rigid, and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania
and widely announced rules of the game would and the University of Maryland, College
likely help both working-class and middle- Park. The second author acknowledges the
class parents. assistance of the Institute of Education Sciences
Furthermore, we need more research on how Predoctoral Fellowship at the University of
reputations of various schools actually map on to Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. An
meaningful school qualities. As we noted, many earlier version of this article was presented at the
middle-class parents were averse to sending their American Sociological Association annual
children to predominantly black and predomi- meeting in 2011. The article benefited from the
nantly poor schools; it seemed harder for these feedback of the anonymous reviewers and Rob
schools to gain traction in building a reputation Warren as well as Jessica Calarco, Maia
as a “good school” (see also Cucchiara 2013; Cucchiara, Shelley Kimelberg, Judith Levine,
Posey-Maddox 2014). Thus, further work is M. Katherine Mooney, Vanessa Muñoz, Elliot
needed on the construction of school identities Weininger, and Rachelle Winkle-Wagner. The
as highly desired, with attention to school audience at CUNY Graduate Center and the
qualities independent of students’ background Russell Sage Foundation provided helpful com-
characteristics. ments. All errors, of course, are the responsibility
In closing, we suggest that to understand the of the authors.
use of capital in processes whereby parents
gain advantages for their children, sociologists
Research Ethics
need to be clearer about the nature of the field
in which some resources are considered valuable. The research project reported here was reviewed
In addition, in focusing on the skill of players in and approved by the University of Pennsylvania
the game, Bourdieu (1976) points to contin- Institutional Review Board for the Protection of
gency in the activation of capital. The yielding Human Subjects. All of the parents and edu-
of profit from cultural, social, and economic cators gave their written consent prior to being
capital is far from automatic. Yet, the key role of interviewed; parents observed in private settings
institutions in creating standards where some also gave their consent. Numerous steps were
practices have more value than others has taken to protect participants’ confidentiality
generally been ignored in the empirical research including the use of code names for the parti-
on cultural and social capital. By having a cipants and the schools.
“double vision” of the rules of the game as well
Notes André-Bechely, Lois. 2005. Could It Be Otherwise?

Parents and the Inequalities of Public School Choice.
1. Ms. Stevenson was paid an honorarium of
New York: Routledge.
$600. Given that most interactions with Ms.
Ball, Stephen J. and Carol Vincent. 1998. “‘I Heard
Becker took place on the playground, and the
It on the Grapevine’: ‘Hot’ Knowledge and School
home observation was limited in scope, the
Choice.” British Journal of Sociology of Education
Becker family was given an honorarium of $300.
19(3):377–400.
Although only one author carried out parti-
Berends, Mark, and Genevieve C. Zottola. 2009.
cipant observations with this group of parents,
“Social Perspectives on School Choice.”
all three authors consulted regularly in lengthy
Pp. 35–54 in Handbook of Research on School Choice,
team meetings. In addition, the first author
edited by M. Berends, M. Springer, D. Ballou, and
met with Ms. Stevenson to explain the study,
H. Walberg. New York: Routledge.
answer questions, and pick up signed consent
Billingham, Chase M., and Matthew O. Hunt. 2016.
forms.
“School Racial Composition and Parental Choice:
2. In these interviews, test scores were not a
New Evidence on the Preferences of White
prominent factor in how parents settled on good
Parents in the United States.” Sociology of
schools. Some parents mentioned checking them,
Education 89(2): 99–117.
but it was almost always in the context of what
Blum, Linda. 2015. Raising Generation RX: Mothering
they had learned from the grapevine (see Ball and
Kids with Invisible Disabilities in an Age of Inequality.
Vincent 1998). In other contexts, parents do rely
New York: New York University Press.
more on test scores (see Friesen et al. 2012;
Bosetti, Lynn, and Michael C. Pyryt. 2007. “Parental
Weininger 2014).
Motivation in School Choice: Seeking the
3. Although Bourdieu is clear that knowledge is
Competitive Edge.” Journal of School Choice
cultural capital, not all researchers agree. There
1(4):89–108.
is an ongoing debate about the proper definition
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1976. “Marriage Strategies as Strate-
of cultural capital (see, e.g., Lareau and Weininger
gies of Social Reproduction.” Pp. 117–44 in Family
2003), which is beyond the scope of this article.
and Society, edited by R. Forster and O. Ranum.
One reviewer was concerned that this knowledge
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
of where to apply should not be called cultural
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of
capital but “procedural knowledge,” but because
the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
we see this knowledge as gaining access to highly
University Press.
valued settings that are believed to provide
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp.
educational advantages, we use the concept of
241–58 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the
cultural capital. There is considerable blurriness
Sociology of Education, edited by J. Richardson. New
on the boundary between social capital and
York: Greenwood.
cultural capital, because parents gained infor-
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1979. The
mation in their chats with other parents at the Inheritors: French Students and Their Relation to
playground, but this intellectual debate is also Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
beyond the scope of our article. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1990.
4. In recent years, the school district has begun to Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture,
list all the charter application deadlines and the translated by Richard Nice. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
lottery dates. But this information does not Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An
include all the charter schools in the district. In Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University
addition, the information does not provide the of Chicago Press.
likelihood of admission or whether the school Brantlinger, Ellen. 2003. Dividing Classes: How the
gives priority to siblings. In some cities, parents Middle Class Negotiates and Rationalizes School
have published books telling other parents how to Advantage. New York: Falmer Press/Taylor and
apply to kindergarten (Adams 2015). Francis.
Bryk, Anthony S., Penny Bender Sebring, Elaine
Allensworth, Stuart Luppescu, and John Q. Easton
Supplemental Material 2010. Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons
The online appendix is available at soe.sagepub. from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
com/supplemental. Byrne, Bridget. 2006. “In Search of a ‘Good Mix’:
‘Race,’ Class, Gender, and the Practices of
References Motherhood.” Sociology 40(6):1001–17.
Calarco, Jessica. 2011. “‘I Need Help!’ Social Class and
Adams, Alina. 2015. Getting Into NYC Kindergarten. Children’s Help-seeking in Elementary School.”
Amazon Digital Services. American Sociological Review 76(6):862–82.
Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the the Unequal Effects of School Choice. New York:
Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Teachers College Press.
Sociology 94(s1):S95. Gabler, Jay, and Jason Kaufman. 2006. “Chess,
Cooper, Camille Wilson. 2007. “School Choice Cheerleading, Chopin: What Gets You Into
as ‘Motherwork’: Valuing African-American College?” Contexts 5(2):45–49.
Women’s Educational Advocacy and Resistance.” Goldhaber, Dan D. 1999. “School Choice: An
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Examination of the Empirical Evidence on
Education 20(5):491–512. Achievement, Parental Decision Making, and
Cucchiara, Maia Bloomfield. 2013. Marketing Schools, Equity.” Educational Researcher 28(9):16–25.
Marketing Cities: Who Wins and Who Loses When Goldring, Ellen, and Charles Hausman. 1999. Reasons
Schools Become Urban Amenities? Chicago: for parental choice in urban schools. Journal of
University of Chicago Press. Education Policy 4(5):469–90.
Cucchiara, Maia Bloomfield, and Erin McNamara Grenfell, Michael. 2009. “Applying Bourdieu’s Field
Horvat. 2009. “Promises and Perils: Parent Theory: The Case of Social Capital and Edu-
Involvement in Urban Schools.” American Educa- cation.” Education, Knowledge & Economy 3(1):
tional Research Journal 48(4):974–1004. 17–34.
Demerath, Peter. 2009. Producing Success: The Culture Goyette, Kimberly A. 2014. “Setting the Context.”
of Personal Advancement in an American High School. Pp. 1–24 in Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. edited by A. Lareau and K. Goyette. New York:
Dika, Sandra L., and Kusum Singh. 2002. “Applica- Russell Sage Foundation.
tions of Social Capital in Educational Literature: Goyette, Kimberly, Danielle Farrie, and Joshua Freely.
A Critical Synthesis.” Review of Educational 2012. “This School’s Gone Downhill: Racial
Research 72(1):31–60. Change and Perceived School Quality among
DiMaggio, Paul. 1982. “Cultural Capital and Whites.” Social Problems 59(2):155–76.
School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Griffith, Alison, and Dorothy Smith. 2004. Mothering
Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School for Schooling. London: Routledge.
Students.” American Sociological Review 47: Hannah-Jones, Nikole. 2016 “Choosing a School for
189–201. My Daughter in a Segregated City.” New York
Duffy, Meghan, Amy J. Binder, and John D. Skrentny Times Magazine, June 9, p. 34.
2010. “Elite Status and Social Change: Using Henig, Jeffrey R. 1994. Rethinking School Choice: Limits
Field Analysis to Explain Policy Formation of the Market Metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
and Implementation.” Social Problems 57(1): University Press.
49–73. Holme, Jennifer Jellison. 2002. “Buying Homes,
Dumais, Susan. 2006. “Early Childhood Cultural Buying Schools: School Choice and the Social
Capital, Parental Habitus, and Teacher’s Construction of School Quality.” Harvard
perceptions.” Poetics 34:83–107. Educational Review 72(2):177–207.
Dumais, Susan, and Aaryn Ward. 2010. “Cultural Horvat, Erin M., Elliot B. Weininger, and Annette
Capital and First-generation College Success.” Lareau. 2003. “From Social Ties to Social Capital:
Poetics 38:245–65. Class Differences in the Relations between Schools
Duncan, Greg, and Richard J. Murnane, eds. 2011. and Parent Networks.” American Educational
Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Research Journal 40 (1):319–51.
Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Hoxby, Caroline M., and Sonali Murarka. 2009.
Foundation. Charter Schools in New York City: Who Enrolls and
Evans, Shani Adia. 2013. “I Wanted Diversity . . . but How They Affect Their Students’ Achievement.
Not Too Much: Urban White Parents Choosing Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Schools.” Paper presented at the annual meeting Research. Retrieved July 29, 2016 (http://www.
of the American Sociological Association, August nber.org/ papers/w14852).
11, New York. Jaeger, Mads Meier. 2009. “Equal Access but Unequal
Fligstein, Neil, and Doug McAdam. 2012. A Theory Outcomes: Cultural Capital and Educational
of Fields. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Choice in a Meritocratic Society. Social Forces
Frank, Robert H. 2016. Success and Luck: Good Fortune 87(4): 1943–71.
and the Myth of Meritocracy. Princeton, NJ: Johnson, Heather Beth, and Thomas M. Shapiro.
Princeton University Press. 2003. “Good Neighborhoods, Good Schools:
Friesen, James, Moshen Javdani, Justin Smith, and Race and the ‘Good Choices’ of White Families.”
Simon Woodcock. 2012. “How Do School ‘Report Pp. 173–87 in White Out: The Continuing
Cards’ Affect School Choice Decisions?” Canadian Significance of Racism, edited by A. W. Doane and
Journal of Economics 45(2):784–807. E. Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.
Fuller, Bruce, Richard Elmore, and Gary Orfield. 1996. Kimelberg, Shelley McDonough, and Chase M
Who Chooses? Who Loses? Culture, Institutions, and Billingham. 2013. “Attitudes toward Diversity and
the School Choice Process: Middle-class Parents Boundaries between Groups of Students with
in a Segregated Urban Public School District.” Homologous Cultural Behaviours.” British Journal
Urban Education 48(2):198–231. of Sociology of Education. Advance online pub-
Lareau, Annette. 2000. Home Advantage. 2nd ed. lication. doi:10.1080/01425692.2016.1205968
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Posey-Maddox, Linn. 2014. When Middle-class Parents
Lareau, Annette. 2014. “Schools, Housing, and the Choose Urban Schools: Class, Race, and the
Reproduction of Inequality: Experiences of Challenge of Equity in Public Schools. Chicago:
White and African-American Suburban Parents.” University of Chicago Press.
Pp. 169–206 in Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools, Posey-Maddox, Linn, Shelley Kimelberg, and Maia
edited by A. Lareau and K. Goyette. New York: Cucchiara. 2014. “Middle-class Parents and Urban
Russell Sage Foundation. Schools: Current Research and Future Directions.”
Lareau, Annette, and Kimberly Goyette, eds. 2014. Sociology Compass 8:446–56.
Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools. New York: Ramey, Garey, and Valerie A. Ramey. 2010. “The Rug
Russell Sage Foundation. Rat Race.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
Lareau, Annette, and Elliot Weininger. 2003 “Cul- Spring:129–76.
tural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Reay, Diane, Gill Crozier, and David James. 2011.
Assessment.” Theory and Society 35(5/6):567–606. White Middle-class Identities and Urban Schooling.
Lauen, Douglas Lee. 2007. “Contextual Explanations Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
of School Choice.” Sociology of Education 80(3): Rhodes, Anna, and Stefanie Deluca. 2014. “Resi-
179–209. dential Mobility and School Choice among Poor
Martin, John Levi. 2003. “What Is Field Theory?” Families.” Pp. 137–66 in Choosing Homes, Choosing
American Journal of Sociology 109:1–49. Schools, edited by A. Lareau and K. Goyette.
Martinez, Valerie, R. Kenneth Godwin, Frank New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kemerer, and Laura Perna. 1995. “The Conse- Saulny, Susan. 2003. “In Baby Boomlet, Pre-school
quences of School Choice: Who Leaves and Who Derby Is the Fiercest Yet.” New York Times,
Stays in the Inner City.” Social Science Quarterly March 3. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.
76(3):485–501. com/2006/ 03/03/education/03preschool.html.
Maton, Karl. 2005. “A Question of Autonomy: Schneider, Mark, Paul Teske, and Melissa Marschall.
Bourdieu’s Field Approach and Higher Education 2000. Choosing Schools: Consumer Choice and the
Approach.” Journey of Educational Policy 20(6): Quality of American Schools. Princeton, NJ:
687–704. Princeton University Press.
Medvetz, Thomas. 2014. “Field Theory and Organ- Sikkink, David, and Michael O. Emerson. 2008.
izational Power: Four Modes of Influence among “School Choice and Racial Segregation in US
Public Policy ‘Think Tanks.’” Pp. 221–37 in Social Schools: The Role of Parents’ Education.” Ethnic
Field Theory: Concept and Applications, edited by and Racial Studies 31(2):267–93.
M. Hilgers and E. Mangez. London: Routledge. Small, Mario. 2009. Unanticipated Gains: Origins of
Naidoo, Rajani. 2004. “Fields and Institutional Network Inequality in Everyday Life. Cambridge,
Strategy: Bourdieu on the Relationship between MA: Harvard University Press.
Higher Education, Inequality and Society.” British Stevens, Mitchell. 2007. Creating a Class: College
Journal of Sociology of Education 25(4):457–71. Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge,
Pattillo, Mary. 2015. “Everyday Politics of School MA: Harvard University Press.
Choice in the Black Community.” DuBois Review Weininger, Elliot B. 2005. “Foundations of Pierre
12(1):41–61. Bourdieu’s Class Analysis.” Pp. 82–118 in
Pew Charitable Trust. 2011. Downward Mobility from Approaches to Class Analysis, edited by E. O. Wright.
the Middle Class. Washington, DC: Author. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/ Weininger, Elliot B. 2014. “School Choice in an
research-and-analysis/reports/2011/09/06/ Urban Setting.” Pp. 268–94 in Choosing Homes,
downward-mobility-from-the-middle-class- Choosing Schools, edited by A. Lareau and K.
waking-up-from-the-american-dream. Goyette. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Phillips, Kristie J. R., Elisabeth S. Larsen, and Charles Wells, Amy Stuart. 2002. Where Charter School Policy
Hausman. 2015. “School Choice and Social Fails: The Problems of Accountability and Equity.
Stratification: How Intra-district Transfers Shift New York: Teacher’s College Press.
the Racial/ Ethnic and Economic Composition of Yee, April. Forthcoming. “The Unwritten Rules Of
Schools.” Social Science Research 51:30–50. Engagement: Social Class Differences in Under-
Pitzalis, Marco, and Mariano Porcu. 2016. “Cultural graduates’ Academic Strategies.” Journal of Higher
Capital and Educational Strategies: Shaping Education.
A Black Student’s Reflection on Public

and Private Schools
Imani Perry
My name is Imani Perry. I am a fifteen-year-old math was different. Perhaps that emphasis of
Black female who has experienced both private theoretical math was also extreme; nevertheless,
and public education. These experiences have I believe that a good math teacher believes that
led me to believe there are significant differences computation in math should be used to assist in
between the two types of education that deserve the organization of theories. Computation is a
to be acknowledged and resolved by society necessary but not sufficient step toward math
as a whole. knowledge. I felt this teacher was probably
After ten years in private schools I made the the product of schooling that did not emphasize
decision to attend a public school. I left because the artistic qualities of math. While I could
I felt isolated as a person of color. I yearned to sympathize with his position, I felt that all I
have a large, strong Black community be a part loved about math—new ideas, discussing
of my development. I believed that I would find unproved theorems, and developing personal
such a community in the public high school of my procedures—was being ignored. I withdrew
city, which is a fairly urban school with from this course only to find the ideological
approximately 2,600 students, 20 percent of differences emerged again in my advanced
whom are Black. English class at the public school, particularly in
Despite the fact that I had never been in a essay writing.
traditional public school environment, when I In this class, once we wrote a paper—mind
decided to go to one I had certain expectations you, with no assistance from the teacher—the
about the teaching. I assumed that the teaching process ended. We did not discuss papers, receive
philosophy would be similar to that of the private constructive criticism, or improve them through
schools I had attended. I expected that any rewriting. Despite the fact that there was no
teaching differences that did exist would be proofreading assistance offered, 10 percent of the
limited to less sophisticated reading, or a less grade was taken off for sentence errors. It seemed
intense work load. As I quickly learned, the as if the teacher assumed we no longer needed to
differences were more substantial. continue developing our writing skills.
I believe the differences I found in the teach- These examples illustrate my belief that my
ing between the private and public schools that learning environment had changed from a place
I attended would best be illustrated by several where thought and theory were emphasized to a
examples of what I encountered. My initial real- place where form and precision were emphasized.
ization of this difference began with an argument The teaching system at the public school appears
I had with a math teacher over a point value to assume that at some point in our education,
on a test. I felt that he should give partial credit learning and thinking are no longer important.
for problems with computational errors rather Schooling in this situation becomes devoted to
than procedural errors or conceptual misunder- making things look correct. This is in sharp
standing. I presented this point to the math contrast to my private schools, where proper
teacher, who responded by saying math is form was something I learned was necessary, but
computation and the theories and concepts of secondary in importance to the content and
math are only used to compute. I was astonished organization of what is produced.
by this statement. Coming from a school where Because of this difference in the concept of
the teachers’ stated goal for freshman math was teaching and learning, there is also a difference
to begin to teach you how to become a “theo- in what and who teachers consider intelligence.
retical mathematician,” my entire perception of The teaching at the public school has less to do
with thinking and processing ideas, and more qualities that student B possesses. Student B
to do with precision and detail in appearance. displays an ability to learn and write in creative
Therefore, students who are considered intelli- and analytical formats. I left a school where the
gent by the public school faculty possess different criterion for intelligence was the student’s
skills than those at the private schools I have thought process resulting from the information,
attended. In the public school a student is for a school where the information was the
considered intelligent if he or she is well- measure of intelligence.
behaved and hard working. The ability to grasp In reflecting on schooling it is important to
a subject in its entirety—from theory to realize that all people, including teachers, have
practice—is not valued. biases based on the physical appearances of other
For example, in the fall of 1987 there was an people. On the train most people are more likely
academic contest, where my school was to sit next to the clean-shaven Harvard freshman
competing against other public schools. All the than next to the Mohawked, multiple-earringed
teachers I encountered were very enthusiastic punk-rocker. In teachers, however, these biases
about it. The students who were selected to should diminish as they begin to know a student.
participate were raised on a pedestal. These Unfortunately, in the public school there is an
students, most of whom were clean-cut and absence of teacher–student contact. Because
apparently straight-laced, were to serve as our of this lack of contact there are no criteria by
models of very intelligent students. They were which intelligence can be determined, besides
drilled in formulas, book plots, and other grades, appearance, and behavior. As I men-
information for several days a week. It seemed as tioned before, the grading system at this school
if the teachers were not concerned with whether often reflects one’s ability to memorize and not
the students digested the depth of these subjects one’s thinking and analytical abilities. Moreover,
and resources as long as the students completed since people are biased in their acceptance of
all the reading, memorized the facts, and could different appearances, students who look differ-
repeat the information. The contest was more a ent are judged differently. The only way they
demonstration of a memory function than can make up for this difference is to be “well
anything else. In my opinion there is nothing behaved,” and, as I will mention later, the
wrong with such a contest, but it should be definition of well-behaved is arbitrary.
recognized for what it is and is not. One thing it All these issues I have discussed have very
is not is a true measure of knowledge and ability. negative effects for students from minority
This was never recognized by the school. groups, more specifically the Black and Hispanic
Another example of how a different view of youths who make up a large percentage of most
intelligence is manifested in this public school urban schools. It is those Black and Hispanic
is the school’s view of two students whom I students who retain strong cultural character-
know. I will identify them as Student A and istics in their personalities who are most
Student B. Student B is an intellectual. She negatively acted by teachers’ emphasis on
reads, is analytical in her discussions and is behavior, appearance, and respect for authority.
knowledgeable. Student A is very precise with Public schools’ emphasis on the teaching of
his homework, answers the patronizing questions form merely trains students for low-powered or
the teachers ask (“What color was the horse?” menial jobs that do not require analytical
“Black with a white spot!” “Correct!”), and is thought. It is evident when most students are
very “all-American” in behavior and appearance. discussing what they intend to be that their
Student A is considered more intelligent at this goals are most often focused toward areas and
public school because he displays skills that are professions about which they have some idea or
considered signs of intelligence at this school. knowledge. If in class you’ve never spoken about
The intelligence criteria at this school are more how language and colloquialisms are reflections
related to superficial qualities such as appearance, of the society you are studying, you definitely will
knowing facts, etc., rather than the intellectual not be thinking of being a linguist. And if you are
only asked to type a paper summarizing the in opposition to cultures of Black and Hispanic
book, rather than writing an analysis of it, students.
the primary skill shown is typing. This should not In Black and Hispanic cultures, respect and
be the main skill which is emphasized. obedience come and develop with the relation-
The neglect of intellectual development also ship. Rather than being automatic, respect must
occurs in higher-level classes, but at least the be earned. For example, one will occasionally
resources, books, etc., available to students are hear a Black child say to a stranger, “You can’t
not altogether lacking in intellectual value. tell me what to do, you’re not my mother.” But
Occasionally these resources will have depth and at the same time, often one will see Black kids
content, be philosophical, or insightful. But in following the orders and rules of an adult friend
lower-level classes, where minority students are of the family, whom they would under no
most often found and where bad textbooks are circumstances disrespect. In addition, in Black
used without outside resources, the reading and Hispanic cultures it appears that adult and
has less content, and the point of reading is to child cultures are more integrated than those of
perfect reading skills, not to broaden thinking other ethnic groups. For example, parties in the
skills or gain knowledge of how the subject is Hispanic community will often have an age
currently affecting us. It is often not possible to range from toddler to elderly. Children are often
broaden your thinking skills or knowledge present in the conversation and socializing of
with the books used in lower-level classes, adults and are not treated as separate, as they may
which are more often stripped of any content. In be in other cultures.
an upper-level class, if you have a parent who When this relationship is not made between
wants you to know the subject in depth, and to teacher and student, it is not an acceptable
think about it, it is possible to do that detached educational situation, because the Black and
from the school environment, because the Hispanic students are now expected to respect
subject matter may have content, or have some someone in a different manner than their culture
meaning beyond the words. My high-level has socialized them to. Often students are not
sophomore English class read Moby Dick as an aware of the fact that the demands being placed
outside reading. We didn’t discuss the symbolism on them by the relationship conflict with those
or religious qualities of it, but I am aware of them of their culture. They then show signs of what a
because I read critical essays and discussed them teacher views as a lack of the respect that he/she
with my mother. If one is reading a book deserves. The student might feel it is just a sign
which has been stripped of meaningful content, that they do not know the teacher and have no
it is not helpful to do outside research, because obligation to him or her. Many times I have seen
it is lacking in meaning. a dumbstruck student of color sent to detention;
Many students from minority groups are being when asked what he or she did, the student will
trained only in form and not in creative ways seriously say that he or she has no idea; perhaps
of thinking. This I believe causes disenchant- that he or she sucked his or her teeth in dismay,
ment among students. Upper-class students or something of that sort.
are not as affected, because of their social class, Black and Hispanic students have less of a
and their “social responsibility” to be achievers. chance at building strong relationships with any
This is especially true of upper-class students in teachers because their appearance and behavior
a public school whose social-class peers are in may be considered offensive to the middle-class
private schools. But instead of striving to be true White teachers. These students show signs of
learners, they quickly learn how to be good what White teachers, and some teachers of color,
students by being well-behaved. What well- consider disrespect, and they do not get the
behaved means is always taking the teacher’s nurturing relationships that develop respect
word as absolute truth and never questioning and dedication. They are considered less intel-
the teacher’s authority. This definition of well- ligent, as can be seen in the proportion of Blacks
behaved is of course culturally based and can be and Hispanics in lower-level as opposed to upper-
level classes. There is less of a teacher-student which ideas are not valued or fostered, I find it
contact with “underachievers,” because they are difficult to discuss issues with them, because my
guided into peer tutoring programs. Perhaps this thoughtfulness has flourished, while others have
is understandable, because the teachers have less been denied an opportunity to explore their
of a vested interest in the achievement of intellectual development. I am now at a point of
students that are not of their community, or have deciding which isolation is worse, cultural/racial
less of an idea of how to educate them. Public or intellectual-opinion-based and slightly racial.
school teachers are no longer part of the same This is a decision many Black students who have
community as the majority of their students. The attended private schools at some time are
sad part of the situation is that many students wrestling to make, a decision that will affect their
believe that this type of teaching is what development, knowledge, and viewpoint of
academic learning is all about. They have not education, and their relationships to educators—
had the opportunity to experience alternative those supposed possessors of greater knowledge
ways of teaching and learning. From my than themselves.
experience in public school, it appears that many
minority students will never be recognized as Afterword
capable of analytical and critical thinking.
In the beginning of this article I spoke about Since the writing of this article I have returned
my decision to leave my private school because to a private school with the feeling that one’s
of feeling isolated. After three months at a large educational development is too much to
urban public school I found myself equally sacrifice. I now attend a private high school with
isolated—intellectually as well as racially. My a strong unified Black community, as well as
thinking process has gradually affected my academic merit. Even though I did not remain at
opinions and character. I am in upper-level the urban public school, I valued my experience
classes in which there are barely any kids of color, there, mostly because through it I learned one of
except Asians. Black and Hispanic students have the most blatant forms of oppression and inequity
been filtered down into lower-level classes. for lower-class students in American society, and
Most of the students I meet are kind, interesting I appreciate the opportunities with which I have
people whom I like and respect. However, been blessed.
because the environment of the school is one in
10 Educational Reform and
School Improvement
In Chapter 2, we presented conservative, liberal, radical, and neoliberal perspectives on educational

problems. Throughout this book, we have examined a number of educational problems from the
foundations perspective. This chapter looks at the most significant educational problems and
the role of teachers and schools in solving them. To what extent do teachers and schools make
a difference? To what degree can they make a difference? Most importantly, to what extent are
teachers and schools limited in their ability to solve educational and social problems without
significant changes outside the schools?
In Chapter 1, we related the stories of two teachers. The first, memorialized by the late New
York Times education writer Fred Hechinger, was a beloved teacher who made a significant impact
on the lives of her students. The second, a veteran teacher in an urban school district, retired
from teaching because of the difficult problems she faced. We asked to what extent do the structural
problems faced by teachers limit their ability to effect meaningful change and, conversely, to what
degree do talented, enthusiastic, and excellent teachers have the ability to effect educational
change in spite of the significant problems that they face. Although there is no easy answer to
this question, it is clear that teachers work within social and organizational environments that
indeed have profound effects on them and often limit their ability to effect meaningful change.
It is also clear that teachers can and do make a difference, often in spite of what may seem like
intractable problems.
Thus, although teachers can and do make a difference, the research indicates that solutions
to educational problems cannot rely on the talent, energy, and hard work of teachers alone, but
must reform the social and organizational conditions of schooling (Sizer, 1992). Before we examine
ways in which educational reforms have attempted to do this, let us first look at some examples
of how individual teachers make a difference.
Effective Teachers
Jessica Siegel taught high school English and journalism at Seward Park High School, on New
York City’s lower east side, for ten years. Samuel Freedman’s Small Victories (1990) poignantly
chronicles Jessica’s struggles, triumphs, and defeats as she attempts to teach her students, most of
them poor and immigrants, to value an education and to make their dreams a reality. Teaching
in a neighborhood long a haven for immigrants and their children—first for East European Jews
and Italians at the turn of the twentieth century, and now for Asians, Dominicans, and other
Latinos—Jessica battles against the effects of poverty, drugs, gangs, homelessness, family violence
and abuse, and language difficulties to give her students an opportunity to succeed in school and
in life.
As the advisor to the Seward Park student newspaper, she uses journalism as a vehicle to involve
students in the learning experience. Freedman captures the daily struggles, the long hours, and
the selfless dedication of a teacher committed to making a difference in the lives of her students.
He also captures the bureaucratic nonsense, the petty collegial jealousies, the social problems,
Educational Reform and School Improvement 471
and the school conditions that make success difficult, if not impossible. Jessica encourages students
to go to college, she helps them with their applications, and she even drives them to college
interviews. For every student she helps succeed and who gets into college, there are many others
with talent and dreams who do not graduate.
After ten years of heroic and successful teaching, Jessica decides to leave teaching and return
to her first career as a journalist. In part, she leaves because she wants to be a journalist; in part,
she leaves because to be a successful teacher required too much personal sacrifice, with too little
reward. Freedman’s book portrays the limits and possibilities of good teaching—that teachers like
Jessica make an important difference, but that without reform of schools, teachers like Jessica may
leave teaching. In her review of the book, Johnson (1991, p. 184) stated:
Freedman leaves us with admiration for Jessica Siegel, respect for many of her colleagues, compassion
for her students, anger at a seemingly impersonal school bureaucracy, and remorse for a society that
values cash more than children. . . . Yet it is clear that much more can be done to support exemplary
teachers like Jessica Siegel. The moral of Small Victories is sobering and unequivocal: If we do not change
schools to support good teaching, many good teachers will leave schools.
The film Stand and Deliver chronicles the work of Jaime Escalante at Garfield High School in
East Los Angeles, a poor neighborhood of blacks, Mexican-Americans, and other Latino-Ameri-
cans. Jaime Escalante refuses to accept the stereotype that students from low-income neighborhoods
cannot succeed at high-level academic work. He came to Garfield as a computer teacher after a
successful career as a computer analyst in the corporate world and immediately instituted an
Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus program, despite the objections of the chairperson of the
Mathematics Department, a woman who did not want to set the students up for failure.
Stand and Deliver portrays the heroic efforts of Jaime Escalante to teach his student advanced
mathematics. He demonstrates what positive expectations can do and how hard work and
dedication on the part of teachers and students can often overcome the pernicious effects of poverty,
racism, and social problems. Despite a shortage of materials, the accusation of the Educational
Testing Service (ETS) that his students cheated on the AP test (according to ETS, because they
had many of the same wrong answers; according to Jaime Escalante, because they did too well for
students from their backgrounds), and numerous personal hurdles that students had to overcome,
all 18 students passed the AP examination the first year of the program. Within four years, over
85 students passed the AP calculus examination.
The film demonstrates a number of important points. First, a talented and dedicated teacher
can make a difference. Second, if teachers expect all students to learn and excel, they can and
do. Third, it is possible to institutionalize the effective teaching of one teacher into an overall
school philosophy, as Garfield High School had to do in order to serve as many students as it now
does. Despite these positive lessons, however, there has been a tendency to romanticize the work
of Jaime Escalante, or worse to use his success as an example that all that is necessary to improve
schools in low-income neighborhoods is to raise expectations. The fact is that although Jaime
Escalante did make a difference, students at schools like Garfield High School still have
significantly fewer opportunities than students at more affluent high schools. Furthermore, teachers
like Jaime Escalante cannot eliminate the negative effects of poverty and other social problems.
These two stories of wonderful teachers can be supplemented by your own recollections of
wonderful teachers who have influenced your lives. Unfortunately, they can also be countered by
your own stories of terrible teachers and ineffective schools. Our point in telling these stories is
to indicate that, as teachers, you can make a difference. However, they also demonstrate that
wonderful teachers alone cannot ameliorate societal and school problems, and that wonderful
teachers in ineffective schools are severely limited in what they can accomplish. In addition,
472 Educational Reform and School Improvement
although there are significant numbers of excellent teachers and the majority of teachers are
effective, conservatives and neo-liberals maintain that there still are too many ineffective ones
and that it is far too difficult to get them out of the system. However, the foundations perspective
enlightens one to the importance of changing structures, not just individuals, if the educational
system is to improve. For the past three decades, there have been a number of significant reform
efforts aimed at doing just this. The following section explores some of these efforts.
Educational Reform from the 1980s to 2016

The 1980s and 1990s and into the twenty-first century were periods of significant debate and
reform in U.S. education. Beginning in 1983, with the National Commission on Educational
Excellence’s report A Nation at Risk, government leaders, educational reformers, teacher
organizations, administrators, and various other interest groups attempted to improve the quality
of U.S. schools. Although the decades included two specific waves of reform, the first beginning
in 1983 and the second in 1985 and continuing through 2012, the period must be understood as
a conservative response to the progressive reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, if not the entire
progressive agenda of the twentieth century.
In the 1980s, the major reform actors shifted from the federal to the state to the local levels.
In the 1990s and 2000s, President Clinton’s Goals 2000, President Bush’s No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), and President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
placed the federal government back at the forefront of educational policy. From the outset, the
federal government, through the Department of Education, attempted to balance its ideological
belief that education is not a federal governmental matter, with its commitment to providing the
impetus for change. First, through its influential report, A Nation at Risk, written during the tenure
of Secretary Terrel Bell, and second, through his successor William Bennett’s use of his office as
a “bully pulpit,” the U.S. Department of Education played a significant role in keeping the pressure
on states and localities to improve educational outcomes, which for Secretary Bennett defined
the goals of educational reform. Finally, NCLB, RTT, and ESSA placed accountability at the
forefront of reforms aimed at reducing the achievement gap.
The educational reforms from the 1980s to today consisted of two waves of reform (Bacharach,
1990; Passow, 1989). The first wave, marked by the reports of the early and mid-1980s, and the
educational initiatives directly responding to them, were concerned primarily with the issues of
accountability and achievement (Dougherty, 1990, p. 3). Responding to the call for increased
academic achievement, many states increased graduation requirements, toughened curriculum
mandates, and increased the use of standardized test scores to measure student achievement.
By the mid to late 1980s, however, it became increasingly clear that such top-down reform
would be ineffective in dealing with the schools’ myriad problems. Although raising achievement
standards for students and implementing accountability measures for evaluating teachers had some
positive effects, many (including the National Governors Association, which took a leading role
in reform) believed that educational reform had to do more than provide changes in evaluation
procedures. The second wave of reform, then, was targeted at the structure and processes of the
schools themselves, placing far more control in the hands of local schools, teachers, and
communities. Whereas the first wave was highly centralized at the state level, the second wave
was more decentralized to the local and school levels. What they had in common, however, was
what the Governors Conference emphasized as the “triple theme of achievement, assessment, and
accountability” (Bacharach, 1990, p. 8). By the mid-1990s, however, the first and second waves
began to overlap, with top-down federal and state mandates defining the goals and standards of
education, but leaving it to local districts to implement them.
Despite the second wave’s insistence that locally based reforms were central to success, many
critics (including teacher organizations and unions) argued that the reforms were highly
bureaucratic and aimed primarily at assessment procedures. Significant reforms, they suggested,
had to emphasize both changes within schools, and changes that involved teachers, students, and
parents as part of the reform process, not merely as objects of it. From the latter part of the 1980s
through the end of the 1990s, reforms that emphasized teacher empowerment, school-based
management, and school choice, charter schools, and tuition vouchers became the most important
ones under consideration.
To summarize, the first wave of reform reports stressed the need for increased educational
excellence though increased educational standards and a reversal of the rising tide of mediocrity.
Passow (1989, p. 16) stated the following themes as essential to the first wave of educational
reform:
1. The need to attain the twin goals of excellence and equity.

2. The need to clarify educational goals, unburdening schools from responsibilities they cannot
or should not fill.
3. The need to develop a common core curriculum (not unlike the standard college-bound
curriculum) with few or no electives, little or no curricular differentiation, but only
pedagogical differentiation.
4. The need to eliminate tracking programs so that students could tackle the common core
courses in a common curriculum in different ways.
5. The need for major changes in vocational education: in the student populations served, the
curricula provided, and the sites of such education if offered.
6. The need for education to teach about technology, including computer literacy, and to become
involved in the technological revolution.
7. The need to “increase both the duration and intensity of academic learning,” lengthening
the school day and the school year.
8. The need to recruit, train, and retain more academically able teachers, to improve the quality
of teaching, and to upgrade the professional working life of teachers.
9. The need to redefine the principal’s role and put the “principal squarely in charge of
educational quality in each school.”
10. The need to forge new partnerships between corporations, business, and the schools.
Typifying the second wave of educational reform were the recommendations of the State
Governor’s Conference. Governor Lamar Alexander, in Time for Results: The Governor’s 1991
Report on Education (1986), summarized the Governor’s Association’s year-long analysis of a variety
of issues, including teaching, leadership and management, parental involvement and choice,
readiness, technology, school facilities, and college quality, with (among others) the following
recommendations:
1. Now is the time to work out a fair, affordable Career Ladder salary system that recognizes
real differences in function, competence, and performance of teachers.
2. States should create leadership programs for school leaders.
3. Parents should have more choice in the public schools their children attend.
4. The nation—and the states and local districts—need report cards about results, and about
what students know and can do.
5. School districts and schools that do not make the grade should be declared bankrupt, taken
over by the state, and reorganized.
6. It makes no sense to keep closed half a year the school buildings in which America has invested
a quarter of a trillion dollars while we are undereducated and overcrowded.
7. States should work with four- and five-year-olds from poor families to help them get ready
for school and decrease the chances that they will drop out later.
8. Better use of technologies through proper planning and training for use of videodiscs,
computers, and robotics is an important way to give teachers more time to teach.
9. States should insist that colleges assess what students actually learn while in college. (Cited
in Passow, 1989, p. 23)
During both waves of educational reform, a number of programs and initiatives received
considerable attention. Among these were school choice, charter schools, tuition vouchers,
school–business partnerships, privatization, school-to-work programs, school-based management,
reform of teacher education, the effective school movement, state intervention in local districts,
and school finance litigation.
Federal Involvement in Education

By the early 1990s, it was still unclear as to whether school reforms would begin to produce some
of the improvements they promised. In 1990, President G.H.W. Bush—with the support of the
National Governors Association—announced six national goals for U.S. education:
1. Goal 1: By the year 2000, all children will start school ready to learn.
2. Goal 2: By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.
3. Goal 3: By the year 2000, American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12, having demon-
strated competency in challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science,
history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to
use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning,
and productive employment in our modern economy.
4. Goal 4: By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science
achievement.
5. Goal 5: By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the skills
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship.
6. Goal 6: By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will
offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (“Text of Statement of Goals
Adopted by the Governors,” 1990, pp. 16–17)
Until 1993, President Bush’s educational reform proposal America 2000, based on these national
goals, was in the implementation stage. America 2000 built on four related themes:
1. creating better and more accountable schools for today’s students;

2. creating a New Generation of American schools for tomorrow’s students;
3. transforming America into a nation of students; and
4. making our communities places where learning will happen. (America 2000, 1991)
Within each of the objectives, America 2000 proposed a number of specific goals:
Creating better and more accountable schools for today’s students:
1. World Class Standards in Five Core Subjects (English, mathematics, science, history, and
geography).
2. A system of voluntary national examinations.
3. Schools as the site of reform.
4. Providing and promoting school choice.
5. Promoting outstanding leadership by teachers and principals.
Creating a new generation of American Schools for tomorrow’s students:
1. The development of Research and Development teams, funded by the business community,
to develop these schools.
2. The creation of at least 535 New American Schools that “break the mold” of existing school
designs.
3. The development of leadership at all levels, federal, state, and local.
4. The commitment of families and children devoted to learning.
Transforming America into a nation of students:

1. Strengthening the nation’s education effort for yesterday’s students, today’s workers.
2. Establishing standards for job skills and knowledge.
3. Creating business and community skill clinics.
4. Enhancing job training opportunities.
5. Mobilizing a “nation of students,” by transforming a “Nation at Risk” into a “Nation of
Students.”
Making our communities places where learning will happen:

1. Developing greater parental involvement.
2. Enhancing program effectiveness for children and communities.
When President Clinton was elected in November 1992, he already had a great deal of
experience as an educational reformer. As Governor of Arkansas, he led a statewide campaign
for teacher accountability, higher academic standards for students, and public school choice. In
the late 1980s, he was Chair of the National Governors Association and led the governors in
establishing a national agenda for educational improvement. As president, Clinton promised to
revitalize education and pay close attention to issues of equity and community service. To this
end, he initiated legislation for national service and legislation that would make college student
loans easier to obtain and at a lower interest level. His Goals 2000 bill formally recognized the
national goals and provided a framework for what is referred to as “systemic” reform. Systemic
reform is the coordination of reform efforts at the local, state, and federal levels. It is top-down
support for bottom-up reform. An important component to systemic reform is the creation of
national standards; panels of experts are currently creating content standards, performance
standards, and new forms of assessment. A key issue in the development of national standards is
the degree to which government is responsible for providing students with equal opportunities to
learn if they are to be held to high standards. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act provided an opportunity for the Clinton administration to fulfill its promise for
greater education equity because the ESEA is the federal government’s largest compensatory
education program.
Goals 2000: Building on a Decade of Reform

Goals 2000 was a direct outgrowth of the state-led education reform agenda of the 1980s, which
included increasing high school graduation requirements, particularly in math and science,
instituting statewide testing programs, offering more Advanced Placement courses, promoting the
use of technology in the classroom, and instituting new teacher evaluation programs.
Unlike the piecemeal approach favored during the Reagan–Bush years, the systemic approach
to educational reform was comprehensive and focused on coordinating state policy with
restructured governance. The objective of systemic reform was to create coherent educational
policy. Systemic reform gave the Clinton educational agenda a set of organizing principles that
were unique in U.S. educational history. Supporters of systemic reform like to describe it as “top-
down support for bottom-up reform.” By creating a coherent plan for reform, the Clinton
administration had been unusually successful in winning bipartisan support prior to the November
1994 elections. This support resulted in the passage of several bills, including Direct Government
Student Loans, National Service, the Safe Schools Act, the reauthorization of the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, the
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1993, and the overall reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
The key intellectual element of the administration’s effort was Goals 2000. This law provides
the framework of reform that shaped the educational ethos of the Clinton administration. Title
I codified the original six National Education Goals concerning school readiness, school
completion, student academic achievement, leadership in math and science, adult literacy, and
safe and drug-free schools, and added two new goals related to parental participation and
professional development. Title II established the National Education Goals Panel, which built
public support for the goals, reported on the nation’s progress on meeting the goals, and reviewed
the voluntary national content, student performance, and voluntary learning standards. Title III
provided a state grant program to support, accelerate, and sustain state and local education
improvement efforts. Title IV established a new program to create parent information and resource
centers. Title V created a National Skills Board to serve as a catalyst in stimulating the development
and adoption of a voluntary national system of occupational skills standards. Rather than see the
federal government as an educational safety net, the authors of Goals 2000 saw the federal
government, despite the rhetoric of volunteerism, as crafting, shaping, and, to some degree,
controlling education throughout the 50 states. There can be little doubt that issues of school
autonomy and authority have been dramatically altered by the passage of the bill.
Borman and colleagues (1996) provided a comprehensive sociological analysis of Goals 2000
in the following areas: (1) systemic reform; (2) national standards for content and performance;
(3) opportunity-to-learn standards; (4) school-to-work standards; (5) school, parent, and
community support; (6) professional development; (7) safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools;
and (8) implications of the Goals 2000 legislation. The authors indicated that although there
have been some significant gains in each of the areas, Goals 2000 is insufficient to provide
significant systemic reform of U.S. schools. As sociologists of education, the authors concluded
that systemic reform requires significant reforms outside of the educational context, which federal
legislation has not mandated.
The majority of educational reforms with respect to standards and assessments were initiated
at the state level. By the end of the decade, 48 states had tested their students, 40 states had
standards in all core subjects, and many states had increased standards for teachers (“Text of
Statement of Goals Adopted by the Governors,” 1999, p. 5). Assessments to measure achievement
continue to be controversial (pp. 11, 15–17). What is clear is that the 1990s became defined as
the decade of standards, often imposed top-down by federal mandates and state initiatives. While
the educational reforms implemented by President Clinton are significant, we believe that genuine
reform must include issues of teacher empowerment, diversity, and creating schools that are
communities. In the final section, we will propose a more systematic approach to educational reform.
No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act is a landmark and controversial piece of legislation that had
far-reaching consequences for education in the United States. Already there is talk of spreading
similar accountability efforts to higher education in the next reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. And, of course, state governments have been busily pushing accountability
requirements for K–12 and higher education for years now. No Child Left Behind was the
centerpiece of President George W. Bush’s educational policy. A logical progression of the standards
movement initiated in 1983 by A Nation at Risk and in federal legislation under Presidents G.H.W.
Bush (America 2000) and W.J. Clinton (Goals 2000), NCLB was the most comprehensive federal
legislation governing state and local educational policies in U.S. history (Vinovskis, 2015).
No Child Left Behind represented a logical extension of a standards movement that tossed
the left’s critique of U.S. education back on itself. Based on the critique that U.S. education has
historically underserved low-income and minority children through curriculum tracking, poor
instruction, and low-quality teachers in urban schools, NCLB mandates the uniform standards
for all students in order to reduce and eventually eliminate the social class and race achievement
gap by 2014.
The key components of NCLB are:
• Annual testing is required of students in grades 3 through 8 in reading and math plus at least
one test in grades 10 through 12; science testing to follow. Graduation rates are used as a
secondary indicator for high schools.
• States and districts are required to report school-by-school data on student test performance,
broken out by whether the student is black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, white non-
Hispanic, special education, limited English proficiency (LEP), and/or low income.
• States must set adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for each school. In order to meet AYP,
not only must each subgroup make progress in each year in each grade in each subject, but
there must also be 95 percent participation of each subgroup as well. The increments in AYP
should be arranged so that 100 percent of students reach proficiency by 2014.
• Schools that don’t meet AYP for two years are labeled “In Need of Improvement” (INOI).
Initially, this means that schools must offer students the option to go to another public school
and/or to receive federally funded tutoring. Funds would also be made available for teacher
professional development. In the absence of meeting future AYP targets, schools would be
subject to “restructuring” (firing teachers and principal; state takeover; private company
takeover; etc.).
• Schools must have “highly qualified” teachers for the “core academic subjects” (English,
reading or language arts, math, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics,
arts, history and geography) by 2005–2006.
Advocates of NCLB, including progressive organizations such as the Education Trust, argue
that its annual testing and disaggregation requirements will force states to ensure that low-income
students who continue to lag far behind higher-income students will meet the same standards,
and thus reduce the achievement gap by 2014. Critics from both the academic and political worlds
argue that however noble the goal of eliminating the achievement gap, NCLB does not provide
sufficient funds to improve failing schools and, more importantly, is heavy on punishment and
light on building school capacity. Liberal and radical critics argue that NCLB fails to acknowledge
the social and economic foundation of unequal schooling and is a backdoor to the implementation
of publicly funded school vouchers and the dismantling of public education in the United States.
Finally, assessment experts argue that since the types of tests and definitions of adequate yearly
progress vary by state, there is no uniform definition of “proficiency,” and since the assessments
evaluate schools rather than students, schools with high mobility rates are punished for such a
high turnover, most of the time outside of their control. In addition, because the assessments are
based on a zero-sum definition of proficiency rather than a value-added one, schools whose students
show significant progress but are still below proficiency are labeled as failures rather than rewarded
for their progress (Sadovnik et al., 2008).
Although NCLB was scheduled to be reauthorized in 2008, this had not happened in 2012.
Under the Obama Administration, however, the U.S. Department of Education issued waivers
to many states if they met criteria under Race to the Top, including its teacher and school
accountability, charter school, and school improvement requirements. Finally, in 2015, NCLB,
as part of ESSA, was reauthorized and replaced by President Obama’s Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA).
Race to the Top

Shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama established the Race to the Top Fund through
the historic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The primary goal of this initiative
was to aid states in meeting the various components of NCLB. The initial legislation provided
$4.35 billion for a competitive grant program that awards states for improving student outcomes
and closing achievement gaps by developing plans in the following four education reform areas:
1. Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the work-
place and to compete in the global economy.
2. Building data systems that measure student growth and success and inform teachers and
principals about how they can improve instruction.
3. Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially
where they are needed most.
4. Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
In 2010, the federal government reviewed grant applications and awarded funds to Delaware
and Tennessee during the first phase of the program and an additional nine states plus the District
of Columbia during the second phase of the program. Following these initial grants, the federal
government awarded grants to another seven states at the end of 2011. In order to receive Race
to the Top funds, states needed to submit applications demonstrating their progress towards
implementing the four education reforms outlined above. The federal government then scored
applications based on a publicized rubric. Out of a possible 500 points, states could receive 40
points for expanding the use of charter schools, 40 points for adopting the national Common
Core Standards, and 58 points for developing new teacher and principal evaluation tools. Largely
in response to the competition for grants from the Race to the Top Fund, many states quickly
adopted the Common Core Standards, expanded the number of charter schools, and developed
new principal and teacher evaluation tools. Some 45 states now utilize the national Common
Core Standards to guide instruction. These standards primarily focus on English Language Arts
Instruction and Mathematics Instruction. The impact of changes resulting from Race to the Top
remains to be understood, but it is clear that President Obama’s Race to the Top Fund has had
a tremendous impact on the direction of education reform.
Supporters of Race to the Top contend that the grants will aid states as they work to meet the
NCLB mandates, improve student outcomes, and eliminate the achievement gaps. Despite Presi-
dent Obama’s Race to the Top program and its focus on aiding states to meet NCLB requirements,
the administration recently initiated a NCLB waiver program. The federal government now grants
NCLB waivers exempting states from certain NCLB requirements in exchange for commitments
to further reform efforts. Of the 18 states to receive Race to the Top grants, 14 had already been
awarded NCLB waivers by 2015. Critics of NCLB, Race to the Top, and NCLB waivers, such as
Diane Ravitch, argue that all of these reform efforts will remain ineffective. Ravitch notes that
NCLB and Race to the Top rely too heavily on standardized testing and the expansion of school
choice through charter schools and that these reforms have not demonstrated any significant degree
of success in improving achievement (Ravitch, 2010, 2013).
NCLB and RTT resulted in significant opposition to a number of aspects of their neo-liberal
reforms, including the Core Content Curriculum Standards (CCCS) and the perceived over-
reliance on achievement tests to measure student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Critics
of the CCCS argued that curriculum is a state not federal issue and critics of testing argued that
too much of student time was occupied by achievement tests. This opposition resulted in an opt-
out movement where significant numbers of parents kept their children home from standardized
testing (Fabricant and Fine, 2013).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

In December 2015, Congress passed President Obama’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
which finally replaced No Child Left Behind as the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). According to the Education Trust, its main components are:
• Consistent, state-adopted standards for all students that are aligned with the demands of post-
secondary education and work;
• Statewide annual assessments aligned with statewide standards;
• Clear requirements that statewide accountability systems must expect more progress for the
groups of students who have been behind, base school ratings on the progress of all groups
of students, and expect action when any group of students is consistently underperforming;
• Richer public reporting on academic outcomes and opportunities to learn for all groups of
students, including, for the first time, school-level per-pupil spending and access to rigorous
coursework;
• Resources to support teachers and leaders, and a demand that states and districts report on
and address inequities in the rates at which low-income students and students of color are
assigned to ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers; and
• Continued targeting of federal funding to the highest poverty schools and districts. (Education
Week, 2016)
Although ESSA retained some of the aspects of NCLB and RTT that demand that states provide
mechanisms to reduce the achievement gaps among groups, it eliminated the targets of NCLB
that all students will become proficient by a particular date. In addition, it eliminated RTT’s often
punitive testing regimes for teachers. The Education Trust, a non-profit committed to education
equity, stated:
To be clear, none of these levers will guarantee gap-closing and improved achievement for all. No law,
no matter how strong, could ever do that.
(Education Week, 2016)
But taken together, they represent key building blocks for an equity-focused school system—
one that sets high expectations for all students, provides resources necessary for meeting those
expectations, measures and reports progress toward them, and ensures action when any school—
or any group of students—falls off track.
Newly elected President Donald J. Trump’s Secretary of Education, billionaire Betsy DeVos,
is a radical charter and school voucher advocate. Based on his comments during the campaign
and her record in Michigan as a school choice advocate, it appeared their educational policy will
champion both charter schools and school vouchers. President Trump has proposed taking $20
billion in Title I funds (for low-income schools and children) and putting it into block grants to
states to fund charter schools and vouchers. Critics of this plan argue that this will transfer money
from traditional public schools to charter schools and private schools. The President’s 2017–18
budget included all of these things, with huge cuts in funding for traditional public schools and
for programs serving low-income children and significant increases for charter and voucher schools.
Approaches to Reform
Over the past decades, two different approaches to urban school reform have developed. The first
is the neo-liberal approach, represented by the Education Equity Project, which stresses the
independent power of schools in eliminating the achievement gap for low-income students. The
second, represented by the Broader Bolder Approach, stresses that school level reform alone is
necessary but insufficient, and that societal and community level reforms are necessary. Much of
the political debate over urban educational reform has been ideological and often with no reliance
on empirical evidence. The importance of sociological theory and research is to provide more
objective, empirical evidence to inform these debates.
In creating the Education Equality Project (EEP), Joel Klein, Chancellor of the New York City
Public Schools and Reverend Al Sharpton seek to eliminate the achievement gap by “working
to create an effective school for every child.” To create effective schools, the EEP works: to ensure
that every school has a highly effective teacher and principal; to create system-wide accountability;
to empower parents, as well as to encourage them to demand more from their schools and from
themselves; and to constantly focus on what will be the best decision for students (EEP website).
In their effort to do this, it may require “ruffling union feathers,” as the group believes that to
eliminate the achievement gap, failing teachers and principals should not be protected (Toppo,
2008).
The second approach is supported by most liberals and radicals, and represented by the societal/
community-based focus of the Broader Bolder Approach founded by Pedro Noguera and Helen Ladd,
which is based on the works of Jean Anyon, Richard Rothstein and others who argue that schools
are limited institutions for eradicating the effect of poverty and its effects on children. In Anyon’s
radical approach, “an all-out attack on poverty and racial isolation that by necessity will affect not
only the poor, but the more affluent as well, will be necessary in order to remove the barriers that
currently stand in the way of urban educational change” (1997, p. 13). The economic and social
differences between races and classes affects academic achievement at all levels from prenatal, to
early childhood, to their overall health, welfare, and living environment (Rothstein, 2004b).
There are, for example, inequalities that can occur to children even before they are born.
Mothers with low socioeconomic status, and to some extent the low socioeconomic status of the
father, are associated with low birth weight babies and with infant mortality (Fiscella & Williams,
2004). Twice as many black children as white are born with a low birth weight, and children of
low birth weight typically have lower IQ scores, mild learning disabilities, and attention disorders
(Hoffman, Llaga, & Snyder, 2003; Hack, Klein, & Taylor, 1995). Children of low-income families
have greater risks of death from infectious diseases (ID) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS),
higher rates of child abuse, higher rates of exposure to lead poisoning and smokers, higher rates of
asthma, greater incidents of developmental delay and learning disabilities, and more exposure to
violence and drug trafficking (Fiscella & Williams, 2004).
Minority and lower-class children have more vision, hearing, and oral health problems than
white children, which can affect their ability to focus and learn during school. For example, twice
as many poor children have severe vision impairments, which are more likely to interfere with
their academic work (Starfield, 1982). In many cases there is a failure then to diagnose the problem
due to the lack of adequate healthcare, available doctors, and time available for parents to take
their children to the doctor. Physicians serving low socioeconomic patients have greater logistical
and financial burdens, greater problems communicating because of differences in language, culture,
and health literacy, and a lack of resources to deal with all of these problems (Fiscella & Williams,
2004). Children who receive normal optometric services have been shown to improve in reading
beyond their normal growth for their age (Rothstein, 2004b).
Within the home environment, there are inequalities that can indirectly affect a child’s ability
to learn. Asthma can also be triggered by factors in the home environment such as dust, mold,
and cockroaches. This is important to consider when developing health policies because asthma
is the biggest cause of chronic school absence and also leads to low socioeconomic status children
being over-classified for special education (Corburn, Osleeb, & Porter, 2006).
There also are neighborhood health and environmental factors that influence an individual
and the community’s ability to be healthy. Typically, there is a disparity in the number of health
facilities, with fewer facilities being located in high-poverty neighborhoods (Komaromy et al.,
1996). There are also fewer quality grocery stores, exercise facilities, parks and recreation spaces.
Therefore, “[F]ully closing the black–white achievement gap is both desirable and feasible, but
will first require social and economic reforms that would result in distributing black and white
students equally between the social classes” (Rothstein, 2004b, p. 18). To do that, the federal
government needs to aim reforms at the entire urban system as a whole, initiating economic
and social reforms for all citizens (Anyon, 1997).
The Coleman Report (1966) highlighted the importance of neighborhood and social class
variables on education. Integrating social classes can lead to improvements in educational
achievement (Wells & Crain, 1999). Constructing new social and economic policies that address
family, community, and neighborhood inequities, such as increasing the poverty line, fully fund-
ing affordable housing programs, providing rental subsidies, providing assistance to families to
find units in nicer neighborhoods, enforcing fair housing laws, building more mixed-income
housing, and changing local zoning laws that prevent public housing from being built in better
neighborhoods, will help to eliminate the neighborhood differences between groups in the United
States and ultimately equalize and improve the educational level of our society as a whole.
School-Based Reforms
School Choice, Charter Schools, and Tuition Vouchers

During the 1980s and 1990s, many educational researchers and policy analysts indicated that
most public schools were failing in terms of student achievement, discipline, and morality. At
the same period, some researchers were investigating private schools and concluding that they
were more effective learning environments than public schools. Private schools were reputed to
be accountable, efficient, and safe. Moreover, the work of Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore (1982)
seemed to prove that private school students learned more than their public school counterparts.
Other research on magnet schools (schools with special curricula and student bodies) seemed to
indicate that public schools that operated independently of the public school bureaucracy were
happier, healthier, and more academically productive than zone schools where students were
required to attend based on their residence.
As the 1980s came to a close, some researchers reasoned that magnet schools and private schools
were superior to neighborhood public schools because schools of choice reflected the desires and
needs of their constituents and were thus sensitive to change. For several decades, the idea of
school choice had been on the fringes of the educational policy world in the form of voucher
proposals. Essentially, voucher proponents argued that if families, rather than schools, were funded,
it would allow for greater parental choice and participation. Moreover, by voting with their dollars,
parents would reward good schools and punish bad schools. A voucher system, in effect, would
deregulate the public school system. That a voucher system might also privatize the public school
system was a muted issue.
By the late 1980s, however, school choice was at the forefront of the educational reform move-
ment. Presidents Reagan and Bush supported choice and one influential White House report
enumerated a number of reasons why choice was the right reform for the times (Paulu, 1989). In
essence, choice was a panacea that was nonbureaucratic, inexpensive, and fundamentally
egalitarian because it allowed market forces to shape school policy rather than subjecting educators
to the heavy hand of the educational bureaucracy. A very influential book by John E. Chubb and
Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (1990), seemed to provide empirical evidence
that unregulated school choice policies, in and of themselves, would produce a structural reform
in U.S. education.
Congressional support for greater school choice was expressed in a bill that was passed by the
House of Representatives in the summer of 1990, which, among other things, provided direct
federal support for open enrollment experiments. Needless to say, all this political activity stirred
up a great deal of controversy and confusion. Choice is controversial because it is deeply political
and rests on a set of assumptions about educational marketplaces and private schools that are
questionable. It is confusing because choice is a rubric that covers a wide variety of policies that
are quite different, except that they include an element of student and parental choice. Next, we
briefly touch on some of the major types of school choice plans that have been recently
implemented in the United States (see Cookson, 1994, for a complete discussion).
Intersectional choice plans include public and private schools. For example, the cities of
Milwaukee and Cleveland provided tuition vouchers to students who attended private neighbor-
hood schools. The inclusion of private schools in choice plans stirred a great deal of debate among
policy makers because there are fundamental issues of constitutionality and equity inherent in
any public policy that transfers funds from the public sector to the private sector. In the United
States, there is a constitutionally protected division between Church and State that forbids the
establishment of any state religion and thus forbids State support of any particular religion. Because
an overwhelming number of private schools in the United States are religiously affiliated, this
issue is critical. However, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris ruled
that the Cleveland voucher program did not violate the First Amendment separation of Church
and State, making future voucher programs more likely. Additionally, equity issues arise from the
fact that some private schools are believed to contribute to the maintenance of social inequalities.
The most elite secondary schools in the United States, for instance, are private. A public policy
that would transfer funds to these schools would clearly raise issues of equal educational
opportunity.
Intrasectional school choice policies include only public schools. States, such as Minnesota,
permit students to attend school in any public school district in the state, so long as the nonresident
school district is willing, has space, and the transfer does not upset racial balance. Statewide choice
plans, such as Minnesota’s, have been adopted by a number of other states. Most choice plans,
however, are more limited geographically. The most common form of intrasectional choice
plans permit students to attend schools outside of their community school district. These
interdistrict choice plans commonly allow urban students to cross district lines and attend suburban
schools and vice versa. In St. Louis, for example, minority students from the inner city are able
to attend suburban schools that are located in relatively affluent white neighborhoods. In theory,
students from the suburbs are supposed to be drawn into the inner city by some outstanding mag-
net schools, but, in fact, only a handful of white students have traveled into the inner city to
attend school.
Intradistrict choice plans refer to any option available to students within a given public school
district. These options range from a choice of curriculum within a particular school to allowing
students to attend any school in the district. One particular intradistrict choice plan that has
gained a great deal of recognition is controlled choice. In this type of plan, students choose a school
anywhere in a district or within some zones within a district. The key to this policy is that student
choices are not allowed to upset racial balances. In effect, some students may not be able to enroll
in their first-choice schools if it would mean increased districtwide racial segregation. Often, other
factors are also taken into consideration, such as whether an applicant has a sibling already in
his or her school of choice. There are several successful controlled choice districts in the United
States, including Cambridge (Massachusetts), Montclair (New Jersey), and District 4 located in
the borough of Manhattan in New York City. District 4 also allows students outside its boundaries
to attend schools within the district, thus combining intradistrict and interdistrict features.
Boston initiated a controlled choice plan that may serve as a test of whether these types of
plans can be successfully implemented on a citywide basis. According to Charles L. Glenn,
executive director of the Office of Educational Equity in the Massachusetts Department of
Education, the choice plan in Boston appears to be operationally successful, although “vulnerable
schools” (i.e., those with declining student populations) need extra assistance to remain open and
to provide services to the students who attend them. According to Glenn (1991, p. 43), “Public
school choice will not produce overnight miracles, and the Boston experience—like that of Soviet-
bloc economies—shows how very difficult it can be to reform an entrenched institution with a
monopoly position and a tradition of top-down decision making.”
Throughout the 1990s, public school choice, tuition vouchers for private schools, and charter
schools (schools that are publicly funded by state charters but independent of many school district
mandates) have been key educational reforms. Powers and Cookson (1999) summarized the
available evidence on school choice and concluded that (1) market-driven choice programs
increase stratification within school districts; (2) choice programs increase the educational
opportunities for minority students, who, without these programs, would be limited to their
neighborhood public schools; (3) choice parents tend to be more involved in their children’s
education; (4) choice parents tend to be more satisfied with their children’s education; and (5)
there is disagreement among researchers about the effect of choice on student achievement. For
example, using the same data on Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), Witte (1996),
Witte, Sterr, and Thorn (1995), and Witte et al. (1994) argued that the effect of choice has been
inconsistent; Greene and Peterson (1996) argued that MPCP has resulted in significant achieve-
ment gains; and Rouse’s (2002) findings are in the middle.
Beginning with the publication of Chubb and Moe’s Politics, Markets and Schools (1990), school
choice advocates have pushed for the introduction of free markets into K–12 public education.
Arguing that public education is dominated by a public bureaucracy dominated by teacher unions,
choice advocates believe that only through the introduction of market competition will
public schools, especially in urban areas, be forced to improve. In the past decade, many cities,
including New York City and Philadelphia, have offered a variety of choices to their families,
including traditional public schools, public charter schools (operated by both non-profits and for-
profit companies) and private schools (both secular independent and religious). Cucchiara’s study
of Philadelphia concluded that the gentrification of the downtown combined with these choices
ultimately advantaged affluent white families and disadvantaged low-income black families
(Cucchiara, 2013).
Charter Schools
Passage of the first state-legislated charter law in Minnesota in 1991 has spawned enactment of
charter laws in 41 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The movement has
produced nearly 3,700 charter schools serving 1,076,964 students nationwide (The Center for
Education Reform (CER) website, October 2005). Demand for charter schools remains high, as
evidenced by the 70 percent of charter schools with waiting lists for admission (RPP International,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001; Fabricant & Fine, 2012).
States are responding to this demand by authorizing more charters and amending charter laws
to accommodate the desire for growth, while other states without charter laws consider their
enactment (CER, 2003; Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000; RPP International, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001). Charter schools are public schools that are free from many of the regulations applied to
traditional public schools, and in return are held accountable for student performance. In essence,
they “swap red tape for results’’ (New York Times, 10/1/89), also referred to as an “autonomy-for-
accountability’’ trade within the movement. The “charter’’ itself is a performance contract that
details the school’s mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to
measure success. It is a formal, legal document between those who establish and run a school
(“operators’’) and the public body that authorizes and monitors such schools (“authorizers’’).
Charter schools are, in theory, autonomous. They produce the results in the ways they think best,
for charter schools are self-governing institutions with wide control over their own curriculum,
instruction, staffing, budget, internal organization, calendar, etc. (Finn et al., 2000).
As a public school, a charter school is paid for with tax dollars (no tuition charges) and must
be open to all students in the school district. And whereas charter schools can be started by virtually
anyone (teachers, parents, non-profit agencies, for-profit organizations, community members, etc.),
charters are supposed to demonstrate results to the public agencies that review and approve their
charter, as well as monitor and audit their progress. Authorization may be handled by a single
agency, such as the state Department of Education in New Jersey. Or a state may have multiple
authorizing agencies, including local school boards, community colleges, state colleges and
universities (Hill et al., 2001). Accountability is a critical component of the charter movement;
if a charter school fails to meet the provisions of its charter, it can lose its funding and be forced
to shut its doors.
Proponents of charter schools have long argued that they provide a more effective and efficient
alternative for low-income children, especially in urban areas. Often tied to the school choice
and voucher movements, advocates believe that, freed from the bureaucratic constraints of
traditional urban public schools, charter schools will provide a better education at a lower cost.
However, in 2004 the American Federation of Teachers, long a skeptic, if not an opponent, of
charter schools, issued a statistical report that found that district public schools outperformed
charter schools nationally (Nelson, Rosenberg, & Van Meter, 2004). Immediately following its
release, a group of education researchers, some long associated with the school choice and voucher
movement, were signatories to a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, condemning the
AFT study for sloppy research, arguing that the study failed to control sufficiently for student
background variables, used one year of data rather than multi-year data sets, and did not measure
the value-added effects of charter schools on their students, many of whom came to charters far
below state proficiency levels (New York Times, 2004).
In 2006, the National Center for Educational Statistics released its report on charter schools,
the study design for which satisfied some of the criteria for acceptable research outlined in the
Times advertisement; it concluded that after controlling for student demographic characteristics,
students in traditional public schools had higher overall achievement in fourth grade reading and
mathematics. These differences were not statistically significant for charter schools affiliated with
a public school district, while unaffiliated charter schools scored significantly lower than traditional
public schools (Braun et al., 2006). These findings were confirmed by another comparison of
achievement in public, private and charter schools (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006).
Charter school advocates (see Center for Education Reform, 2005), however, argue that
charter schools often admit students who have not performed well in public schools and that it
takes time for charter schools to have an impact. Given the lack of statewide student level data,
however, the Department of Education and Lubienski studies could not examine the value added
effects of district and charter schools when controlling for student background factors. Hoxby
(2004b), a leading proponent of charter schools and school choice, released studies that compared
charter schools nationally with their neighboring district schools (as a way for controlling for
student background factors and comparing them to the schools where the charter school students
would have remained if they did not have choice) and of students on waiting lists for charter
schools who remained in the neighboring district schools. Both studies indicated that students in
charter schools had higher achievement than those who remained in the neighboring district
schools, even after controlling for student background variables. Miron and Nelson (2001, 2002)
argue that we still do not know enough about student achievement in charter schools and often
do not have the type of data needed to effectively evaluate charter school performance. In 2009,
The Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO, 2009a) at Stanford released its
national charter school report, which indicated that there were wide variations in the quality of
charter schools in the United States and that on the whole charter school students performed
below district public school students (Center for Research on Educational Outcomes, 2009). At
the same time, Hoxby (2009) issued a report on New York City charter schools showing that
students in the charter schools outperformed students in NYC district schools, controlling for a
variety of variables, including family background. Additionally, she issued a critique of the CREDO
study, which resulted in a series of written debates between CREDO and Hoxby (see CREDO
website, 2009a: http://credo.stanford.edu/ for these). In 2013, however, the next CREDO national
study indicated that, controlling for other important variables, charter schools were more effec-
tive in promoting learning than district public schools (CREDO, 2013). In 2015, CREDO’s urban
charter school study showed charter schools outperforming traditional public schools. They state:
Across 41 regions, urban charter schools on average achieve significantly greater student success in
both math and reading, which amounts to 40 additional days of learning growth in math and 28 days
of additional growth in reading. Compared to the national profile of charter school performance, urban
charters produce more positive results. CREDO’s National Charter School Study results in 2013 found
that charter schools provided seven additional days of learning per year in reading and no significant
difference in math.
Similar to the results in the National Charter School Study in 2013, the Urban Charter School
report found local variation in the results. Across the 41 regions, more than twice as many urban
regions show their charter schools outpacing their district school counterparts as there are regions
where charter school results lag behind district schools. Despite the overall positive learning
impacts, there are still urban communities in which the majority of the charter schools have smaller
learning gains compared to their traditional school counterparts (CREDO, 2015).
Critics argue that many urban charter schools, despite their lotteries, cherry pick their stu-
dents and thus have fewer special education students, English Language Learners and very low-
income students. These students perform at lower levels and since traditional public schools have
more of them, this helps explain their lower overall performance compared to charter schools
(B. Baker, 2016).
There are significant differences among different cities with respect to their charter school
performance. For example, charter schools perform at a lower level in Detroit, where there is little
regulation. In New Orleans, where the majority of schools in the district are charter schools, they
perform at a higher level (Harris, 2016). For a summary of these differences, see Raymond (2016)
at the end of this chapter. For an analysis of whether charters increase student achievement see
Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, & Silverberg (2015).
An important issue is the effects of the expansion of urban charter schools on traditional pub-
lic schools. An article in the New York Times indicated that charter school expansion in Harlem,
historically a black section of Manhattan, has resulted in the closing of traditional district schools.
Public school supporters argue that charter schools are harming the public schools, but charter
school advocates argue that because the charters have higher student achievement parents are
walking with their feet. Public school advocates argue that charter schools are “creaming” the
best students (Taylor, 2017). Radical critics of charter schools argue that such occurrences are
part of a larger process of the corporate makeover of education (Fabricant & Fine, 2012).
Vouchers
In the 1990s, a number of states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida, implemented school
voucher programs, all of which were challenged in state courts for violating the separation of
Church and State. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris ruled that the
Cleveland, Ohio, voucher program did not violate the establishment clause of the First
Amendment. Specifically, because the vouchers went directly to families rather than to religious
schools and because they could be used in either religious or secular private schools, the voucher
program did not violate the constitutional prohibition against public money being used for religious
purposes.
Following this decision, many policy experts believed that there would be widespread adoption
of new voucher programs. Although Washington, D.C. adopted a voucher program in 2004, there
has not been a significant increase in new programs. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ruled
that its voucher program violated the state’s constitution for a uniform system of public education.
However, since then the Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program has been modified to meet
the Court’s ruling, and it now serves low-income and special needs students for the purposes of
providing equal education. Nevertheless, there continues to be considerable debate nationally
about the use of public funds for sending children to private schools as well as whether the evidence
supports the claims of voucher advocates about their effects.
Voucher advocates argue that school choice will have three important educational impacts.
First, it will provide low-income parents with the same choices as middle-class parents and lead
to increased parental satisfaction with their children’s schools. Second, given the absence of the
large educational bureaucracy of urban school systems, charter and voucher schools will provide
better learning environments for low-income students and result in higher student achievement.
Third, due to the competitive market effects of competition from charter and voucher schools,
urban public schools will be forced to improve or close their doors. This will result in higher
student achievement in urban public schools.
Over the past decades there has been considerable controversy over whether the empirical
evidence supports the claims of choice advocates, particularly with respect to the voucher programs
in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Witte and colleagues (1995) found that voucher students did not
perform significantly better in either math or reading, compared to students who attend public
schools, when controlling for socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity (Witte et al., 1995). Instead,
he found statistical significance for the negative effects of attending choice schools on reading
scores in the second year of the program, 1991–1992 (Carnoy, 2001). Greene and colleagues
(Greene et al., 1996) found that those students who applied and won vouchers made significant
gains in both math and reading compared to those students who applied to vouchers but ended
up in public schools (Greene et al., 1996). Rouse (1998) compared annual gains for a larger sample
of voucher students with both general Milwaukee public school students and students who applied
for vouchers but did not enter the program. She found a gain of only 1.5 to 2.3 percentile points
per year in math for voucher students, but no statistically significant differences in reading scores.
Although her research methods overcame some of the limitations of Greene’s methods, some
argue that her study was still limited in selection bias and accounting for the possibility of other
factors, such as students’ families and home practices that would have contributed to math score
gains (Fuller et al., 1996; Hess, 2002).
In 1995, Wisconsin ended its assessment of the Milwaukee voucher program and since then
there has been little data available for analyzing the effects of the program on student achievement.
Van Dunk and Dickman (2003) argue that the data required for a systematic accountability for
the Milwaukee program does not exist and until it does, choice advocates and critics do not have
the evidence necessary to support their claims.
The Ohio State Department of Education commissioned Metcalf (1998) and Metcalf et al.
(1999, 2001, 2003) to study the voucher program. He found that there was no significant difference
in achievement between voucher students and their public school peers, when controlling for
socioeconomic backgrounds and other background variables. After four years of longitudinal
research, Metcalf et al. (2004) provide some cautionary observations, including that operational
procedures are crucial, that parents cite safety, academic quality and classroom order as the main
reasons for parental choice, that public and private school classrooms are similar, and overall
conclusions about voucher effects are elusive.
Hoxby (2000a, 2001) found that competition leads to higher test scores and lower costs of
neighboring public school systems. Hoxby (2001) argues that test scores from Milwaukee pub-
lic schools subject to voucher and charter school competition increased more rapidly compared
to test scores of similar schools elsewhere in Wisconsin that did not face school-choice
competition.
Voucher advocates cite a growing body of literature that shows how voucher programs increase
student achievement, empower low-income families, increase parental satisfaction rate, improve
public education through competition, and offer a more cost-effective method for financing schools.
School choice and voucher advocates claim that low-income and minority students will increase
their academic achievement at private and parochial schools because they will not be confined
to low-performing neighborhood schools but rather will be free to select more effective schools.
With this freedom of choice, the parents will increase their satisfaction rate and involvement
with their children’s schooling.
Proponents also argue that by injecting market competition into the education system, low-
performing urban schools will be forced to deliver higher quality education at a lower cost. And
schools that are clearly not producing positive effects or operate at a high cost, will simply be put
out of “business.” That is, private schools supported by public funds actually do a better job than
public schools, as well as improve the quality of public schools by introducing competition among
low-performing public schools.
Critics of voucher programs argue that proponents’ claims have underlying assumptions, limited
methods of analysis, drain resources from public schools, and cause further inequality of education.
They argue that there simply is not enough evidence to validate the claims made by proponents.
In some cases, they point to contradicting evidence. For instance, the critics argue that there is
no conclusive evidence that learning opportunities at private and parochial schools actually lead
to higher test scores. As far as parental satisfaction rate, there is a limited understanding of the
relationship between parental satisfaction rate and higher student achievement.
Ladd (2002), in a balanced and exhaustive review of the literature, concludes that,
Contrary to the claims of many voucher advocates, widespread use of school vouchers is not likely to
generate substantial gains in the productivity of the U.S. K–12 education system . . . The challenge for
policymakers is to find ways to expand parental choices without excessively privileging the interests of
individual families over the social interests that justify the funding of K–12 education.
Clearly, there is disagreement about whether school choice will lead to the revitalization of
public education in the United States. It may well be that choice is a method of school
improvement, but cannot by itself resolve many of the fundamental problems associated with
public education. Moreover, choice plans usually involve complex and volatile issues of
constitutionality, equity, and feasibility. For instance, how will already impoverished school districts
pay for the increased transportation costs required by many choice plans? In sum, there is evidence
that school choice can lead to improvement in individual schools, but there is little convincing
evidence that choice will result in the overall improvement of U.S. education. As of 2016, the
effects of vouchers remain mixed (for a summary of these data see Trilling, 2016, at the end of
this chapter). However, three new studies point to negative outcomes for low-income children
using vouchers to attend private schools. First, a study of Indiana vouchers saw significant losses
in mathematics and no differences in reading. Second, a Louisiana study indicated large losses in
both reading and mathematics for voucher students. Third, a study by the conservative Fordham
Institute of Ohio voucher students showed that these students had lower achievement than
matched peers in public schools. One possible explanation is that the best private schools did not
accept voucher students and that those that did were unregulated and low performing (Carey,
2017). Given these findings, it will be interesting to see how Secretary of Education DeVos, a
strong proponent of vouchers, proceeds.
Privatization
From the 1990s, the traditional distinction between public and private education became blurred,
with private education companies increasingly becoming involved in public education in a variety
of ways. First, for-profit companies, such as the Edison Company, took over the management
of failing schools and districts. The Philadelphia Public Schools, taken over by the state of
Pennsylvania in 2003 due to low student achievement, hired for-profit companies, including
Edison, as well as local universities, including Penn and Temple to manage its schools. Second,
for-profit companies, such as Kaplan and Sylvan Learning Centers, have the majority of contracts
for supplemental tutoring under NCLB. It is too early to assess the efficacy of such privatization,
but it is clear that corporations see the multi-billion-dollar education industry as a lucrative market.
In 2012, in Philadelphia, New Orleans, and other cities, portfolio models of education have
replaced traditional school districts, with schools operated by a combination of providers, including
traditional district schools, charter schools, and schools operated by for-profit Educational
Management Organizations (EMO). Bulkley, Henig, and Levin (2010) concluded that the success
of these types of reforms has been mixed (Belfield & Levin, 2015). In higher education, for-profit
companies have had mixed results. Some like the University of Phoenix have successfully educated
a significant number of adult students. Others have been closed by the federal government for
very low graduation rates. In fact, Trump University closed and settled a lawsuit by its students
for fraud prior to the 2016 Presidential election.
Teacher Education
The emergence and development of teacher education as an educational problem was a response
to the initial debates concerning the failure of the schools (Labaree, 1992a, 1992b, 1996). If the
schools were not working properly, then teachers and teaching—perhaps the most important piece
in the puzzle—had to be looked at critically. In addition, teacher organizations such as the National
Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), fearing the
scapegoating of their members, took an active role in raising the debate as the opportunity to
both recognize and improve the problematic conditions under which, from their perspective, most
of their members work.
Finally, if teachers and teaching were indeed part of the problem, then perhaps the education
and training of teachers was a good starting point for analysis. Thus, teacher education, and schools
and colleges of education, long the object of critical scrutiny within universities, became the subject
of intensive national investigation. By 1986, at least five major reports (by the National Com-
mission on Excellence in Teacher Education, the California Commission on the Teaching
Profession, the Holmes Group, the Southern Regional Education Board, and the Carnegie Report
of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession) outlined major problems in teacher education and
the professional lives of teachers, and proposed a large-scale overhaul of the system that prepares
teachers. Although the reports differed in some respects, there was widespread agreement about
the nature of the problem. The debate revolved around three major points:
1. The perceived lack of rigor and intellectual demands in teacher education programs.
2. The need to attract and retain competent teacher candidates.
3. The necessity to reorganize the academic and professional components of teacher education
programs at both the baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate levels. (Teacher Education Project,
1986)
Although all five reports contributed to the ongoing discussions, the Carnegie and Holmes
reports attracted the most public response and became symbolic of the teacher education reform
movement. (Perhaps this was because they represented two of the major interest groups in teacher
education—in the case of Carnegie, major political and educational leaders, and for Holmes, the
Deans of Education from the major research universities.) Therefore, this section will analyze the
Carnegie and Holmes reports as representative of the current attempts to improve the training
of teachers (see Labaree, 1992a and 1992b for a detailed discussion).
The Carnegie Report, entitled A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (1986) and
prepared by its Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (including representatives from corporations,
the NEA and AFT, school journalists and administrators, legislators, the Governor of New Jersey,
and a Dean of Education of a major research university), focused on the necessity of educational
quality for a competitive U.S. economy and the value of education in a democratic political system.
Building on the critique offered by A Nation at Risk, the Carnegie Report suggested that improve-
ments in teacher education were necessary preconditions for improvements in education.
In addition to this underlying democratic-liberal model of education, the report argued that
the decline in traditional low-wage jobs in the U.S. economy and the corresponding increase in
high-technology and service positions would require the schools to better prepare their students
for this “new” economic reality. In this regard, also, the Carnegie Report stressed the centrality
of better prepared teachers to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Echoing this political-
economic perspective, the report stated:
If our standard of living is to be maintained, if the growth of a permanent underclass is to be averted,

if democracy is to function effectively [in the twenty-first] century, our schools must graduate the vast
majority of their students with achievement levels long thought possible for only the privileged few.
The American mass education system, designed in the early part of the century for a mass production
economy, will not succeed unless it not only raises but redefines the essential standards of excellence
and strives to make quality and equality of opportunity compatible with each other. (1986, p. 3)
In order to accomplish these democratic-liberal goals, the Carnegie Report (1986, p. 3) called for
“sweeping changes in educational policy,” which would include the restructuring of schools and
the teaching profession, the elimination of the undergraduate education major, the recruitment
of minorities into the teaching profession, and the increase of standards in teacher education and
in teaching.
The Holmes Group, on the other hand, avoided explicit political–economic goals, but focused
on the relationship between university-based teacher education, the professional lives of teachers,
and the structure of the schools themselves. Arguing that their role as teacher-educators gave a
unique and also perhaps subjective perception of these issues, the Holmes Report, entitled
Tomorrow’s Teachers (1986), outlined a set of five goals and proposals for the improvement of teacher
education. Michael Sedlak, one of the original coauthors of the report, introduced his brief summary
of the document by stressing that “the Holmes Group is dedicated not just to the improvement of
teacher education but to the construction of a genuine profession of teaching” (1987, p. 315). The
goals of the report included raising the intellectual soundness of teacher education, creating career
ladders for teachers, developing entry-level requirements into the profession, linking schools of
education at the university level to schools, and improving schools for students and teachers.
In two subsequent reports, Tomorrow’s Schools (1990) and Tomorrow’s Schools of Education
(1995), the Holmes Group advocated systemic changes in professional development and radically
altering schools of education with an emphasis on school–university partnerships and professional
development schools (PDS). Critics of the Holmes Group (Labaree, 1992a, 1992b, 1996) argued
that its proposals represented a “disabling vision” for schools of education, as they limit their roles
to teacher education only, while deemphasizing their other important roles in research and
education in broader societal and psychological contexts.
Despite differences in tone and some minor differences in emphasis, both the Carnegie and
Holmes Reports focus on the same general concerns:
1. They agree that overall problems in education cannot be solved without corresponding
changes in teacher education.
2. Teacher education programs must be upgraded in terms of their intellectual rigor and focus,
their need to emphasize the liberal arts, their need to eliminate undergraduate teacher
education programs and, like other professions (i.e., psychology, social work, law, medicine),
to move professional training and certification to the graduate level.
3. Rigorous standards of entry into the profession must be implemented, and systematic
examinations to monitor such entry must be developed.
4. University teacher education programs and schools must be connected in a more systematic
and cooperative manner.
5. Career ladders that recognize differences in knowledge, skill, and commitment must be created
for teachers.
6. Necessary changes must be made in the schools and the professional lives of teachers in order
to attract and retain the most competent candidates for the profession.
John Goodlad, in Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools (1990), proposed a radical transformation
of the way teachers are prepared, requiring an overhaul of university-based teacher preparation.
Echoing many of the recommendations of the Carnegie Commission and the Holmes Group on
school–university cooperation, Goodlad stressed the importance of rewarding teacher-educators
for their work, rather than relegating them, as is currently the case, to the bottom rung of the
university status hierarchy.
In the 1990s, teacher education and professionalization continued to be significant issues. Talbert
(1996) argued that both teacher education and professional development programs have been
inadequate for equipping prospective teachers and teachers to fulfill their myriad responsibilities.
Most teachers receive one-shot professional development workshops that have little effect on their
performance. She argued that long-term systemic professional development is needed.
As head of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, Linda Darling-
Hammond (1996b) has been one of the recent leaders of the teacher education reform. The
commission report indicated that the criticisms presented by the Carnegie and Holmes reports
in the 1980s had not been adequately addressed. It pointed out that “school reform cannot succeed
unless it focuses on creating the conditions in which teachers can teach, and teach well” (p. vi),
and it identified the following barriers to improving teacher education development: (1) low
expectations for student performance, (2) unenforced standards for teachers, (3) major flaws in
teacher preparation, (4) slipshod teacher recruitment, (5) inadequate induction for beginning
teachers, (6) lack of professional development and rewards for knowledge and skill, and (7) schools
that are structured for failure rather than success. Therefore, the Commission recommended the
following:
1. Get serious about standards, for both students and teachers.

2. Reinvent teacher preparation and professional development.
3. Fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom.
4. Encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill.
5. Create schools that are organized for student and teacher success. (National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, 1996, pp. vi–vii)
Representative of the second wave of educational reforms, the effective school movement’s
recommendations, as well as those of the Carnegie, Holmes, and National Commission on Teach-
ing and America’s Future reports, emphasized the processes of teaching and learning, the school
environment, and especially the need to improve the professional lives and status of teachers.
Since the 1990s, a number of alternatives to traditional university-based teacher education
emerged, such as Teach for America (TFA) and the New Teacher Project (NTP). These programs
sought to recruit high-performing college graduates for immediate entry into underserved urban
and rural schools. Rather than these prospective teachers having to complete a traditional multi-
year university-based program, they complete instead a summer student teaching program and
are immediately placed in underserved schools. TFA, founded in the 1990s by Wendy Kopp, based
on her Princeton senior thesis, has become the largest alternative teacher education program in
the U.S. It recruits the “best and brightest” from elite colleges and universities, and requires that
they teach for a minimum of two years in an urban or rural school. NTP has contracts with
numerous cities to provide a more rapid route to the classroom. In New York City, the New York
City Teaching Fellows Program provides an alternate route, similar to TFA, for teacher candidates
to enter the city’s schools without completing traditional teacher education requirements. An
alternate route program has existed in New Jersey since the 1980s, but is less selective than the
other programs. Proponents of these programs argue that traditional university teacher education
programs have lower performing students compared to the general student population and lack
rigor. Critics of these programs argue that no other profession would permit its practitioners to
enter the field without training and because many of these programs, especially TFA, only require
two years of service, the attrition rate is very high (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Proponents argue
that the attrition rate for traditionally prepared teachers is also significantly high. Both agree that
the key is whether or not there is a difference between the groups in their effect on their student
learning. To date, the evidence is not conclusive (Boyd et al., 2009). Finally, over the past few
years the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) developed by the Stanford
University Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) has emerged to
better measure the performance of teacher education students. Advocates argue that it more
accurately assesses student performance in real classrooms (http://www.edtpa.com/PageView.aspx?
f=GEN_AboutEdTPA.html). Critics argue that it is too expensive and limits access for low-income
students. In addition, it is not graded by education professors but by employees of Pearson, a billion
dollar testing company (Gorleski in Ravitch, 2013).
Teacher Quality
What is clear is that how to recruit and retain high quality teachers is among the most important
problems in American education. NCLB’s requirement that all schools have highly qualified teach-
ers in every classroom highlighted the problem of unqualified teachers in urban schools. But whereas
most teachers meet the highly qualified standards of NCLB, the data indicate that significant
numbers of classrooms are staffed by teachers who are not highly qualified in the particular subject
they teach. This is the result of the practice called out-of-field teaching—teachers being assigned
to teach subjects which do not match their training or education. This is a crucial practice because
highly qualified teachers actually may become highly unqualified in that circumstance.
At the secondary school level, about one fifth of classes in each of the core academic subjects
(math, science, English, social studies) are taught by teachers who do not hold a teaching certificate
in the subject taught. The data also show that urban schools—especially low-income ones—have
more out-of-field teaching than others. Urban schools with high levels of minority students also
typically have a larger percentage of novice teachers (The Education Trust, 2010a, from Schools
and Staffing Survey, 2003–2004).
Ingersoll (1999, 2003, 2004) asserts that problems in staffing urban schools have less to do
with teacher shortages and more with organizational issues inside schools. Principals often find
it easier to hire unqualified teachers than qualified ones, and the absence of status and profes-
sionalism, and poor working conditions in teaching leads to high dropout rates in the first five
years of teaching. Therefore, urban districts are constantly replacing teachers on an ongoing basis,
which has significant consequences since it takes years to become an expert teacher. Rates of
teacher attrition and misassignment are higher in urban and high-poverty schools (Ingersoll, 1999,
2003, 2004).
Ingersoll’s research suggests that programs aimed at solving urban school staffing problems at
the supply level through alternative teacher education programs such as Teach for America, the
New York City Teaching Fellows Program and New Jersey’s Alternative Certification Program
(all of which allow college graduates with majors in their teaching field to enter teaching without
traditional certification through a college teacher education program) fail to address the
organizational problems within schools that are responsible for high turnover rates (Ingersoll, 2004).
Recently, school improvement reformers have stressed the existence of teacher tenure and
seniority based transfers and layoff provisions in union contracts as a primary factor in preventing
an improvement of teacher quality. A number of provisions in the Race to the Top funding and
new contracts like the one in Washington, D.C. have addressed some of these issues. In addition,
many state laws based on RTT included provisions for Value Added Models (VAM) of teacher
evaluations where quality is based on their student growth on standardized tests. Critics have
pointed out that these models do not adequately control for the multiple variables that explain
teacher quality and are thus unfair to teachers. Such VAMs have been opposed by teacher unions
with advocates arguing that the unions are merely protecting their deficient members (see Special
Issue of Educational Researcher (2015, including Darling-Hammond, 2015) for a summary of the
research evidence on VAM). Although RTTS are not required by ESSA, such models continue
to be used as part of teacher evaluations in some states.
The Effective School Movement

In response to A Nation at Risk and other reports criticizing the effectiveness of U.S. public schools,
the school effectiveness movement emerged and suggested that there were characteristics in good
schools that could be used as models for improving educational effectiveness. The late Ron
Edmonds, one of the early leaders of this movement, argued that educational reform and improve-
ment must consider problems of both equity and quality. Based on Edmonds’s work on effective
schools for disadvantaged students (Edmonds, 1979a), research on school effectiveness sought to
identify the characteristics of effective schools (Brookover et al., 1979, 1982).
The school effectiveness research points out five key factors that define successful schools: (1)
high expectations for all students, and staff acceptance of responsibility for student learning;
(2) instructional leadership on the part of the principal; (3) a safe and orderly environment
conducive to learning; (4) a clear and focused mission concerning instructional goals shared by
the staff; and (5) frequent monitoring of student progress (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987, p. 389).
Based on this research, educational policy makers focused on how to build the capacity in
districts, schools, and classrooms to improve student achievement and to reduce the achievement
gaps. Research suggests that districts have a specific role to play in assisting schools to build the
necessary capacity to improve student achievement. Districts can assist schools in developing
organizational/structural and instructional capacity. Research provides advice to districts about
how they can build organizational capacity, and suggests a focus on the following five dimensions:
1. vision and leadership;

2. collective commitment and cultural norms;
3. knowledge or access to knowledge;
4. organizational structures and management;
5. resources. (Goertz, Floden, & O’Day, 1995, p. 3)
Research also argues that the reform process itself is instrumental in building capacity, and
indicates four strategies for building the capacity for standards-based reforms:
1. articulating a reform vision;

2. providing instructional guidelines;
3. restructuring governance and organizational structures;
4. establishing evaluation and accountability mechanisms. (Goertz et al., 1995, p. 4)
In other words, it is incumbent on districts to do the following:
• Assist schools in using achievement data as a baseline for targeted improvement.

• Provide districtwide professional development aimed at improving teacher knowledge and
skills.
• Help schools align their curriculum and instruction to state learning standards and assessments.
• Target those students and schools with the most need for districtwide help.
Efforts aimed at capacity building must start with a vision of what an effective school should
look like. After all, it is at the school level—more than at the district—that student achievement
is most directly impacted. There is general agreement in the research conducted on the effective
practices of high-performing, high-poverty schools. These schools (American Federation of Teach-
ers, 1998, 1999; American Institutes for Research, 1999; Carter, 2000; Connell, 1999; Haycock,
1999; Johnson and Ansera, 1999; Lein et al., 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 1998, 2001):
• Set high standards and develop curriculum and assessment tools based on those standards.
• Hold teachers and school administrators accountable for student performance and meeting
goals.
• Create a safe and orderly academic environment.
• Employ teachers who are experienced and qualified to teach their subject matter and have
access to quality professional development and school administrators who are committed to
education.
• Encourage parental and community involvement.

• Enjoy administrative flexibility in making decisions involving curriculum, personnel, and
school budgets.
Research from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2000b), summarized the key components of school quality as follows:
• Teacher quality and experience, including the academic skills of teachers, teachers who are
teaching in their field of preparation, teacher experience, professional development.
• Classroom climate, including course content and alignment with learning standards,
technology, class size, pedagogy.
• School context, including school leadership, goals, professional community, discipline,
academic environment.
In order to be more specific about school capacity, it is useful to look at what the research says
about the characteristics of effective schools and classrooms, and also about effective teachers.
The characteristics described encompass structural issues, broad school and classroom-culture issues,
and specific instructional issues.
The National Center for Educational Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, 2000b)
concluded that there are five characteristics of effective schools that have a positive effect on
student learning:
1. School leadership that provides direction, guidance, and support.

2. School goals that are clearly identified, communicated, and enacted.
3. A school faculty that collectively takes responsibility for student learning.
4. School discipline that establishes an orderly atmosphere conducive to learning.
5. School academic organization and climate that challenges and supports students toward higher
achievement. (p. 36)
At the level of the classroom, research indicates that a variety of factors—including course
content, pedagogy, technology and class size—have an impact on student achievement. However,
without effective teachers, these factors mean little. Research indicates that at the classroom level,
effective instructional practices, implemented by knowledgeable teachers, are a prerequisite for
school improvement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005).
Research reveals a lot about the characteristics of effective teachers. What this research means
on a practical level is that the state must partner with districts and schools to build an infrastructure
that will increase the likelihood that every teacher possesses the characteristics listed below.
According to the research, the most qualified teachers possess the following characteristics
(Ingersoll, 2003):
• Strong academic skills.

• Teaching within the individual’s field of expertise—having an equivalent of a major in the
field.
• At least three years’ teaching experience.
• Participation in high-quality professional development programs.
Class size is another component of effective schools, especially for low-income students. A Tennessee
class size study provides important evidence on the value of small classes (Krueger, 1998; Mosteller,
1995; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Based on a random assignment experiment, this study indicated
that there were significant achievement gains made by students in the smaller classes, when
controlling for all other factors. Further, the greatest gains were made by black students in the early
grades. Further studies confirmed that the largest gains were made by black, disadvantaged students
(Achilles, 1996; Finn, J. D., 1998; Grissmer, Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998; Hanuschek, 1998;
Krueger, 1998; Mosteller, Light, & Sachs, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1998). A report by
the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (2000b) suggests that
reductions in class size have the potential for helping all students in the primary grades (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000b, p. 35). Based on the Tennessee evidence, it appears that for
disadvantaged students the gains are especially strong. Beginning in the 1990s, a number of non-
profit organizations developed models for school improvement, based on the research evidence on
effective schools. These include Success for All, a highly structured and scripted program founded
by Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins University; Accelerated Schools, a program that provides rigorous
curriculum for students at risk, founded by Henry Levin at Stanford and now at Teachers College,
Columbia University; the Coalition of Essential Schools, a progressive school reform program,
founded by Theodore Sizer at Brown University; a capacity-building model founded by the Hudson
Institute; the Comer School Development Program, a program based on school–family partnerships,
founded by James Comer at Yale Medical Schools; Core Knowledge, a program based on “traditional”
core knowledge, founded by E.D. Hirsch at the University of Virginia; and America’s Choice, a
program based on standards and assessments, aligned instructional systems, focus on literacy and
mathematics, leadership, and professional learning communities, founded by the National Center
for Education and the Economy (for a complete list, see http://ncee.org/).
Federal funds were available for comprehensive school reform programs in low-income schools.
However, the programs had to demonstrate that the school reform program integrated all eleven
of the components outlined in the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Program Guidance
(www.csrclearinghouse.org/index.cgi?l=csr_program_components):
1. Proven methods and strategies based on scientifically based research.

2. Comprehensive design.
3. Professional development.
4. Measurable goals and benchmarks.
5. Support within the school.
6. Support for teachers and principals.
7. Parental and community involvement.
8. External technical support and assistance.
9. Annual evaluation.
10. Coordination of resources.
11. Strategies that improve academic achievement—The program must meet one of the following
requirements:
a. the program has been found, through scientifically based research, to significantly improve
the academic achievement of participating students;
or
b. the program has been found to have strong evidence that it will significantly improve
the academic achievement of participating children.
The evidence on the success of these programs has been the subject of considerable debate,
particularly Success for All (SFA). Pogrow (1996, 1999, 2000) has argued that SFA has not
significantly improved its schools, whereas Slavin (1997a, 1997b, 1999) has argued that there
is considerable scientific evidence to demonstrate his program’s effectiveness. More recent research
by the American Institutes for Research (Aladjem et al., 2002) demonstrates differences in
effectiveness among 24 programs, but also indicates that many programs improve low-income
schools. A 2004 study by the Consortium on Policy Research in Education (May, Supovitz, &
Perda, 2004) showed significant achievement gains in schools using America’s Choice in
Rochester, New York. Borman, Hewes, Overman and Brown (2003) have provided a meta-analysis
of the studies on the effects of CSR and conclude that comprehensive school reforms have the
potential for improving schools and reducing the achievement gaps.
The evidence suggests that these types of reforms have the potential for improving low-income,
high-minority schools. The Education Trust (2010a) provided examples of many high-performing,
low-income, high-minority schools. Further, it argued that there are some districts (e.g., Aldine
and El Paso, Texas) and some states (e.g., Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and
Texas) that have significantly reduced the race, ethnic, and social class achievement gaps through
the types of educational policies outlined in this chapter. However, sometimes such reforms fail
to improve consistently failing schools and more drastic action is taken.
Recent research has demonstrated that effective schools and districts have a positive impact
on low-income students and students of color. For example, Grant’s research on the Raleigh, North
Carolina schools shows how inter-district school desegregation resulted in a significant number
of effective schools and high achievement (Grant, 2011); and Kirp’s research on the Union City,
New Jersey school district shows how leadership and teacher quality have resulted in high
achievement in an overwhelmingly low-income Latino district (Kirp, 2013).
Societal, Community, Economic, and Political Reforms
State Intervention and Mayoral Control in Local School Districts*

For several decades at least, school accountability has been a prominent issue on the national
education scene. Accountability has taken many forms, often involving state regulation or over-
sight. It has included state certification of school personnel and of school districts; statewide testing
and assessment of pupils; state monitoring of local fiscal, management, and educational prac-
tices; local districts reporting to the state; state dissemination of report cards and other district-
and school-specific information to the public; and state intervention in the operation of local
districts when problems were identified and solutions were determined to be beyond the local
capacity.
Virtually all state accountability systems focus on rewards and sanctions. State policy makers
increasingly are directing their attention to how to reward schools and districts that perform well
and how to sanction those that do not. As of 2000, 38 states had some form of rewards or sanctions
in place: 8 states rewarded school districts, 20 rewarded schools, 29 imposed sanctions on school
districts, and 32 imposed sanctions on schools. Three states (Delaware, Oklahoma, and Texas)
did all four. For an excellent description and analysis of the accountability structures in each state,
see Goertz and Duffy (2001).
Some systems include school or district takeover as ultimate accountability measures. As of
2000, 23 states have enacted statutes authorizing their state education agencies to take control
of school districts from local authorities: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
* This section is adapted from P. Tractenberg, M. Holzer, G. Miller, A. R. Sadovnik, and B. Liss (2002),
Developing a Plan for Reestablishing Local Control in the State-Operated School Districts. Newark, NJ: Institute
on Education Law and Policy, Rutgers University (http://ielp.rutgers.edu/projects/qsac).
Texas, and West Virginia. Most of those statutes provide for a succession of increasingly severe
sanctions imposed on underperforming districts, leading to takeover as a last resort, whereas some
provide only for takeover; some indicate a preference for assistance to local boards and
administrators, again with takeover a last resort; and still others indicate no such preference. Most
provide for systems of assessment or accreditation of schools and districts statewide, whereas
others target a single troubled school district. As to the basis for takeover, most statutes authorize
action on the basis of poor academic performance; others refer to district governance and
management as well as academics. Most provide for replacement of administrative personnel with
a state-appointed administrator, and some provide for a “receiver,” or transfer of control to
municipal officials, or annexation into a neighboring school district.
In short, there appears to be no standard method of imposing or implementing state control
of local school districts, and there appears to be no standard method of returning control to local
authorities. The experience with state takeovers is still relatively limited and fragmentary, but it
has led to some perceived advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages are the following:
• Takeover is, in appropriate cases, a necessary expression of a state’s constitutional responsibility

for public education.
• Properly done, takeover can provide a good opportunity for state and local decision makers
to combine resources and knowledge to improve children’s learning.
• Takeover can allow a competent executive staff to guide an uninterrupted and effective
implementation of school improvement efforts.
• Takeover can help create a healthy environment in which the local community can address
a school district’s problems.
• Takeover can make possible more radical changes in low-performing school districts than
the customary regimen.
• Takeover, by its relatively extreme and dramatic nature, can put school boards throughout
the state on notice that personal agendas, nepotism, and public bickering can have severe
consequences.
• If the state carefully collects and analyzes pupil achievement and other data in state-operated
districts and schools, it can lead to improvements in statewide accountability efforts.
The perceived disadvantages of state takeover include the following:
• Takeover may be seen as a thinly veiled attempt to reduce local control over schools and to
increase state authority over school districts, especially if state government is dominated by
one political party and urban districts by another.
• The very concept of state takeover suggests that some local communities lack the capacity
to operate effective public schools, and that the state has ready answers and personnel capable
of turning around poor performance of the most educationally disadvantaged students.
• State takeover might place poorly prepared state-selected officials in charge, with little
possibility of any meaningful change occurring in the classroom.
• Takeover tends to rely on narrow learning measures (i.e., standardized test scores) as the
primary criterion for takeover decisions.
• No matter what triggers takeover, it usually focuses, at least initially, on cleaning up petty
corruption and incompetent administration and does not get at the root problems impeding
the learning of disadvantaged students in urban school districts.
• By fostering a negative image of school board members, administrators, teachers, students,
and parents in urban districts, takeover tends to undermine their self-esteem and capacity to
improve their performance.
• Takeover that largely supplants local responsibility for the schools inevitably leads to frictions
and confrontations between state and local officials that slow the overhaul of management
practices, drain resources from educational reforms, and reinforce community resentments.
There is very little research on the effects of state takeovers. For the most part, the studies
suggest that takeover has yielded more gains in central office activities than in classroom instruc-
tional practices. Illustratively, state takeovers are credited with the following:
• Reducing nepotism within a school district’s decision-making process.

• Improving a school district’s administrative and fiscal management practices.
• Removing the threat of teachers’ strikes within a school district.
• Upgrading the physical condition of schools.
• Implementing innovative programs within a school district, such as small schools programs
and cooperative arrangements between schools and social service agencies.
Unfortunately, however, the limited research suggests that under state takeover, student achieve-
ment gains often have fallen short of expectations.
Nevertheless, several states, including California, Connecticut, Kentucky, and West Virginia,
have intervention schemes that have resulted in improvements in failing school districts. What
they have in common is their focus on improving the local school district’s capacity to correct
its own problems and to operate a successful educational program. Both the literature and the
reported experience of states that have the highest rated state intervention programs suggest that
local capacity building must be the cornerstone of successful state involvement. New Jersey, which
took over its three largest school districts—Jersey City in 1987, Paterson in 1991, and Newark
in 1995—has been less successful, with all three districts still under state control (Tractenberg
et al., 2002). Unlike New Jersey, where a command-and-control approach did little to improve
failing districts, California’s approach in the Compton Unified School District provides an example
of how state intervention may be successful. Through the County Office Fiscal Crisis and
Management Assistance Team’s (FCMAT) capacity-building approach, the Compton District
was returned to local control in four years. Currently, FCMAT is working in the Oakland School
District, which was taken over by the state in 2004.
The types of reforms, including state intervention, cost money, and low-income, high-minority
schools often have significantly less money to spend, despite the availability of federal Title 1
funds. These funding disparities have been the subject of considerable legal actions.
A popular reform implemented over the past decade is mayoral control of urban districts. Similar
to state takeover, mayoral control has been a favored neo-liberal reform, with urban mayors and
business leaders arguing that centralizing governance into the mayor’s office is more effective
and efficient than traditional elected school boards. Proponents argue that mayoral control
eliminates corruption, leads to effective and efficient management and budgets, increases student
achievement, and reduces the political battles endemic to elected school boards (Moscovitch
et al., 2010). Critics argue that it has not increased achievement significantly, is undemocratic,
and has reduced community and parental involvement (Moscovitch et al., 2010).
The evidence on mayoral control is mixed. Wong et al. (2007) found that mayoral control
resulted in modest improvements in student achievement. However, Henig (2009a) found that
non-mayoral cities had greater improvements. Moscovitch et al. in their study of nine cities with
varying degrees of mayoral control (Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Hartford,
New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.) found that although there were achievement
gains in most of the cities, it was impossible to attribute them causally to mayoral control. In
addition, they found improvements in a number of areas, including efficiency and stability. The
authors conclude that their study supports Viteritti’s position that governance structure “is not a
solution, it is an enabler . . . creat[ing] possibilities for the kind of bold leadership needed to
turn around failing school districts” (Viteritti, 2009). Good governance is necessary but not
sufficient for meaningful educational reform, and mayoral control is not the only form of good
governance.
Summarizing their nine city study of mayoral control, the Rutgers-Newark Institute on Educa-
tion Law and Policy stated: “Given the benefits we have seen in the nine cities, mayoral control
should be one of a number of options available, as long as parental and community input and
involvement are not stifled as they have been in some cities” (Moscovitch et al., 2010, p. 120).
By 2016, one of the subjects of the 2002 IELP report discussed above, Newark, N.J. remains
under state control, which began in 1995. In 2016, Governor Christie announced plans to return
its schools to local control in 2018, however at this point the process remains unclear.
School Finance Reforms

Following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Rodriguez v. San Antonio, which declared there is
no constitutional right to an equal education, school finance equity and adequacy advocates
litigated at the state level. Even before Rodriguez, Robinson v. Cahill was filed in 1970 against the
state of New Jersey, citing discrimination in funding for some school districts, which prosecutors
believed was creating disparities in urban students’ education by failing to provide all students with
a “thorough and efficient” education, as guaranteed under the New Jersey State Constitution.
Although the State enacted an income tax in accordance with the ruling of this case in 1973, the
program was never fully funded. By 1980, more evidence had been accumulated regarding the
inequality of education in urban areas and the Education Law Center filed Abbott v. Burke, on behalf
of several urban school districts also due to a violation of the “thorough and efficient” clause.
The court ruled in 1990, stating that more funding was needed to serve the children in the
poorer school districts. In order to provide a “thorough and efficient education” in urban districts,
funding was equalized between urban and suburban school districts. It was also determined that
extra funding was to be distributed to provide additional programs in order to eliminate
disadvantages within poorer school districts.
In 1998, the state was required to implement a package of supplemental programs, including
preschool, as well as a plan to renovate urban school facilities. Abbott V implemented additional
entitlements for urban schools, including whole school reform, full day kindergarten, preschool
for all 3- and 4-year-olds, a comprehensively managed and funded facilities program to correct
code violations; and a plan to eliminate overcrowding, and to provide adequate space for all educa-
tional programs at Abbott schools.
Other supplemental programs included social services, increased security, a technology
alternative education, school-to-work, after-school, and summer-school programs (Education Law
Center, 2010; Yaffe, 2007). What made Abbott different from other school finance decisions is
that, in addition to equalizing funding, the court recognized that factors outside schools had to
be addressed as well. Its requirement for the funding of mandatory preschool and supplemental
services illustrated this approach.
In 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled as constitutional a new funding formula, SFRA,
that eliminated the Abbott remedies and implemented a formula for allocating funding to all
districts based on student needs. According to the state, this “money follows the child” approach
would more equitably distribute funding to all “at-risk” children in the state, including in its rural
and lower income urban rim districts. The Education Law Center in its legal challenge argued
that the new formula would take necessary funding away from the urban districts. School finance
researchers are currently studying the law’s effects.
Other states, including Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New York, had similar litigation. In 1993,
New York state began its own 16-year battle for equity in education. A group of concerned parents
and advocates banded together under the non-profit group called the Campaign for Fiscal Equity
(CFE) to challenge the state to provide a “sound basic” education for all students that prepares
them to participate in society. A “sound basic education” was defined according to Justice DeGrasse
as “high school graduates [who] must be able to evaluate complex issues that may arise in jury
service or voting and they must also be able to obtain and hold competitive employment” (CFE).
In CFE v. State of New York, the State Supreme Court found the state school funding formula to
be unconstitutional in 2001. Following a series of appeals, the state was ordered to provide New
York City public schools with additional funding for their annual operating budget. CFE
continues its advocacy work to ensure that the implementation of reforms and distribution of
money is meeting the needs of the lowest performing students in the schools with the highest
need. In New Jersey, as noted in Chapter 9, Governor Christie has proposed what he terms a
fairer school finance law, which would fund all schools, regardless of their wealth or poverty,
at the same, equal level. The Educational Law Center (ELC), which has been the representative
of the low-income districts in the Abbott litigation, has vociferously opposed this as uncon-
stitutional and unfair (Education Law Center, 2016).
Although all of these educational reforms have demonstrated the potential to improve schools
for low-income and minority children, especially in urban areas, by themselves they are limited
in reducing the achievement gaps (Anyon, 2005a, 2005b; Rothstein, 2004b; Sadovnik, 2011b;
Tractenberg et al., 2004) unless they also address the factors outside of schools responsible for
educational inequalities. In addition to school-based programs, such as early childhood pro-
grams, summer programs, and after-school programs, Rothstein (2004b, pp. 129–150) calls for
economic programs to reduce income inequality and to create stable and affordable housing, and
the expansion of school-community clinics to provide health care and counseling. He also warns
that although school finance suits are necessary to ensure that all children receive an adequate
education, without addressing the economic forces outside of schools they will not be sufficient.
Rothstein, a liberal, and Anyon, a radical, both conclude that school reform is necessary but
insufficient to reduce the achievement gaps without broader social and economic policies aimed
at addressing the pernicious effect of poverty.
Full Service and Community Schools

Another way to attack education inequity is to examine and plan to educate not only the whole
child, but also the whole community. Dryfoos’s model of full service schools (Dryfoos, 1994; Dryfoos
et al., 2005), Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone (Tough, 2008), and Newark’s Broader Bolder
Approach, are three models of community-based reforms. Full service schools focus on meeting
students’ and their families’ educational, physical, psychological, and social needs in a coordinated
and collaborative fashion between school and community services (Dryfoos, 1994; Dryfoos et al.,
2005). In this model, schools service as community centers within neighborhoods that are open
extended hours to provide a multitude of services such as adult education, health clinics, recreation
facilities, after-school programs, mental health services, drug and alcohol programs, job placement
and training programs, and tutoring services.
Specifically designed to target and improve at-risk neighborhoods, full-service schools aim to
prevent problems, as well as to support them. Whereas this model supports Anyon’s (1997) argu-
ment to repair the larger social and economic problems of society as a means of improving public
education, there is no evidence that full-service schools affect student achievement.
Harlem Children’s Zone

Growing up in the South Bronx and an all-black community on Long Island didn’t prepare Geoffrey
Canada for the academic and social challenges he faced at Bowdoin College in Maine. As a result,
he wanted to ensure that other black children were prepared. The aspect of Canada’s approach
that is unique compared to other philosophies from boarding schools, charities, and social service
agencies, is that he wants to leave children where they are, simultaneously changing them and
their neighborhood, instead of removing them from the neighborhood (Tough, 2008).
Canada hopes that children can positively “contaminate” Harlem, NY; he said that
when you’ve got most of the kids in a neighborhood involved in high-quality programs, you begin to
change the cultural context of that neighborhood. If you are surrounded by people who are always
talking about going to college, you’re going to end up thinking, “Hey, maybe this is something I could
do, too.” You can’t help but get contaminated by the idea. It just seeps into your pores, and you don’t
even know that you’ve caught the virus. (Tough, 2008)
It is more common for educated parents to read to their children when they are younger, as
well as to encourage them to read more independently when they are older (Bianchi & Robinson,
1997; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001). White parents typically spend more time educating their child
at home than black parents, so black children often are behind from the beginning of the school
process (Rothstein, 2004a). Black children are more likely than white children to watch
television for longer periods of time (Rothstein, 2004a). Providing quality early childhood
education helps minority and low-income children to be successful, rather than further behind,
when they begin formal schooling.
As a result, Canada provides programs for parents in Harlem before their children are even
born in attempt to infuse all knowledge of things middle-class parents know they should do for
their fetuses and infants, but in a “sensitive way.” Participants of “Baby College” are recruited
from every corner of Harlem to participate in the program, where instructors of color teach them
how to have academic conversations with their children, as well as how to provide them with a
healthy home environment and acceptable forms of discipline. Baby College even purchases items
that parents need and cannot afford for their homes.
Canada expresses hope that all parents will pass along the “Harry Potter values” to their children
in order for them to be as academically successful. Canada’s formula, along with an extended
school day and tutoring for at-risk students paid off in 2007 when a significant number of his
middle-school students improved their state test results to meet grade level requirements in math
and reading, and the middle school earned an “A” on the New York City Department of Education
school report card evaluation process.
In Newark, Pedro Noguera implemented the Broader Bolder Approach as a pilot program in
six K–8 feeder schools into Central High School, in one of the lowest income communities in
Newark, the ward of the 1967 Newark riots. Unfortunately it was eliminated by the new
Superintendent Cami Anderson in 2011, before any meaningful data on its impacts could be
collected (see Russakoff, 2015, for a discussion of the rise and fall of the Anderson superinten-
dency).
Although supporters laud reforms such as the Harlem Children’s Zone and “no excuses” schools,
the ones in the KIPP (Knowledge as Power Program), as evidence of the positive effects of high
expectations and strong discipline on student achievement, critics point to their cultural deficit
model and highly disciplinarian processes as problematic, although at the same time praising their
impact (Sadovnik et al., 2008; Semel, Sadovnik and Coughlan, 2016).
Connecting School, Community, and Societal Reforms

Research conducted over a 20-year period by the Consortium for Chicago School Research at
the University of Chicago demonstrates that a combination of school, community, and societal
level reforms are necessary to reduce the achievement gap (Bryk et al., 2010). Their research
argues that successful school reform must be based on a number of essential supports, including:
1. leadership as the driver for change;

2. parent–community ties;
3. professional capacity;
4. student-centered learning climate;
5. instructional guidance.
Nonetheless, they demonstrate that these supports are most needed and difficult to implement in
the highest poverty schools and that educational reforms must include policies aimed at the
amelioration of the effects of poverty.
To summarize, educational reform in the United States from the 1980s to 2016 has emphasized
the excellence side of the excellence and equity equation. Although federal, state, and local reforms
have resulted in some improvement in achievement, critics (Berliner & Biddle, 1995) have pointed
out that the U.S. educational system was never as problematic as its conservative critics suggested.
They suggest that the real problem in U.S. education has been, and continues to be, that it works
exceptionally well for children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and exceptionally poorly
for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Despite the efforts of school choice and charter
school programs to address these inequalities, particularly those in urban schools, the available
evidence does not overwhelmingly support the claims of their advocates for a reduction in edu-
cational inequality. As the nation moves further into the new millennium, educational equity
needs to continue to be on the front burner of educational reform.
In her 2010 book, The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will
Determine Our Future, Linda Darling-Hammond outlines five key elements needed to reform
education. These elements of reform are based on a sound review of data on the U.S. education
system and evidence from education reforms around the world. Darling-Hammond’s five elements
include:
1. meaningful learning goals;

2. intelligent, reciprocal accountability systems;
3. equitable and adequate resources;
4. strong professional standards and supports; and
5. schools organized for student and teacher learning.
In addition to building these five elements into the U.S. education system, Darling-Hammond
notes that our society must provide for the basic needs of all children so that they are able to
focus their attention on their academic work instead of on survival. Like many others, Darling-
Hammond concludes that the U.S. education system will continue to fail many of its students at
great cost to society as a whole if it does not equalize access to educational opportunity and support
meaningful learning (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Duncan and Murnane support this position
through their examination of the barriers to both educational success and social mobility for low-
income children as well as their profiling of a number of successful educational programs that
promote success (Duncan & Murnane, 2014).
A Theory of Educational Problems and Reforms

In Chapters 1 and 2, we examined a number of pressing educational problems and the ways in
which conservatives, liberals, neo-liberals, and radicals defined and approached them. Throughout
the book, we have looked at how anthropologists, historians, philosophers, political scientists,
sociologists, and educators have analyzed a variety of issues and problems.
For the past decades, the dominant political definition of educational problems has been a
conservative one, with the crisis in education defined in terms of the decline of standards and
authority, and the putative mediocrity of U.S. schools and students. From the Nation at Risk report
in 1983 through President Clinton’s educational reform proposal Goals 2000 in 1994, G.W. Bush’s
No Child Left Behind, and President Obama’s Race to the Top, the question of how to improve
schools has centered on definitions of academic excellence. Although we certainly believe there
is some merit to the conservative claims about the need to raise standards for all U.S. students,
the preoccupation with excellence has unfortunately obscured other significant educational
problems, most particularly those related to issues of equity. Despite NCLB’s emphasis on reducing
the achievement gaps, equity still has been less important than raising standards.
Furthermore, the emphasis on standards has defined educational problems narrowly, looking
primarily at the intellectual and skills function of schooling to the exclusion of the social and
psychological functions. Schools, in addition to teaching children skills and knowledge, also should
provide students from all backgrounds the opportunity to succeed in U.S. society, as well as to
develop their individual potential. The Deweyan conception that schools should have integrative,
developmental, and egalitarian functions has been lost in the past decades, with the latter two
almost fully overlooked.
Thus, school improvement ought to be aimed at all three aspects of schooling. In the integrative
realm, schools do need to improve their effectiveness in teaching basic skills and knowledge.
Although the conservative claim that the decline in educational standards is the cause of U.S.
economic decline is overstated, the nation’s students too often graduate from high school without
the requisite skills or knowledge for postsecondary education. In part, this is due to the erosion
of the academic function of schooling in the twentieth century and the belief that all students
cannot handle an academically rigorous curriculum. On one hand, to the extent that curriculum
tracking and ability grouping has limited access to an academic curriculum for working class and
nonwhite students, the erosion of standards has been significantly undemocratic. On the other
hand, since academic standards and performance appear to have declined across social class, race,
gender, and ethnic lines, the problem of mediocrity is a problem for U.S. education in general.
Where we part company with conservatives is with regard to their preoccupation with standards
as the most significant educational problem and with their emphasis on academic standards as
either ends in themselves or as they relate to technological and economic imperatives. The reason
a society should want a literate and skilled citizenry is not just because these traits are necessary
for the economic system. They are also, as Dewey argued, the cornerstone of a democracy, where
intelligent and informed citizens take an active role in their community. Thus, education is not
an end in and of itself but is instrumental in the life of a democratic society.
In the developmental realm, schools need to become more humane institutions where students
develop as complete human beings. The conservative emphasis on academic standards and the
life of the mind is too shortsighted. Although the life of the mind is important, so too is the life
of the heart. Schools need to emphasize, as well, values such as caring, compassion, and cooperation,
as feminist educators have correctly pointed out (Laird, 1989; Noddings, 1984). Moreover, schools
ought to be places that nurture the creative and spiritual (spiritual need not connote religious)
lives of children and enable them to develop a thirst for active learning and creative endeavor.
In far too many of this nation’s schools, student creativity and imagination is stifled rather than
developed.
What is wrong with U.S. schools in this regard is not new. It has been the subject of criticism
from Dewey’s progressive call for child-centered schools that would emphasize community and
development, to the romantic progressive critiques of schooling in the 1960s as authoritarian and
stifling, to current calls for educational reform from a variety of individuals and groups. All of
these emphasize the need to create schools to educate children in all aspects of life—the social,
psychological, emotional, moral, and creative—not just the intellectual. These efforts have
included feminist educators with their concern with caring and cooperation, holistic educators
with their concern for creative and spiritual dimensions, radical educators with their concern
with transformative and liberating dimensions, and progressive educators with their concern for
community, democracy, and the need to connect students’ lives to the curriculum. These educators
encompass both the liberal and radical political spectrum, and continue to define educational
problems more broadly than do conservatives and neo-liberals, and to define solutions that are
aimed at making schools places where children want to be.
Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of schooling during the past decades of conservative and
neo-liberal ascendancy has been the egalitarian realm of schooling. Although many of the reports
on the crisis in education have stressed the need to balance equity and excellence, the role of
schooling in providing equality of opportunity and possibilities for social mobility has often taken
a backseat. As we argued in Chapters 8 and 9, inequalities of educational opportunity and achieve-
ment have remained persistent problems. Jonathan Kozol, in his book Savage Inequalities (1991),
pointed to the profound inequalities in funding between schools in poor urban areas and affluent
suburban districts. In a muckraking style, Kozol placed the issue of equity back on the nation’s
front burner and demonstrated how current conditions belie the democratic and egalitarian ethos
of U.S. schooling.
In a report on Kozol’s book, Time Magazine (October 14, 1991) chronicled the political
controversies over unequal funding of public schools based on property taxes. Although many
child advocacy groups have called for the elimination of property taxes in educational financing
because they are an advantage to affluent neighborhoods with higher property values, there is
often strong opposition from parents in affluent neighborhoods against a “Robin Hood” plan, which
would redistribute funds from affluent to poor districts. Kozol, who is interviewed in the article,
stated that it is not that affluent parents do not care in the abstract about poor children, but that
in the concrete they care more about giving their own children the best education they can afford.
They believe that their tax dollars should support their own schools and that redistribution would
lead to across-the-board mediocrity.
Although these conflicts point to the sharp divisions and perhaps ambivalence Americans feel
about equity issues, they also point out the difficulty of ameliorating problems of educational
inequality. Nonetheless, the fact seems clear that in the twenty-first century, the divisions between
rich and poor and in the schooling they receive is becoming more glaring than ever. The solutions
to these problems will not be easy, and certainly cannot be addressed through school reform alone,
but it is apparent that the issue of equity must be on the front burner. Thus, efforts at school
improvement must consider equity issues as central to their agenda.
What we are suggesting is that educational reform needs to be aimed at creating schools that
teach students the basic skills and knowledge necessary in a technological society—where students
have the opportunity to develop their emotional, spiritual, moral, and creative lives; where concern
and respect for others is a guiding principle; where caring, cooperation, and community are stressed;
where students from different social classes, races, genders, and ethnic groups have equality of
opportunity; and where inequalities of class, race, gender, and ethnicity are substantially reduced.
These goals, which have been the cornerstone of progressive education for almost a century, are
goals that progressives (both liberals and radicals) have too often felt obliged to apologize for, as
they have been viewed as either politically naive or Utopian. They are neither, although they
certainly will be difficult to achieve.
At the beginning of this chapter, we discussed some effective teachers and suggested that
effective teaching is necessary but not sufficient to solve educational problems. Without reforms
aimed at societal problems, many educational dilemmas will remain unsolved. At the school level,
unless schools are restructured to support good teaching and learning, teachers will continue to
swim upstream against the current of school improvement.
There are, however, examples of schools that succeeded. Central Park East Secondary School
(CPESS) was a school in East Harlem, which was part of the Center for Collaborative Education
(CCE) in New York City. The Center consists of elementary, middle, and high schools, and is
affiliated with the Coalition for Essential Schools. CPESS was a progressive urban public secondary
school that subscribed to the CCE’s 12 principles of education:
1. Schools that are small and personalized in size.

2. A unified course of study for all students.
3. A focus on helping young people use their minds well.
4. An in-depth, interdisciplinary curriculum respectful of the diverse heritages that encompass
U.S. society.
5. Active learning with student-as-worker/student-as-citizen and teacher-as-coach.
6. Student evaluation by performance-based assessment methods.
7. A school tone of unanxious expectation, trust, and decency.
8. Family involvement, trust, and respect.
9. Collaborative decision-making and governance.
10. Choice.
11. Racial, ethnic, economic, and intellectual diversity.
12. Budget allocations targeting time for collective planning.
Under the leadership of Deborah Meier until the late 1990s, and a committed and talented
faculty, CPESS provided an alternative to the failing comprehensive high schools for urban
students. Fine (1991) used CPESS to demonstrate the possibilities for change and described it
“as an example of what can be” (p. 215). Unfortunately, after Meier’s departure the school went
downhill and eventually was closed (Semel & Sadovnik, 2008; Semel, Sadovnik, & Coughlan,
2016). Nonetheless, many of its successful features are now part of the small schools movement
operated by New Visions for Public Schools in New York City and funded by the Gates Foundation,
which has shown promise and has other small schools throughout the United States (Arrastia &
Hoffman, 2012). Semel, Sadovnik, and Coughlan provide the historical case studies of a number
of these small schools, including the original Central Park East Elementary I and Central Park
East Secondary Schools. These histories support the view that these schools provided successful
alternatives to failing urban public schools, but also faced problems such as the ones that caused
CPESS to close (Semel, Sadovnik, & Coughlan, 2016).
David Berliner and Bruce Biddle (1995, pp. 282–336), two eminent educational researchers,
outlined 10 principles toward the improvement of education consistent with our views of
educational reform:
1. Schooling in the United States can be improved by according parents more dignity and their
children more hope.
2. Schooling in the United States can be improved by making certain that all schools have
funds needed to provide a decent education for their students. This will require more fairness
in school funding.
3. Schooling in the United States can be improved by reducing the size of the nation’s largest
schools.
4. Schooling in the United States can be improved by enlarging the goals of the curricula. This
will require thoughtful learning environments where the emphasis is on skills needed for
membership in a democratic society.
5. Schooling in the United States can be improved by adopting innovative teaching methods
that serve enlarged curricular aims.
6. Schooling in the United States can be improved by adjusting the content of the curriculum.
This will require deemphasizing the tie between schooling and employment and expanding
curricula tied to the productive use of leisure.
7. Schooling in the United States can be improved by rethinking and redesigning the system
for evaluating student achievement.
8. Schooling in the United States can be improved by changing the ways in which schools
manage heterogeneity. This change will mean abandoning the age-graded classroom and
finding alternatives for ability groups and tracks.
9. Schooling in the United States can be improved by strengthening the ties between
communities and their schools. Such ties can be promoted through programs that encourage
more active roles for parents, more contacts between parents and teachers, and expanded
visions for the responsibilities of schools.
10. Schooling in the United States can be improved by strengthening the professional status of
teachers and other educators. In Sacred Trust: A Children’s Education Bill of Rights (2011),
Peter Cookson argues that every child in the United States should have equal access to a
high-quality education.
Cookson (2011) outlines the following 10 basic education rights that the United States should
guarantee to all children:
1. The right to a neighborhood public school or a public school of choice that is funded for
excellence.
2. The right to physical and emotional health and safety.
3. The right to have his or her heritage, background, and religious differences honored,
incorporated in study, and celebrated in the culture of the school.
4. The right to develop individual learning styles and strategies to the greatest extent possible.
5. The right to an excellent and dedicated teacher.
6. The right to a school leader with vision and educational expertise.
7. The right to a curriculum based on relevance, depth, and flexibility.
8. The right of access to the most powerful educational technologies.
9. The right to fair, relevant, and learner-based evaluations.
10. The right to complete high school.
These rights are essential for every child to have equality of educational opportunity and to reduce
significantly the achievement gaps.
We began this book with the conviction that the foundations perspective (i.e., the use of the
politics, history, sociology, and philosophy of education) is an important tool in understanding
and solving educational problems. Throughout the book, through text and readings, we have
provided an analysis of many educational problems and a look at some of the proposed solutions.
We end it with the conviction that teachers can make a difference, that schools can and must
be restructured, and that the types of reforms discussed here are possible. They will not happen,
however, unless people make them happen. School improvement is thus a political act. As
prospective teachers and teachers, you must be a part of the ongoing struggle to improve this
nation’s schools. As Maxine Greene (1988, p. 23) stated:
[I am] not the first to try to reawaken the consciousness of possibility . . . or to seek a vision of education
that brings together the need for wide-awakeness with the hunger for community, the desire to know
with the wish to understand, the desire to feel with the passion to see. I am aware of the ambivalences
with respect to equality and justice as well. Fundamentally, perhaps, I am conscious of the tragic
dimension in every human life. Tragedy, however, discloses and challenges; often it provides images of
men and women on the verge. We may have reached a moment in our history when teaching and
learning, if they are to happen meaningfully, must happen on the verge. Confronting a void, confronting
nothingness, we may be able to empower the young to create and re-create a common world—and, in
cherishing it, in renewing it, discover what it signifies to be free.
We believe that as teachers, you will have the opportunity to contribute to the improvement
of this nation’s schools. As we have attempted to indicate throughout this book, solutions to
educational problems are by no means easy, as the problems are complex and multidimensional.
Teachers alone will not solve these problems. However, they must be part of the solution. We
encourage you to accept the challenge.
The following articles examine issues relating to educational reform and school improvement.
The first article, “School Vouchers and Student Achievement: Reviewing the research,” written
by David Trilling, summarizes the research findings on school vouchers.
The second article, “A Critical Look at the Charter School Debate,” by social scientist and
Director of CREDO Margaret E. Raymond, summarizes the findings on the differences between
charter schools and traditional public schools.
The third selection is a conversation between historian of education Diane Ravitch and edu-
cational reformer Whitney Tilson on a variety of topics related to school reform, which highlights
the differences and, at times, similarities between a liberal (Ravitch) and neo-liberal (Tilson).
School Vouchers and Student

Achievement: Reviewing the Research
David Trilling
Despite controversial and mixed results, school The American Federation for Children
voucher programs have ballooned in recent Growth Fund (AFC), a group advocating for
years. In many states, parents can use govern- school choice, argued in 2016 that vouchers
ment-funded vouchers to pay tuition at partici- cost taxpayers, on average, just over $6,000
pating private schools, including religious per child per year. By contrast, per-pupil
schools. In some cases, vouchers may be used to spending in public schools exceeded $11,000,
cover home-schooling expenses. In much of the on average, in fiscal year 2014, according to the
U.S., however, vouchers are only available to most recent data available from the U.S. Census
disabled students or children whose family Bureau.
incomes fall below a certain threshold. For The number of children attending school
example, one program in urban Milwaukee tar- on state-sponsored vouchers grew from 61,700
gets poor, minority students. during the 2008–2009 academic year to over
School vouchers are among the various 153,000 by 2015–2016, according to a report
“school choice” options available to families, from the AFC. That’s a 148 percent increase.
some of whom do not want to send their children (The federal government does not track enroll-
to traditional public schools. Other school choice ment in voucher programs.)
programs include charter schools and virtual Milton Friedman—the American economist
schools. and Nobel laureate perhaps best known for
vigorously championing free markets—called neighborhood public schools, the very schools
for school vouchers back in 1955, arguing that are attended by the vast majority of African
that “competitive private enterprise is likely to American students. Furthermore, private and
be far more efficient in meeting consumer parochial schools are not required to observe
demands” for education than the government. federal nondiscrimination laws even if they
He eventually started an advocacy organization, receive federal funds through voucher pro-
the Friedman Foundation for Educational grams,” the NAACP said in its 2015–2016 list
Choice, which publishes an interactive map of legislative priorities.
with details on different voucher programs Others, such as the National Education
nationwide. (The foundation, which became Association, a three-million-strong group of
known as Ed Choice in 2016, lobbies state legis- educators, say that applying public funds to
latures to implement school choice programs. parochial school tuition blurs the line between
Ed Choice lists on its website a number of the church and state, violating the Constitution.
scholars whose research is mentioned below as On the other hand, fiscal conservatives like
members of its “Ed Choice Experts” “speakers vouchers because they save government funds.
bureau.”) Competition, moreover, could be good for inno-
Today more than half of U.S. states offer some vation, they argue. Though a sweeping 2015
sort of school choice program; 15 states and the review by the National Bureau of Economic
District of Columbia offer vouchers. Maine and Research (NBER) found little evidence that
Vermont have offered vouchers since the late vouchers improve educational outcomes, it did
19th century to students living in rural areas, declare that “competition induced by vouchers
far from public schools. The first modern voucher leads public schools to improve.”
program started in 1990, when Wisconsin “Vouchers have been neither the rous-ing
targeted students from low-income families in success imagined by proponents nor the abject
Milwaukee. In 2001, Florida became the first failure predicted by opponents,” say the authors
state to offer vouchers to students with dis- of the NBER paper, which was led by Dennis
abilities. In cases where spaces in private schools Epple of Carnegie Mellon University. The
are too few, vouchers are often distributed by programs show “no consistent, robust pattern.”
lottery. Amid such a heated debate, journalists should
Research on the academic impact of vouchers be mindful of who is presenting voucher
—often determined using test scores or high research. Studies can be massaged to bolster
school graduation rates—is decidedly mixed; the claims of one side or the other. Education
there is no scholarly consensus that they boost policy researchers Christopher Lubienski and
student achievement, though many researchers T. Jameson Brewer of the University of Illinois
encourage further study and increased emphasis single out Ed Choice—the advocacy group
on how voucher programs are designed. Amid founded by Milton Friedman—and warn that it
vigorous campaigning by advocacy groups for and over-emphasizes research that is not as strong
against vouchers, the benefits are deeply as it suggests. Some of the findings that Ed
contested. Choice presents as bolstering the case for
vouchers leave out caveats explicitly flagged by
the authors themselves. “Advocacy based on this
Arguments and research overview
research is misguided and should be based on
Teachers unions argue that vouchers siphon potentially stronger claims,” Lubienski and
money from underfunded school districts and Brewer write in a 2016 study for the Peabody
create a two-tiered education system. The Journal of Education. “[T]he empirical results
National Association for the Advancement of are relatively modest at best, and sometimes
Colored People (NAACP) opposes vouchers, negative, not to mention incoherent and
reasoning that they benefit a limited few. contested.”
“Vouchers take critical resources away from our
Four impact studies beneficiaries—poor students who are mostly

black. Examining the Louisiana Scholarship
Milwaukee Program (LSP), they compared outcomes for
Joshua Cowen of the University of Kentucky and lottery winners (those granted a voucher) and
his colleagues tracked students in Milwaukee— losers (those who stayed behind in public
the first city in the country to introduce its own schools). Abdulkadiroglu and colleagues found
voucher program—over five years. They found a the “vouchers reduce academic achievement”
relationship between voucher-receiving students because students who used vouchers to attend
and high school graduation, even if the students Louisiana private schools earned significantly
did not stay in the voucher program throughout lower scores in math, reading ability, science and
high school: “They were also more likely [. . .] to social studies after one year. Lower math scores
continue beyond the first year of college.” increase the likelihood of a failing grade by
However, the authors expressed concern 50 percent.
that the private schools that receive the Abdulkadiroglu and colleagues surmise that
vouchers “implicitly or explicitly select the LSP is flawed because it only pays for tuition at
better students”—sometimes known as “cream the cheapest, lowest-quality private schools,
skimming.” Private schools “can ‘counsel out’ which, the authors observe, often happen to be
or even expel students that public schools can- Catholic. That the vouchers only provide access
not.” At the time of the study, private schools to the cheaper participating schools adds
were not required to publish test scores, allowing ammunition to arguments that they encourage
them to focus more on graduation and college a two-tiered education system for the haves and
preparation. The authors say that factor could the have-nots.
skew results compared with public schools,
where test preparation is prioritized. New York
Matthew M. Chingos of the Brookings Institu-
Washington DC tion and Paul E. Peterson of Harvard University
In Washington D.C., Patrick J. Wolf of the found that the privately sponsored New York
University of Arkansas and colleagues looked School Choice Scholarships Foundation pro-
at a program that targeted poor, minority com- gram saved taxpayers about 50 percent on public
munities. They found voucher students were 21 school tuition, but saw no impact on whether
percent more likely to graduate high school, participating students went to college. The
suggesting “that private schools provide students program focuses on elementary-school children
with an educational climate that encourages from low-income families in New York City.
school completion either through the inter-
vention and expectations of school faculty or by
Race
having similarly motivated and achieving
peers.” They also discovered a positive impact Race is an issue either directly addressed or
on reading scores for students who stayed in the intimated in much research on school vouchers.
private schools for four years, but no change in A 2016 paper by Mark A. Gooden of the
math scores. Wolf and colleagues called the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues asks
program “one of the most effective urban drop- if school vouchers help raise education standards
out prevention programs yet witnessed.” for poor, minority students, as is often the stated
goal of these programs. As proponents’ argu-
ments increasingly focus on racial equality, the
Louisiana
authors argue that without race more directly
By contrast, in Louisiana, Atila Abdulkadiroglu discussed as a factor, “it will be difficult for such
of Duke University and colleagues found that policies to generate better educational opportun-
a voucher program there hurt its intended ities for black children or society as a whole.”
Some voucher programs do not cover enough of they are willing to pay more for homes in
the tuition to enable access to the best private jurisdictions that provide school vouchers,” the
schools. Those who cannot contribute the differ- authors write. In some Vermont school districts,
ence are often poor minority children: “We have voucher- supported private schools are replacing
found that there are some troubling realities that public schools.
show that current voucher programs are inade-
quate for addressing the systemic policy issues
Other resources
and personal deprivations that poor children of
color face in schools everyday.” The U.S. Department of Education does not
Anna Egalite of North Carolina State track voucher enrollment, but it does have a
University and colleagues examine how the variety of education-related data on its National
Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP)—the Center for Education Statistics website as well
voucher program that Atila Abdulkadiroglu and as a database of related research papers.
his colleagues found was hurting student The National Education Policy Center at the
achievement—may help desegregate public University of Colorado at Boulder produces
schools. They suggest this program reduces the peer-reviewed research to inform public debates
number of minority students in public schools about education policy, including school
with the poorest performance, while slightly choice.
increasing minority enrollment in the worst The National Conference on State Legisla-
private schools. They conclude that the LSP has tures tracks legislation on school choice nation-
not harmed efforts to desegregate Louisiana’s wide and offers information on programs similar
schools and that it may even help. to vouchers, such as scholarship tax credit
programs and education savings grants.
Individual state departments of education offer
Other findings
reports about voucher programs in their areas. For
Some researchers have looked at voucher example, Florida’s Office of K-12 School Choice
programs abroad. In Pakistan, Claire Morgan and has posted dozens of reports on the McKay
her colleagues at WestEd, a San Francisco-based Scholarship Program, which is open to disabled
non-profit organization, found a program that children, on its website.
“resulted in girls being educated for less than it The American Federation for Children
would have cost” the government to educate Growth Fund (and its daughter organization,
them. In Columbia, a program cost the state the Alliance for School Choice) advocates for
more, but it may ultimately contribute more to vouchers. The federation publishes an annual
the overall economy. Both programs, Morgan breakdown of voucher enrollment in each state,
and her colleagues wrote, “increased private calling every district as necessary to compile the
school enrollment among the countries’ poorest list.
income groups, thus probably improving equity” Public Schools First North Carolina offers a
—and could be repeated elsewhere. The 2015 list of groups opposing school vouchers.
NBER paper by Dennis Epple and colleagues Resources like GuideStar and Foundation
(discussed above) also looks at programs abroad. Directory (subscriptions are often available at
In the areas of Vermont that lack public libraries) can help journalists see when a non-
schools and offer families a voucher to send profit group engages in government lobbying.
children to private schools, houses are worth Turn to “Schedule C: Political Campaign and
about $24,000 more than houses in areas without Lobbying Activities” of the organization’s 990
voucher programs, Susanne Cannon and tax filings, which are required of most non-
colleagues wrote in a 2015 paper for the Journal profits. The Friedman Foundation for Educ-
of Housing Research. “The clear implication of ational Choice (now Ed Choice) spent $87,576
this study is that families perceive school on direct lobbying in 2014, for example. The
vouchers as enhancing their quality of life, and American Federation for Children tries to sway
public opinion, but does not engage in direct Mandated Study of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice
lobbying, according to its 2014 tax filings. Program,” Policy Studies Journal, 2013. doi: 10.
1111/psj.12006.
Egalite, Anna J.; Wolf, Patrick J. “A Review of the
Challenges to voucher programs Empirical Research on Private School Choice,”
Peabody Journal of Education, 2016. doi: 10.
The controversy over voucher programs looks 1080/0161956X.2016.1207436.
unlikely to disappear soon. In Texas, in 2015, Egalite, Anna J.; Mills, Jonathan N.; Wolf, Patrick J.
“The Impact of Targeted School Vouchers on
legislators vetoed a $100 million plan that
Racial Stratification in Louisiana Schools,”
would have allowed up to 16,000 students to Education and Urban Society, 2016. doi: 10.1177/
transfer from urban public schools to private 0013124516643760.
or religious-based schools. For Education Next, Epple, Dennis; Romano, Richard E.; Urquiola, Miguel.
Joshua Dunn of the University of Colorado- “School Vouchers: A Survey of the Economics
Literature.” NBER Working Paper, 2015. doi:
Colorado Springs wrote a short paper on what
10.3386/w21523.
he calls the “shaky foundations” of state restric- Fleming, David J. “Similar Students, Difference
tions on voucher programs. Choices: Who Uses a School Voucher in an
Otherwise Similar Population of Students?,”
Education and Urban Society, 2015. doi: 10.1177/
Citations 0013124513511268.
Gooden, Mark A.; Jabbar, Huriya; Torres, Mario S. Jr.
Abdulkadiroglu, Atila; Pathak, Parag A.; Walters,
“Race and School Vouchers: Legal, Historical and
Christopher R. “School Vouchers and Student
Political Contexts,” Peabody Journal of Education,
Achievement: Evidence from the Louisiana
2016. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.
Scholarship Program,” NBER Working Paper,
Lubienski, Christopher; Brewer, T. Jameson. “An
2016. doi: 10.3386/w21839.
Analysis of Voucher Advocacy: Taking a Closer
Cannon, Susanne E.; Danielsen, Bartley R.; Harrison,
Look at the Uses and Limitations of ‘Gold Stand-
David M. “School Vouchers and Home Prices:
ard’ Research,” Peabody Journal of Education, 2016.
Premiums in School Districts Lacking Public
doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1207438.
Schools,” Journal of Housing Research, 2015. doi:
Morgan, Claire; et al. “The Impact of School Vouchers
10.1016/j.jpubeco.
in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review,”
Chingos, Matthew M.; Peterson, Paul E. “Experiment-
International Journal of Educational Research, 2015.
ally Estimated Impacts of School Vouchers on
doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.010.
College Enrollment and Degree Attainment,”
Wolf, Patrick J.; et al. “School Vouchers and
Journal of Public Economics, 2014. doi: 10.1016/
Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from
j.jpubeco.2014.11.013.
Washington, DC,” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Cowen, Joshua M.; et al. “School Vouchers and
Management, 2013. doi: 10.1002/pam.21691.
Student Attainment: Evidence from a State-
A Critical Look at the Charter School

Debate
Margaret E. Raymond
The British philosopher John Stuart Mill about charter schools involves a tangle of
remarked, “In all intellectual debates, both sides differing histories, theories, values, and facts.
tend to be correct in what they affirm and wrong Worse, many times, the parties to the discussion
in what they deny.” Nowhere in the swirling aren’t even aware they’re operating on different
arguments about improving K-12 education in planes of discourse. A sort of mental grid-lock
the United States is his notion truer than when often results. A roadmap of the different layers
applied to charter schools. Maligned and revered, of the charter school debate, such as proposed
exemplified or reviled, almost every discussion here, may provide needed guidance.
The foul-up occurs across the country and Ideology and models of social
across the spectrum of education policy discus- welfare
sions. As a provider of evidence, I have joined
Charter schools provide the backdrop for an on-
many conversations about charter schools with
going debate about the aims of publicly supported
school boards, district leadership, state education
education and the role of the individual in rela-
agencies, legislatures, and national advocacy
tion to the larger community. Not surprisingly,
groups. It is surprising how frequently earnest and
the lines do not fall cleanly into charter versus
well-meaning people speak past each other. This
traditional public schools. Instead, the boundaries
miscommunication is sometimes intentional
of ideology cut through both camps. Liberals,
and sometimes unintentional. progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are
The breakdown is especially serious because found both pressing for charter schools and
the topic is charter schools—the widest reaching opposing them, obviously with different points of
school reform initiative in the United States. focus and emphasis.
With over 20 years of operating public schools Progressives stress the opportunity and
in a relaxed regulatory environment in exchange necessity of social progress, usually driven by an
for tighter accountability (or so it is supposed to empirical foundation. Through gradual reform of
be), the collective experience of nearly 6,000 social and welfare policies, progressives seek a
charter schools is a monumental and largely democratic society that reduces inequality,
untapped knowledge base about “doing school” poverty, and discrimination, which are viewed as
under different terms and conditions. Policy negative byproducts of capitalism. Much of the
leaders are hoping that the relaxed regulatory effort to reform policies and institutions neces-
arrangement for charter schools will deliver an sarily involves an active central role of govern-
array of results: improved student academic ment. Facets of the charter school scheme appeal
learning, more engaging professional settings for to progressive—the emphasis on improved
teachers, greater educational equity across equality of outcomes for historically disadvant-
student groups, or innovative practices in and out aged students, strong education as an antidote to
of the classroom. poverty, and providing adequate preparation for
The American public is aware of these all students regardless of background. But having
opportunities. In the 2013 PDK/Gallup Poll of charter schools operate outside of government
the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public control does not.
Schools, slightly less than 70% of Americans Liberals share the ideal of equality, but seek to
supported charter schools, and two of three couple it with a wide range of personal freedoms,
Americans supported new charter schools in including voting rights, freedom of religion,
their communities (Bushaw & Lopez, 2013, p. property rights, and other choices of personal
17). Further, most Americans (52%) said charter value. Support of personal development and
schools provide a better education than other opportunity are central to the liberal notion
public schools (p. 17). With solid support, the of government. Many charter school leaders and
political stakes are extremely high so it is little board members consider themselves liberal
wonder that the debate is equally charged. and point to the general tenet of charter schools
By separating and addressing the layers of that every student can perform at high levels as
debate, a clearer picture of the issues and possible a key value. High expectations, personal respons-
points of agreement emerges. At a minimum, ibility, and the dignity of each and every person
highlighting the various tiers of discussion are common themes in charter schools, all of
enables us to more readily recognize when the which align with a liberal outlook. Conversely,
discussion is operating on conflicting planes. And liberal charter school opponents point to higher
if we do better than John Stuart Mill suggests and racial concentrations (regardless of potentially
highlight the strength and folly of the opposing superior academic results) in many urban settings
views, we may be able to shed helpful light on key as inimical to developing tolerance and accept-
elements of the policy discussion. ance of diverse colleagues. A few are downright
suspicious when some of the “no excuses” schools derives from the ideological differences men-
encourage students to think of themselves as tioned above. The prevailing differences concern
“fighters” or “warriors.” Many fear that students the degree of operating latitude and oversight
will lose their affinity to community by the charter schools should receive. The conflict
strong emphasis on personal development. appears at both ends of the flexibility-for-
Conservatives are harder to peg, as their accountability compact. In the area of relaxed
positions and precepts are in flux. But it would be regulations, opponents, rather than striving for
fair to say that more contemporary conservatives more flexibility for all public schools, try to
stress education and culture as important tools for impose on charter schools many of the same
illuminating a strong social order grounded in requirements facing traditional schools. Some of
morality and fealty to community, country, and this behavior is due to a reliance on government
a higher power. They prefer government in a to set the course, which aligns with the ideals of
minimal role and advocate rights and obligations progressives. Yet, unless one is completely
of self-determinism. Many conservative support- convinced — against decades of evidence across
ers of charter schools see educational success as the globe to the contrary — that a strong central
essential for full participation in society, as well institution is the best architect of local policy, a
as a key to economic and social parity. Conserv- better approach would be to seek similar
atives who oppose charter schools paint the flexibility for all schools. Of course, this would
range of school models and options as frivolous require term contracts and accountability, which
and inefficient. They lament the inclusion of life many charter school opponents prefer to avoid.
skills in curriculum and oppose services that Some of these efforts have succeeded: Current
replicate activities of the family. They also legislative and regulatory policy creates
bemoan the tight coupling of performance and disadvantages for charter schools in places where
accountability, preferring to let parents decide they lack financial or facilities parity.
what’s in their children’s best interests. On the accountability side of the deal, sup-
Libertarians favor the policy of choice advo- porters have their own conflict, independent
cated by Milton Friedman, in which parents can of any disagreement with opponents. Some
select from an array of schools, both public and supporters embrace strong state accountability
private, which differentiate themselves in various while others argue that state regulations stifle
ways. Parents would essentially control the innovation. Opponents are quick to capitalize on
allocation of public funding associated with their any negative consequence of charters to push for
children. In the libertarian view, a robust market more draconian forms of accountability over
of schools would ultimately be the most respon- charter operations. The relative low incidence of
sive to parent demands; parents would reject financial malfeasance or operator misconduct is
schools that failed to provide a sufficient school frequently and conveniently generalized to paint
experience, and ultimately those schools would the lot, leading to demands for heavier compli-
disappear. Libertarians like charter schools ance reporting by schools.
because of their variety but, in all likelihood, are The enduring proportion of underperforming
dissatisfied that they don’t go far enough in charter schools, some of which are into their
supporting parent choice. In fact, many libertar- second decade of operations, suggests that we
ians think charters prevent education in the need alternate mechanisms to ensure that stu-
United States from evolving into a full voucher dents get the learning they require to succeed.
system. Authorizers, which are drawn from school
districts, colleges, universities, nonprofits, or
municipal governments, and which are respons-
Legislative and regulatory
ible for charter school oversight, have a range of
paradigms
expertise and resources. Increasingly, they’re
Much of the debate about the appropriate legal called on to exercise their legislatively mandated
and regulatory framework for charter schools duty to intervene with charter schools that are
failing academically. In many communities, the has existed for less than a century and, for more
authorizer operates in a milieu of conflicting sig- than half that time, willfully excluded large
nals and expectations, in part due to ideological fractions of the nation’s youth. Even today, many
differences about oversight. opponents of charter schools are trying to
Finding common ground across ideological preserve as much of the legacy organization of
differences is challenging — people get emotion- public education—including a vigorous defense
ally invested in their utopian ideals. Two of its most glaring shortcomings—simply because
possibilities come to mind. First, there is a vast of history.
distance between our current reality and any of The drive to maintain the status quo carries
the desired future states, so it may be helpful to a troubling corollary. Opponents are comfortable
keep to a more pragmatic approach. In addition, trying to hobble charter schools in terms of
all parties must admit that their own views arise budgets and facilities while at the same time
from the exposure to diverse philosophies and the advancing legal challenges that their own
cultivation of mind that we wish for all students. funding is inequitable. It is hard to reconcile both
Like each of us, today’s students deserve the positions in any way that doesn’t harm the
access to a sufficiently high quality of education students that charter schools serve, for it is they
(charter or traditional public) that it affords them who ultimately bear the brunt of the resource
the chance to choose their own utopia. deprivation that grows out of adult squabbling.
Historical and institutional Performance or lack thereof

arrangements
The most fundamental level of the debate
Regardless of industry or mission, organizations about charter schools is whether they work. A
morph quickly to adopt a second purpose: their growing amount of high-quality research from
own preservation. Organizations display a range independent evaluators examines how charter
of adaptive behaviors, including aggressive schools perform academically, including several
defense of their domains, reclassifying mission studies from my organization. The accumulating
to eliminate difficult or unpleasant aspects of evidence does little to resolve the perform-
their work, and reinforcing the status quo, ance discussion, but this has less to do with
which translates into resistance to new ideas or inconclusive findings than from differences in
technological innovation. Clayton Christensen how the discussions are framed.
and his team suggest that the institution of public Several studies over the past five years have
education no longer fits the social and economic recognized that, like other public schools, charter
context it is intended to serve (Christensen, schools vary in their ability to move student
Johnson, & Horn, 2008). learning forward. This should not be surprising,
When applied to the charter school debates, given the flexibility that charter schools are
opponents routinely remark that charter schools permitted. School operators choose to locate in
are “taking money away” from public schools. different communities. They differ in their
They suggest that the new forms of governance curricular focus and instructional approach.
and operation are “privatization” or “become They differ in how they operate their schools.
corporatized” (Ravitch, 2013, p. 15). (Never Some school operators make better choices than
mind that most charter schools are independent others, and this is reflected in different perform-
nonprofit entities with no ties to larger chains ance.
of charter schools or wealthy philanthropists.) Of course, many people engaged in the
The point here is that opposition to charters is school reform debate are unfamiliar with the
grounded in a notion of historical prerogative, as available research. Worse, some who know it
if the current organization of public schools were well intentionally filter out evidence they don’t
somehow baked into our nation’s founding. In agree with (Ravitch, 2013). In such cases,
fact, the current organization of public schooling misrepresentation of the facts is both an error of
omission and one of commission. Sadly, even Charter supporters point to the gains in
leading debaters fall into this trap, which both individual learning in both reading and math
weakens the discussion and damages the integrity and the upward trend of school-to-school
of the policy debate. comparisons as indicators that their efforts to
On balance, the debate about performance is put student learning front and center of their
not on the facts themselves but rather in the discussions about school quality are paying off.
inference drawn from them. Take the most Detractors, on the other hand, pay little heed
recent study on charter schools as an example: In to the progress in the sector and instead per-
June 2013, CREDO released a study of charter form a rudimentary (and as it happens flawed)
school performance in 27 of the 43 states in calculation. Their claim is that if 25% of charter
which charter schools operate. The states in the schools are outperforming their local public
study enroll more than 90% of all charter school schools it means 75% are failing to perform.
students, and the study examined four years of (As an aside, the computation is faulty because
performance. Thus, the findings were both many of the schools that are no different than
stable and inclusive (CREDO, 2013). their local alternatives are posting equivalent
The study showed that the charter school academic gain in an atmosphere of already-
sector is improving, both relative to the learning realized high achievement.)
that their students would otherwise gain in local Both sides stress the facet of the picture to
“traditional” public schools and against its past advantage their position. In doing so, opponents
performance. Examining the learning gains of all miss a potentially game-changing subtlety. Many
the students in charter schools in the 27 states, of the higher-performing schools are serving the
the average student learned more in reading — most disadvantaged students in communities
the annual equivalent of 14 extra school days — that have been desperate for better schools for
than just four years ago. The improvement means their youth. Even if these examples of success are
that charter school students have seven more a fraction of the entire charter school sector, the
days of learning than their peers in other public fact that they have strong and enduring records
schools. In math, charter schools improved over of success should prompt a stampede to learn
the past four years by an amount that equates what they do to cultivate such outcomes and
to 21 extra days of learning. This improvement attempt to disseminate those practices in nearby
eliminated any difference in learning between schools that need improving.
charter school students and their peers in other Moreover, by failing to give credit and blame
public schools. in balanced measure, the debate gets polarized
Of course, the full story amplifies the average in exactly the wrong place. Instead of arguing
story with details about the distribution around past each other, the parties could pursue a
the average. Many will recall the widely cir- more effective exploration about the particular
culated statistic from 2009 that “17% of charter balance of flexibility and accountability that
schools out-perform their local public schools, exists in various locations, which sets up the
and 37% do worse” (CREDO, 2009). Those chance to consider whether a path can be
metrics applied to math, and the new findings devised to provide similar arrangements to more
show improvement at both ends of the spectrum: public schools. In its purest form, flexibility for
The proportion of charter schools that out- accountability is the reform innovation, and the
performed their local public schools rose to evidence to date suggests that where the con-
29%, and the share that had poorer performance tract is fully exercised, schools deliver in ways
in math dropped to 31%. In reading, 25% of that help all students, but especially students
charter schools now outperform their local pub- with previous education deficits. Those examples
lic school alternatives, and only 19% post worse offer important lessons for other schools—both
results. On multiple measures, the charter sector charter and traditional public schools—to
has demonstrated improvement. But there emulate.
remain a fretful number of below-par schools.
References Center for Research on Education Outcomes

(CREDO). (2013). The second national charter
Bushaw, W.J. & Lopez, S.J. (2013, September). The
school study. Stanford, CA; Author.
45th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the public’s
Christensen, C., Johnson, C.W., & Horn, M. (2008).
attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta
Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will
Kappan, 95 (1), 8–25.
change the way we learn. New York, NY: McGraw-
Center for Research on Education Outcomes
Hill.
(CREDO). (2009). Multiple choice: Charter
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the
school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA:
privatization movement and the danger to America’s
Author.
public schools. New York, NY: Knopf.
Ravitch–Tilson Debate
Diane Ravitch and Whitney Tilson
In April and May of 2016, Diane Ravitch and Tilson: I’ll admit that this creates quite a dilem-
Whitney Tilson exchanged a series of emails ma for me: I want the teachers unions, which
outlining both their shared and divergent views remain the single most powerful interest
on the condition of education and approaches to group supporting the Democratic party, to be
education reform. Diane Ravitch, a historian of strong to help as many Democratic candi-
education and Research Professor of Education dates as possible win. But when it comes to
at New York University, has been an outspoken my desire to implement the reforms I think
critic of neoliberal education reform since the our educational system needs, I usually want
2010 publication of her book The Death and them to be weak.
Life of the Great American School System. Whitney
Tilson, a hedge fund manager, is a founder of Ravitch: I disagree.
Democrats for Education Reform and a board I want the teachers’ unions to be strong
member of several charter school organizations so they can defend their members against
including the Knowledge is Power Program unfair practices and protect their academic
(KIPP). freedom. Teachers have been blamed for
We have included the first round of Ravitch the ills of society, most especially, poverty.
and Tilson’s three-part exchange. If you would Today’s reformers have created the myth
like to read rounds two and three of their discus- that great teachers—as defined by their
sion, you can do so at either of their blogs: students’ test scores— can overcome poverty
http://edreform.blogspot.com and close the achievement gaps among
https://dianeravitch.net/ different groups of students. I wish it were
true, but it is not. The myth encourages
Tilson: Hi Diane, lawmakers to believe that wherever pov-
You know, despite our disagreements on erty persists or test scores are low or achieve-
ed reform, I’d bet we agree on 95% of every- ment gaps remain, it must be the teachers’
thing else. I’m certain that we agree that fault.
the Republican party has been hijacked Race to the top required states to evaluate
by extremists, Trump is a madman, Cruz is teachers to a significant degree by their stu-
terrifying, and there’s nothing more import- dents’ test scores, which was a huge mistake
ant than getting a Democrat elected president that has cost states and districts hundreds of
in November (and, ideally, retaking the millions of dollars but hasn’t worked any-
Senate and maybe even the House as well). where. This method has proved unstable
and inaccurate; it reflects who is in the class,
Ravitch:We agree. not teacher quality.
Scores on standardized tests are highly complacent to fight for their members, some
correlated with family income, over which stifle any changes. But, in my view, unions
teachers have no control. In the past few years, built the middle class in this country. We are
some states have eliminated collective bar- losing our strong, stable middle class as the
gaining, and there is no correlation between private and public sectors eliminate unions.
the existence of a union and students’ aca- Income inequality is widening as unions
demic success. In fact, the highest-performing shrivel. In education, unions are especially
states on the national assessment of education important to make sure that teachers are free
progress—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and to teach controversial subjects, like evolu-
New Jersey—are more likely to have unions tion, global warming, and contested books
than the lowest performing states, where (you would be surprised how many classic
unions are weak or banned. books, like “Huckleberry Finn,” “Invisible
Some states have enacted merit pay Man,” and “Of Mice and Men” are on the
programs, which have never improved edu- American Library Association’s list of the
cation or even test scores despite numerous 100 most frequently banned books).
experiments. There have been numerous Do unions protect “bad” teachers? Yes,
assaults in legislatures and in the courts on they do. One can’t know who is “bad” in the
due process (called “Tenure”) and on pay absence of due process. A teacher may be
increases for additional education and falsely accused or the administrator may
experience. I have often heard teachers say harbor a dislike for her race, her religion,
that they became teachers knowing they her sexual orientation, or her pedagogical
would never become rich, but at least they beliefs. Those who wish to fire them after
would have a secure job. Take that away and their probationary period (which may be as
teachers serve at the whim of administrators little as two years or as many as five years—
who may or may not be skilled educators. and in many states, teachers do not have due
How will it improve education if teachers process or tenure) must present evidence that
have no job security, less education and less they are bad teachers or that they did some-
experience? thing that merits their removal. Probationary
Sometimes it seems like the boys in the teachers have no right to due process. Teach-
backroom are spending their time trying to ers have sometimes been falsely accused.
figure out how to crush teachers’ morale Teachers should be able to confront their
and freeze their pay. The consequences of accusers, to see the evidence, and to be
these anti-teacher public policies have been judged by an independent arbitrator. If bad
ugly. Teachers across the nation feel them- teachers get tenure, then blame bad or lazy
selves to be the targets of a witch-hunt. Many administrators. The right to due process must
teachers have taken early retirement, and be earned by performance in the classroom
the numbers of people entering teaching and should not be awarded without careful
has plummeted. Even Teach for America has deliberation by the administrator.
seen a 35% decline in the number of appli- Given the fact that a large percentage—
cants in just the past three years. The attacks as much as 40%, even more in urban districts
on teachers have taken their toll, and there —leave teaching within their first five
are now shortages across the nation. years, our biggest problem is retaining
I believe unions are necessary, not only good teachers, not getting rid of bad ones.
in teaching, but in other lines of work as Bad ones should be promptly removed in
well, to protect the rights of working people, their first or second year of teaching. W.
to make sure they are not exploited and to Edwards Deming, writing about the modern
assure they are treated fairly. Unions are corporation, said that a good company
by no means perfect as they are; some are too hires carefully and then helps its employees
bureaucratic and self-satisfied, some are too succeed on the job. It invests in support
and training. It makes a conscientious effort C) The Republicans have swallowed the free
to retain the people it hired. Why don’t market approach to schooling hook, line, and
we do the same with teachers and stop sinker, as a matter of ideology, not evidence.
blaming them for conditions beyond their I don’t believe in vouchers, because I know
control? that vouchers have not worked in Chile and
Sweden, and they have not worked in this
Tilson: This dilemma isn’t new – in fact, it’s one country either. Many states have adopted
of the reasons I helped start Democrats for vouchers, though usually calling them some-
Education Reform: because I wasn’t comfort- thing else (education savings account,
able joining forces with other reform-oriented education tax credits, opportunity scholar-
organizations that existed at the time (roughly ships, etc.). Most are used to send children to
a decade ago), which were mostly funded, religious schools, many of which have uncer-
supported and run by Republicans with whom tified teachers, inadequate curricula, and no
I shared almost no views in common other accountability at all. Furthermore, the
than in the area of ed reform (and even in that religious schools receiving vouchers usually
area, I disagreed with their union busting and teach creationism and other religious beliefs.
overemphasis on vouchers). I don’t think public money should subsidize
religious schools. Vouchers have never won
Ravitch: I served as Assistant Secretary of Edu- a public referendum, but Republican legis-
cation for Research in the administration of latures keep devising ways to get around their
George H.W. Bush, but realized over time own state constitutions.
that I did not agree with the Republican
approach to education, namely, competition, Tilson: The creation of DFER helped resolve
school choice, testing, and accountability. It this dilemma because I could fight against
is ironic that the Obama administration union policies when I felt they weren’t in the
adopted the same policies as the Republicans, best interests of kids, without fighting against
with the sole exception of vouchers. The the principle of collective bargaining, which
Democratic party used to have a core set I believe in. And I could happily limit my
of educational principles at the federal and political donations to supporting only
state levels: equity of resources, extra support Democrats (reform-oriented ones, of course,
for the neediest students, low college tuition like Obama, Cory Booker and Michael
to increase access, vigorous enforcement of Bennet).
civil rights laws, and support for teacher
preparation. That approach comes closest to Ravitch: What Obama, Cory Booker, Michael
providing equality of educational oppor- Bennett and other corporate-style reformers
tunity. have in common is that they believe in break-
I oppose the Republican approach to edu- ing up public education and replacing it with
cation policy for the following reasons: private management. They believe in closing
schools where tests scores are low. I don’t. The
A) They don’t support public education at
highest performing nations in the world have
all; every one of their presidential candidates
strong, equitable public school systems with
has endorsed some form of privatization and
respected, well prepared, and experienced
said nothing at all about the public schools
teachers. They have wrap-around services to
that enroll 90% of our students.
make sure that all children come to school
B) They would be thrilled to eliminate all healthy and ready to learn. They don’t test
unions; they don’t care about people who are every child every year from grades 3-8 as we
poor or struggling to get into the middle class do. They don’t have vouchers or privately
or to stay in the middle class. managed charters.
Tilson: So why am I feeling this dilemma again Tilson: 2. The color of a child’s skin and his/her
right now? Because the stakes are so high: our zip code shouldn’t determine the
country is politically polarized, the Republi- quality of school he/she attends.
can party is spiraling out of control, mostly
likely nominating either a madman or Ravitch: We agree.
extremist, and there’s an opportunity for we
Democrats to not only win the presidency, but Tilson: 3. Poor parents care deeply about ensur-
also take back Congress. The election in ing that their children get a good
November will have an enormous impact on education.
so many critical issues that hang in the
balance: a majority in the Supreme Court, Ravitch: We agree.
income inequality, healthcare, immigration,
foreign policy/our relationships with the rest Tilson: 4. Sometimes the closest neighborhood
of the world, environmental issues/global school isn’t right for a child, so
warming, LGBT and women’s rights. . . the parents should have at least some
list goes on and on. options in choosing what public
school is best for their children.
Ravitch: I certainly agree. The Republican
party has lost its bearings, and its candidate Ravitch: I pause here, because this is moving into
is likely to be someone abhorred by its school choice territory, where Republicans
leadership. have sold the idea that parents should choose
the school as a matter of consumer choice
Tilson: As such, I’m going to be extra careful in (Jeb Bush compared choosing a school to
my writings, when I’m critical of the unions, choosing what kind of milk you want to
to make clear that these are policy differences drink—fat-free, 1%, 2%, whole milk, cho-
and that I don’t support attempts to demolish colate milk, or buttermilk). Unfortunately,
unions altogether, whether in the education many choice ideologues take this argument to
sector or elsewhere. its logical conclusion and pursue an all-choice
Writing about things I think we agree on policy, in which the one choice that is no
outside of ed reform has gotten me thinking: longer available is the neighborhood school.
what might we agree on within the area of ed That is the case in New Orleans. It often
reform? seems that reformers—like Republicans—
As one of my mentors, Charlie Munger, consider public schools to be obsolete and
always says: “Invert, always invert.” want to replace them with an all-privatized
So I have tried to compile a list of state- district.
ments that I believe that I think you might
agree with as well. I’m not trying to change Tilson: 5. It is not the case that too many
your mind about anything or put words in children are failing too many of our
your mouth – I’m genuinely trying to find schools; rather, the reverse is true.
areas of agreement, at least on general prin-
ciples (the devil’s usually in the details of Ravitch: I don’t agree. I would say our society is
course, but a good starting point is agreeing failing our children and their families by
at a high level): allowing so many of them to live in poverty.
We have the highest proportion of children
Tilson: 1. Every child in this country has the living in poverty of the world’s advanced
right to attend a safe school that nations—about 22%. That is shameful, the
provides a quality education. schools didn’t cause it. As I said before,
family income is the best predictor of stand-
Ravitch: We agree. ardized test scores; that is true of every
standardized test, whether it is the SAT, Ravitch: I might have agreed with you in years
the ACT, the state tests, national tests or gone past, but I have come to see “rigor” as a
international tests. If poverty is directly loaded word. It reminds me of “rigor mortis.”
related to low academic performance, then I prefer to say that teachers should teach
target poverty and pursue public policies academic studies with joy and enthusiasm,
that will improve the lives of children, awakening students to the love of learning
families and communities. At the same time, and inspiring intrinsic motivation.
work to improve schools, not to close them.
There is now a considerable amount of Tilson: 9. Some testing is necessary but too
research showing that state takeovers seldom much testing is harmful.
improve schools; that charters perform on
average about the same as public schools; that Ravitch: I agree that some testing is necessary.
voucher schools on average perform worse I believe based on many years of study of
than public schools; that the charters that get standardized testing that most testing should
the highest test scores exclude or remove be designed by the classroom teachers, not
students with disabilities, students who don’t by outside testing corporations. I would prefer
read English, and students who get low test to see more time devoted to essays, projects,
scores. and any other kind of demonstration of what
children have learned or what they dream and
Tilson: 6. Poverty and its effects have an imagine and create. Standardized testing
enormous impact, in countless ways, should be used only diagnostically, not more
on a child’s ability to learn. than once a year, and it should not figure
into the students’ grade or the teachers’
Ravitch: We agree. The child who is home- evaluation. I say this because standardized
less, who lacks medical care, who is hungry is tests are normed on a bell curve; the affluent
likely not to focus on his or her studies and is students cluster at the top, and the low-
likely to be frequently absent because of income students cluster at the bottom. In
illness or caring for a sibling. It really hurts short, the deck is stacked against the kids in
children when the basic necessities of life are the bottom half, because the tests by their
missing. nature will always have a bottom half. Why
not have tasks that almost everyone can do
Tilson: 7. If one had to choose between fixing well if they try? Give children a chance to
all schools or fixing everything else show what they can do and let their
outside of schools that affects the imaginations soar, rather than relying on their
ability of children to learn (poverty, choice of one of four pre-determined answers.
homelessness, violence, broken fami- I agree that too much testing is harmful,
lies, lack of healthcare, whether and it is also harmful to attach high stakes
parents regularly speak and read to (like promotion, graduation, or teacher
children, etc.), one would choose the evaluation) to a standardized test because it
latter in a heartbeat. makes the test too important. Standardized
tests are not scientific instruments; they are
Ravitch: I certainly agree because reducing social constructions. They favor those who
poverty and its ill effects would improve come to school with advantages (educated
schools at the same time. parents, secure homes, books in the home,
etc.) when the tests are high stakes, the
Tilson: 8. Schools should be rigorous, with results are predictable: teaching to the test,
high expectations, but also filled narrowing the curriculum, cheating. When
with joy and educators who instill a schools and teachers will be punished or
love of learning. rewarded for test scores, the measure itself is
corrupted (Campbell’s Law). It no longer Tilson: 14.Some teachers are phenomenal, most
measures what students know and can do, are good, some are mediocre, and
but how much effort was spent preparing for some are truly terrible.
the test. Teachers engage for weeks or
months in test preparation, schools cut back Ravitch: This spread is probably the same in every
or eliminate the arts, physical education, other profession. Those who are “truly
history, science, and whatever is not tested. terrible” should be removed before they
Teachers, administrators, schools, even achieve tenure; most, I suspect, leave early in
districts will cheat to assure that their scores their career because they can’t control their
go up, not down, to avoid firings and closures classes. We actually have many more success-
and instead to win bonuses. ful teachers than most people believe; as states
All of this corrupts education, and in the have reported on their new evaluation
end, the scores still are a reflection of family systems, more than 95% of teachers have
income and opportunity to learn. And been rated either “Highly effective” or
children have a worse education even if their “Effective.” Very few fell below those markers.
scores rise because of the absence of the arts Frankly, teaching these days is so difficult that
and other important parts of a sound it takes a very strong person to handle the
education. responsibilities of the classroom.
Tilson: 10.Tests should be thoughtful and cover Tilson: 15.All teachers should be evaluated
genuine knowledge, not easily game- regularly, comprehensively and fairly,
able, which too often leads to with the primary goal of helping them
excessing teaching-to-the-test. improve their craft.
Ravitch: We agree. Ravitch: I agree, although I think that teachers

who receive high ratings from their admin-
Tilson: 11. Expanding high-quality pre-K, istrators and peers should not be regularly
especially for poor kids, is important. evaluated. That is a waste of time that should
be devoted to those who need help in
Ravitch: We agree. improving. The top teachers should be offered
extra pay to mentor new teachers.
Tilson: 12.Teachers should be celebrated, not
demonized. Tilson: 16.The best teachers should be rewarded
while struggling ones should be given
Ravitch: Yes, absolutely. Teachers have one of help so they can improve.
the hardest, most challenging jobs in our
society and they are underpaid and under- Ravitch: I don’t believe in performance bonuses.
respected. When I was in North Carolina last The research shows them to be ineffective. I
week, I was told by an editorial writer that the agree that those who struggle should receive
entry pay is “good,” at $35,000, but the top help so they can improve.
salary is only $50,000. Teachers should be
treated as professionals and earn a professional Tilson: 17.If a teacher doesn’t improve, there
salary that enables them to live well and send needs to be a timely and fair system to
their children to college. get them out of the profession.
Tilson: 13.They should be paid more, both on a Ravitch: We agree.

relative and absolute basis.
Tilson: 18.There should be a timely process to
Ravitch: We agree. handle disciplinary charges against
teachers so that there is no need for good suggestions, we would have two
things like rubber rooms, which are a publicly-funded school systems, one managed
costly and dehumanizing embarrass- by public officials, the other by private
ment. entrepreneurs. I see no reason to have a dual
school system—one highly regulated, and the
Ravitch: We agree. other unregulated, or as you propose here,
regulated to a greater extent than at present.
Tilson: 19.In fighting for the interests of If charters do continue as they now are, your
teachers, unions are doing exactly proposal would make them fairer and less
what they’re supposed to – and have predatory. In their current state, they are
done it well. bankrupting school districts and skimming off
the easiest to educate students, and that’s not
Ravitch: We agree. fair.
I would like to see charter schools
Tilson: 20.The decline of unionization (which return to the original idea proposed in
has occurred mostly in the private 1988 by Albert Shanker and a professor in
sector), has been a calamity for this Massachusetts named Ray Budde. Charter
country and is a major contributor to schools were supposed to be collaborators
soaring income inequality, which is with public schools, not competitors. Their
also a grave concern. teachers would belong to the same union as
public school teachers. They were supposed
Ravitch: We agree. to have freedom to innovate and expected to
share their innovations with the public
Tilson: 21.What Gov. Scott Walker did in schools. At the end of their charter—say, five
Wisconsin as well as the Friedrichs years or ten years—they would cease to exist
case were wrong-headed attempts to and return to the public school district.
gut union power, and it was Shanker thought that charter schools should
wonderful that the Supreme Court exist find innovative ways to help the kids
left existing laws in place via its 4–4 who were not making it in public schools,
tie in the Friedrichs case last week. those who had dropped out, those who were
unmotivated, those who were turned off by
Ravitch: Agreed. I would say the same about the traditional schools. I support that idea. We
overturning of the Vergara case in California, have strayed very far from the original idea
which threw out a lower court decision and are moving towards a dual school system,
intended to eliminate due process for one free to choose its students, the other
teachers. required to accept all who show up at their
doors.
Tilson: 22.Charter schools, like regular public
schools, should: a) take their fair Tilson: 23.For-profit online charters like K12 are
share of the most challenging stu- providing an inferior education to far
dents; b) backfill at every grade level; too many students and thus need to
and c) follow comparable suspension be much more carefully regulated
and expulsion policies. and, in many cases, simply shut down.
Ravitch: I agree to an extent. In the present Ravitch: For-profit online charter schools are a
situation, where charters compete with public scam and a fraud. They should be prohibited.
schools for students and resources, I think I applauded your frank dissection of K12 Inc.,
these are fair requirements that ensure a level which surprised me because virtual schools
playing field. However, if we were to take your grab on to the coat-tails of the reform
movement. For another great expose of the productive and interesting to come up with a
K12 virtual charter chain, read Jessica long of a list as possible.
Califati’s outstanding series in the San
Best regards,
Jose Mercury News, which was published
Whitney
just days ago: http://www.Mercurynews.Com/
———————————-
education/ci_29780959/k12-inc-california-
virtual-academies-operator-exploits-charter
Ravitch: Here are a few of my beliefs that you may
Students who enroll in these schools have
or may not share.
lower scores, lower graduation rates, and
learn little. A study by Stanford University’s 1. I believe in separation of church and
CREDO earlier this year said that they learn state. Public money should not be spent
essentially nothing. Why should taxpayers for religious school tuition. People should
foot the bill? not be asked to subsidize the religious
In addition, I would like to see for-profit beliefs of others. Once we start on that
charter schools prohibited. The public pays slippery slope, taxpayers will be under-
taxes for schooling and believes that the writing schools that teach creationism,
money will be spent on education, not on white supremacy, female subjugation,
paying a profit to investors in a corporation. and other ideas that violate both science
The purpose of a for-profit corporation is to and our democratic ideals.
make a profit; the purpose of a public school 2. I believe that every child, regardless of zip
is to prepare young children to live a full and code or family income, race, gender, dis-
satisfying life as citizens and members of the ability status, language proficiency, or
community. There should never come a time sexual orientation, should be able to
when school leaders choose the need to show enroll in an excellent school.
a profit over the needs of students. I would 3. I believe that an excellent school has
also stop spending public money on for-profit small classes, experienced teachers, a full
“colleges.” They have been chastised in curriculum, a well-resourced program in
congressional investigations time and again the arts, science laboratories, and a gym-
for their predatory practices, but they always nasium, situated in a well-maintained
manage to survive, thanks to skillful, and attractive building. Students should
bipartisan lobbying. I recommend a new have the opportunity to study history,
book by A.J. Angulo, titled “ Diploma Mills: literature, the sciences, mathematics,
How For-Profit Colleges Stiffed Students, civics, geography, technology, and have
Taxpayers, and the American Dream” (Johns ample time for physical activities, sports,
Hopkins Press). and exercise. The school should have a
well-stocked library with a full-time
Tilson: 24.Voter IDs laws are a despicable and librarian. It should have a school nurse,
thinly disguised attempt by a social worker, and a psychologist. The
Republicans to suppress the turnout principal should be an experienced
of poor and minority voters, which in teacher, with the authority to hire teach-
turn hurts schools serving their ers and to evaluate their performance.
children. Teacher evaluation should be based on
peer review and classroom performance,
Ravitch: We agree. not on test scores.
4. I believe that the primary purpose of
Tilson: So what do you think? Do you disagree public schools, based on my studies as a
with any of these statements? What have I historian of education, is to develop good
missed? What do you believe that you think citizens. The most important job that
I would agree with? I think it would be citizens have in our democracy is to vote
thoughtfully and to be prepared to sit on 9. I believe in school choice, but I do not

juries and reach wise decisions about the believe that private choices should be
fate of others. Citizens must be well publicly subsidized. Anyone who wants
informed and knowledgeable. They their child to have a religious education
should know how to collaborate with should pay for it. The same for those who
others to accomplish goals. They should want their children to attend a private
care about the fairness and future of our school or to be home-schooled. Parents
democracy. They should be knowledge- have a right to make choices, but they
able about American and world history. should not expect the public to pay for
They should understand the basic their choices.
principles of government, economics, 10. I would like to see today’s reformers
and science so they can understand the fight against budget cuts to public
great issues of the day. schools, against segregation, and against
5. I believe that public education is one of the overuse and misuse of standardized
the basic building blocks of our democ- tests. I wish we might join together to
racy. As citizens, we have an obligation lead the fight to improve the living
to support a good public education for all standards for children and families
children, even if we have no children or now living in poverty. I wish we might
if our own children are grown or if we advocate together for higher salaries
send our children to religious or private for teachers, smaller classes for students,
schools. effective social and medical services for
6. Because I believe in the importance of children who need them, and excellent
public education, I oppose all efforts to public schools in every neighborhood.
privatize public schools or to monetize 11. I would like to see all of us who care
them. about children, who respect teachers and
7. I believe that the primary responsibility want a great education for every child,
for shaping education policy should be in join together to persuade the public to
the hands of educators, not politicians. invest more in education and to con-
Educators are the experts, and we should sider education the most important
let them do their jobs without political endeavor of our society, the one that will
interference. determine the future of our society. Let
8. I believe that teachers should not only be us recognize together that poverty
respected, but should be paid more for matters, teachers matter, schools matter,
their experience and education. I do not and that we must strive together to reach
believe that education will get better if the goals upon which we agree.
teachers have less experience and less
education.
Appendix
Suggested Resources
Research Literatures
ERIC can be searched online to find research and reflections on a wide variety of educational topics: www
.eric.ed.gov
Jstor: www.jstor.org (found at college and university libraries that subscribe.) Jstor contains electronic versions
of journal articles more than several years old in such journals as Sociology of Education, American Journal
of Sociology, American Sociological Review, and others.
National Library of Education: www.ed.gov/NLE/index.html
Online Journals and/or Abstracts

Anthropology and Education Quarterly: www.aaanet.org/cae/aeq
Black Issues in Higher Education: www.blackissues.com
Chronicle of Higher Education: chronicle.com
Education Week: edweek.org
Educational Leadership: www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm
Harvard Education Letter: www.edletter.org
Harvard Education Review: www.gse.harvard.edu/~hepg/her.html
Rethinking Schools: www.rethinkingschools.org
Teachers College Record at www.tcrecord.org
Sociological Research Online is at: www.socresonline.org.uk
Online News Sources

Boston Globe: www.boston.com
LA Times: www.latimes.com
New York Times: www.nytimes.com
Library of Congress: www.loc.gov
New York Public Library: www.nypl.org
Professional Associations
Association of School Administrators: www.aasa.org
American Educational Research Association: www.aera.net
American Sociological Association (ASA): www.asanet.org
Sociology of Education Section: www.asanet.org/sections/educat.html
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: www.ascd.org
Council for Aid to Education: www.cae.org
Council of Chief State School Officers: www.ccsso.org
Council of Great City Schools: www.cgcs.org
Education Commission of the States: www.ecs.org
National Library of Education: www.ed.gov/NLE/
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: www.nbpts.org
National Education Association: www.nea.org
Sociology of Education Section, ASA: www.asanet.org/soe
526 Appendix
Research Organizations
AACTE Education Policy Clearinghouse: www.edpolicy.org
Center for Social Organization of Schools: www.csos.jhu.edu
Consortium for Policy Research in Education: www.upenn.edu/gse/cpre
National Center for Research in Vocational Education: vocserve.berkeley.edu
National Research and Development Centers

National Science Foundation: www.nsf.gov
Office of Educational Research and Improvement: www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/index.html
Office of Postsecondary Education: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/index.html
RAND Organization: www.rand.org
U.S. Department of Education: www.ed.gov/index.jsp
White House Briefing Room, Education: www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html
Educational Reform Organizations and Information

Achieve: www.achieve.org/achieve/achievestart.nsf?opendatabase
AVID: www.avidcenter.org
Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships: www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/center.html
Coalition for Essential Schools: www.essentialschools.org
Comer School Development Program: http://info.med.yale.edu/comer
Edison Schools: www.edisonproject.com
New American Schools Network: www.naschools.org
Public Education Network: www.publiceducation.org
Success for All: www.successforall.net
Testing: Test Preparation and Tutoring Organizations

ACT: www.act.org
Educational Testing Service (ETS): www.ets.org
Kaplan: www.kaplan.com
Kumon: www.kumon.com
National Assessment of Student Progress (Nation’s Report Card):
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/site/home.asp
Princeton Review: www.princetonreview.com
Psychological Corporation: www.tpc-international.com
Sylvan Associates: www.sylvanlearning.com
Higher Education Resources

American Association of Colleges and Universities: www.aacu-edu.org
American Association of Community Colleges: www.aacc.nche.edu
Association for Institutional Research: www.airweb.org
Association for the Study of Higher Education: www.ashe.ws
Community College Web: www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/cc
Educause (formerly Educom and CAUSE): www.educause.net
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education: www.ed.gove/about/offices/list/ope/fipse
Higher Education Resource Hub: www.higher-ed.org
League for Innovation in the Community College: www.league.org
National Center for Postsecondary Improvement: www.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/index.html
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education: www.highereducation.org
Review of Higher Education: www.press.jhu.edu/journals/review_of_higher_education; also try
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhe
Society for College and University Planning: www.scup.org
Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education: www.wiche.edu
Appendix 527
International Materials
Digest of Educational Statistics: International Comparisons:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/list_tables4.asp#c6
International Association for Social Science Information Service & Technology: www.iassistdata.org
International Bureau of Education: www.ibe.unesco.org
International Education Links: http://nces.ed.gov/partners/inernat.asp
Swedish Social Science Data Service: www.ssd.gu.se/enghome.html
UNESCO: www.unesco.org
Data
Country and Data Book: www.census.gov/statab/www/ccdb.html
General Social Survey (GSS) is available on-line, and simple analyses may be conducted on-line at:
www.webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-SERIES/00028.xml
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES): http://nces.ed.gov
NCES Encyclopedia of Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/edstats
NCES Surveys: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys
Roper Center for Public Policy Research: www.ropercenter.uconn.edu
State Education Report Cards: http://measuringup2000.highereducation.org
U.S. Census Bureau, Home Page: http://census.gov
Teaching Resources
Common Core State Standards Initiative: www.corestandards.org
Federal Resources for Educational Excellence: http://free.ed.gov/
Library of Congress’ Teaching Resources Page: www.loc.gov/teachers
PBS Resources for the Classroom: www.pbs.org/teachers
Professional Associations for Teachers

American Federation of Teachers: www.aft.org
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: www.nbpts.org
National Education Association: www.nea.org
For a comprehensive list of subject-specific teacher organizations, see www.unm.edu/~jka/sts/proforg.html
Permissions
pp. 2–3 quotation permission of the author. pp. 93–118. Copyright © 1996 President and
pp. 3–4 quotation by Hechinger, F. (1987, November Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
10). Gift of a great teacher. New York Times. For more information, please visit www.harvard
Reprinted with permission. educationalreview.org.
Lorraine M. McDonnell and M. Stephen Weatherford, Dewey, John. “My Pedagogic Creed.” Reprinted by
Evidence Use and the Common Core State Stand- permission of the Publisher. From Martin Dwork
ards Movement: From Problem Definition to Policy in, Editor, Dewey on Education, New York: Teach-
Adoption. American Journal of Education, 120, ers College Press. Copyright © 1959 by Teachers
Pp. 1–25, April 2013. College, Columbia University. All rights reserved.
Jean Anyon, “What Counts as Educational Policy? Greene, Maxine. “Wide-awakeness and the moral life”
Notes Toward a New Paradigm,” Harvard Edu- from Landscapes of Learning. New York: Teachers
cational Review, Volume 75:1 (Spring 2005), College Press, 1978. Reprinted with permission.
pp. 65–88. Copyright © 2005 President and “Rich Land, Poor Schools: Inequality of National
Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. For Educational Resources and Achievement of
more information, please visit www.harvard Disadvantaged Students” From National Differ-
educationalreview.org. ences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the
Josh Kagan, Empowerment and Education: Civil Future of Schooling by David P. Baker and Gerald
Rights, Expert Advocates, and Parent Politics in K. LeTendre. Copyright © 2005 by the Board of
Head Start, 1964–1980, Teachers College Records, Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. All
104 (3), pp. 516–564, April 2002. rights reserved. Used with permission of Stanford
Bowles, Samuel and Gintis, Herbert. “Capital University Press, www.sup.org.
accumulation, class conflict, and educational Richard Ingersoll. What Do the National Data Tell Us
change” from Schooling in Capitalist America, About Minority Teacher Shortages. Section III (p.
New York: Basic Books, 1976. Reprinted with 13–22) in the State of Teacher Diversity in American
permission. Education. Washington D.C.: Albert Shanker
p. 136 Figure 4.1 Theoretical Model of Relevant Institute, 2017. Reprinted with permission.
Variables and Their Interrelationships. Source: p. 268 Table 7.1. From Frederick M. Wirt and Michael
Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, W. Kirst, Political and Social Foundations of
a division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Education, McCutchan Publishing Corporation,
Group, from Education and Inequality: A Theoretical Berkeley, CA 94702. 1972. Permission granted by
Empirical Synthesis by Caroline Hodges Persell. the publisher.
Copyright © 1977 by The Free Press. All rights Michael W. Apple. “The Politics of a National
reserved. Curriculum.” Reprinted by permission of the
Talcott Parsons. 1959. The School Class as a Social Publisher. From Transforming Schools by P.W.
System: Some of Its Functions in American Cookson and B. Schneider (Eds.) 1995. Taylor &
Society, Harvard Educational Review, 29, Pp. Francis Ltd, http://www.informaworld.com,
297–318. Reprinted with permission. reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Power and Ideology in Education, edited by Karabel & Lisa D. Delpit, “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and
Halsey (1977) Chp. “On Understanding the Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children,”
Processes of Schooling: The Contributors of Harvard Educational Review, Volume 58:3 (August
Labeling Theory” by Rist pp. 292–306. Reprinted 1988), pp. 280–298. Copyright © 1988 President
with permission. and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights
Amy Stuart Wells and Irene Serna, “The Politics of reserved. For more information, please visit
Culture: Understanding Local Political Resistance www.harvardeducationalreview.org.
to Detracking in Racially Mixed Schools,” Rothstein, Richard. Class and the classroom: Even the
Harvard Educational Review, 66:1 (Spring 1996), best schools can’t close the race achievement gap.
Permissions 529
American School Board Journal, 191, No. 10, Annette Lareau, Shani Adia Evans, and April
October 2004. Reprinted with permission from Yee, “The Rules of the Game and the Uncertain
American School Board Journal, October 2004. Transmission of Advantage: Middle-class Parents’
Copyright 2004 National School Boards Search for an Urban Kindergarten.” Sociology of
Association. All rights reserved. Education 2016, Vol. 89(4), 279–299. Reprinted
Downey, D. and Condron, D. (2016). Fifty Years since with permission.
the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship Imani Perry, “A Black Student’s Reflection on Public
between Schools and Inequality, Sociology of and Private Schools,” Harvard Educational Review,
Education, 89(3): 207–220. Reprinted with 58:3 (August 1988), pp. 332–336. Copyright ©
permission. 1988 President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A Social All rights reserved. For more information, please
Constructionist Approach to Disability: Impli- visit www.harvardeducationalreview.org.
cations for Special Education. Exceptional Children, David Trilling, School Vouchers and Student
77(3), 367–384. Reprinted with permission. Achievement: Reviewing the Research. Journalist’s
Karolyn Tyson, William Darity, Jr. and Domini R. Resource. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics
Castellino “It’s Not ‘A Black Thing’: Under- and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School.
standing the Burden of Acting White and Other September 14, 2016. Reprinted with permis-
Dilemmas of High Achievement.” American Socio- sion.
logical Review , Vol. 70, No. 4 (Aug., 2005), pp. Margaret E. Raymond , A Critical Look at the Charter
582–605. Reprinted with permission. School Debate. Phi Delta Kappan Education Week
Sarah A. Miller. “How You Bully a Girl”: Sexual Drama March 27, 2014. Reprinted with permission.
and the Negotiation of Gendered Sexuality in High Ravitch–Tilson Debate. Edited from Tilson and
School. Gender and Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, October Ravitch Blogs. Permission of authors.
2016, 721–744. Reprinted with permission.
Bibliography
Abowitz, K. & Karabe, R. (2010). Charter schooling Alexander, K., Entwisle, D. & L. Olson. (2014). The
and democratic justice. Educational Policy, 24, long shadow of work: Family background, dis-
534–558. advantaged urban youth, and the transition to
Achilles, C. M. (1996). Response to Eric Hanushek: adulthood. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foun-
Students achieve more in smaller classes. Educa- dation.
tional Leadership, 76. Alexander, L. (1986). Chairman’s summary. In Time
Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R., Sexton, D., & Freitas, C. for results: The governor’s 1991 report on educa-
(2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing tion. National Governors Association Center for
problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” Policy Research and Analysis. Washington, DC:
schools. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), National Governors Association.
71–107. Allan, E. (2010). Policy discourses, gender and education:
Addi-Raccah, A. & Ayalon, H. (2008). From high Constructing women’s status. New York: Routledge.
school to higher education: Curricular policy and Allen, W. R. (1988). Black students in U.S. higher
postsecondary enrollment in Israel. Educational education: Toward improved access, adjustment
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 31–50. and achievement. Urban Review, 20, 165–188.
Adler, M. (1982). The paideia proposal: An educational Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African
manifesto. New York: Macmillan. American college student outcomes at predomi-
Adler, M. (1990). Reforming education: The opening of nantly white and historically Black public colleges
the American mind. New York: Macmillan. and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62,
Aladjem, D., Shive, J., Fast, E. F., Herman, R., 26–44.
Borman, K., Katzenmeyer, W., Hess, M., & Hoffer, Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., & Haniff, N. Z. (1991).
T. (2002). A large-scale mixed-methods approach College in Black and White: African American
to studying comprehensive school reform (available students in predominantly White and historically
from the American Institutes for Research, 1000 Black public universities. Albany, NY: State
Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC University of New York Press.
20007). Allensworth, E., Nomi, T., Montgomery, N., & Lee,
Albert Shanker Institute (2015). The State of Teacher V. (2009). College preparatory curriculum for all:
Diversity in American Education. Academic consequences of requiring algebra and
Albjerg, P. G. (1974). Community and class in American English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational
education, 1865–1918. New York: John Wiley. Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 367–391.
Alexander, K. & Cook, M. (1982). Curriculum and Allison, C. (1998). Teachers for the new South. New
course-work. American Sociological Review, 47, York: Peter Lang.
626–640. Almy, S., & Theokas, C. (2010). Not prepared for class:
Alexander, K. & Pallas, A. M. (1983). Private High-poverty schools continue to have fewer in-field
schools and public policy: New evidence on cog- teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
nitive achievement in public and private schools. Altbach, P. G., Kelly, G. P., Petrie, H. G., & Weis, L.
Sociology of Education, 56, 170–182. (Eds.). (1991). Textbooks in American society:
Alexander, K., Bozick, R., & Entwisle, D. (2008). Politics, policy, and pedagogy. Albany, NY: State
Warming up, cooling out, or holding steady? University of New York Press.
Persistence and change in educational expecta- Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state
tions after high school. Sociology of Education, 81, apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and other essays.
371–396. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Alexander, K. A., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. America 2000. (1991). Washington, DC: The White
(1994). On the success of failure: A reassessment House.
of the effects of retention in the primary grades. New American Association of University Women. (1992).
York: Cambridge University Press. How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC:
532 Bibliography
AAUW Educational Foundation and National Anyon, J. (1994b). Teacher development and reform
Education Association. in an inner city school. Teachers College Record,
American Association of University Women. (1998). 96(1), 14–31.
Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education Anyon, J. (1995a). Educational reform, theoretical
for girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Foundation. categories, and the urban context. Access: Critical
American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Building on Perspectives and Policy Studies in Education, 14(1),
the best, learning from what works: Six promising 1–11.
school-wide reform programs. Washington, DC: Anyon, J. (1995b). Inner city school reform: Toward
Author. useful theory. Urban Education, 30(1), 56–70.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Improving Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy
low-performing high schools: Ideas & promising of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers
programs for high schools. Washington, DC: Author. College Press.
American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educator’s Anyon, J. (2005a). Radical possibilities: Public policy
guide to schoolwide reform. American Institutes for urban education and a new social movement. New
Research: Washington D.C. York: Routledge.
Amidon, E. J. & Flanders, N. A. (1971). The role of Anyon, J. (2005b). What “counts” as educational
the teacher in the classroom. Minneapolis, MN: policy? Notes toward a new paradigm. Harvard
Paul S. Amidon and Associates. Educational Review, 75(1), 65–88.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social Anyon, J. (2009). Progressive social movements
constructionist approach to disability: Implications and educational equity. Educational Policy, 23,
for special education. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 194–215.
367–384. Anyon, J. (2011). Marx and education. New York:
Anastasiou, D., & Keller, C. E. (2014). Cross-national Routledge.
differences in special education coverage: An Apple, M. W. (1978). Ideology, reproduction, and
empirical analysis. Exceptional Children, 80(3), educational reform. Comparative Educational
353–367. Review, 22(3), 367–387.
Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Michail, D. Apple, M. W. (1979a). Ideology and curriculum.
(2016). Disability in multicultural theory: Con- Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ceptual and social justice issues. Journal of Disability Apple, M. W. (1979b). The other side of the hidden
Policy Studies, 27, 3–12. curriculum: Correspondence theories and the
Ancess, J. & Wichterle Ort, S. (1999). How the coalition labor process. Journal of Education, 162, 7–66.
campus schools have re-imagined high school: Seven Apple, M. W. (1982a). Cultural and economic
years later. New York: The National Center for reproduction in education. Boston, MA: Routledge
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, & Kegan Paul.
Teachers College, Columbia University. Apple, M. W. (1982b). Education and power. Boston,
Andersen, M. L. (1999). Restructuring for whom? MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Race, class, gender and the ideology of invisibility. Apple, M. W. (1990). What reform talk does:
Presidential Address, Eastern Sociological Society, Creating new inequalities. In S. Bacharach
March 5, Boston. (Ed.), Educational reform: Making sense of it all
Anderson, J. (1988). The education of blacks in the south, (pp. 155–164). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
1860–1935. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Apple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics.
Carolina Press. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4–11, 19.
Antler, J. (1987). Lucy Sprague Mitchell: The making of Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Demo-
a modern woman. New Haven, CT: Yale University cratic education in a conservative age. New York:
Press. Routledge.
Antler, J. & Biklen, S. K. (Eds.). (1990). Changing Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-
education: Women as radicals and conservators. liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. education reform. Educational Policy, 18, 12–44.
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curri- Apple, M. (2009). Is racism in education an accident?
culum of work. Journal of Education, 162, 67–92. Educational Policy, 23, 651–659.
Anyon, J. (1983). Workers, labor and economic Apple, M. W. (2009). Global crises, social justice, and
history, and textbook content. In M. W. Apple education. New York: Routledge.
& L. Weis (Eds.), Ideology and practice in schooling Apple, M. W. & Christian-Smith, L. K. (Eds.).
(pp. 37–60). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University (1991). The politics of the textbook. London:
Press. Routledge.
Anyon, J. (1994a). The retreat of marxism and social- Apple, M. W., Ball, S. J., & Armando Gandin, L.
ist feminism: Postmodern theories in education. (2009). The Routledge international handbook of the
Curriculum Inquiry, 24, 115–134. sociology of education. New York: Routledge.
Bibliography 533
Archer, M. S. (1979). Social origins of educational Atkinson, P., Davies, B., & Delamont, S. (1995).
systems. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Discourse and reproduction: Essays in honor of Basil
Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood: A social history Bernstein. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
of family life. New York: Vintage Books. Attewell, P. (2001) The winner-take-all high school:
Aristotle. (1943). Politics. New York: Modern Organizational adaptations to educational stratifi-
Library. cation. Sociology of Education, 74, 267–296.
Armor, D. (1995). Forced justice: School desegre- Attewell, P. (2001). Comment: The first and second
gation and the law. New York: Oxford University digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252–259.
Press. Attewell, P. & Lavin, D. (2008). Passing the torch: Does
Arnot, M. (2002). Reproducing gender: Selected critical higher education for the disadvantaged pay off across
essays on educational theory and feminist politics. the generations? Russell Sage Foundation.
London: Falmer. Attewell, P. & Thurston, D. (2008). Raising the bar:
Arnot, M. (2008). Educating the gendered citizen: Curricular intensity and academic performance.
Sociological engagements with national and global Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30,
agendas. Oxford: Routledge. 51–71.
Arnot, M. (2012). Gender and education. New York: Austin, G. R. (Ed.). (1982). The rise and fall of national
Routledge. test scores. New York: Academic Press.
Arnot, M. & Dillabough, J. (2000) Challenging Austin, G. R. & Garber, H. (Eds.). (1985). Research
democracy: International perspectives on gender, on exemplary schools. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
education and citizenship. New York: Routledge. Ayalon, H., Grodsky, E., Gamoran, A., & Yogev, A.
Arnot, M. & Weiler, K. (Eds.). (1993). Feminism and (2008). Diversification and inequality in higher
social justice in education. London: Falmer. education: A comparison of Israel and the United
Arnot, M., David, M., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing States. Sociology of Education, 81(3), 211–241.
the gender gap: Postwar education and social change. Bacharach, S. (1990). Educational reform: Making sense
Cambridge: Polity. of it all. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Arnove, R. F., Altbach, P. G., & Kelly, G. P. (Eds.). Baglieri, S., Valle, J., Connor, D., & Gallagher, D.
(1992). Emergent issues in education: Comparative (2011). Disability studies in education: The
perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New need for a plurality of perspectives on disability.
York Press. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278.
Aronowitz, S. (1987/1988). Postmodernism and Bailyn, B. (1960). Education in the forming of American
politics. Social Text, 18, 94–114. society. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. (1985). Education under Carolina Press.
siege. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Baker, B. D. (2010). School finance 101. Retrieved
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodern edu- December 23, 2010 from http://schoolfinance101.
cation: Politics, culture and social criticism. Minnea- wordpress.com/slide-and-data-library/
polis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Baker, B. D. (2011). School finance 101. Retrieved
Arons, S. (1986). Compelling belief: The culture of June 8, 2012 from http://schoolfinance101.
American schooling. Amherst, MA: University wordpress.com/slide-and-data-library/.
of Massachusetts Press. Baker, B. D. (2012). School finance 101. https://
Arrastia, L. & Hoffman, M. (2012). Starting up: Critical schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/. Retrieved Sep-
lessons from 10 new schools. New York: Teachers tember 21, 2012.
College Press. Baker, B. D. (2016). School finance 101. School
Arsen, D., et al. (1999). School choice policies in Michi- finance 101. Retrieved January 16, 2017 from
gan: The rules matter. Education Policy Center http://schoolfinance101. wordpress.com/slide-and-
at Michigan State University. www.epc.msu.edu/ data-library/.
publications/ rules/summary.pdf. Baker, B. D. & Elmer, D. (2009). The politics of off-
Arthur, J. & Shapiro, A. (Eds.). (1995). Culture wars: the-shelf school finance reform. Educational Policy,
Multiculturalism and the politics of difference. Boulder, 23, 66–105.
CO: Westview Press. Baker, B. D. & Ramsey, M. J. (2010) What we
Arum, R. & LaFree, G. (2008). Educational attain- don’t know can’t hurt us? Evaluating the equity
ment, teacher–student ratios, and the risk of adult consequences of the assumption of uniform dis-
incarceration among U.S. birth cohorts since 1910. tribution of needs in Census Based special educa-
Sociology of Education, 81, 397–421. tion funding. Journal of Education Finance, 35(3),
Atkinson, P. (1981). Bernstein’s structuralism. Educa- 245–275.
tional Analysis, 3, 85–96. Baker, B. D. & Welner, K. G. (2010) Premature cele-
Atkinson, P. (1985). Language, structure and repro- brations: The persistence of inter-district funding
duction: An introduction to the sociology of Basil disparities. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
Bernstein. London: Methuen. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/718/831.
534 Bibliography
Baker, B. D. & Welner, K. (2011) School finance Banks, J. & McGee Banks, C. (2009). Multicultural
and courts: Does reform matter, and how can education: Issues and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ:
we tell? Teachers College Record, 113(11), Wiley.
2374–2414. Baratz, S. S. & Baratz, J. C. (1970). Early childhood
Baker, D. P. (1992). The politics of American cath- intervention: The social science base of institu-
olic school expansion, 1870–1930. In B. Fuller tional racism. Harvard Educational Review, 40,
& R. Rubinson (Eds.), The political construc- 29–50.
tion of education (pp. 189–206). New York: Praeger. Barber, B. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone: The
Baker, D. P. (1993). Compared to Japan, the U.S. is politics of education and the future of America. New
a low achiever . . . really: New evidence and com- York: Ballantine.
ment on Westbury. Educational Researcher, 22, Barone, C. (2011). Some things never change: Gen-
18–26. der segregation in higher education across eight
Baker, D. P. (1994). In comparative isolation: Why nations and three decades. Sociology of Education,
comparative research has so little influence on 84, 157–176.
American sociology of education. In A. M. Pallas Barr, J. (2004a). A statistical portrait of New Jersey’s
(Ed.), Research in sociology of education and schools. Newark, NJ: Cornwall Center for Metro-
socialization (Vol. 10) (pp. 53–70). Greenwich, CT: politan Studies.
JAI Press. Barr, J. (2004b). A statistical portrait of Newark’s schools.
Baker, D. P. (2014). The schooled society: The Newark, NJ: Cornwall Center for Metropolitan
educational transformation of global culture. Palo Studies.
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Barr, R. & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work.
Baker, D. P. & LeTendre, G. K. (2006). National Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
differences, global similarities. Palo Alto, CA: Bartlett, L. & Johnson, L. (2010). The evolution of
Stanford. new teacher induction policy: Support, specificity,
Baker, D. P. & Riordan, C. (1998, September). The and autonomy. Educational Policy, 24, 847–871.
“eliting” of the common American Catholic Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating
school and national education crisis. Phi Delta hybrid spaces for engaging school science among
Kappan, 16–23. urban middle school girls. American Educational
Baker, D. P. & Smith, T. (1997). Three trends in the Research Journal, 45, 68–103.
condition of education in the United States. Barton, P. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap.
Teachers College Record, 99(1), 14–18. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Baker, D. P. & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers’ Barton, P. (2004, November). Why does the gap still
strategies for children’s school achievement: persist? Educational Leadership, 8–13.
Managing the transition to high school. Sociology Bastian, A., Fruchter, N., Gittell, M., Greer, C., &
of Education, 59, 156–166. Haskins, K. (1985). Choosing equality: The case for
Baker, D. P. & Stevenson, D. L. (1991). State democratic schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
control of the curriculum and classroom instruc- University Press.
tion. Comparative Education Review, 64, 1–10. Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a critique of the political
Baker, D. P., Ethnington, C., Sosniak, L., & Westbury, economy of the sign (C. Levin, Trans.). St. Louis,
I. (Eds.). (1992). In search of more effective MO: Telos Press.
mathematics education: Evidence from the Second Baudrillard, J. (1984). The precession of simulacra.
International Mathematics Study. Norwood, NJ: In B. Wallis (Ed.), Art after modernism: Rethinking
Ablex. representation (pp. 213–281). Boston, MA: David
Ballou, D. P., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using student Godine.
test scores to measure teacher performance: Some Bayles, E. (1966). Pragmatism in education. New York:
problems in the design and implementation of Harper and Row.
evaluation systems [Special issue]. Educational Beauboeuf, T. & Augustine, D. S. (1996). Facing
Researcher, 44, 77–86. racism in education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Banks, J. A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and University Press.
practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Beauvoir, S. de. (1952). The second sex (1st American
Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Histor- ed.). New York: Knopf.
ical development, dimensions, and practice. In Beauvoir, S. de (1989). The second sex. New York:
L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in Random House. (Original work published 1952).
education (pp. 3–49). Washington, DC: American Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: National
Educational Research Association. Bureau of Economic Research.
Banks, J. A. & McGee Banks, C. (1995). Handbook Becker, H. S. (1952). Social-class variations in the
of research on multicultural education. New York: teacher-pupil relationship. Journal of Educational
Macmillan. Sociology, 25, 451–465.
Bibliography 535
Beineke, J. (1998). There were giants in the land: The life and students’ mathematic achievement gains. Nash-
of William Heard Kilpatrick. New York: Peter Lang. ville, TN: National Center on School Choice,
Belasco, A. S., Rosinger, K. O., & Hearn, J. C. (2014). Vanderbilt University, Peabody College.
The test-optional movement at America’s Berends, M., Lucas, S., & Penaloza, R. ( 2008). How
selective liberal arts colleges: A boon for equity or changes in families and schools are related to
something else? Educational Evaluation and Policy trends in black–white test scores. Sociology of
Analysis, 37(2), 206–223. Education, 81, 313–344.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Berends, M., Springer, M. G., & Walberg, H. J. (2007).
Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The Charter school outcomes. New York: Routledge.
development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Berg, I. (1970). Education and jobs: The great training
Books. robbery. New York: Praeger.
Belfield, C. R. (2001a). The effects of competition on Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social
educational outcomes: A review of US evidence. construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology
National Center for the Study of Privatization in of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Education, Columbia University. Available at Berliner, D. & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured
http://ncspe.org. crisis. New York: Longman.
Belfield, C. R. (2001b). Tuition tax credits: What do Berman, P. & Chambliss, D. (2000). Readiness of
we know so far? National Center for the Study of low-performing schools for comprehensive reform.
Privatization in Education, Columbia University. Washington, DC: RPP International.
Available at http://ncspe.org. Bernstein, B. (1973a). Class, codes, and control
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2002). The effects of (Vol. 1). London: Paladin.
competition between schools on educational Bernstein, B. (1973b). Class, codes, and control
outcomes: A review for the United States, Review (Vol. 2). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
of Education Research, 72(2), 279–341. Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 3).
Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2007). The price we pay: London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Economic and social consequences of inadequate Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic
education. Washington, DC: Brookings. discourse: Volume IV: Class, codes and control.
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2015). Privatizing London: Routledge.
educational choice: Consequences for parents, schools, Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and
and public policy. New York, NY: Routledge. identity: Theory, research, and critique. London:
Bell, D. (Ed.). (1980). Shades of brown: New perspec- Taylor & Francis.
tives on school desegregation. New York: Teachers Best, R. (1983). We’ve all got scars. Bloomington, IN:
College Press. Indiana University Press.
Bennett, K. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). How Bestor, A. (1953). Educational wastelands. Urbana,
schools work. New York: Longman. IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bennett, P. & Lutz, A. (2009). How African Bianchi, S. & Robinson, J. (1997). What did you do
American is the net black advantage? Differences today? Children’s use of time, family composition,
in college attendance among immigrant Blacks, and the acquisition of social capital. Journal of
native Blacks, and Whites. Sociology of Education, Marriage and the Family, 59, 332–344.
82, 70–100. Biddle, B., Good, T., & Goodson, I. (Eds.). (1996).
Bennett, W. (1984). To reclaim a legacy. Washington, International handbook of teachers and teaching.
DC: National Endowment for the Humanities. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bennett, W. (1988). James Madison High School. Bidwell, C. (1965). The school as a formal organization.
Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp.
Bensman, D. (2000). Central Park East and its 994–1003). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
graduates: Learning by heart. New York: Teachers Bidwell, C. E., Plank, S., & Muller, C. (1996). Peer
College Press. social networks and adolescent career develop-
Benson, L., Harkavy, I. R., & Puckett, J. L. (2007). ment. In A. C. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Generating social
Dewey’s dream: universities and democracies in an age stratification: Toward a new generation of research.
of education reform: civil society, public schools, and Denver, CO: Westview Press.
democratic citizenship. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Bifulco, R., Cobb, C. D., & Bell, C. (2009). Can
University Press. interdistrict choice boost student achievement?
Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2002). Looking The case of Connecticut’s interdistrict magnet
back over a decade of whole-school reform: school program. Educational Evaluation and Policy
The experience of new American schools. Phi Delta Analysis, 31, 323–345
Kappan, 84(2), 168–175. Biklen, D. (1985). Advancing the complete school:
Berends, M., Goldring, E., Stein, M., & Cravens, X. Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York:
(2007). Instructional conditions in charter schools Columbia University Press.
536 Bibliography
Binder, A. J. (2000). Why do some curricular chal- Borman, K., Cookson, P. W., Jr., Sadovnik, A. R.,
lenges work while others do not? The case of three & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Implementing educational
afrocentric challenges. Sociology of Education, 73, reform: Sociological perspectives on educational policy.
69–91. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blau, P. & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American Borman, K. and Associates. (2005). Meaningful urban
occupational structure. New York: Wiley. education reform: Confronting the learning crisis
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. in mathematics and science. Albany, NY: SUNY
New York: Simon & Schuster. Press
Bloomfield Cucchiara, M. & McNamara Horvat, Borman, K., Tyson, W., & Halperin, R. (2010). Be-
E. (2009). Perils and promises: Middle-class coming an engineer in public universities: Pathways
parental involvement in urban schools. American for women and minorities. New York: Palgrave
Educational Research Journal, 46, 974–1004. Macmillan.
Blount, J. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social
and the superintendency. Albany, NY: State Univer- inequality: Changing prospects in Western society.
sity of New York Press. New York: Wiley.
Bluestone, B. & Harrison, B. (1982). The de-indus- Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social
trialization of America. New York: Basic Books. reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, edu-
Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2007). The gender income gap and cation, and cultural change (pp. 71–112). London:
the role of education. Sociology of Education, Tavistock Publications.
80(1), 1–22. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of
Boli, J. & Ramirez, F. O. (1986). World culture and the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
the institutional development of mass education. University Press.
In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction:
research in the sociology of education (pp. 65–90). In education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills,
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. CA: Sage.
Boli, J., Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (1985). Bowder, D. (Ed.). (1982). Who was who in the Greek
Exploring the origins and expansion of mass world? Oxford: Phaedon Press.
education. Comparative Education Review, 29, Bowen, W. G. & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river:
145–170. Long-term consequences of considering race in college
Bolivar, J. & Chrispeels, J. (2011). Enhancing parent and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
leadership through building social and intellectual University Press.
capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48, Bowles, S. (1977). Unequal education and the
4–38. reproduction of the social division of labor. In
Bond, L. A., Roeber, E., & Braskamp, D. C. (1994). J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and
The status of statewide student assessment programs ideology in education (pp. 137–152). New York:
in the United States. Washington, DC: Council of Oxford University Press.
Chief State School Officers. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist
Booth, A. & Dunn, J. (Eds.). (1995). Family-school America: Educational reform and the contradictions of
links: How do they affect educational outcomes? economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1986). Democracy and
Borman, G. D. & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and nar- Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Hammemess, K., Lankford,
rative review of the research. Review of Educational R., Loeb, S., McDonald, M., Reininger, M.,
Research, 78(3), 367–409. Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Surveying
Borman, G. & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and the landscape of teacher education in New York
inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s City: Constrained variation and the challenge of
equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers innovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
College Record, 112(5), 1–2. www.tcrecord.org ID Analysis, 30, 319–343.
Number: 15664. Date Accessed: 1/31/2010. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., &
Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and stu-
S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and dent achievement. Educational Evaluation and
student achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Policy Analysis, 31, 441–462.
Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. Boyer, E. (1983). High school. New York: Harper and
Borman, K. (1992). The first “real” job: A study of young Row.
workers. Albany, NY: State University of New Boyer, E. (1990). The new agenda for the nation’s
York Press. schools. In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Education reform:
Borman, K. & Spring, J. (1984). Schools in central cities. Making sense of it all (pp. 30–38). Boston, MA:
New York: Longman. Allyn & Bacon.
Bibliography 537
Bracey, G. (1991). Why can’t they be like we were? Brown, L. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the
Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 106–121. crossroads: Women’s psychology and girls’ develop-
Braddock, J. H., II. (1990a). Tracking: Implications for ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
student race-ethnic subgroups. Baltimore, MD: Johns Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G.,
Hopkins University, Center for Research on & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A view from the elemen-
Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. tary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago,
Braddock, J. H., II. (1990b). Tracking the middle IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
grades: National patterns of grouping for instruc- Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993).
tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 445–449. Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge,
Braddock, J. H., II, & Dawkins, M. P. (1993). Ability MA: Harvard University Press.
grouping, aspirations, and attainments: Evidence Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu,
from the national educational longitudinal study S. & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
of 1988. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 324–336. improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL:
Braddock, J. H., II, & McPartland, J. M. (1990). University of Chicago Press.
Alternatives to tracking. Educational Leadership,
Buchmann, C. (2009). Gender inequalities in the
47(1), 76–79.
transition to college. Teachers College Record,
Braddock, J. H., II, & McPartland, J. M. (1992).
More effective education for disadvantaged students: 111(10), 2320–2346.
A conceptual framework on learning environments Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T., & McDaniel, A. (2008).
and student motivation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Gender inequalities in education. The Annual
Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effec- Review of Sociology, 34, 319–337.
tive Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. Budoff, M. (1975). Engendering change in special
Bradley Commission. (1988). Building a history curric- education practices. Harvard Educational Review,
ulum. Washington, DC: Educational Excellence 45(4). In T. Hehir & T. Latus (Eds.). (1992).
Network. Special education at the century’s end: Evolution of
Brameld, T. (1956). Toward a reconstructed philosophy theory and practice since 1970 (pp. 69–88).
of education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Winston. Bulkley, K. & Fisher J. (2002). A decade of charter
Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). A closer schools: From theory to practice. Consortium for
look at charter schools using hierarchical linear Policy Research in Education. Available at www.
modeling. Washington, DC: U.S. Department cpre.org.
of Education, National Center for Education Bulkley, K. & Wohlstetter (Eds.). (2004). Taking
Statistics. account of charter schools: What’s happened and
Brint, S. (1998). Schools and societies. Thousand what’s next. New York: Teachers College Press.
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Bulkley, K. E., Henig, J. R., & Levin, H. M. (2010).
Brint, S. (2006). Schools and societies (2nd ed.). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. the new portfolio models for urban school reform.
Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Community colleges and the promise of educational Bulman R. C. & Kirp, D. L. (1999). The shifting
opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: politics of school choice. In S. D. Sugarman
Oxford University Press. & F. R. Kemerer (Eds.), School choice and social
Bronfennbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of child- controversy: Politics, policy and law (pp. 36–67).
hood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage Brookings Institution Press.
Foundation.
Burbules, N. & Rice, S. (1991). Dialogue across
Brookover, W., et al. (1979). School social systems and
differences: Continuing the conversation. Harvard
student achievement: Schools can make a difference.
New York: Praeger. Educational Review, 67(4), 393–416.
Brookover, W., et al. (1982). Creating effective schools: Burbules, N. & Rice, S. (1992). Can we be heard?
An inservice program for enhancing school learn- A reply to Leach. Harvard Educational Review,
ing climate and achievement. Holmes Beach, FL: 62(2), 264–271.
Learning Publications. Burkholder, Z. (2015). “A war of ideas”: The rise of
Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ conservative teachers in wartime New York City,
communication of differential expectations for 1938–1946 . History of Education Quarterly, 55(2),
children’s classroom performance: Some behav- 218–243.
ioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, Burris, B. (1983). No room at the top. New York:
365–374. Praeger.
Brown, D. K. (1995). Degrees of control: A sociology of Burris, V. (1983, August). The social and political
educational expansion and occupational credentialism. consequences of overeducation. American Socio-
New York: Teachers College Press. logical Review, 48, 454–467.
538 Bibliography
Buss, W. G. (1999). Teachers, teachers’ unions, and Carnoy, M. & Levin, H. (Eds.). (1976). The limits of
school choice. In S. D. Sugarman & F. R. Kemerer educational reform. New York: Longman.
(Eds.), School choice and social controversy: Politics, Carnoy, M. & Levin, H. (1985). Schooling and work
policy and law (pp. 300–331). Washington, DC: in the democratic state. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Brookings Institution Press. University Press.
Butchart, R. (2013). Schooling the freed people: Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R.
Teaching, learning, and the struggle for black freedom, (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining the
1861–1876. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of evidence on enrollment and achievement. New York:
North Carolina Press. Teachers College Press.
Button, W. H. & Provenzano, E. E. (1989). History of Carpenter, P. (1985). Single-sex schooling and girls’
education and culture in America. Englewood Cliffs, academic achievements. Australian and New
NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zealand Journal of Sociology, 21, 456–472.
Butts, R. F. (1978). Public education in the United States: Carpenter, P. & Hayden, M. (1987). Girls’ academic
From revolution to reform. New York: Holt, achievements: Single-sex versus coeducational
Rinehart and Winston. schools in Australia. Sociology of Education, 60,
Butts, R. F. & Cremin, L. A. (1953). A history of edu- 156–167.
cation in American culture. New York: Holt. Carter, P. L. (2016). Carter comment on Downey and
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of effi- Condron. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 225–226.
ciency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Carter, S. M. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-
Campaign for Fiscal Equity. A brief history of the performing, high-poverty schools. Washington, DC:
lawsuit. www.cfequity.org/static.php?page=history The Heritage Foundation.
oflawsuit&category=resources. Accessed October Catsambis, S. (1994). The path to math: Gender
1, 2012. and racial-ethnic differences in mathematics
Campbell, C., & Horowitz, J. (2016). Does college participation from middle school to high school.
influence sociopolitical attitudes? Sociology of Sociology of Education, 67, 199–215.
Education, 89(1), 40–58. Catsambis, S., Jordan, W. J., & McPartland, J. M.
Canada, K. & Pringle, R. (1995). The role of gender (1994). Effects of program and course tracking on high
in college classroom interactions: A social context school students’ behaviors, attitudes, and aspirations.
approach. Sociology of Education, 68(3), 161–186. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center
Cannata, M. (2011). The role of social networks in the for Social Organization of Schools.
teacher job search process. The Elementary School Cavallo, D. (1981). Muscles and morals: Organized
Journal, 111(3), 477–500. playgrounds and urban reform, 1880–1920. Phila-
Carbonaro, W. & Covay, E. (2010). School sector delphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
and student achievement in the era of standards Cavallo, D. (1999). A fiction of the past: The sixties in
based reforms. Sociology of Education, 83, 160–182. America history. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Carey, K. (2017). Dismal voucher results surprise Center for Education Reform. (2005). About charter
researchers as DeVos era begins. New York Times, schools. Retrieved April 6, 2006 from www.ed
February 24, A20. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/ reform.com/charterschools/.
02/23/upshot/dismal-results-from-vouchers- Center for Research on Educational Outcomes
surprise-researchers-as-devos-era-begins.html?_r=0. (CREDO). (2009a). National Charter School
Retrieved March 1, 2017. Study. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford. http://credo.
Carl, J. (1994). Parental choice as national policy stanford.edu/. Accessed December 25, 2009.
in England and the United States. Comparative Center for Research on Educational Outcomes
Education Review, 38(3), 294–322. (CREDO). (2009b). The Hoxby-CREDO debates.
Carlson, D., & Cowen, J. M. (2014). Student Palo Alto, CA: Stanford. Posted on http://credo.
neighborhoods, schools, and test score growth stanford.edu/. Accessed August 18, 2010.
evidence from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Sociology of Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013).
Education, 88(1), 38–55. National charter school study. Palo Alto, CA:
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. Stanford University. http://urbancharters.stanford.
(1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st edu/news.php. Accessed December 17, 2017.
century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum on Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2015).
Education and the Economy. Urban charter school study. Palo Alto, CA:
Carnoy, M. (1974). Education as cultural imperialism. Stanford University. http://urbancharters.stanford.
New York: McKay. edu/news.php. Accessed December 17, 2017.
Carnoy, M. (Ed.). (1975). Schooling in a corporate Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the
society. New York: McKay. capital to the classroom: Year 2 of the No Child
Carnoy, M. (2001). School vouchers: Examining the Left Behind Act. www.cep.dc.org/displayDocument.
evidence. Washington, DC: Economic Policy cfm?DocumentID=299. Accessed October 1,
Institute. 2012.
Bibliography 539
Center on Organization and Restructuring of Cochran, M. (2011). International perspectives on

Schools. (1995). Bibliography on school restructuring. early childhood education. Educational Policy, 25,
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 65–91.
Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell,
Chabbot, C. & Ramirez, F. O. (2000). Develop- D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009). Good
ment and education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), and just teaching: The case for social justice in
Handbook of sociology of education. New York: teacher education. American Journal of Education,
Kluwer, 2000. 115(3), 347.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2001).
The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Resources, instruction, and research. In R. Boruch
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized
Chambliss, J. J. (Ed.). (1996). Philosophy of education: trials in education research. Washington, DC: The
An encyclopedia. New York: Garland. Brookings Institution.
Charner, I. (1996). School-to-work opportunities: Cohen, D. K. (1995). What standards for national
Prospects and challenges. In K. Borman, P. W. standards? Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 751–757.
Cookson, Jr., A. R. Sadovnik, & J. Z. Spade Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E.
(Eds.), Implementing educational reform: Sociological (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Chal-
perspectives on educational policy (pp. 139–170). lenges for policy and practice. San Francisco, CA:
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Jossey-Bass.
Chenoworth, K. (2009). How it’s being done: Urgent Cohen, E. G. (1994a). Designing groupwork: Strategies
lessons from unexpected schools. Harvard Education for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers
Press. College Press.
Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and criticism: Post- Cohen, E. G. (1994b). Restructuring the classroom:
structural investigations in education. New York: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of
Teachers College Press. Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Childs, J. L. (1931). Education and the philosophy of Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., & Leechor, C. (1989).
experimentalism. New York: Century. Can classrooms learn? Sociology of Education, 62,
Chubb, J. E. (2003). Real choice. In Paul E. Peterson 75–94.
(Ed.), Our schools our future . . . Are we still at risk? Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. Glencoe,
(pp. 329–362). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution. IL: The Free Press.
Chubb, J. E. & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, Coleman, J. S. (1965). Adolescents and the schools. New
and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings York: Basic Books.
Institution. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory.
Chudgar, A. and Luschei, T. F. (2009). National Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
income, income inequality, and the importance of University Press.
schools: A hierarchical cross-national comparison. Coleman, J. S., et al. (1966). Equality of educational
American Educational Research Journal, 46, opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
626–658. Printing Office.
Cicourel, A. V. & Kitsuse, J. I. (1963). The educational Coleman, J. S. & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private
decision-makers. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic
Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. (2002). The Books.
impact of racial and ethnic diversity on educa- Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High
tional outcomes: Cambridge, MA School District, school achievement: Public, catholic, and private
www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/ schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
diversity/cambridge_diversity.php. Accessed Octo- Collegeboard. (2012). 8th Annual AP Report to the
ber 1, 2012. Nation. New York.
Clark, B. (1962). Educating the expert society. San Collins, R. (1971). Functional and conflict theories
Francisco, CA: Chandler. of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational
Clark, M. A., Gleason, P. M., Tuttle, C. C., & Review, 38, 7–32.
Silverberg, M. K. (2015). Do charter schools Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Toward an
improve student achievement? Educational explanatory science. New York: Academic Press.
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 419–436. Collins, R. (1979). The credential society. New York:
Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Academic Press.
Why poor black children succeed or fail. Chicago, IL: Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children.
University of Chicago Press. Scientific American, 259(5), 42–48.
Coburn, C. E. & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy Comer, J. (1993). The Yale school development
and teachers’ social networks. Educational program: Process, outcomes and policy implica-
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235. tions. Urban Education, 28, 166–199.
540 Bibliography
Comer, J. (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Cooper, R. & Jordan, W. (2003). Cultural issues in
Comer process for reforming education. New York: comprehensive school reform. Urban Education,
Teachers College Press. 38(4), 380–397.
Comer, J. & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involve- Corburn, J., Osleeb J., & Porter, M. (2006). Urban
ment in schools: An ecological approach. Elemen- asthma and the neighborhood environment in
tary School Journal, 91, 271–277. New York City, Health Place, 12, 167–179.
Condliffe, B. F., Boyd, M. L., & DeLuca, S. (2015). Corwin, R. (1970). Militant professionalism: A study
Stuck in school: How social context shapes school of organizational conflict in high schools. New York:
choice for inner-city students. Teachers College Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Record, 117(3), 1–36. Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the schools build a new social
Conley, D. (2001). Capital for college: Parental assets order? New York: John Day.
and postsecondary schooling. Sociology of Educa- Cowen, J. (2010). Who chooses, who refuses? Learn-
tion, 74, 59–71. ing more from students who decline private school
Connell, N. (1999). Beating the odds: High-achieving vouchers. Working Paper, University of Kentucky.
elementary schools in high-poverty neighborhoods. Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school.
New York: Educational Priorities Panel. New York: Vintage Books.
Connell, R. W. (1993). Disruptions: Improper Cremin, L. A. (1972). American education: The
masculinities and schooling. In L. Weis & M. colonial experience, 1607–1783. New York: Harper
Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and and Row.
gender in United States schools (pp. 191–208). Cremin, L. A. (1977). Traditions of American education.
Albany, NY: State University of New York New York: Basic Books.
Press. Cremin, L. A. (1980). American education: The national
Consoletti, A. (2012). Charter School Laws Across experience, 1783–1876. New York: Harper and
the States 2012. Center for Education Reform. Row.
Cook, T. (2002). Randomized experiments in Cremin, L. A. (1988). American education: The metro-
education: Why are they so rare? Educational Evalu- politan experience, 1876–1980. New York: Harper
ation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175–200. and Row.
Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1989). United States of America: Cremin, L. A. (1990). Popular education and its dis-
Contours of continuity and controversy in contents. New York: Harper and Row.
private schools. In G. Walford (Ed.), Private Cronin, J. (2011). Reforming Boston schools, 1930–
schools in ten countries: Policy and practice. London: 2006: Overcoming corruption and racial segregation.
Routledge. New York: Palgrave.
Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1991). Politics, markets, and Crosnoe, R. & Cooper, C. (2010). Economically
America’s schools: A review. Teacher College Record, disadvantaged children’s transitions into elemen-
93, 156–160. tary school: Linking family processes, school
Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1992). The choice controversy. contexts, and educational policy. American Educa-
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. tional Research Journal, 47, 258–291.
Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1994). School choice: The struggle Cross, C. T. (2004). Political education: National
for the soul of American education. New Haven, CT: policy comes of age. New York: Teachers College
Yale University Press. Press.
Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1995, Spring). Goals 2000: Crul, M. & Holdaway, J. (2009). Children of immi-
Framework for the new educational federalism. grants in schools in New York and Amsterdam:
Teachers College Record, 96(3), 405–417. The factors shaping attainment. Teachers College
Cookson, P. W., Jr. (2011). Sacred trust: A children’s Record, 111(6), 1476–1507.
education bill of rights. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cuban, L. (1983, June). Effective schools: A friendly
Corwin. but cautionary note. Phi Delta Kappan, 64,
Cookson, P. W., Jr. & Persell, C. H. (1985). Preparing 695–696.
for power: America’s elite boarding schools. New Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and
York: Basic Books. change in American classrooms, 1890–1980. New
Cookson, P. W., Jr., Persell, C. H., & Catsambis, S. York: Longman.
(1992). Differential asset conversion: Class and Cuban, L. (1990a). Reforming again, again, and again.
gendered pathways to selective colleges. Sociology Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.
of Education, 65, 208–225. Cuban, L. (1990b). Why do some reforms persist?
Cookson, P. W., Jr., Sadovnik, A. R., & Semel, S. F. In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Education reform: Making
(Eds.). (1992). International handbook of educational sense of it all. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Cuban, L. (2010). As good as it gets: What school reform
Coons, J. E. (2001). Rescuing school choice from its brought to Austin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
friends. America, 7, 185. University Press.
Bibliography 541
Cubberly, E. P. (1934). Public education in the United Darling-Hammond, L. with Bransford, J. (Eds.).
States: A study and interpretation of American (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
educational history. Boston, MA: Houghton teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco,
Mifflin. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cucchiara, M. & Horvat, E. (2009). Perlis and prom- Darling-Hammond, L. with Snowden, J. (Eds.).
ises: Middle-class parental involvement in urban (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San
943–973. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cucchiara, M.B. (2013). Marketing schools, marketing Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995).
cities: Who wins and loses when schools become Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and
urban amenities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A.
Cuffaro, H. K. (1995). Experimenting with the world. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evalu-
New York: Teachers College Press. ating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and
Cummins, J. (1993). Empowering minority students: Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57–77.
A framework for intervention. In L. Weis & Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J.,
M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, & Vasquez-Helig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher prep-
and gender in United States schools (pp. 101–118). aration matter? Evidence about teacher certification,
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Educa-
Curti, M. (1959/1971). The social ideas of American tion Policy Analysis Archives. 13 (42), pp.1–45.
educators. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Darwin, C. (1982). On the origin of species. New York:
Company. Penguin. (Original work published 1859).
Cusick, P. A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2002). Gender in policy
American high school. New York: Longman. and practice. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working to-
of race and sex on campus. New York: The Free gether for reliable school reform. Journal of Educa-
Press. tion for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1&2), 183–204.
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? New Haven, CT: Datnow, A., Borman, G., Stringfield, S., Overman, L.,
Yale University Press. & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school
Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reform in culturally and linguistically diverse con-
reports: The coming crisis in teaching. Santa Monica, texts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-
CA: Rand. year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Standards of practice for Analysis, 25(2), 25–54.
learner-centered schools. New York: National Center Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ atti-
for Restructuring Schools and Teaching. tudes and practices of involvement in inner-city
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996a). The right to learn and elementary and middle schools. In N. Chavkin
the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society
and practice for democratic education. Peabody (pp. 53–71). Albany, NY: State University of
Journal of Education, 67(3), 123–154. New York Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996b). Restructuring schools Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz,
for high performance. In S. Fuhrman & J. O’Day H. L. (2015). Fifty ways to leave a child behind:
(Eds.), Rewards and reforms: Creating educational Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ imple-
incentives that work (pp. 144–194). San Francisco, mentation of NCLB. Educational Researcher,
CA: Jossey-Bass. 44(6), 347–358.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A Davies, S. (1995). Leaps of faith: Shifting currents in
blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, critical sociology of education. American Journal
CA: Jossey-Bass. of Sociology, 100(6), 1448–1478.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the Davies, S. and Quirke. L. (2007). The impact of sector
right to learn: Access to qualified teachers in on school organizations: The logics of markets and
California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, institutions. Sociology of Education, 80(1), 66–89.
106(10), 1936–1966. Davis, L. J. (2010). The disability studies reader. New
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and York: Routledge.
education: How America’s commitment to equity will Debray-Pelot, E. & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new
determine our future. New York: Teachers College politics of education: Analyzing the federal educa-
Press. tion policy landscape in the post-nclb era. Educa-
Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value added add tional Policy, 23, 15–42.
value to teacher evaluation? Educational Researcher, Decker, P., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The
44(2), 132–137. effects of Teach for America on students: Evidence
542 Bibliography
from a national evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathe- Dobbie, W. & Fryer, R. (2011). Are high-quality
matica. schools enough to increase achievement among
Delamont, S. (1983). Interaction in the classroom. the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s
London: Routledge. Zone. American Economic Journal, 3(3)158–187.
Delamont, S. (1989). Knowledgeable women: Structur- Domhoff, G. W. (1967). Who rules America? Engle-
alism and the reproduction of elites. New York: wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Domhoff, G. W. (1983). Who rules America now?
Delamont, S. (1990). Sex roles and the school (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
London: Routledge. Domina, T., Conley, A., & Farkas, G. (2011). The
Delamont, S. (1991). The hit list and other horror link between educational expectations and effort
stories. Sociological Review, 39(2), 238–259. in the college-for-all era. Sociology of Education, 84,
DelFattore, J. (1992). What Johnny shouldn’t read: 93–112.
Textbook censorship in America. New Haven, CT: Domina, T., Conley, A., & Farkas, G. (2011). The
Yale University Press. case for dreaming big. Sociology of Education, 84,
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York: 118–121.
The New Press. Donaldson, M. & Johnson, S. (2010). The price of
DeLuca, S., Clampet-Lundquist, S. and Eden, K. misassignment: The role of teaching assignments
(2016). Coming of age in the other America. New in Teach for America teachers’ exit from low-
York: Russell Sage. income schools and the teaching profession.
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago, IL: University Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32,
of Chicago Press. 299–323.
Derrida, J. (1982). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Doran, B. & Weffer, W. (1992). Immigrant aspira-
Johns Hopkins University Press. tions, high school process and academic outcomes.
Deutsch, M., and Associates. (1964). The American Education Research Journal, 29(1),
disadvantaged child. New York: Basic Books. 163–181.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. In M. S. Dougherty, J., Harrelson, J., Maloney, L., Murphy, D.,
Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 19–32). Smith, R., Snow, M., & Zannoni, D. (2009).
New York: Teachers College Press. School choice in suburbia: Test scores, race, and
Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. In M. S. housing markets. American Journal of Education,
Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 33–90). 115, 523–548.
New York: Teachers College Press. Dougherty, K. (1987, April). The effects of com-
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. munity colleges: Aid or hindrance to socio-
In M. S. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education economic attainment? Sociology of Education, 60,
(pp. 91–111). New York: Teachers College Press. 86–103.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An Dougherty, K. (1988, Summer). Educational policy-
introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: making and the relative autonomy of the state:
Macmillan. The case of occupational education in the com-
Dewey, J. (1927/1984). The public and its problems. munity college. Sociological Forum, 3, 400–432.
In John Dewey: The later works. Vol. 2: 1925–1927. Dougherty, K. (1990). Quality, equality, and politics:
Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois The political sources of the current school reform
University Press. (Original work published wave. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
1927). the American Sociological Association.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Dougherty, K. (1994). The contradictory college: The
Macmillan. conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the com-
Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the munity college. Albany, NY: State University of
road: Rethinking the connection between high- New York Press.
stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Dougherty, K. (1996). Opportunity-to-learn stand-
Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285–313. ards: A sociological critique. Sociology of Education,
Dillabough, J., McLeod, J., & Mills, M. (2010). Extra Issue (Special Issue on Sociology and Edu-
Troubling gender in education. New York: Rout- cational Policy: Bringing Scholarship and Practice
ledge. Together), 40–65.
DiMaggio, P. (1982, April). Cultural capital and school Dougherty, K. & Hammack, F. (1990). Education and
success: The impact of status culture participation society. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
on the grades of U.S. high school students. Amer- Dougherty, K. & Sostre, L. (1992). Minerva and the
ican Sociological Review, 47, 189–201. market: The sources of the movement for school
DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1984). Cultural capital, choice. Educational Policy, 6, 160–179.
educational attainment, and marital selection. Downey, D. B. (2008). Black/white differences in
American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1231–1261. school performance: The oppositional culture
Bibliography 543
explanation. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology (S. D.
107–126. Fox, Trans.). New York: The Free Press.
Downey, D., & Condron, D. (2016). Fifty years since Durkheim, E. (1962). Moral education: A study of the
the Coleman report: Rethinking the relationship theory and application of the sociology of education.
between schools and inequality, Sociology of New York: The Free Press.
Education, 89(3), 207–220. Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of the
Downey, D., Ainsworth, J., & Qian, Z. (2009). religious life. New York: The Free Press.
Rethinking the attitude-achievement paradox Durkheim, E. (1938/1977). The evolution of educational
among blacks. Sociology of Education, 82, 1–19. thought (P. Collins, Trans.). London: Routledge &
Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P., & Broh, B. (2004). Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1938).
Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive in- Dworkin, A. G. (1985). When teachers give up:
equality during the summer months and the school Teacher burnout, teacher turnover, and their impact
year. American Sociological Review, 69, 613–635. on children. Austin, TX: Hogg Foundation for
Downey, D., Hippel, P., & Hughes, M. (2008). Are Mental Health and Texas Press.
“failing” schools really failing? Using seasonal Dworkin, A. G. (1987). Teacher burnout in the public
comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Soci- schools: Structural causes and consequences for chil-
ology of Education, 81, 242–270. dren. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Dreeben, R. (1968). On what is learned in school. Press.
Boston, CA: Addison-Wesley. Dworkin, A. G., Haney, C. A., Dworkin, R. J., &
Dreeben, R. (1994). The sociology of education: Its Telschow, R. L. (1990). Stress and illness behavior
development in the United States. Research in among urban public school teachers. Educational
Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10. Administration Quarterly, 26, 59–71.
Dreeben, R. & Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruc- Dworkin, M. S. (Ed.). (1959). Dewey on education.
tion, and learning. American Sociological Review, New York: Teachers College Press.
51, 660–669. Eder, D. (1981, July). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling
Dronkers, J. & Robert, P. (2008). Differences in prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student
scholastic achievement of public, private interaction. Sociology of Education, 54, 151–162.
government-dependent, and private independent Eder, D. (1995). School talk. New Brunswick, NJ:
schools: A cross-national analysis. Educational Rutgers University Press.
Policy, 22, 541–577. Eder, D. & Parker, S. (1987). The cultural reproduc-
Dryfoos, J. G. (1994). Full service schools: A revolution tion of gender: The effect of extracurricular
in health and social services for children, youth, and activities on peer-group culture. Sociology of
families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Education, 60, 200–213.
Dryfoos, J. (1998). Full service schools: A revolution in Edmonds, R. (1979a). Effective schools for the urban
health and social services for children, youth and poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 5–24.
families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Edmonds, R. (1979b, March-April). Some schools
Dryfoos, J. G., Quinn, J., & Barkin, C. (2005). Com- work and more can. Social Policy, 28–32.
munity schools in action: lessons from a decade of prac- Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of school improvement:
tice. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. An overview. Educational Leadership, 40, 4–11.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1935). Does the negro need Education Commission of the States. (1983). Action
separate schools? Journal of Negro Education, 4, for excellence: A comprehensive plan to improve our
328–335. nation’s schools. Denver, CO: Author. (ERIC ED
Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and 235 588).
school success: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education Commission of the States. (2004). ECS
Education, 77, 44–68. report to the nation: State implementation of No Child
Duncan, G. & Murnane, R. (2011). Whither oppor- Left Behind. Denver, CO: Education Commission
tunity?: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life of the States.
chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Education Equality Project. (2010). What We Stand
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2014). Restoring For: Our Mission. www.educationequalityproject.
opportunity: The crisis of inequality and the challenge org/what_we_stand_for/our_mission. Accessed
for American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard April 1, 2010.
Education Press. Education Law Center. (1996). Wiping out dis-
Durkheim, E. (1947). The division of labor in society. advantages: The programs and services needed to
Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work pub- supplement regular education for poor school children.
lished 1893). Newark, NJ: Author.
Durkheim, E. (1954). The elementary forms of religious Education Law Center. (1998). Transforming teaching
life. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work and learning in special needs districts. Newark, NJ:
published 1915). Education Law Center.
544 Bibliography
Education Law Center. (2005). Abbott indicators counts, 2005. Bethesda, MD: Education Week,
report. Newark, NJ: Education Law Center. 24, 17.
Education Law Center. (2010). History of Abbott. Education Week (2016, January). The every child
www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/AbbottvBurke/ succeeds act: What’s in it? What does it mean for
AbbottHistory.htm. Accessed April 1, 2010. equity? Overview. Washington DC: Education
Education Law Center. (2016). ELC’S 6-part series on Week. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/
Governor Christie’s unfair school funding plan. 2014/09/What-is-in-ESSA-Overview.pdf. Down-
September 27. http://www.edlawcenter.org/news/ loaded, January 16, 2017.
archives/school-funding/icymi-elc%E2%80%99s- Educational Priorities Panel. (1987). A teacher for
6-part-series-on-governor-christie%E2%80%99s- the apple: Why New York City can’t staff its schools.
unfair-school-funding-plan.html. Retrieved on New York: Author.
January 25, 2017. Egan, K. (1992). Review of The unschooled mind: How
Education Trust. (1998). Good teaching matters: How children think and how schools should teach, by
well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Washington, Howard Gardner. Teachers College Record, 94(2),
DC: Author. 397–406.
Education Trust. (2003). Telling the whole truth (or not) Eisenmann, L. (1998). Historical dictionary of women’s
about highly qualified teachers: New state data. education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Washington, DC: Author. Eisner, E. W. (1995). Standards for American schools:
Education Trust. (2004a). Education watch: The Help or hindrance? Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 758–764.
nation. Washington, DC: Author. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel em-
Education Trust. (2004b). Education watch: Achieve- powering? Working through the repressive myths
ment gap summary tables. Washington, DC: of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review,
Author. 59(3), 297–324.
Education Trust. (2005). Increasing achievement and Elmore, R. F. (1990). Reconstructing schools: The next
closing gaps between groups. Washington DC: generation of educational reform. San Francisco, CA:
Author. www.2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+ Jossey-Bass.
Catalog/recent+ presentations.htm. Accessed June Elmore, R. F. (1993). School decentralization: Who
2, 2005. gains? Who loses? In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy
Education Trust. (2007). It’s being done: Academic (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement: Can
success in unexpected schools. Washington, D.C.: we fulfill the promise? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
The Education Trust. Bass.
Education Trust. (2009). How it’s being done: Urgent Elmore, R. F. (1994a). Educational renewal: Better teach-
lessons from unexpected schools. Washington, DC: ers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The Education Trust. Elmore, R. F. (1994b, December). Thoughts on pro-
Education Trust. (2009). Education watch: National gram equity: Productivity and incentives for
report. Washington, DC performance in education. Educational Policy,
Education Trust (2010a). Education watch: The nation. 8(4), 453–459.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out:
Education Trust. (2010b). Education watch: Achieve- Policy, practices and performance. Cambridge, MA:
ment gap summary tables. Washington, DC: The Harvard.
Education Trust. Ensminger, M. E. & Slusarcick, A. L. (1992). Paths to
Education Trust. (2010c). Achievement in America: high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal
How are we doing? What comes next? Washington, study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education,
DC: The Education Trust, www.edtrust.org/dc/ 65, 95–113.
resources/presentations. Accessed April 1, 2010. Entwisle, D. R. & Alexander, K. (1992). Summer
Education Trust. (2010d). Close the hidden funding gaps setback: Race, poverty, school composition, a
in our schools. Washington, DC: The Education mathematics achievement in the first 2 years of
Trust, www.edtrust.org/dc/publication/close-the- school. American Sociological Review, 57, 72–84.
hidden-funding-gaps-in-our-schools. Accessed Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K., & Gordon, L. S.
April 1, 2010. (1997). Children, schools and inequality. Boulder,
Education Trust. (2015). Funding Gaps 2015: Too CO: Westview.
Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S.
Who Need the Most. Washington, DC: The (2007). Early schooling: The handicap of being
Education Trust. poor and male. Sociology of Education, 80(2), April
Education Week. (2000). Lessons of a century: A nation’s 2007, 114–138.
schools come of age. Bethesda, MD: Author. Epstein, C. F. (1990). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender
Education Week. (2005). No small change: Target- and the social order. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
ing money toward student performance? Quality versity Press.
Bibliography 545
Epstein, J. (2001). School, family and community Center for Government Services, Rutgers
partnerships: Preparing educators and improving University.
schools. Boulder, CO: Westview. Fabricant, M. & Fine, M. (2012) Charter schools and
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher the corporate makeover of public education. New
practices of parent involvement. The Elementary York: Teachers College Press.
School Journal, 86, 277–294. Fabricant, M. and Fine, M. (2013). The changing politics
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family- of education: Privatization and the dispossessed lives left
school connections: Teacher practices and parent behind. New York, NY: Paradigm.
involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, Fairclough, A. (2002). Better day coming: Blacks and
& F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and equality, 1890–2000. New York, NY: Penguin.
constraints (pp. 121–136). New York: DeGruyter. Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connec- (1990). Cultural resources and school success:
tions: Theory, research, and implications for Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an
integrating sociologies of education and family. urban school district. American Sociological Review,
In D. Unger & M. Sussman (Eds.), Families in 55, 127–142.
community settings: Interdisciplinary perspectives Fashola, O. S. & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Schoolwide
(pp. 99–126). New York: Haworth Press. reform models: What works? Phi Delta Kappan,
Epstein, J. L. (1991a). Effects on student achieve- 370.
ment of teacher practices of parent involvement. Featherman, D. L. & Hauser, R. M. (1978). Oppor-
In S. Silvern (Ed.), Advances in reading/lan- tunity and change. New York: Academic Press.
guage research, Vol. 5. Literacy through family, Feinberg, W. (1996). Affirmative action and beyond:
community and school interaction. Greenwich, CT: A case for a backward-looking gender and race-
JAI Press. based policy. Teachers College Record, 97, 362–399.
Epstein, J. L. (1991b, January). Paths to partnership: Felmlee, D. & Eder, D. (1983, April). Contextual
What we can learn from federal, state, district, and effects in the classroom: The impact of ability
school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), groups on student attention. Sociology of Education,
344–349. 56, 77–78.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. Fennema, E. (1974). Mathematics learning and the
In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational sexes: A review. Journal for Research in Mathematics
research (6th ed.) (pp. 1139–1151). New York: Education, 5, 126–139.
Macmillan. Fennema, E. & Leder, G. (1990). Mathematics and
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community gender. New York: Teachers College Press.
partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Ferguson, R. (2007). Toward excellence with equity:
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712. An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
K. C, Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and
School, family, and community partnerships: Your out of public high school. Teachers College Record,
handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, 87, 393–409.
CA: Corwin. Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling and adoles-
Erickson, A. (2016). Making the unequal metropolis: cent females. Harvard Educational Review, 58(1),
School desegregation and its limits. Chicago, IL: 29–53.
University of Chicago Press. Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics
Erickson, D. (1986). Choice and private schools: of an urban public high school. Albany, NY: State
Dynamics of supply and demand. In D. C. Levy University of New York Press.
(Ed.), Private education: Studies in choice and public Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections
policy (pp. 82–109). New York: Oxford University on parents, power, and urban public schools.
Press. Teachers College Record, 94, 682–708.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school Fine, M. (Ed.). (1994). Chartering urban school reform.
success: The politics and culture of educational New York: Teachers College Press.
achievement. Anthropology and Education Quar- Finkelstein, B. (1989). Governing the young: Teacher
terly, 18(4). behavior in popular primary schools in 19th century
Erlichson, B. A. & Goertz, M. (2001). Implementing United States. London: Falmer Press.
whole school reform in New Jersey: Year two. New Finkelstein, B. (1992). Education historians as
Brunswick, NJ: Center for Government Services, mythmakers. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research
Rutgers University. education (pp. 255–297). Washington, DC: Amer-
Erlichson B. A., Goertz, M., & Turnbull, B. (1999). ican Educational Research Association.
Implementing whole school reform in New Jersey: Finn, C. (1989). Presentation at Forum on National
Year one in the first cohort. New Brunswick, NJ: Standards. Teachers College, Columbia University.
546 Bibliography
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). American schools. Charlottesville, VA: University
Charter schools in action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton of Virginia Press.
University Press. Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003).
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Wright, B. L. (2016). A multiracial society with segregated schools: Are
Charter schools at the crossroads: Predicaments, we losing the dream? Cambridge, MA: The Civil
paradoxes, possibilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Rights Project, Harvard University Press.
Education Press. Franklin, B. M. (1995). From backwardness to at risk:
Finn, J. D. (1998). Class size and students at risk: What Childhood learning difficulties and the contradictions
is known? What is next? U.S. Department of of school reform. Albany, NY: State University of
Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational New York Press.
Research and Improvement. Freedman, S. G. (1990). Small victories. New York:
Finnigan, K. S. & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability Harper-Collins.
policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Freeman, R. (1976). The overeducated American. New
Lessons From Chicago’s low-performing schools. York: Academic Press.
American Educational Research Journal, 44, Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
594–630. Herder and Herder.
Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., & Natriello, G. Freire, P. (1977). Education for critical consciousness.
(1997). From cashbox to classroom: The struggle for New York: Seabury Press.
fiscal reform and educational change in New Jersey. Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy in process. New York:
New York: Teachers College Press. Seabury Press.
Fiscella, K. & Williams, D. R. (2004). Health dis- Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education. South
parities based on socioeconomic inequities: Impli- Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
cations for urban health care. Academic Medicine, Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. South
79, 1139–1147. Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Fishman, S. & McCarthy, L. (1998). John Dewey and Fruchter, N. (2007). Urban schools, public will. New
the challenge of classroom practice. New York: York: Teachers College Press.
Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. G. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new
FitzGerald, F. (1979). America revised: History school- meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
books in the twentieth century. Boston, MA: Little, College Press.
Brown. Fuller, B. (2000). Inside charter schools. Cambridge,
Fletcher, J. M. & Tienda, M. (2009). High school MA: Harvard University Press.
classmates and college success. Sociology of Edu- Fuller, B. & Rubinson, R. (Eds.). (1992). The political
cation, 82(4), 287–314. construction of education: The state, school expansion,
Fordham, S. (1997). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, and economic change. New York: Praeger.
identity, and success at Capital High. Chicago, IL: Fuller, B., Elmore, R., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (1996).
University of Chicago Press. School choice: The cultural logic of families, the political
Fordham, S. & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school rationality of schools. Who chooses? Who loses?
success: Coping with the “burden” of “acting Culture institutions and the unequal effects of school
white.” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206. choice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Forsey, M., Davies, S., & Walford, G. (Eds.) (2008). Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M.
The globalisation of school choice? London: (2011). Policy and politics in teacher education. New
Symposium Books. York: Routledge.
Foster, M. (1995). African-American teachers and Furstenberg, F. & Hughes, M. E. (1995). Social capital
culturally relevant pedagogy. In J. A. Banks & and successful development among at-risk
C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,
multicultural education (pp. 570–581). New York: 580–592.
Macmillan. Futrell, M. H. (1990). Redefining national secur-
Frankenberg, E. & Lee, C. (2002). Race in American ity: New directions for education reform. In
public schools: Rapidly resegregating school districts. S. Bacharach (Ed.), Education reform: Making sense
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, of it all (pp. 259–268). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Harvard University Press. Bacon.
Frankenberg, E. & Lee, C. (2003). Charter schools and Gaines, D. (1991). Teenage wasteland: Suburbia’s dead
race: A lost opportunity for integrated education, end kids. New York: Pantheon.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Har- Gamarnikow, E. & Green, T. (1999). Developing
vard University Press, www.epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/ social capital: Dilemmas, possibilities and limita-
view/260/386. Accessed October 1, 2012. tions in education. In A. Hayton (Ed.), Tackling
Frankenberg, E. & Orfield, G. (2007). Lessons in disaffection and social exclusion (pp. 46–64). London:
integration: realizing the promise of racial diversity in Kogan Page.
Bibliography 547
Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and institutional of teachers. American Educational Research Journal,
effects of ability groupings. Sociology of Education, 38(4), 915–945.
59, 185–198. Garraty, J. A. (1985). A short history of the American
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school nation, Vol. B—Since 1865. New York: Harper and
learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, Row.
135–155. Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special
Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability group- education: Toward a quality system for all students.
ing in secondary schools: Can we bring high- Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395.
quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Gasman, M., Spencer, D., & Orphan, C. (2015).
Journal of Education, 101, 1–22. “Building Bridges, Not Fences”: A history of civic
Gamoran, A. (1996a). Curriculum standardization engagement at private black colleges and
and equality of opportunity in Scottish secondary universities, 1944–1965. History of Education
education, 1984–1990. Sociology of Education, 29, Quarterly, 55(3), 346–379.
1–21. Gay, G. (1995). Curriculum theory and multi-
Gamoran, A. (1996b). Student achievement in cultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. McGee
public magnet, public comprehensive, and private Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multi-
city high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy cultural education (pp. 25–43). New York:
Analysis, 18(1), 1–18. Macmillan.
Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and Gay, P. (Ed.). (1964). John Locke on education. New
education inequality: A forecast for the 21st York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
century. Sociology of Education, 74, Extra Issue, Geller, J. D., Doykos, B., Craven, K., Bess, K. D., &
135–153. Nation, M. (2014). Engaging residents in
Gamoran, A. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and community change: The critical role of trust in the
science: How schools and districts can support change. development of a promise neighborhood. Teachers
Sociology of Education Series, New York: Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–42.
College Press. Gershenson, S., & Holt, S. B. (2015). Gender gaps in
Gamoran, A. (2016). Gamoran comment on Downey high school students’ homework time. Educational
and Condron. Sociology of Education, 89(3), Researcher, 44(8), 432–441.
231–233. Gewertz, C. (2005). A level playing field. Education
Gamoran, A. & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of Week, 24, 17, 41–45, 47–48.
stratification in secondary schools: A synthesis Gibson, M. & Ogbu, J. (1992). Minority status and
of survey and ethnographic research. Review of schooling: A comparative study of immigrants and
Educational Research, 57, 415–437. involuntary minorities. New York: Garland.
Gamoran, A. & Dreeben, R. (1986). Coupling and Giddens, A. (1999). The third way. Cambridge, UK:
control in educational organizations. Administrative Polity.
Science Quarterly, 31, 612–632. Gill, B., Timpane, P. M., Ross, K. E., Brewer, D. J., &
Gamoran, A. & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school Booker, K. (2001). Rhetoric vs. reality; What
tracking and educational inequality: Compensa- we know and what we need to know about vouchers
tion, reinforcement, or neutrality? American and charter schools. Santa Monica: RAND Corpora-
Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 1146–1183. tion.
Gamoran, A., Nystand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, Gillborn, D. (2008). Racism and education: Coincidence
P. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects or conspiracy? Oxford: Routledge.
of ability grouping. American Educational Research Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge,
Journal, 32, 59–87. MA: Harvard University Press.
Garcia, D. (2008). The impact of school choice on Gilligan, C., Lyons, N., & Hanmer, T. (1990). Mak-
racial segregation in charter schools. Educational ing connections: The relational worlds of adolescent
Policy, 22, 805–853. girls at Emma Willard School. Cambridge, MA:
Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds: Chinese clues to the Harvard University Press.
dilemma of contemporary education. New York: Basic Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture and the process of
Books. schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children Press.
think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Giroux, H. (1983a). Theories of reproduction and
Books. resistance in the new sociology of education.
Gardner, H. (1992). A response. Teachers College Harvard Educational Review, 53, 257–293.
Record, 94(2), 407–413. Giroux, H. (1983b). Theory and resistance in education.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional devel- Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. Granby,
opment effective? Results from a national sample MA: Bergin and Garvey.
548 Bibliography
Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodernism, feminism, and Gore, J. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and
cultural politics: Redrawing educational boundaries. feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York:
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Routledge.
Glenn, C. L. (1991). Will Boston be the proof of the Gorleski, J. (2013). What is edTPA and why do critics
choice pudding? Educational Leadership, 48, 41–43. dislike it? In Diane Ravitch’s Blog, https://
Goertz, Margaret E. and Duffy, Mark C.. (2001). dianeravitch.net/2013/06/03/what-is-edtpa-and-
Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 why-do-critics-dislike-it/.
States: 1999–2000. CPRE Research Reports. Gornick, V. (1987). The next great moment in history
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. is theirs. In A. R. Sadovnik et al. (Eds.), Explor-
Philadelphia: CPRE. ing society (pp. 260–266). New York: Harper and
Goertz, G., Floden, R., & O’Day. (1995). Building Row.
capacity for education reform. Consortium for Goslin, D. (1965). The school in contemporary society.
Policy Research Education (CPRE) Policy Briefs. Atlanta, GA: Scott, Foresman.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Gottfried, M. A., & Conchas, G. Q. (2016). When
(pp. 1–10). school policies backfire: How well-intended measures
Goertz, M. (2009). Standards-based reform: Lessons can harm our most vulnerable students. Cambridge,
from the past, directions for the future. In MA: Harvard Education Press.
K. Wong & R. Rothman (Eds.) Clio at the table: Government Accounting Office. No Child Left
Using history to inform and improve education policy Behind Act: Improvements needed in education’s
(pp. 107–123). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. process for tracking states’ implementation of key
Goldhaber, D. (2015). Exploring the potential of provisions. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-
value-added performance measures to affect the 734. Accessed October 1, 2012.
quality of the teacher workforce [Special issue]. Grant, G. (1988). The world we created at Hamilton
Educational Researcher, 44, 87–95. High. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Goldrick-Rab, S. & Pfeffer, F.T. (2009). Beyond Press.
access: Explaining socioeconomic differences Grant, G. (2009). Hope and despair in the American
in college transfer. Sociology of Education, 82(2), city: Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh.
101–125. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, Grant, G. (2011). Hope and despair in the American city:
C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh. Cambridge,
(2015). Make room value added: Principals’ MA: Harvard Education Press
human capital decisions and the emergence of Grant, L., Horan, P. M., & Watts-Warren, B. (1994).
teacher observation data [Special issue]. Theoretical diversity in the analysis of gender
Educational Researcher, 44, 96–104. and education. Research in Socialization of Education
Goldsmith, P. (2011). Coleman revisited: School and Socialization, 10, 71–110.
segregation, peers and frog ponds. American Greeley, A. M. (1982). Catholic schools and minority
Educational Research Journal, 48, 508–535. students. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). What schools are for. Greeley, A. M. (1998, September). The so-called
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. failure of Catholic schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for pp. 24–25.
the future. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greene, J. & Peterson, P. (1996). Methodological issues
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. in evaluation research: The Milwaukee school choice
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. program. Occasional Paper 96–4. Cambridge,
Goodlad, J. I. (1991, November). Why we need a MA: Harvard University Program in Educational
complete redesign of teacher education. Educa- Policy and Governance.
tional Leadership, 49, 7–10. Greene, J. P., Peterson, P. E., & Du, J. (1999,
Goodson, I. (1993). School subjects and curriculum January). Effectiveness of school choice: The
change (3rd ed.). London: Falmer Press. Milwaukee experiment. Education and Urban
Goodwin, R. K. & Kemerer, F. R. (2002). School choice Society, 31(2), 190–213.
tradeoffs: Liberty, equity & diversity. Austin, TX: Greene, J. P., Peterson, P. E., Du, J., Boeger, L., &
University of Texas Press. Frazier, C. L. (1996). The effectiveness of school
Gordon, B. (1995). Knowledge construction, com- choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data
peting theories, and education. In J. A. Banks & from the program’s evaluation. Occasional Paper
C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on 96–3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Pro-
multicultural education (pp. 184–199). New York: gram in Educational Policy and Governance
Macmillan. Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational
Gordon, D. (1977). Problems in political economy: An philosophy for the modern age. Belmont, CA:
urban perspective. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath. Wadsworth.
Bibliography 549
Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York: weight infants. The Future of Children, 5(1), 176–
Teachers College Press. 196.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and white,
Teachers College Press. separate, hostile, unequal. New York: Scribners.
Greene, M. (1989). The question of standards. Hakuta, K. & Garcia, E. (1989). Bilingualism and
Teachers College Record, 94, 9–14. education. American Psychologist, 53, 374–379.
Greene, M. (1993). The passions of pluralism: Hallinan, M. T. (1984). Summary and implications.
Multiculturalism and the expanding community. In P. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan
Educational Researcher, 22(1), 13–18. (Eds.), The social context of instruction (pp.
Greer, C. (1973). The great school legend. New York: 229–240). New York: Academic Press.
Viking Press. Hallinan, M. T. (1987). Ability grouping and stu-
Grissmer, D. W., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J. H., & dent learning. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), The social
Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student achieve- organization of schools: New conceptualizations of
ment: What NAEP state test scores tell us. Santa the learning process (pp. 41–69). New York:
Monica: RAND Corporation. Plenum.
Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., & Williamson, S. (1998). Hallinan, M. T. (1990). The effects of ability grouping
Why did the Black-White score gap narrow in in secondary schools: A response to Slavin’s Best-
the 1970s and 1980s? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
(Eds.), The black/white test score gap. Washington, 60, 501–504.
DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hallinan, M. T. (1994a). Tracking: From theory to
Grodsky, E., Warren, J., & Kalogrides, D. (2009). practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79–84.
State high school exit examinations and NAEP Hallinan, M. T. (1994b). School differences in
long-term trends in reading and mathematics. tracking effects on achievement. Social Forces, 72,
Educational Policy, 23, 615–650. 799–820.
Gross, B., Booker, K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Hallinan, M. T. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of sociology
Boosting student achievement: The effect of of education. New York: Kluwer.
comprehensive school reform on student achieve- Hallinan, M. T. (2001). Sociological perspectives on
ment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Black-White inequalities in American schooling.
31, 111–128. Sociology of Education, 74, Extra Issue, 50–70.
Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. Hallinan, M. (2008). Teacher influences on students’
(2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: attachment to school. Sociology of Education, 81,
A review of the recent empirical literature. Review 271–283.
of Educational Research, 76(2),173–208. Hammack, F. M. (1986). Large school systems:
Gutek, G. (1991). An historical introduction to Amer- Dropout reports: An analysis of definitions,
ican education (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: procedures and findings. Teachers College Record,
Waveland Press. 87, 324–342.
Guthrie, W. K. (1969). A history of Greek philosophy, Hammack, F. (Ed). (2004). The comprehensive high
Volume 3, Part 2: Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge school today. New York: Teachers College Press.
University Press. Hammack, F. (2010). Paths to legislation or litiga-
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, tion for educational privilege: New York and San
NJ: Princeton University Press. Francisco compared. American Journal of Education,
Haberman, M. (2005). Teacher burnout in black and 116(3), 371–395.
white. The New Educator, 1(3), 153–175. Hannaway, J. & Carnoy, M. (1993). Decentralization
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution and school improvement: Can we fulfill the promise?
of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Habermas, J. (1981). Modernity versus postmodernity. Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Making schools work: Improv-
New German Critique, 8(1), 3–18. ing performance and controlling costs. Washington,
Habermas, J. (1982). The entwinement of myth and DC: The Brookings Institution.
enlightenment. New German Critique, 9(3), 13–30. Hanushek, E. A. (1998). The evidence on class size.
Habermas, J. (1983). Modernity: An incomplete Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, W. Allen
project. In H. Foster (Ed.), The anti-aesthetic: Essays Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
on postmodern culture (pp. 3–16). Seattle, DC: Bay Harris, A. L. & Robinson, K. (2007). Schooling be-
Press. haviors or prior skills? A cautionary tale of omitted
Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of variable bias within oppositional culture theory.
modernity (F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Sociology of Education, 80(2), 139–157.
MIT Press. Harris, D. (2016). Betsy DeVos and the wrong way to
Hack, M., Klein, N., & Taylor, G. (1995). Long- fix schools. The New York Times, November 25 .
term developmental outcomes of low birth https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/
550 Bibliography
betsy-devos-and-the-wrong-way-to-fix-schools. potential for a new politics of progressive

html?_r=0. Retrieved January 16, 2017. pragmatism. American Journal of Education, 114(3),
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are so many 191–218.
minority students in special education? New York, NY: Henig, J. R. & Sugarman, S. D. (1999). The nature
Teachers College Press. and extent of school choice. In S. Sugarman &
Harvard Civil Rights Project. (2004). www.civilrights F. R. Kemerer (Eds.), School choice and social
project. harvard.edu. controversy: Politics, policy and law (pp. 13–35).
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
inquiry into the origins of cultural change. Cambridge, Herman, M. (2009). The black-white-other achieve-
MA: Basil Blackwell. ment gap: Testing theories of academic perform-
Hatch, T. (2002). When improvement programs ance among multiracial and monoracial
collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 626–634, 639. adolescents. Sociology of Education, 82, 20–46.
Hauser, R. & Featherman, D. (1976). Equality of Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., O’Malley,
schooling: Trends and prospects. Sociology of Edu- A., Quinones, S., & Woodruff, D. (1999). An
cation, 49, 99–119. educators’ guide to schoolwide reform. Washington,
Haycock, K. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty DC: American Institutes for Research.
schools exceeding expectations. Washington, DC: Herrnstein, R. J. (1973). IQ in the meritocracy. Boston,
The Education Trust. MA: Little, Brown.
Haynes, N. & Comer, J. P. (1993). The Yale school Herrnstein, R. J. & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve:
development program: Process, outcomes, and Intelligence and class structure in American life. New
policy implications. Urban Education, 28, 166–199. York: The Free Press.
Hayton, A. (Ed.). (1999). Tackling disaffection and Hess, F. M. (2002). Revolution at the margins: The
social exclusion. London: Kogan Page. impact of competition on urban school systems.
HBO. (2016). Confirmation. New York, NY: HBO Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Films. Hess, F. M. (Ed.). (2005). Urban school reform:
Hechinger, F. (1987, November 10). Gift of a great Lessons from San Diego. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
teacher. New York Times. University Press.
Heck, S. F. & Williams, C. R. (1984). The complex roles Hess, F. (2008). Looking for leadership: Assessing the
of the teacher: An ecological perspective. New York: case for mayoral control of urban school systems.
Teachers College Press. American Journal of Education, 114, 219–246.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Hess, F. (2010). The same thing all over again: How
Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of school reformers get stuck in yesterday’s ideas. Cam-
the effects of differential school inputs on student bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–14. Hess, F. M., Rotherham, A. J., & Walsh, K. (2004).
Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising
Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, old answers and new ideas. Cambridge, MA:
MA: Harvard Education Press. Harvard University Press.
Hehir, T. & Latus, T. (1992). Special education at the Hess, G. A., Jr. (1991). School restructuring, Chicago
century’s end: Evolution of theory and practice since style. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Hess, G. A., Jr. (1994). Introduction: School-based
Review. management as a vehicle for school reform.
Heller, J. (1985). Catch 22. New York: Dell. Education and Urban Society, 26, 203–219.
Henig, J. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of Hess, G. A., Jr. (1995). Restructuring urban schools: A
the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Chicago perspective. New York: Teachers College
University Press. Press.
Henig, J. R. (1995). Rethinking school choice: Limits Heubert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes:
of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation.
University Press. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Henig, J. (2009a). Mayoral control: What we can and Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of
cannot learn from other cities. In J. Viteritti (Ed.), schooling. New York: Academic Press.
When mayors take charge: School governance in the Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. (2010). Who
city (pp. 19–45). Washington, DC: Brookings is placed into special education? Sociology of
Institution Press. Education, 83, 333–345.
Henig, J. (2009b). Politicization of evidence: Lessons Hildebrand, J. (1998, May 4). Winners, losers in a
for an informed democracy. Educational Policy, 23, money game. Newsday, A5, A26–A27.
137–160. Hill, P. T. (2005). Assessing student performance in
Henig, J. & Stone, C. (2008). Rethinking school charter schools: Why studies often clash and ans-
reform: The distractions of dogma and the wers remain elusive. Education Week, 24(18), 33, 44.
Bibliography 551
Hill, P. T. & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and politan inequality and the legacy of Milliken.
accountability in public education. Santa Monica, Teachers College Record, 118(3), 1–40.
CA: Rand. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East
Hill, P. T., Campbell, C., & Harvey, J. (2000). It takes Lansing, MI: Author.
a city: Getting serious about urban school reform. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools. East
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lansing, MI: Author.
Hill, P., Lake, R., Celio, M. B., Campbell, C., Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of edu-
Herdman, P., & Bulkley, K. (2001). A study cation. East Lansing, MI: Author.
of charter school accountability. Jessup, MD: U.S. Honig, B. (1990). The key to reform: Sustaining and
Department of Educational Research and Improve- expanding upon initial success. In S. Bacharach
ment. (Ed.), Education reform: Making sense of it all
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy. Boston, MA: (pp. 52–56). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Houghton Mifflin. Honig, M. (2009). No small thing: School district
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1988). Cultural literacy: What every central office bureaucracies and the implemen-
American needs to know. New York: Random tation of new small autonomous schools initia-
House. tives. American Educational Research Journal, 46,
Hitchcock, M. E. & Tompkins, G. E. (1987). Are 387–422.
basal reading textbooks still sexist? The Reading Hopper, E. (1971). Stratification, education and
Teacher, 41, 288–292. mobility in industrial societies. In E. Hopper (Ed.),
Hochschild, J. (1984). The new American dilemma: Readings in the theory of educational systems. London:
Liberal democracy and school desegregation. New Hutchinson.
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Horn, J. & Miron, G. (2002a). Evaluation of Con-
Hochschild, J. (1986). What’s fair? American beliefs necticut charter schools and the charter school initiative:
about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Final report. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center
University Press. Western Michigan University.
Hochschild, J. (1995). Facing up to the American dream: Horn, J. & Miron, G. (2002b). An evaluation of the
Race, class and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Michigan charter school initiative: performance,
Princeton University Press. accountability, and impact. Kalamazoo, MI:
Hodgkinson, H. (1985). All one system: Demographics Evaluation Center Western Michigan University.
of education, kindergarten through graduate school. www.wmich.edu/evalctr. Accessed October 1,
Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leader- 2012.
ship. Horowitz, H. L. (1984). Alma mater: Design and experi-
Hodgkinson, H. (1991, September). Reform versus ence in the women’s colleges from their nineteenth
reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 9–16. century beginnings to the 1930s. New York: Knopf.
Hoffer, T. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and (Second edition published by University of
student achievement in science and mathematics. Massachusetts Press in 1993).
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, Horvat, E. M. (2003). Reassessing the “Burden of
205–227. ‘Acting White’”: The importance of peer groups
Hoffer, T., Greeley, A. M., & Coleman, J. S. (1985, in managing academic success. Sociology of
April). Achievement growth in public and Cath- Education, 76, 265–280.
olic schools. Sociology of Education, 58, 74–97. Howell, W. G. & Peterson, P. E. (2002). The education
Hofferth, S. & Sandberg, J. (2001). How American gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC:
children spend their time. Journal of Marriage and Brookings Institution Press.
the Family, 63, 295–308. Hoxby, C. M. (2000a). Does competition among
Hoffman, K., Llaga, C., & Snyder, T. (2003). Status public schools benefit students and taxpayers?
and trends in the education of Blacks. Washington, American Economic Review, 90, 5.
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Hoxby, C. M. (2000b). The effects of class size on
Center for Education Statistics. student achievement: New evidence from popu-
Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-intellectualism in American lation variation. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
life. New York: Rand. 115, 4.
Hogan, D. J. (1978). Education and the making of Hoxby, C. M. (2001). All school finance equaliza-
the Chicago working class, 1880–1930. History tions are not created equal. Quarterly Journal of
of Education Quarterly, 18, 227–270. Economics, 116, 4.
Hogan, D. J. (1985). Class and reform: School and Hoxby, C. M. (2004a). A straightforward comparison
society in Chicago, 1880–1930. Philadelphia, PA: of charter schools and regular public schools in
University of Pennsylvania Press. the United States. HIER Working Paper. www.
Holme, J. J., Finnigan, K. S., & Diem, S. (2016). wacharterschools.org/learn/studies/hoxbyallcharte
Challenging boundaries, changing fate? Metro- rs.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2012.
552 Bibliography
Hoxby, C. M. (2004b). Achievement in charter adolescents and the racial classification of schools.
schools and regular public schools in the United Sociology of Education, 88(1), 1–19.
States: Understanding the differences. HIER Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt,
Working Paper. www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/ Rinehart and Winston.
downloads/papers/hoxby2004.pdf. Accessed Jackson, P. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York:
October 1, 2012. Teachers College Press.
Hoxby, C. M. (2009). The New York City charter Jackson, P. (1997). John Dewey and the lessons of art.
school evaluation project. Cambridge, MA: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
National Bureau of Economic Research. www. Jacob, B. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban
nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval. Accessed schools with effective teachers. The Future of
December 12, 2009. Children,17(1), 129–153.
Hoxby, C. M. & Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of Jacobs, J. A. (1995). Gender and academic specialties:
charter schools on student achievement. HIER Trends among recipients of college degrees in the
Working Paper. http://post.economics.harvard. 1980s. Sociology of Education, 68, 81–98.
edu/faculty/ hoxby/papers.html. James, M. (Ed.). (1995). Social reconstruction through
Hubbard, L., Stein, M. K., & Mehan, H. (2006). education: The philosophy, history, and curricula of
Reform as learning: When school reform collides with a radical ideal. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
school culture and community politics. New York: James, M. (2005). The conspiracy of the good: Civil
Routledge. rights and the struggle for community in two American
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: cities, 1875–2000. New York: Peter Lang.
TIP Publications. James, W. (1978). Varieties of religious experience. New
Hurn, C. J. (1993). The limits and possibilities of schooling York: Norton.
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Jameson, F. (1982). Postmodernism and consumer
Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind society. In H. Foster (Ed.), The anti-aesthetic: Essays
and the rise of neoliberal education policies. on post-modern culture (pp. 11–125). Seattle, DC:
American Educational Research Journal, 44, Bay Press.
493–518. Jencks, C. (1985). How much do high school students
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: learn? Sociology of Education, 58, 128–135.
Harper and Row. Jencks, C. (1987). What is post-modernism? New York:
Ingersoll, R. M. (1994). Organizational control in St. Martin’s.
secondary schools. Harvard Educational Review, 64, Jencks, C. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race,
150–172. poverty, and the underclass. New York: Harper
Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified Perennial.
teachers in American secondary schools. Educa- Jencks, C. (2016). Jencks comment on Downey and
tional Researcher, 28, 26–37. Condron. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 221–222.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher Jencks, C., Bartlett, S., Corcoran, M., Crouse, J.,
shortages. American Educational Research Journal, Eaglesfield, D., Jackson, G., McClelland, K.,
38(3), 499–534. Mueser, P., Olneck, M., Schwartz, J., Ward, S.,
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work?: & Williams, J. (1979). Who gets ahead? New York:
Power and accountability in America’s schools. Basic Books.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen,
Ingersoll, R. (2004). Why some schools have more D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972).
under-qualified teachers than others. In Diane Inequality. New York: Basic Books.
Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education Jennings, J. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice?:
policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of
Press. Education, 83, 227–247.
Ingersoll, R. & Perda, D. (2010). Is the supply of math- Jennings, J. & DiPrete, T. ( 2010). Teacher effects on
ematics and science teachers sufficient? American social and behavioral skills in early elementary
Educational Research Journal, 47, 563–594. school. Sociology of Education, 83, 135–159.
Inkeles, A. (1979). National differences in scholastic Jennings, J., & Sohn, H. (2014). Measure for measure
performance. Comparative Education Review, 23, how proficiency-based accountability systems
386–407. affect inequality in academic achievement.
Institute on Education Law and Policy (2009). Pockets Sociology of Education, 87(2), 125–141.
of Educational Excellence. Newark: Rutgers Uni- Jennings, J. F. (2015). Presidents, congress, and the
versity. http://ielp.rutgers.edu/docs/poe.final.pdf. public schools: The politics of education reform.
Accessed January 17, 2011. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Ispa-Landa, S., & Conwell, J. (2015). “Once You Go Jennings, J. L., Deming, D., Jencks, C., Lopuch, M., &
to a White School, You Kind of Adapt”: Black Schueler, B. E. (2015). Do differences in school
Bibliography 553
quality matter more than we thought? New Kaestle, C. F. & Vinovskis, M. A. (1980). Education
evidence on educational opportunity in the twenty- and social change in nineteenth-century Massachusetts.
first century. Sociology of Education, 88(1), 56–82. New York: Basic Books.
Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. Kafka, J. (2008). “Sitting on a tinderbox”: Racial
and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational conflict, teacher discretion, and the centralization
Review, 39, 1–23. of disciplinary authority. American Journal of
Jeynes, W. (2008). What we should and should not Education, 114, 247–270.
learn from the Japanese and other East Asian Kagan, J. (2002). Empowerment and Education:
education systems. Educational Policy, 22, 900–927. Civil Rights, Expert Advocates, and Parent Politics
Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., & Luppescu, S. (2015). in Head Start, 1964–1980, Teachers College Record,
Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: 104 (3), 516–564, April 2002.
Chicago’s REACH students [Special issue]. Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now: Creating
Educational Researcher, 44, 105–116. middle-class schools through public school choice.
Johnson, J. (1991). Introduction to the foundations of Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
American education (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn Kahne, J., Sporte, S., De La Torre, M., & Easton, J.
& Bacon. (2008). Small high schools on a larger scale: The
Johnson, J. F., Jr., & Asera, R. (Eds.) (1999). Hope for impact of school conversions in. Educational
urban education: A study of nine high-performing, Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 281–315.
high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Austin, TX: Kamens, D. H. (2009). The expanding polity:
The Charles A. Dana Center, The University of Theorizing the links between expanded
Texas at Austin. higher education and the new politics of the post
Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving 1970s. American Journal of Education, 116(1),
success in our schools. New York: Basic Books. 99–124.
Johnson, S. M. (1991). Review of Small victories by Kamin, L. (1974). The science and politics of I.Q.
Samuel G. Freedman. Teachers College Record, Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
93(1), 180–184. Kaminsky, J. (1992). A pre-history of educational phil-
Johnson, S. M. (2015). Will VAMS reinforce the osophy in the United States: 1861–1914. Harvard
walls of the egg-crate school? [Special issue]. Educational Review, 62(2), 179–198.
Educational Researcher, 44, 117–126. Kantor, H. & Brenzel, B. (1992). Urban education
Johnson, S. M. & Project on the Next Generation of and the truly disadvantaged: The historical roots
Teachers. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new of the contemporary crisis, 1945–1990. Teachers
teachers survive and thrive in our schools (1st ed.). San College Record, 94(2), 278–314.
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Karabel, J. (1972). Community colleges and social
Johnson, W. R. (1987). Empowering practitioners: stratification. Harvard Educational Review, 42,
Holmes, Carnegie, and the lessons of history. 521–562.
History of Education Quarterly, 27, 221–240. Karabel, J. & Halsey, A. H. (Eds.). (1977). Power and
Johnson, W. R. (1989). Teachers and teacher training ideology in education. New York: Oxford University
in the twentieth century. In D. Warren (Ed.), Press.
American teachers: Histories of a profession at work Karen, D. (1990). Toward a political-organizational
(pp. 237–256). New York: Macmillan. model of gatekeeping: The case of elite colleges.
Juday, Luke (2015). The Changing Shape of American Sociology of Education, 63, 227–240.
Cities. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Karen, D. (1991a). Achievement and ascription
University of Virginia. in admission to an elite college: A political-organ-
Kaestle, C. F. (1973). The evolution of an urban izational analysis. Sociological Forum, 6, 349–380.
school system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Karen, D. (1991b). Politics of race, class, and gender:
Press. Access to higher education in the United States,
Kaestle, C. F. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common 1960–1986. American Journal of Education, 99,
schools and American society, 1780–1860. New 208–237.
York: Hill & Wang. Karen, D. (2002). Changes in access to higher edu-
Kaestle, C. F. (1991). Literacy in the United States: cation in the United States: 1980–1992. Sociology
Readers and reading since 1800. New Haven, CT: of Education, 75, 191–210.
Yale University Press. Karier, C. (Ed.). (1976). Shaping the American educa-
Kaestle, C. F. & Vinovskis, M. A. (1978). From apron tional state. New York: Free Press.
strings to ABCs: Parents, children and schooling Karier, C., Violas, P., & Spring, J. (1973). Roots of
in nineteenth-century America. In J. Demos & crisis: American education in the twentieth century.
S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Turning points: Historical New York: Rand McNally.
and sociological essays on the family (pp. 39–80). Katz, J. (1988). Unpublished commentary on New
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. York City education.
554 Bibliography
Katz, M. B. (1968). The irony of early school reform: Kesey, K. (1977). One flew over the cuckoo’s nest. New
Educational innovation in mid-nineteenth-century York: Penguin.
Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- Khalil, D. (2012). Who teaches where? Evidence from
sity Press. a mixed methods study of teacher candidates’ preference
Katz, M. B. (1971a). Class, bureaucracy, and schools: for an urban school setting. Newark, NJ: Rutgers
The illusion of educational change in America. New University Press.
York: Praeger. Khan, S.R. (2013). Privilege: The making of an
Katz, M. B. (1971b). School reform, past and present. adolescent elite at St. Paul’s school. Princeton, NJ:
Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Princeton University Press.
Katz, M. B. (1987). Reconstructing American education. Kidder, T. (1989). Among schoolchildren. Boston,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Katz, M. B. (1990). The undeserving poor: From the Kilgore, S. (1991). The organizational context of
war on poverty to the war on welfare. New York: tracking in schools. American Sociological Review,
Pantheon Books. 56, 189–203.
Katzman, L., Gandhi, A. G., Harbour, W. S., & Kimball, R. (1990). Tenured radicals: How politics has
LaRock, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). Special education for corrupted higher education. New York: Harper and
a new century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- Row.
versity Press. Kincheloe, J. (2010). Knowledge and critical pedagogy:
Katznelson, I. & Weir, M. (1985). Schooling for all. An introduction. New York: Springer.
New York: Basic Books. Kincheloe, J. & Steinberg, S. (Eds.). (1998). Un-
Kauffman, J. M. (1989). The regular-education initia- authorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching.
tive as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle- New York: Routledge.
down theory of the hard to teach. Journal of Special Kincheloe, J., Steinberg, S., & Gressom, A. (1996).
Education, 23(3), 256–278. Measured lies: The bell curve examined. New York:
Keddie, N. (1971). Classroom knowledge. In M. F. D. St. Martin’s.
Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control. London: King, J. E. (1995). Culture-centered knowledge:
Collier. Black studies, curriculum transformation, and
Kelly, G. P. (1992). Women and higher education social action. In J. A. Banks & C. McGee Banks
reforms: Expansion without equality. In P. W. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural
Cookson, A. R. Sadovnik, & S. F. Semel (Eds.), education (pp. 265–290). New York: Macmillan.
International handbook of educational reform (pp. Kingston, P. W. (1986, Fall). Theory at risk: Account-
545–559). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ing for the excellence movement. Sociological
Kelly, S. (2008). What types of students’ effort are Forum, 1, 632–656.
rewarded with high marks? Sociology of Education, Kingston, P. W. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of
81, 32–52. cultural capital theory. Sociology of Education, 74,
Kelly, S. (2009). The black-white gap in mathematics Extra Issue, 88–99.
course taking. Sociology of Education, 82, 47–69. Kirp, D. L. (1982). Just schools: The idea of racial equality
Kelly, S. & Price, H. (2011). The correlates of tracking in American education. Berkeley, CA: University of
policy: Opportunity hoarding, status competition California Press.
or a technical-functional explanation? American Kirp. D. (2013). Improbable scholars: The rebirth of a great
Educational Research Journal, 48, 560–585. American school system and a strategy for America’s
Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom Schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kirst, M. W. (1984). Who controls our schools? New
University Press. York: W. H. Freeman.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). The effects of ability group- Kitto, H. D. F. (1951). The Greeks. New York:
ing. American Sociological Review, 51, 842–858. Penguin.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1993). Diverging pathways: Social Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American
structure and career deflections. New York: Cam- curriculum: 1893–1958. Boston, MA: Routledge
bridge University Press. & Kegan Paul.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (2001). Education and social strati- Kluger, R. (1975). Simple justice: The history of Brown
fication process in comparative perspective. Soci- v. Board of Education and black America’s struggle
ology of Education, 74, Extra Issue, 3–18. for equality. New York: Knopf.
Kerckhoff, A. C. & Everett, D. D. (1986). Sponsored Koch, E. (1999, December 3). Just arresting homeless
and contest education pathways in Great Britain is fruitless. Newsday, p. A57.
and the United States. In A. C. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Kohl, H. (1967). 36 children. New York: New Amer-
Research in sociology of education and socializa- ican Library.
tion (Vol. 6) (pp. 133–163). Greenwich, CT: JAI Komaromy, M., Grumbach, K., Drake, M., Vranizan,
Press. K., Lurie, N., Keane, D., & Bindman, A. B. (1996).
Bibliography 555
The role of black and hispanic physicians in Labov, W. (1970). The logic of non-standard Eng-
providing health care for underserved popula- lish. In F. Williams (Ed.), Language and poverty
tions, The New England Journal of Medicine, 334, (pp. 153–189). Chicago, IL: Markham.
1305–1310. Ladd, H. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their
Kommarovsky, M. (1985). Women in college. New working conditions: How predictive of planned
York: Basic Books. and actual teacher movement? Educational Evalu-
Konstantopoulos, S. & Chung, V. (2009). What ation and Policy Analysis, 33, 235–261.
are the long-term effects of small classes on the Ladd, H. F. (2002). Market-based reforms in urban
achievement gap? Evidence from the lasting education. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
benefits study. American Journal of Education, 116, Institute.
1–30. Ladd, H. F. & Fiske, E. B. (2003). The uneven playing
Kozol, J. (1967). Death at an early age. New York: field of school choice: Evidence from New Zealand.
Houghton Mifflin. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 43.
Kozol, J. (1986). Illiterate America. New York: New Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. San
American Library. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown. Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong
Kraushaar, O. F. (1972). American nonpublic schools: note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational
Patterns of diversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Researcher, 33(7), 3–13.
University Press. LaFrance, M. (1985). The school of hard knocks:
Krueger, A. B. (1998). Experimental estimates of Nonverbal sexism in the classroom. Theory Into
education production functions. Princeton, NJ: Practice, 24, 40–44.
Princeton University Industrial Relations Lagemann, E. C. (1979). A generation of women:
Section. Education in the lives of progressive reformers.
Kurlaender, M. & Ma, J. (2003). Educational benefits Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
of racially and ethnically diverse schools. Cambridge, Lagemann, E. C. (1989). The politics of knowledge:
MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. The Carnegie Corporation, philanthropy, and public
Kurlaender, M. & Yun, J. (2003). Fifty years after policy. Hanover, NH: University Press of New
Brown: New evidence on the impact of school racial England.
composition on student outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Laird, S. (1989). Reforming “Women’s true pro-
The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. fession”: A case for “feminist pedagogy” in teacher
Laats, A. (2015). Other school reformers: Conservative education? Harvard Educational Review, 58(4),
activism in American education. Cambridge, MA: 449–463.
Harvard University Press. Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and
Labaree, D. F. (1986). Curriculum, credentials, and parental intervention in elementary education.
the middle class: A case study of a nineteenth- London: Falmer.
century high school. Sociology of Education, 59, Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhood: Class, race and
42–57. family life. Los Angeles, CA: University of Cali-
Labaree, D. F. (1988). The making of an American fornia Press.
high school: The credentials market and the Central Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: class, race, and
High School of Philadelphia, 1838–1939. New family life, second edition with an update a decade later.
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Labaree, D. F. (1992a). Doing good, doing science: Lareau, A. & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social
The Holmes group reports and the rhetorics of inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural
educational reform. Teachers College Record, 93(4), capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of
628–640. Education, 72, 37–53.
Labaree, D. F. (1992b). Power, knowledge, and the Lareau, A., Evans, S., and Yee, A. (2016). The rules
rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of of the game and the uncertain transmission of
the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard advantage: Middle-class parents’ search for an
Educational Review, 62(2), 123–155. urban kindergarten. Sociology of Education, 89(4),
Labaree, D. F. (1996). A disabling vision: Rhetoric 279–299.
and reality in tomorrow’s schools of education. Lasch, C. (1983). The culture of narcissism. New York:
Teachers College Record, 97(2), 166–205. Norton.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research
really learning: The credential race in American and pedagogy within the postmodern. New York:
education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Routledge.
Labaree, D. F. & Pallas, A. M. (1996). Dire straits: The Lauen, D. L. (2007). Contextual Explanations of
narrow vision of the Holmes Group. Educational School Choice. Sociology of Education, 80(3)
Researcher, 25(5), 25–28. 179–209.
556 Bibliography
Lauen, D. L. (2008). The false promises of school Lee, V. E. & Croninger, R. G. (1994). The relative
choice in NCLB. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A. O’ Day, importance of home and school in the develop-
G. Bohrnstedt, & K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left ment of literacy skills for middle-grade students.
Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: American Journal of Education, 102(2), 286–329.
Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy. Lee, V. E. & Frank, K. A. (1990). Students’ charac-
New York: Routledge. teristics that facilitate the transfer from two-year
Lauen, D. (2009). To choose or not to choose: High to four-year colleges. Sociology of Education, 63,
school choice and graduation in Chicago. Educa- 178–193.
tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 179–199. Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1994).
Lavin, D., Alba, R., & Silberstein, R. (1981). Right Parental choice of schools and social stratification
versus privilege: The open admissions experiment at the in education: The paradox of Detroit. Educational
City University of New York. New York: The Free Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 434–457.
Press. Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The
Lavin, D. & Hyllegard, D. (1996). Changing the effect of the social organization of schools on
odds: Open admissions and the life chances of the dis- teachers’ self-efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of
advantaged. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Education, 64, 190–208.
Leach, M. (1992). Can we talk? A response to Lee, V. E., Mackie-Lewis, C., & Marks, H. M.
Burbules and Rice. Harvard Educational Review, (1993). Persistence to the baccalaureate degree for
62(2), 257–263. students who transfer from community college.
Leach, W. (1980). True love and perfect union: The American Journal of Education, 120, 80–114.
feminist reform of sex and society. New York: Basic Lee, V. E., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism
Books. in single-sex and coeducational independent
LeCompte, M. D. (1987). The cultural context of secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education,
dropping out: Why remedial programs don’t solve 67, 92–120.
the problems. Education and Urban Society, 19, Lee, V. E. & Ready, D. (2006). Schools within schools:
232–249. Possibilities and pitfalls of high school reform. New
LeCompte, M. D. & Dworkin, A. G. (1991). Giving York: Teachers College Press.
up on school: Student dropouts and teacher burnouts. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. B. (1995, October). Effects
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. of high school restructuring and size on gains in
Lee, C. D. & Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (1995). Historical achievement for early secondary school students.
and sociocultural influences on African American Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.
education. In J. A. Banks & C. McGee Banks Legewie, J. and DiPrete, T. (2014). The high school
(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural environment and the gender gap in science and
education (pp. 348–371). New York: Macmillan. engineering. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 259–280.
Lee, G. (1961). Crusade against ignorance: Thomas Legters, N. E., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W. J., &
Jefferson on education. New York: Teachers College McPartland, J. M. (2002). Comprehensive reform for
Press. urban high school. New York: Teachers College
Lee, J. and Zhou, M. (2015). The Asian American Press.
achievement paradox. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Lein, L., Johnson, J. F., Jr., & Ragland, M. (1997).
Lee, V. E. (1985). Access to higher education: The Successful Texas schoolwide programs. Austin, TX:
experience of Blacks, Hispanics, and low socio- The Charles A. Dana Center, The University of
economic status Whites. Washington, DC: Division Texas at Austin.
of Policy Analysis and Research, American Lemann, N. (1991). The promised land. New York:
Council on Education. Vintage.
Lee, V. E. & Bryk, A. (1986). Effects of single-sex and Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of
co-educational high schools on achievement, the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus
attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal and Giroux.
of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395. Lesko, N. (1988). Symbolizing society: Stories, rites, and
Lee, V. E. & Bryk, A. (1988). Curriculum tracking structure in a catholic high school. New York: Falmer
as mediating the social distribution of high school Press.
achievement. Sociology of Education, 61, 78–94. Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construction
Lee, V. E. & Bryk, A. (1989). A multilevel model of of adolescence. New York: Routledge.
the social distribution of high school achievement. Lever, J. & Schwartz, P. (1971). Women at Yale:
Sociology of Education, 62, 172–192. Liberating a college campus. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Lee, V. E. & Burkham, D. (2002). Inequality at the Merrill.
starting gate: Social background differences in Levine, D. U. & Havighurst, R. J. (1989). Society
achievement as children begin school. Washington, and education (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
DC: Economic Policy Institute. Bacon.
Bibliography 557
Levinson, D., Cookson, P. W., Jr., & Sadovnik, A. R. Lipman, P. (2003). High stakes education: Inequality,
(2000). Encyclopedia of the sociology of education. globalization, and urban school reform. New York:
New York: Falmer. Routledge.
Levinson, D. L., Cookson, P. W., Jr., & Sadovnik, Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban
A. R. (2002). Encyclopedia of education and education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the
sociology. New York: Routledge. City. New York: Routledge.
Lew, J. (2005a). Success and failure of Asian American Lippitt, R. & Gold, M. (1959). Classroom social
youths in urban schools: A case of second-generation structure as a mental health problem. Journal of
Korean Americans. New York: Teachers College Social Issues, 15, 40–49.
Press. Little, J. W. (1990). Conditions of professional
Lew, J. (2005b). The other story of model minorities: development in secondary schools. In M. W.
Korean American high school dropouts in urban McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.),
context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, The contexts of teaching in secondary schools:
35(3), 303–323. Teachers realities (pp. 187–223). New York:
Lew, J. (2005c). Success and failure among 1.5 and Teachers College Press.
second-generation Korean American youths in urban Little, J. W. (1992). Two worlds: Vocational and
schools: Significance of social class and school context. academic teachers in comprehensive high schools.
New York: Teachers College Press. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Lewis, A. (2003). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the Vocational Education, University of California at
color line in classrooms and communities. New Berkeley.
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Little, J. W. (1993). Professional community in
Lewis, C. (1995). Educating mind and heart: Rethinking comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of
the roots of Japanese education. London: Cambridge academic and vocational teachers. In J. W. Little
University Press. & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers work:
Lewis, D. & Nakagawa, K. (1995). Race and educational Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 137–163).
reform in the American metropolis: A study of school New York: Teachers College Press.
decentralization. Albany, NY: State University of Little, J. W. (1993, Summer). Teachers’ professional
New York Press. development in a climate of educational reform.
Lewis, J. F. (1995). Saying no to vouchers: What is the Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2),
price of democracy? National Association of 129–151.
Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 79, 41–51. Liu, E., Rosenstein, J. G., Swan, A. E., & Khalil, D.
Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific (2008a). When districts encounter teacher short-
American, 215, 19–25. ages: The challenges of recruiting and retaining
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional mathematics teachers in urban districts. Leadership
culture in schools. New York: Teachers College and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 296–323.
Press. Lleras, C. (2008). Race, racial concentration, and
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1995). The work of restructuring the dynamics of educational inequality across
schools: Building from the ground up. New York: urban and suburban schools. American Educational
Teachers College Press. Research Journal, 45, 886–912.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1984). The social Lleras, C. & Rangel, C. (2009). Ability grouping prac-
realities of teaching. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller tices in elementary school and African American/
(Eds.), Teachers, their world, and their work. Hispanic achievement. American Journal of Edu-
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and cation, 115(2), 279–304.
Curriculum Development. Lloyd, S. M. (1987). The Putney school: A progressive
Lieberman, A., Darling-Hammond, L., & Zuckerman, experiment. New Haven, CT: Yale University
D. (1991, August). Early lessons in restructuring Press.
schools. New York: National Center for Restruc- Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me. New
turing Education, Schools, and Teaching. York: New Press.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds apart. New York: Basic Lomawaima, K. T. (1995). Educating Native Amer-
Books. icans. In J. A. Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.),
Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school. New York: Handbook of research on multicultural education
Basic Books. (pp. 331–347). New York: Macmillan.
Lilly, M. S. (1986, March). The relationship between Long, B.T. & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community
general and special education. Counterpoint, 6(1), colleges provide a viable pathway to a bacca-
10. laureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class and power in school Analysis, 31, 30–53.
restructuring. New York: State University of New Long, M. C. & Tienda, M. (2008). Winners and
York Press. losers: Changes in Texas University admissions
558 Bibliography
post-Hopwood. Educational Evaluation and Policy Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks, and ideology.
Analysis, 30, 255–280. London: Falmer Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Luke, C. & Jennifer, G. (Eds.). (1992). Feminisms and
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Losen, D. & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequity Lynch, R. G. (2004/2005, Winter). Preschool pays:
in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard High-quality education would save billions. Amer-
Education Publishing Group. ican Educator, 26–35.
Lubienski, C. (2001). Redefining “public” education: Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition
Charter schools, common schools, and the rhet- (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minnea-
oric of reform. Teachers College Record, 103(4), polis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
634–666. Lytle, J. H. (1988). Is special education serving minor-
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education ity students? A response to Singer and Butler.
markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of Harvard Educational Review, 58(1). In T. Hehir
competition and choice in charter schools. Amer- & T. Latus (1992). Special education at the cen-
ican Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 394–443. tury’s end: Evolution of theory and practice since 1970
Lubienski, C. (2005). Public schools in marketized (pp. 191–197). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educa-
environments: Shifting incentives and unintended tional Review.
consequences of competition-based educational Macdonald, J. & Macdonald, S. (1981). Gender values
reforms. American Journal of Education, 111(4), and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing,
464–486. 3(1), 299–304.
Lubienski, C. (2005). School choice as a civil right: Macedo, D. (1990). Literacies of power: What Amer-
District responses to competition and equal edu- icans are not allowed to know. Boulder, CO:
cational opportunity. Equity & Excellence in Westview.
Education, 38(4), 331–341. MacInnes, G. (1999). Kids who pick the wrong parents
Lubienski, C. & Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Charter and other victims of voucher schemes. New York: The
schools, academic achievement and NCLB. Journal Century Foundation.
of School Choice, 1(3), 55–62. MacLeod, J. (1995). Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and
Lubienski, C. & Weitzel, P. (2010). The Charter attainment in a low income neighborhood (2nd ed.).
school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and Boulder, CO: Westview.
implications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Maedus, G. & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverse
Press. impact of high-stakes testing on minority students:
Lubienski, C., Weitzel, P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2009). Evidence from one hundred years of test data.
Is there a “consensus” on school choice and In G. Orfield & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising
achievement? Advocacy research and the emerg- standards or raising barriers: Inequality and high-Stakes
ing political economy of knowledge production. testing in public education (pp. 85–106). New York:
Educational Policy, 23(1), 161–193. The Century Foundation Press.
Lubienski, S. T. & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector Maeroff, G. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers:
and academic achievement: A multi-level analysis Overcoming the crisis of confidence. New York:
of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Teachers College Press.
Research Journal, 43(4), 651–698. Maher, F. & Tetrault, M. T. (1994). The feminist
Lubienski, S., Lubienski, C., & Crane, C. (2008). classroom. New York: Basic Books.
Achievement differences and school type: The Maher, F. & Tetrault, M. K. (2006). Diversity and
role of school climate, teacher certification, and privilege in the Academy. New York: Routledge.
instruction. American Journal of Education, 115, Maier, A. (2012). Doing good and doing well:
97–138. Credentialism and Teach for America. Journal of
Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification Teacher Education, 63(10), 10–22.
and mobility in American high schools. New York: Maier, A. & Youngs, P. (2009). Teacher preparation
Teachers College Press. programs and teacher labor markets: How social
Lucas, S. R. (2001). Race, class, and tournament track capital may help explain teachers’ career choices.
mobility. Sociology of Education, 74, 139–156. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 393–407.
Lucas, S. R. (2002). Sociodemographic diversity, Makris, M. (2015). Public housing and school choice in
correlated achievement, and de facto tracking. a gentrified city. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Sociology of Education, 75, 328–348. Male, G. A. (1992). Educational reform in France.
Lugg, C. & Robinson, M. (2009). Religion, advocacy In P. W. Cookson, Jr., A. Sadovnik, & S. Semel
coalitions, and the politics of U.S. public school- (Eds.), International handbook of educational reform.
ing. Educational Policy, 23, 242–266. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lukas, J. A. (1986). Common ground. New York: Malone, D. & Rauch, B. (1960). Empire for liberty.
Vintage Books. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bibliography 559
Mangino, W. (2009). The downside of social closure: instructional reform. Philadelphia, PN: CPRE,
Brokerage, parental influence, and delinquency University of Pennsylvania.
among African American boys. Sociology of Educa- Massey, D. & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apart-
tion, 82, 147–172. heid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia: An intro- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
duction to the sociology of knowledge. New York: Mattingly, D., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T., Rodriquez, J.,
Harcourt, Brace & World. & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations:
Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of The case of parent involvement programs. Review
knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. of Educational Research, 72(4), 549–576.
Marsh, H. W. (1989a). The effects of attending single- May, H., Supovitz, J., & Perda. (2004). A longi-
sex and coeducational high schools on achieve- tudinal study of the impact of America’s Choice on
ment, attitudes, behaviors and on sex differences. student performance in Rochester, New York,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 70–85. 1998–2003. Consortium for Policy Research on
Marsh, H. W. (1989b). Effects of attending single- Education. Philadelphia, PN: University of
sex and coeducational high schools: A response Pennsylvania.
to Lee and Bryk. Journal of Educational Psychology, Mayer, D. P., Mullens, J. E., Moore, M. T., Ralph, J.
81, 651–653. (2000). Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators
Marsh, H. W. (1991). Public, catholic single-sex, and Report, by Daniel P. Mayer, John E. Mullens, and
catholic coeducational high schools: Their effects Mary T. Moore. John Ralph. Washington, DC:
on achievement, affect, and behaviors. American NCES.
Journal of Education, 99, 320–356. Mazzeo, C. (2001). Frameworks of state: Assessment
Martin, J. R. (1987). Reforming teacher education, policy in historical perspective. Teachers College
rethinking liberal education. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 367–397.
Record, 88, 406–409. McCarthy, C. (1993). Beyond the poverty of theory
Martin, R. (1972). Student sex and behavior as in race relations: Nonsynchrony and social differ-
determinants of the type and frequency of teacher- ence in education. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.),
student contacts. Journal of School Psychology, 10, Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in
339–347. United States schools (pp. 325–346). Albany, NY:
Martin-Kniep, G. & Kniep, W. M. (1992). Alterna- State University of New York Press.
tive assessment: Essential, not sufficient for McCarthy, C. & Critcheloe, W. (Eds.). (1993). Race,
systematic change. Holistic Education Review, 9(4), identity and representation in education. New York
4–13. and London: Routledge.
Marx, K. (1852/1963). The eighteenth brumaire of Louis McCulloch, G. (2011). The struggle for the history of
Bonaparte. New York: International Publishing education. New York and London: Routledge.
Company. McDermott, R. P. (1977). Social relations as contexts
Marx, K. (1844/1964). The economic and philosophical for learning. Harvard Educational Review, 47,
manuscripts of 1844. New York: International 198–213.
Publishers. McDermott, R. P. & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as
Marx, K. (1867/1967). Das Kapital, Volume I. New disability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,
York: International Publishers. 26(3), 324–348.
Marx, K. (1893/1967). Das Kapital, Volume II. New McDill, E. (1978). An updated answer to the question:
York: International Publishers. Do schools make a difference? Paper presented at the
Marx, K. (1894/1967). Das Kapital, Volume III. New National Institute of Education: International
York: International Publishers. Conference on School Organization and Effect,
Marx, K. (1847/1971). The poverty of philosophy. New San Diego, CA.
York: International Publishers. McDonnell, L. M. & Weatherford, M. Stephen.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1846/1947). The German (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State
ideology. New York: International Publishers. Standards movement: From problem definition to
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848/1983). The communist policy adoption. American Journal of Education 120,
manifesto. New York: International Publishers. 1–25.
Massell, D. & Fuhrman, S., with Kirst, M., Odden, A., McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools. New York:
Wohlstetter, P., Carver, C., & Yee, G. (1994). Longman.
Ten years of state education reform, 1983–1993: McLaren, P. (1991). Schooling and the postmodern
Overview with four case studies. New Brunswick, body: Critical pedagogy and the politics of en-
NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Educa- fleshment. In H. Giroux (Ed.), Postmodernism,
tion. feminism, and cultural politics: Redrawing educational
Massell, D. & Goertz, M. (1999). Local strategies boundaries (pp. 144–173). Albany, NY: State
for building capacity: The district role in supporting University of New York Press.
560 Bibliography
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory recipients and nonrecipients of the gates millen-
culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. nium scholarship program. Educational Evaluation
London and New York: Routledge. and Policy Analysis, 32, 249–272.
McLaren, P. & Hammer, R. (1989). Critical pedagogy Metcalf, K. K. (1998). Evaluation of the Cleveland
and the postmodern challenge: Toward a critical scholarship program: Second year report 1997–98.
postmodernist pedagogy of liberation. Educational Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation,
Foundations, 3(3), 29–62. Indiana University.
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming Metcalf, K. K., Boone, W. J., Muller, P. A., Stage, F.
districts: How districts support school reform. K., & Tait, P. (1999). Evaluation of the Cleveland
Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program
Policy. 1996–1999. Bloomington, IN: The Indiana Center
McLaughlin, M., Artiles, A., & Pullin, D. (2001). for Evaluation.
Challenges for the transformation of special Metcalf, K. K., West, S. D., Legan, N. A., Paul, K. M.,
education in the 21st century: Rethinking culture & Boone, W. J. (2001). Cleveland scholar-
in school reform. Journal of Special Education ship program evaluation 1998–2000. Bloomington,
Leadership, 14(2), 51–62. IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana
McLaughlin, M. W. & Little, J. W. (Eds.). (1993). University.
Teachers work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. Metcalf, K. K., West, S. D., Legan, N. A., Paul, K. M.,
New York: Teachers College Press. & Boone, W. J. (2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland
McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (1993a). Contexts scholarship and tutoring program 1998–2001.
that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation,
Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Indiana University.
School Teaching. Metcalf, K. K., et. al. (2004). Evaluation of the
McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (1993b). How the Cleveland scholarship and tutoring program
world of students and teachers challenges policy 1998–2002. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for
coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing Evaluation, Indiana University.
coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. of authority in desegregated secondary schools.
McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1995). Extracurricular activities Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
and high school dropouts. Sociology of Education, Metz, M. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and
68, 62–81. character of three magnet schools. New York:
McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
School structure and school knowledge. New York: Metz, M. H. (1990). How social class differences shape
Routledge. teachers’ work. In M. McLaughlin, J. Talbert, &
McNeil, L. M. (1988a). Contradictions of control, N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in
Part I: Administrators and teachers. Phi Delta secondary schools: Teachers’ realities (pp. 40–107).
Kappan, 69(5), 333–339. New York: Teachers College Press.
McNeil, L. M. (1988b). Contradictions of control, Meyer, J. W. (1977, July). The effects of education as
Part II: Teachers, students and curriculum. Phi an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83,
Delta Kappan, 69(6), 432–438. 55–77.
McNeil, L. M. (1988c). Contradictions of control, Meyer, J. W. (2016). Meyer comment on Downey and
Part III: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Condron. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 227–228.
Kappan, 69(7), 478–485. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). The structure
McNeil, L. M. (1988d). Contradictions of control: of educational organizations. In M. Meyer &
School structure and school knowledge. New York: Associates (Eds.), Environments and organizations
Routledge. (pp. 78–109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1978). Institutionalized
Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: organizations: Formal structure as myth and cere-
Routledge. mony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. Meyer, J. W., Kamens, D., Benavot, A., Cha, Y. K., &
(1996). Constructing school success: The conse- Wong, S. Y. (1992). School knowledge for the masses:
quences of un-tracking low achieving students. World models and national primary curriculum
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. categories in the twentieth century. London: Falmer.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston, MA: Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., Rubinson, R., & Boli, J.
Beacon. (1977). The world educational revolution,
Melguizo, T. (2010). Are students of color more likely 1950–1970. Sociology of Education, 50, 242–258.
to graduate from college if they attend more Meyer, J. W., Tyack, D., Nagel, J., & Gordon, A.
selective institutions? Evidence from a cohort of (1979). Public education as nation-building in
Bibliography 561
America. American Journal of Sociology, 85, students’ experiences in single-sex and coeducational
591–613. colleges. New York: Peter Lang.
Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement Miller-Bernal, L. & Poulson, S. (2004). Going coed:
paradox among black adolescents. Sociology of Coeducation at formerly men’s college, 1950–2000.
Education, 63, 44–61. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Mickelson, R. A. (1999). International business Miller-Bernal, L. & Poulson, S. (2005). Going coed:
machinations: A case study of corporate involve- Coeducation at formerly women’s colleges. Nashville,
ment in local educational reform. Teachers College TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Record, 100(3), 476–512. Miller-Bernal, L. & Poulson, S. L. (2006). Challenged
Mickelson, R. A. (2002). Subverting Swann: First and by coeducation : Women’s colleges since the 1960s (1st
second generation segregation in the Charlotte- ed.). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Mecklenburg schools. American Education Research Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford
Journal, 38(2), 215–252. University Press.
Mickelson, R. A. (2003). Gender Bourdieu, and the Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New
anomaly of women’s achievement redux. Sociology York: Oxford University Press.
of Education, 75, 373–375. Milofsky, C. (1974). Why special education isn’t
Mickelson, R. A. (2008). Twenty-first century social special. Harvard Educational Review, 44(4). In
science on school racial diversity and educational T. Hehir & T. Latus. (1992). Special education
outcomes. Ohio State Law Journal, 69, 1173–1227. at the century’s end: Evolution of theory and practice
Mickelson, R. A. & Ray, C. A. (1994). Fear of falling since 1970 (pp. 47–68). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
from grace: The middle class, downward mobility, Educational Review.
and school desegregation. Research in Sociology of Miner, B. (2010). The ultimate superpower: Super-
Education and Socialization, 10, 207–238. sized dollars driving Waiting For Superman
Mickelson, R. A., Ray, C. A., & Smith, S. S. (1993). agenda. Rethinking Schools, Not Waiting for
The growth machine and the politics of urban Superman website. www.notwaitingforsuperman.
educational reform: The case of Charlotte, North org/Articles/20101020.MinerUltimateSuperpower
Carolina. In N. Stromquist (Ed.), Education in the ?action=download&upname=TheUltimateSuperp
urban context. New York: Praeger. ower_Miner.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2011.
Mickelson, R., Smith, S. and Nelson, A. (2015). Mirel, J. E. (1993). The rise and fall of an urban school
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: School desegregation system: Detroit, 1907–81. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni-
and resegregation in Charlotte. Cambridge, MA.: versity of Michigan Press.
Harvard Education Press. Miron, G. & Nelson, C. (2001). Autonomy in exchange
Miles, K. H. (2000). Money matters: Rethinking school for accountability: An initial study of Pennsylvania
district spending to support Comprehensive School charter schools—Executive summary. Kalamazoo,
Reform. Arlington, VA: New American Schools MI: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan
Issue Brief. University. www.wmich.edu/evalctr. Accessed
Miller, J. (1982). Feminist pedagogy: The sound of October 1, 2012.
silence breaking. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Miron, G. & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about
4, 5–11. charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and
Miller, L. & Smith, S. (2011). Did the no child left accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
behind act miss the mark? Assessing the potential Press.
benefits from an accountability system for early Miron, G. & Nelson, C. (2004). Student academic
childhood education. Educational Policy, 25, achievement in charter schools: What we know
193–214. and why we know so little. In K. Bulkley &
Miller, S. (2016). “How You Bully a Girl”: Sexual Wohlstetter (Eds.), Taking account of charter
drama and the negotiation of gendered sexuality in schools: What’s happened and what’s next (pp.
high school. Gender and Society, 30(5), 721–744. 161–175). New York: Teachers College Press.
Miller-Bernal, L. (1980). Comment on Tidball’s Miron, G., Evergreen, S., & Urschel, J. (2008). The
women’s colleges and women’s achievers revisited. impact of school choice reforms on student achievement.
Signs, 6, 342–345. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public
Miller-Bernal, L. (1989). College experiences and sex- Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
role attitudes: Does a women’s college make a http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/CHOICE-10-
difference? Youth and Society, 20, 363–387. Miron-FINAL-withapp22.pdf. Accessed January
Miller-Bernal, L. (1993). Single sex versus coeduca- 20, 2011.
tional environments: A comparison of women Mitrano, B. (1979). Feminist theology and curriculum
students’ experiences at four colleges. American theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2, 211–220.
Journal of Education, 102(1), 23–54. Mitter, W. (1992). Germany. In P. W. Cookson, Jr.,
Miller-Bernal, L. (2000). Separate by degree: Women A. R. Sadovnik, & S. F. Semel (Eds.), International
562 Bibliography
handbook of educational reform (pp. 209–228). Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (pp. 77–114). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Moe, T. M. (2001). Schools, vouchers, and the American Muller, C. & Kerbow, D. (1993). Parent involve-
public. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution ment in the home, school, and community. In
Press. B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their
Montt, G. (2011). Cross-national differences in children, and schools (pp. 13–42). Boulder, CO:
educational achievement inequality. Sociology of Westview Press.
Education, 84, 49–68. Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing
Moore, R., Arnot, M., Beck, J., & Daniels, H. and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers
(2010). Knowledge, power and educational reform: College Press.
Applying the sociology of Basil Bernstein. Oxford: Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1993). Restructuring
Routledge. schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts. Newbury
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., Park, CA: Corwin.
Mattison, R., Maczuga, S., Li, H., & Cook, M. Murphy, J. & Louis, K. S. (1994). Reshaping the prin-
(2015). Minorities are disproportionately under- cipalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts.
represented in special education: Longitudinal Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
evidence across five disability conditions. Murray, C. (1989). In pursuit of happiness and good
Educational Researcher, 44(5), 278–292. government. New York: Touchstone Books.
Morgan, S. L. & Todd, J. J. (2009). Intergenerational Muse, I. (1998). One-teacher schools in America.
closure and academic achievement in high school: Teacher Educator, 33, 141.
A new evaluation of Coleman’s conjecture. Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma. New York:
Sociology of Education, 82(3), 267–285. Harper and Ruthers.
Morris, V. C. (1966). Existentialism in education. New Nasir, N., McLaughlin, M., & Jones, A. (2009). What
York: Harper and Row. does it mean to be African American? Construc-
Mortenson, T. (1997). Research seminar on public tions of race and academic identity in an urban
policy analysis of opportunity for post secondary public high school. American Educational Research
education. Education Trust website, www.edtrust. Journal, 46, 73–114.
org. Accessed May 25, 2005. Nassaw, D. (1979). Schooled to order. New York:
Mortimer, J. T. (1996). A sociological perspective Oxford University Press.
on school-to-work opportunities: Response and National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997).
rejoinder. In K. Borman, P. W. Cookson, Jr., A. R. Monitoring school quality: An indicators report.
Sadovnik, & J. Z. Spade (Eds.), Implementing Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
educational reform: Sociological perspectives on Office of Educational Research.
educational policy (pp. 171–184). Norwood, NJ: National Center for History in the Schools. (1994).
Ablex. National standards for United States history: Exploring
Mortimore, P. & Whitty, G. (1999). School improve- the American experience. Los Angeles: Author.
ment: A remedy for social exclusion. In A. Hayton National Commission on Excellence in Education.
(Ed.), Tackling disaffection and social exclusion (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S.
(pp. 80–94). London: Kogan Page. Government Printing Office.
Moscovitch, R., Sadovnik, A. R., Barr, J. M., National Commission on Social Studies in Schools.
Davidson, T., Moore, T. L., Powell, R., Tracten- (1989). Charting a course: Social studies for the 21st
berg, P. L., Wagman, E., & Zha, P. (2010). century. Washington, DC: Author.
Governance and urban school improvement: Lessons National Commission on Teaching and America’s
for New Jersey from nine cities. Rutgers, NJ: Institute Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for
on Education Law and Policy. America’s future. New York: Author.
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size National Council for the Social Studies. (1994).
in the early grades. The Future of Children, 5(2), Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for
113–127. social studies. Washington, DC: Author.
Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
skill grouping and class size. Harvard Education school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Review, 66(4), 797–842. National Education Goals Panel. (1988). Restructuring
Mosteller, F. & Moynihan, D. P. (1972). On equality the education system. Washington, DC: Author.
of educational opportunity. New York: Vintage National Education Goals Panel. (1989). Restructuring
Books. in progress. Washington, DC: Author.
Muller, C. (1993). Parent involvement and academic National Education Goals Panel. (1991). Measuring
achievement: An analysis of family resources progress toward the national education goals.
available to the child. In B. Schneider & J. S. Washington, DC: Author.
Bibliography 563
National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 based on feeder patterns. Philadelphia, PA: Grad-
Education. (2003). School choice: Doing it the uate School of Education, University of Penn-
right way makes a difference. Washington, DC: The sylvania.
Brookings Institution, available at www.brookings. Nieto, S. (1995). A history of the education of
edu/gs/brown/ 20031116schoolchoicereport.pdf. Puerto Rican students in U.S. mainland schools:
Natriello, G. (Ed.). (1986). School dropouts: Patterns “Losers,” “outsiders,” or “leaders.” In J. A. Banks
and policies. New York: Teachers College Press. & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research
Natriello, G. (Ed.). (1997). The state of American on multicultural education (pp. 388–411). New York:
education: Special section. Teachers College Record, Macmillan.
99(1), 9–72. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to
Natriello, G., McDill, E., & Pallas, A. (1990). ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University
Schooling disadvantaged students: Racing against of California Press.
catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of education. Boulder,
Neckerman, K. (2006). Schools betrayed: Roots of failure CO: Westview.
in inner-city education. Chicago, IL: University of Noguera, P. A. (2003). City schools and the American
Chicago Press. dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education.
Neil, R., Farley-Ripple, E., & Bymes, V. (2009). The New York: Teachers College Press.
effect of teacher certification on middle grades and Noguera, P. A. (2004) Social capital and the education
achievement in an urban district. Educational of immigrant students: Categories and general-
Policy, 23, 732–760. izations. Sociology of Education, 77, 180–184.
Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill. New York: Holt. O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and
Nelson, F. H., Rosenberg, B., & Van Meter, N. (2004). school improvement. Harvard Educational Review,
Charter school achievement on the 2003 National 72(3), 293–329.
Assessment of Educational Progress. Boulder, CO: O’Day, J. & Bitter, C. (2003). Evaluation study of the
National Education Policy Center. immediate intervention/underperforming schools pro-
Network of Progressive Educators. (1991). Statement gram and the high achieving/improving schools program
of principles. Pathways, 7(2), 3. of the P.S. Accountability Act of 1999. Palo Alto,
New Jersey Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. CA: American Institutes for Research.
(2011). Trenton: New Jersey Department of O’Day, J. A. & Smith, M. S. (1992). Systemic reform
Education. and equal educational opportunity. In S. H.
New Jersey Department of Education. (2004). School Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy
report cards. www.state.nj.us/education. Accessed (pp. 250–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
December 18, 2004. O’Day, J., Bitter, C. & Gomez, L. (2011). Education
New York City Board of Education. (1989). Human reform in New York City. Harvard Education Press.
relations task force: Final report. New York: Author. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure
New York City Department of Education. (2003). inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Student achievement reports. www.nycenet.edu. Press.
Accessed September 18, 2004. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of
New York City Department of Education. (2016). race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn
English Language Arts and Math Results. math and science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
New York State Board of Regents. (1998). Teachers Oakes, J. (1994a). Opportunity to learn: Can standards-
prepared. The Regents report on teacher education in based reform be equity-based reform? Paper presented
New York state. Albany, NY: New York State for Effects of New Standards and Assessment on
Department of Education. High Risk Students and Disadvantaged Schools, a
New York State Board of Regents. (1999). Teaching research forum for the New Standards Project,
to higher standards. Albany, NY: New York State Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Department of Education. Oakes, J. (1994b). More than misapplied technology:
New York State Council on Children and Families. A normative and political response to Hallinan.
(2012). Kids’ well-being indicators clearinghouse. Sociology of Education, 67, 84–89.
www.nyskwic.org. Accessed October 1, 2012. Oakes, J. (2004). Investigating the claims in Williams
New York State Department of Education. (2004). v. the State of California: An unconstitutional
School report cards. www.nysed.gov. Accessed denial of education’s basic tools. Teachers College
January 30, 2005. Record, 106(10), 1889–1906.
New York City Department of Education (2016). Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale
Annual Enrollment Snapshot. University Press.
Newberg, N. A. & Cohen, B. J. (1991). The South- Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992).
west Philadelphia educational complex: Report on a Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, out-
pilot project to create and manage a cluster of schools comes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),
564 Bibliography
Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570–608). Orfield, G. & Eaton, S. (1996). Dismantling desegre-
New York: Macmillan. gation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of
Oakes, J. & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The Education. New York: New Press.
dynamics of high school tracking decisions. Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2002). Why segregation matters:
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 3–33. Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA:
Oakes, J. & Saunders, M. (2008). Beyond tracking: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University
Multiple pathways to college, career, and civic Press.
participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Orfield, G. & Lee, J. (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream
Press. or Plessy’s nightmare? http://civilrightsproject.
Odden, A. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-
change through comprehensive school reform. Phi diversity/brown-at-50-king2019s-dream-or-plessy
Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433–438. 2019s-nightmare/orfield-brown-50-2004.pdf. Accessed
Odden, A., Picus, L., & Goetz, M. (2010). A 50-state October 1, 2012.
strategy to achieve school finance adequacy. Edu- Orfield, G. & Miller, E. (1998). Chilling admissions: The
cational Policy, 24, 628–654. affirmative action crisis and the search for alternatives.
Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste. New Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing
York: Academic Press. Group.
Ogbu, J. (1979). Social stratification and the social- Orfield, G. & Yun, J. T. (1999). Resegregation in
ization of competence. Anthropology and Education American schools. Cambridge, MA: The Civil
Quarterly, 10(1). Rights Project, Harvard University, http://civilrights
Ogbu, J. (1987). Variability in minority school per- project.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-
formance: A problem in search of an explanation. and-diversity/resegregation-in-american-schools/
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 312–334. orfield-resegregation-in-american-schools-1999.pdf.
Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Low school performance as adap- Accessed October 1, 2012.
tation: The case of blacks in Stockton, California. Owens, A. (2010). Neighborhoods and schools as
In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority competing and reinforcing contexts for educa-
status and schooling: A comparative study of im- tional attainment. Sociology of Education, 83(4),
migrants and involuntary minorities (pp. 249–285). 287–311.
New York: Garland. Ozmon, H. A. & Craver, S. M. (1990). Philosophical
Ogbu, J. U. (1999, Summer). Beyond language: foundations of education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black- Page, A. L. & Clelland, D. A. (1978, September). The
American speech community. American Educa- Kanawha County textbook controversy. Social
tional Research Journal, 36(2), 147–184. Forces, 57, 265–281.
Ogbu, J. (2003). Black Americans students in an Page, R. N. (1991). Lower track classrooms: A curricular
affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. College Press.
Olneck, M. R. (1993). Terms of inclusion: Has multi- Page, R. N. & Valli, L. (Eds.). (1990). Curriculum
culturalism redefined equality in American educa- differentiation: Interpretive studies in U.S. secondary
tion? American Journal of Education, 101, 234–260. schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Olneck, M. R. (2009). What have immigrants wanted Press.
from American schools? What do they want now? Palardy, G. (2015). Classroom-based inequalities
Historical and contemporary perspectives on and achievement gaps in first grade: The role of
immigrants, language, and American schooling. classroom context and access to qualified and
American Journal of Education, 115(3), 379–406. effective teachers . Teachers College Record, 117(2),
Olsen, B. & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school 1–48.
reform, and how teachers view their work inside Palardy, G. J., Rumberger, R. W., & Butler, T. (2015).
current education policy contexts. American The effect of high school socioeconomic, racial,
Educational Research Journal, 46, 9–44. and linguistic segregation on academic perform-
Olsen, L. (1999). Researchers rate whole-school ance and school behaviors. Teachers College
reform models. Education Week, 14. Record, 117(12), 1–52.
Orfield, G. (1992). Money, equity, and college access. Pallas, A. M., Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., &
Harvard Educational Review, 62, 337–372. Cadigan, D. (1987). Children who do excep-
Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting tionally well in first grade. Sociology of Education,
the graduate rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 60, 257–271.
University Press. Pallas, A. M., Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., &
Orfield, G. & Ashkinaze, C. (1991). The closing door: Stluka, M. F. (1994). Ability group effects:
Conservative policy and black opportunity. Chicago, Instructional, social, or institutional. Sociology of
IL: University of Chicago Press. Education, 67, 27–46.
Bibliography 565
Palmieri, P. (1987). From republican motherhood to Perlmann, J. (1988). Ethnic differences: Schooling and
race suicide: Arguments on the higher education social structure among the Irish, Italians, Jews, and
of women in the United States, 1820–1920. In Blacks in an American city, 1880–1935. New York:
C. Lasser (Ed.), Educating men and women together Cambridge University Press.
(pp. 49–66). Champaign-Urbana, IL: University Perlstein, D. (2004). Justice, justice: School politics and
of Illinois Press. the eclipse of liberalism. New York: Peter Lang.
Palmieri, P. (1995). In Adamless Eden. New Haven, Persell, C. H. (1977). Education and inequality. New
CT: Yale University Press. York: The Free Press.
Pang, V. O. (1995). Asian Pacific American students: Persell, C. H. (1990). Understanding society. New York:
A diverse and complex population. In J. A. Banks HarperCollins.
& C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research Persell, C. H. & Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1982). The
on multicultural education (pp. 412–424). New York: effective principal in action. Reston, VA: National
Macmillan. Association of Secondary Principals.
Pankratz, R. S. & Petrosko, J. M. (Eds.) (2000). All Persell, C. H., Catsambis, S., & Cookson, P. W., Jr.
children can learn: Lessons from the Kentucky reform (1992). Family background, school type, and
experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. college attendance: A conjoint system of cultural
Park, H., Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2011). Parental capital transmission. Journal of Research on
involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Adolescence, 2, 1–23.
Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Peshkin, A. (1986). God’s choice: The total world of
Education, 84, 3–22. a fundamentalist Christian school. Chicago, IL:
Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system. University of Chicago Press.
Harvard Educational Review, 29, 297–318. Peters, R. S. (1965). Ethics and education. London:
Passow, A. H. (1989). Present and future directions in Allen and Unwin.
school reform. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Moore Peters, R. S. (Ed.). (1973). The philosophy of education.
(Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow (pp. 13–39). Boston, London: Oxford University Press.
MA: Allyn & Bacon. Peters, S. J. (2013). Education and disability in
Passow, A. H., Noah, H. J., Eckstein, M. A., & Mallea, crosscultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
J. R. (1976). The national case study: An empirical Phillips, K. P. (1990). The politics of rich and poor:
comparative study of education in twenty-one Wealth and the American electorate in the Reagan
countries. New York: Wiley. aftermath. New York: Random House.
Paterson, L. & Iannelli, C. (2007). Social class and Pickering, W. F. & Walford, G. (1998). Durkheim on
educational attainment: A comparative study of education. London: Routledge.
England, Wales, and Scotland. Sociology of Educa- Pickering, W. S. F. (2009). Durkheim: Essays on morals
tion, 80(4), 330–358. and education. New York: Routledge.
Patten, K. E. & Campbell, S. R. (2011). Educational Picus, L. (1995). Does money matter in education?
neuroscience. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. A policy-maker’s guide. Selected Papers in School
Patterson, J. T. (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: Finance. Washington, DC: National Center for
A civil rights milestone and its troubled legacy. New Education Statistics.
York: Oxford. Pinar, W. F. (1975). Currere: Toward reconceptualiza-
Paulu, N. (1989). Improving schools and empowering tion. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing:
parents: Choice in American education. Washington, The reconceptualists (pp. 396–414). Berkeley, CA:
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. McCutchan.
Payne, C. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The Pinar, W. F. (1978a). Notes on the curriculum field
persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, 1978. Educational Researcher, 7(8), 5–12.
MA: Harvard Education Press. Pinar, W. F. (1978b). The reconceptualization of
Perez, W. (2015). Americans by heart: Undocumented curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
Latino students and the promise of higher education. 10(3), 205–214.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Pinar, W. F. (1979). What is reconceptualization? The
Perez-Pena, R. (2012). At CUNY, stricter admis- Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 1, 93–104.
sions bring ethnic shift, New York Times. Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1988). Contemporary curriculum
Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/ discourses. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
nyregion/at-cunys-top-colleges-black-and-hispanic- Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., &
freshmen-enrollments-drop.html?ref= Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum.
cityuniversityofnewyork. Accessed October 1, New York: Peter Lang.
2012. Pincus, F. L. (1980). The false promise of community
Perkinson, H. (1995). The imperfect panacea: American colleges. Harvard Educational Review, 50, 332–360.
faith in education, 1865–1968. New York: McGraw- Pincus, F. L. (1985). From equity to excellence: The
Hill. rebirth of educational conservatism. In B. Gross
566 Bibliography
& R. Gross (Eds.), The great school debate (pp. Ramirez, F. O. & Boli, J. (1987a). Global patterns
329–344). New York: Simon and Schuster. of educational institutionalization. In G. M.
Pink, W. & Noblit, G. W. (Eds.). (1995). Continuity Thomas et al. (Eds.), Institutional structure:
and contradiction: The futures of the sociology of Constituting state, society, and the individual.
education. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Plank, S., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2008). High Ramirez, F. O. & Boli, J. (1987b, January). The polit-
school dropout and the role of career and technical ical construction of mass schooling: European
education: A survival analysis of surviving high origins and worldwide institutionalization. Soci-
school. Sociology of Education, 81, 371–396. ology of Education, 60, 15.
Plato. (1945). Republic. New York: Oxford University Ravitch, D. (1974). The great school wars, New York
Press. City, 1805–1973: A history of the public schools as
Plato. (1971). Meno. New York: Macmillan. battlefield of social change. New York: Basic Books.
Plato. (1986). The dialogues of Plato. New York: Ravitch, D. (1977). The revisionists revised. New York:
Bantam. Basic Books.
Pogrow, S. (1996). Reforming the wannabe reformers: Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade. New York:
Why education reforms almost always end up Basic Books.
making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), Ravitch, D. (1985). The schools we deserve. New York:
656–663. Basic Books.
Pogrow, S. (1999). Rejoinder: Consistent large gains Ravitch, D. (1989). Multiculturalism in the curriculum.
and high levels of achievement are the best meas- Presentation to the Manhattan Institute.
ures of program quality: Pogrow responds to Ravitch, D. (1994). Personal communication. New
Slavin. Educational Researcher, 28(8), 24–3l. York: Author.
Pogrow, S. (2000). The unsubstantiated “success” Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school
of success for all. Phi Delta Kappan. 81(8), 596–600. reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., & Smithson, J. (2009). Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great
Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? American school system. New York: Basic
Evidence From state content standards. Educational Books.
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 238–268. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the
Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The privatization movement and the danger to America’s
shopping mall high school. Boston, MA: Houghton public schools. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mifflin. Ravitch, D. & Finn, C. E. (1987). What do our
Power, S., Warren, S., Gillborn, D., Clark, A., seventeen year olds know? New York: Basic Books.
Thomas, S., & Coate, K. (2001). Education in Ray, C. A. & Mickelson, R. A. (1993). Restructured
deprived areas. London: Institute of Education Uni- students for restructured work: The economy,
versity of London. school reform, and noncollegebound youth. Soci-
Powers, J. (2009). Charter schools: From reform imagery ology of Education, 66, 1–23.
to reform reality. New York: Palgrave. Raymond, M.E. (2014). A critical look at the charter
Powers, J. M., & Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1999). School school debate. Phi Delta Kappan Education Week,
choice as a political movement. Educational Policy, March 27.
13(1,2), 104–122. Ready, D. (2010). Socioeconomic disadvantage,
Pratt, C. (1924). Experimental practice in the city and school attendance, and early cognitive develop-
country school. New York: E. P. Dutton. ment: The differential effects of school exposure.
Publishers Weekly. (2003). Review of Rosemary Sociology of Education, 83, 271–286.
Salomone, Same, different, equal: Rethinking single- Ready, D. G., Lee, V. E., & Welner, K. (2004).
sex schooling. New York: Publishers Weekly, Reed Educational equity and social structure: School
Business Information. size, overcrowding, and school-within-schools.
Pugach, M. & Lilly, M. S. (1984). Reconceptualizing Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1989–2014.
support services for classroom teachers: Impli- Ream, R. & Palardy, G. (2008). Reexamining social
cations for teacher education. Journal of Teacher class differences in the availability and the edu-
Education, 35(5), 48–55. cational utility of parental social capital. American
Putnam, R. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in Educational Research Journal, 45, 274–318.
crisis. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Ream, R. & Rumberger, R. (2008). Student engage-
Quality counts, 1999. (1999, January 11). Education ment, peer social capital, and school dropout
Week, 28(17). among Mexican American and non-Latino white
Quinn, D. M. (2015). Kindergarten black–white test students. Sociology of Education, 81, 109–139.
score gaps: Re-examining the roles of socio- Reardon, S. F. (2001). Suburban racial change and
economic status and school quality with new data. suburban school segregation: 1987–96. Sociology of
Sociology of Education, 88(2), 120–139. Education, 74, 79–101.
Bibliography 567
Reardon, S. F. (2011) The widening academic Reyes, D. V. (2015). Inhabiting Latino politics: How
achievement gap between the rich and the colleges shape students’ political styles. Sociology
poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In of Education, 88(4), 302–319.
R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither oppor- Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J.
tunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and
of low-income children, New York: Russell Sage general education. Exceptional Children, 53(5),
Foundation, 2011. 391–398.
Reardon, S. F. & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income in- Richards, M. P., & Stroub, K. J. (2014). The frag-
equality and income segregation. AJS American mentation of metropolitan public school districts
Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092–1153. and the segregation of American schools: A longi-
Reardon, S. & Bischoff, K. (2011) More unequal and tudinal analysis. Teachers College Record, 116(12),
more separate: Growth in the residential segrega- 1–30.
tion of families by income, 1970–2009. US2010 Riegle-Crumb, C. & Grodsky, E. (2010). Racial-
Project. ethnic differences at the intersection of math
Reardon, S. & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality course-taking and achievement. Sociology of
and income segregation. American Journal of Education, 83, 248–270.
Sociology, 116(4): 1092–1153. Riehl, C. (2001). Bridges to the future: Contribu-
Reardon, S. & Rhodes, K. (2011). The effects of socio- tions of qualitative research to the sociology of
economic school integration plans on racial school education. Sociology of Education, 74, Extra Issue,
desegregation. In E. Frankenberg, E. DeBray-Pelot, 115–134.
& G. Orfield (Eds.), Legal and policy options for Riordan, C. (1985). Public and catholic schooling:
racially integrated education in the South and the The effects of gender context policy. American
nation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Journal of Education, 93, 518–540.
Carolina Press. Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together
Reardon, S., Arshan, N., Atteberry, A., & Kurlaender, or separate? New York: Teachers College Press.
M. (2010). Effects of failing a high school exit Riordan, C. (1992). Single- and mixed-gender colleges
exam on course taking, achievement and persist- for women: Educational, attitudinal, and occupa-
ence, and graduation. Educational Evaluation and tional outcomes. Review of Higher Education, 15,
Policy Analysis, 32, 498–520. 327–346.
Reardon, S., Grewal, E., Kalogrides, D., & Greenberg, Riordan, C. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes
E. (2011). Brown fades: The end of court-ordered for African and Hispanic Americans. Research in
school desegregation and the resegregation of Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10(1994):
American public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis 177–205.
and Management. Riordan, C. (1997). Equality and achievement: An
Rebell, M. A. (2009). Courts and kids: Pursuing introduction to the sociology of education. New York:
educational equity through the state courts. Chicago, Longman.
IL: University of Chicago Press. Riordan, C. (1998). The future of single-sex schools:
Reese, W. J. (1986). Power and the promise of school In Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex
reform: Grassroots movements during the progressive education for girls (pp. 53–62). Washington, DC:
era. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. AAUW Foundation.
Reese, W. J. (1995). The origins of the American high Riordan, C. (1999, November 17). The silent gender
school. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. gap. Education Week.
Reich, R. B. (1990). Education and the next economy. Rist, R. C. (1970). Student social class and teacher
In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Education reform: Making expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
sense of it all (pp. 194–212). Boston, MA: Allyn & ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40,
Bacon. 411–451.
Reich, R. B. (1991, January 20). Succession of the Rist, R. C. (1973). The urban school: A factory for
successful. The New York Times Magazine, pp. failure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42–45. Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education
Renzulli, L. A., Barr, A. B., & Paino, M. (2014). Inno- policy. New York: Routledge.
vative education? A test of specialist mimicry or Roda, A. (2015). Inequality in gifted and talented
generalist assimilation in trends in charter school programs. New York, NY: Palgrave.
specialization over time. Sociology of Education, Rodriguez, L. (2008). Teachers know you can do more:
88(1), 83–102. Understanding how school culture of success
Renzulli, L., Parrott, H., & Beattie, I. (2011). Racial affects urban high school students. Educational
mismatch and school type: Teacher satisfaction Policy, 22, 758–780.
and retention in charter and traditional public Roeber, E. D. (2003). Assessment models for No Child
schools. Sociology of Education, 84, 23–48. Left Behind. Washington, DC: Education Com-
568 Bibliography
mission of the States, www.ecs.org/html/Document. Black-White achievement gap. New York: Teachers
asp?chouseid=4009. Accessed October 1, 2012. College Press.
Rofes, E. & Stulberg, L. (2006). The emancipatory Rothstein, R. (2010). How to fix our schools: It’s more
promise of charter schools. Albany, NY: SUNY complicated, and more work, than the Klein-Rhee
Press. “Manifesto” wants you to believe. The Education
Rogers, D. (1968). 110 Livingston Street: Politics and Digest, 76(6), 32–37.
bureaucracy in the New York City schools. New York: Rouse, C. E. (1998). Private vouchers and student
Random House. achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Economics, 113(2), 533–602.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden Rouse, C. E. (2002). Private vouchers and student
curriculum of high school tracking. New York: Wiley. achievement: More evidence from the Milwaukee
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1980a). Social implications of parental choice program. Working paper No. 396,
educational grouping. In D. Berliner (Ed.), Review Industrial Relations Section, Princeton, Univer-
of research in education (pp. 361–401). Washington, sity, Princeton, NJ.
DC: American Educational Research Association. Rousseau, J. J. (1979). Emile (A. Bloom, Trans.). New
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1980b). Track misperceptions and York: Basic Books.
frustrated college plans. Sociology of Education, 53, Rowan, B. & Miracle, A. (1983). Systems of ability
74–87. grouping and the stratification of achievement
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1998). College-for-all: Do students in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 56,
understand what college demands? Social Psychol- 133–144.
ogy of Education, 2, 50–85. RPP International. (1998). The state of charter
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career schools 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
paths for the forgotten half. New York: Russell Sage of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Foundation. Improvement.
Rosenbaum, J. (2011). The complexities of college for RPP International. (1999). The state of charter
all: Beyond fairy-tale dreams. Sociology of Education, schools 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
84, 113–117. of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Rosenbaum, J. & Deil-Amen, R. (2006). After admis- Improvement.
sion: From college access to college success (with RPP International. (2000). The state of charter
Regina). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. schools 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Rosenbaum, J. E. & Jones, S. A. (1995). Creating of Education, Office of Educational Research and
linkages in the high school-to-work transition: Improvement.
Vocational teachers’ networks. In M. Hallinan RPP International. (2001). Challenge and opportunity:
(Ed.), Making schools work. New York: Plenum. The impact of charter schools on school districts.
Rosenbaum, J. E., Stern, D., Hamilton, M. A., Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Hamilton, S. F., Berryman, S. E., & Kazis, R. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(1992). Youth apprenticeship in America: Guidelines Rubinson, R. (1986). Class formation, politics and
for building an effective system. Washington, DC: institutions: Schooling in the United States.
William T. Grant Foundation Commission on American Journal of Sociology, 92, 519–548.
Youth and America’s Future. Rumberger, R. W. & Gandara, P. (2004). Seeking
Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the equity in the education of California’s English
classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. learners. Teachers College Record, 106(10),
Rossi, R. & Stringfield, S. (1995). What we must do 2032–2056.
for students placed at risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, Rumberger, R. W., & Gandara, P. (2008). Seeking
73–76. equity in the education of California’s English
Rossides, D. W. (1976). The American class system: An language learners. Teachers College Record,
introduction to social stratification. New York: 110(12), 2532–2570.
Houghton Mifflin. Rury, J. L. (1991). Education and women’s work: Female
Rothstein, R. (2000). Equalizing resources on behalf schooling and the division of labor in urban America,
of disadvantaged children. In R. D. Kahlenberg 1870–1930. Albany, NY: State University of New
(Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as York Press.
an engine for social mobility (pp. 21–92). New York: Rury, J. L. & Mirel, J. E. (1997). The political econ-
The Century Foundation Press. omy of urban education. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review
Rothstein, R. (2004a). Class and the classroom. of Research in Education, 22 (pp. 49–110). Wash-
American School Board Journal, 17–21. ington, DC: AERA.
Rothstein, R. (2004b). Class and schools: Using Rury, J. & Saatcioglu, A. (2011). Suburban advantage:
social, economic, and educational reform to close the Opportunity hoarding and secondary attainment
Bibliography 569
in the postwar metropolitan north. American Sadovnik, A. R. & Semel, S. F. (Eds.). (2002).
Journal of Education, 117(3), 307–342. Founding mothers and others: Women educational
Russakoff, D. (2015). The prize: Who’s in charge of leaders during the progressive era. New York:
America’s schools. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Palgrave.
Russell, B. (1926). Education and the good life. New Sadovnik, A. R., O’Day, J., Borhnstedt, G., &
York: Boni and Liverright. Borman, K. (Eds.). (2008). No child left behind and
Rust, V. (1991). Postmodernism and its comparative the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological
education implications. Comparative Education perspectives on federal educational policy. New York:
Review, 35(4), 610–626. Routledge.
Rutgers School of Law. Supreme Court Syllabus. Sadovnik, A. R., Persell, C., Baumann, E., & Mitchell,
Raymond Abbott et al. v. Fred G. Burke et al. R., Jr. (1987). Exploring society. New York: Harper
(A-155-97). http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/ and Row.
courts/supreme/a-155-97.opn.html. Accessed Octo- Sahlberg, P. (2010) Finnish lessons: What can we
ber 1, 2012. learn from education change on Finland. New York:
Rutledge, S., Harris, D., & Ingle, W. (2010). How Teachers College Press.
principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the
of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed- world learn from educational change in Finland? New
methods analysis of teacher hiring. American York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Journal of Education, 116(2), 211–242. Salomone, R. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, single-sex schooling. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-
J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours. London: Open sity Press.
Books. Sanders, M. (1996). School-family-community part-
Ryan, J. E. & Heise, M. (2002). The political economy nerships and the academic achievement of African-
of school choice. Yale Law Journal, 111, 2043. American urban adolescents. Center Report. Balti-
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: more, MD: Center for Research on the Education
Random House. of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins Uni-
Sachar, E. (1991). Shut up and let the lady teach. New versity.
York: Poseidon Press. Sanders, M. (2009). Collaborating for change: How
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1985, March). Sexism in the an urban school district and a community-based
schoolroom of the ‘80’s. Psychology Today, 54–57. organization support and sustain school, family,
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fair- and community partnerships. Teachers College
ness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Record, 111(7), 1693–1712.
Scribners. Sanders, W. L. & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and
Sadovnik, A. R. (1991a). Basil Bernstein’s theory of residual effects of teachers on future student aca-
pedagogic practice: A structuralist approach. demic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of
Sociology of Education, 64(1), 48–63. Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment
Sadovnik, A. R. (1991b). Derailing high school Center.
tracking: One beginning. Pathways, 7(2), 4–8. Sanjek, R. (1998). The future of us all. Ithaca, NY:
Sadovnik, A. R. (1994). Equity and excellence in higher Cornell University Press.
education. New York: Peter Lang. Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the
Sadovnik, A. R. (Ed.). (1995a). Knowledge and problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, Sartre, J. P. (1974). Existentialism and human emotions.
NJ: Ablex. New York: Philosophical Library.
Sadovnik, A. R. (1995b). Postmodernism and the Scarr, S. & Weinberg, R. A. (1978). The influence of
sociology of education: Closing the gap between “family background” on intellectual attainment.
theory, research and practice. In W. Pink & G. American Sociological Review, 43, 674–692.
Noblit (Eds.), Continuity and contradiction: The Schaub, M. (2010). Parenting for cognitive develop-
futures of the sociology of education (pp. 309–326). ment from 1950 to 2000: The institutionalization
Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. of mass education and the social construction
Sadovnik, A. R. (2008). Schools, social class and of parenting in the United States. Sociology of
youth: A Bernsteinian analysis. In L. Weis, Education, 83, 46–66.
The way class works (pp. 315–329). New York: Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of education.
Routledge. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Sadovnik, A. R. (2011a). Sociology of education: A crit- Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1992). The disuniting of Amer-
ical reader (Second Edition). New York: Routledge. ica. New York: Norton.
Sadovnik, A. R. (2011b). Waiting for school reform: Schneider, B. (2016). Schneider comment on Downey
Charter schools as the latest imperfect panacea. New and Condron. Sociology of Education, 89(3),
York: Teachers College Record. 223–224.
570 Bibliography
Schneider, B. & Bryk, A. (1996). Social trust: A moral Semel, S. F. & Sadovnik, A. R. (1999). Schools of
resource for school improvement. Chicago, IL: Center tomorrow, schools of today: What happened to pro-
for School Improvement. gressive education? New York: Peter Lang.
Schneider, B. & Coleman, J. S. (1993). Parents, their Semel, S. F. & Sadovnik, A. R. (2008). Small schools
children, and schools. Boulder, CO: Westview and the history of education: Lessons from the
Press. history of progressive education. Teachers College
Schneider, B., Schiller, K. S., & Coleman, J. S. (1995). Record, 110(9), 1774–1771.
Public school choice: Some evidence from the National Semel, S.F., Sadovnik, A.R. and Coughlan, R. (eds.)
Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Chicago, IL: (2016). “Schools of Tomorrow,” Schools of today:
University of Chicago, Center for the Study of the Progressive education in the 21st century. New York:
Economy and the State, Working Paper Series Peter Lang.
No. 113. Sewall, G. (1991). Common culture and multiculture.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How Social Studies Review, 7.
professionals think in action. New York: Basic Sewell, W. & Hauser, R. M. (1974). Education, occu-
Books. pation, and earnings. New York: Academic Press.
School by school report card: The state’s second yearly Sewell, W. & Hauser, R. M. (1976). Causes and
look at Long Island’s districts. (1998, March 15). consequences of higher education: Modes of the
Newsday, pp. H1–H11. status attainment process. In W. H. Sewell, R. M.
School choice: A guide to picking a public school Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and
in New York City. (1998). Newsday, special achievement in American society. New York:
reprint. Academic Press.
Schorr, L. B. & Schorr, D. (1989). Within our reach: Sexton, P. C. (1961). Education and income. New York:
Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Viking.
Doubleday. Shakeshaft, C. (1986). A gender at risk. Phi Delta
Schwartz, F. (1981). Supporting or subverting learn- Kappan, 67, 449–503.
ing: Peer group patterns in four tracked schools. Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Women in educational
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 99–121. administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, H. (2010). Housing policy is school policy: Shanker, A. (1991, October). Lecture at Adelphi Uni-
Economically integrative housing promotes academic versity.
success in Montgomery County, Maryland. New Shavit, Y. & Blossfeld, H. P. (Eds.). (1993). Persistent
York: The Century Foundation. inequality: Changing educational attainment in thirteen
Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Sherman, J. (1994). The condition of education in rural
Policy, 23, 106–136. schools. U.S. Department of Education. Washing-
Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & DeBray-Pelot, E. (2009). ton, DC: Federal Printing Office.
The politics of advocacy in education. Educational Shmurak, C. B. (1998). Voices of hope: Adolescent girls
Policy, 23, 3–14. of single-sex and coeducational schools. New York:
Sedlak, M. (1987). Tomorrow’s teachers: The essen- Peter Lang.
tial arguments of the Holmes Group Report. Sikes, J. (1971). Differential behavior of male and female
Teachers College Record, 88(3), 314–325. teachers with male and female students. Unpublished
Seller, M. & Weis, L. (1997). Beyond black and white: Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas,
New voices in U.S. schools. Albany, NY: State Austin.
University of New York Press. Silberman, C. (1969). Crisis in the classroom. New
Semel, S. F. (1992). The Dalton School: The trans- York: Random House.
formation of a progressive school. New York: Peter Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family
Lang. involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7,
Semel, S. F. (1996). Yes, but . . .: Multiculturalism and 185–209.
the reduction of educational inequality. Teachers Singer, A. (1999). American apartheid: Race and
College Record, 98(1), 153–177. the politics of school finance on Long Island,
Semel, S. F. & Sadovnik, A. R. (1995, Summer). N.Y. Equity and Excellence in Education, 32(3),
Lessons from the past: Individualism and com- 25–36.
munity in three progressive schools. Peabody Singer, J. D. & Butler, J. A. (1987). The education for
Journal of Education, 70(4), 56–85. all handicapped children act: Schools as agents
Semel, S. F. & Sadovnik, A. R. (1998). Durkheim, of social reform. Harvard Educational Review,
Dewey, and progressive education: Individualism 57(2). In T. Hehir & T. Latus (1992). Special
and community in the history of American edu- education at the century’s end: Evolution of theory and
cation. In W. F. Pickering & G. Walford (Eds.), practice since 1970 (pp. 159–190). Cambridge, MA:
Durkheim on education. London: Routledge. Harvard Educational Review.
Bibliography 571
Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60,
Subject subcultures in secondary schools. 471–500.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Cooperative learning: Theory,
134–160. research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic Prentice-Hall.
departments in secondary schools. London: Falmer. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and
Siskin, L. S. & Little, J. W. (Eds.). (1995). The subjects untracking harmful to the gifted? Educational
in question: Departmental organization and the high Leadership, 48(6), 68–71.
school. New York: Teachers College Press. Slavin, R. E. (1997a). Design competitions: A proposal
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma for a new federal role in educational research and
of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton development. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 22–28.
Mifflin. Slavin, R. E. (1997b). Rejoinder: Design competitions
Sizer, T. R. (1985). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma and expert panels: Similar objectives, very different
of the American high school (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: paths, Educational Researcher, 26(6), 21–22.
Houghton Mifflin. Slavin, R. E. (1999). Rejoinder: Yes, control groups
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the are essential in program evaluation: A response to
American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Pogrow. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 36–38.
Mifflin. Sleeter, C. (1995). An analysis of the critiques
Sizer, T. R. (1996). Horace’s hope. Boston, MA: of multicultural education. In J. A. Banks &
Houghton Mifflin. C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research
Skerrett, A. & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Student on multicultural education (pp. 81–94). New York:
diversity and secondary school change in a context Macmillan.
of increasingly standardized reform. American Smerdon, B. A. & Borman, K. M. (2009). Saving
Educational Research Journal, 45, 913–945. America’s high schools. Washington, DC: The
Skiba, R., Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Losen, D. and Urban Institute Press.
Harry, E. (2015). Risks and consequences of Smith, S. (2015). Against race and class based pedagogy
oversimplifying educational inequities: A response in early childhood education. New York, NY:
to Morgan et al. Educational Researcher, 45(3), Palgrave.
221–225. Sohoni, D. & Saporito, S. (2009). Mapping school
Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., segregation: Using GIS to explore racial segrega-
Henderson, M., & Wu, T. (2006). The context tion between schools and their corresponding
of minority disproportionality: Practitioner per- attendance areas. Journal of Education, 115,
spectives on special education referral. Teachers 569–600.
College Record, 108(7), 1424–1459. Solomon, B. M. (1985). In the company of educated
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
York: Bantam. Soltis, J. (Ed.). (1981). Philosophy and education.
Skocpol, T. (1995). Social policy in the United States. Eightieth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Study of Education, Part I. Chicago, IL: National
Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox: Society for the Study of Education.
Equity as a way to excellence. Harvard Educational Sowell, T. (1977, March 27). New light on the black
Review, 61(2). In T. Hehir & T. Latus (1992). I.Q. controversy. New York Times Magazine,
Special education at the century’s end: Evolution of pp. 56–63.
theory and practice since 1970 (pp. 203–272). Spade, J. Z., Columba, L., & Vanfossen, B. E. (1997).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Thinking in mathematics and science: Courses and
Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. New York: course-selection procedures. Sociology of Education,
Longman. 70(2), 108–127.
Slavin, R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative learn- Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-
ing increase student achievement? Psychological monolithic nature of the local school district:
Bulletin, 94, 429–445. Organizational and professional considerations.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student American Educational Research Journal, 35(1),
achievement in elementary schools: A best evi- 33–63.
dence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, Spillane J. & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing
293–336. conceptions of local capacity: The local education
Slavin, R. E. (1988, September). Synthesis of research agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional
on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Educational Leadership, 46, 67–77. 19(2), 185–203.
Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability Spring, J. (1972). Education and the rise of the corporate
grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence state. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
572 Bibliography
Spring, J. (1986). The American school: 1642–1985. Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B.
New York: Longman. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning.
Spring, J. (1989). American education (4th ed.). New Sociology of Education, 67, 184–198.
York: Longman. Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A. E., & Wiswall, M. (2015).
Spring, J. ( 2010). The politics of American education. Does small high school reform lift urban districts?
New York: Routledge. Evidence from New York City. Educational
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1989). Integration Researcher, 44(3), 161–172.
of students with mild and moderate handicaps. In Stinchcombe, A. (1964). Rebellion in a high school.
D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond special Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
education: Quality education for all (pp. 41–52). Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). A framework for subject
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. matter comparisons in high schools. Teaching and
Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity Teacher Education, 9, 333–346.
(SCALE). (2017). edTPA: About us. http://www. Strain, J. P. (1975). Idealism: A clarification of an
edtpa.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN_AboutEdTPA. educational philosophy. Educational Theory, 25,
html. 263–271.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope Stringfield, S., Ross, S., & Smith, L. (Eds.) (1996).
and despair: The school and kin support networks of Bold plans for school restructuring: The New Amer-
U.S. Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College ican Schools designs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Press. Suad Nasir, N., McLaughlin, M. W., & Jones, A.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). (2009). What does it mean to be African Amer-
Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: ican? Constructions of race and academic identity
Information networks among Mexican-origin in an urban public high school. American Educa-
high school students. Sociology of Education, 68(2), tional Research Journal, 46, 73–114.
116–135. Suarez-Orozco, M. & Qin-Hilliard, D. (Eds.). (2004).
Starfield, Barbara. (1982). Child health and socio- Globalization: Culture and education in the new
economic status, American Journal of Public Health, millennium. Berkeley, CA: University of California
72, 532–534. Press.
Stedman, L. C. (1985). A new look at the effective Sugarman, S. D. (1999). School choice and public
schools literature. Urban Education, 20, 295– funding. In S. D. Sugarman & F. R. Kemerer (Eds.),
326. School choice and social controversy: Politics, policy
Stedman, L. C. (1987). It’s time we changed the and law (pp. 111, 139). Washington, DC: Brook-
effective schools formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, ings Institution Press.
215–224. Supovitz, J. & May, H. (2003). The relationship
Stein, M. K. & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures between teacher implementation of America’s choice
for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban and student learning in Plainfield, New Jersey.
school districts. American Journal of Education, 114, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research
583–626. in Education.
Steinberg, S. & Kincheloe, J. (1998). Changing multi- Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of
culturalism. London: Open University Press. Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Sternberg, R. (2008). Increasing academic excellence Press.
and enhancing diversity are compatible goals. Swidler, A. (1979). Organizations without authority:
Educational Policy, 22, 487–514. Dilemmas of social control in free schools. Cambridge,
Stevens, F. I. (1993a). Applying an opportunity-to- MA: Harvard University Press.
learn conceptual framework to the investigation Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of
of the effects of teaching practices via secondary multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
analysis of multiple case study summary data. Takaki, R. (1998a). A larger memory: A history of our
Journal of Negro Education, 62, 232–248. diversity, with voices. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Stevens, F. I. (1993b). Opportunity to learn: Issues of Takaki, R. (1998b). Strangers from a different shore: A
equity for poor and minority students. Washington, history of Asian Americans. Boston, MA: Back Bay.
DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Talbert, J. E. (1992). New strategies for developing
Stevens, F. I. (1993c). Opportunity to learn and other our nation’s teacher force and ancillary staff with
social contextual issues: Addressing the low a special emphasis on implications for Chapter 1.
academic achievement of African American Paper commissioned by the U.S. Department of
students. Journal of Negro Education, 62, Education.
227–231. Talbert, J. E. (1993). Constructing a schoolwide
Stevenson, D. & Baker, D. (1991). State control of the professional community: The negotiated order of
curriculum and classroom instruction. Sociology of a performing arts school. In J. W. Little & M. W.
Education, 64, 1–10. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals,
Bibliography 573
colleagues, and contexts (pp. 164–184). New York: Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school.
Teachers College Press. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Talbert, J. E. (1995). Boundaries of teachers’ Tidball, E. (1973). Perspectives on academic women
professional communities in U.S. high schools: and affirmative action. Journal of Higher Education,
Power and precariousness of the subject depart- 54, 130–135.
ment. In L. S. Siskin & J. W. Little (Eds.), The Tidball, E. (1980). Women’s colleges and women’s
subjects in question: Departmental organization and achievers revisited. Signs, 5, 504–517.
the high school (pp. 68–94). New York: Teachers Tidball, E. (1985). Baccalaureate origins of entrants
College Press. into American medical schools. Journal of Higher
Talbert, J. E. (1996). Primacy and promise of pro- Education, 56, 385–402.
fessional development in the nation’s reform Tidball, E. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent
agenda: Sociological views. In K. Borman, P. W. natural science doctorates. Journal of Higher Edu-
Cookson, Jr., A. R. Sadovnik, & J. Z. Spade cation, 57, 606–620.
(Eds.), Implementing educational reform: Sociological Tidball, M. E., Tidball, C. S., Smith, D. G., & Wolf-
perspectives on educational policy (pp. 283–312). Wendel, L. E. (1999). Taking women seriously:
Westport, CT: Ablex. Lessons and legacies for educating the majority.
Talbert, J. E. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994, February). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/
Teacher professionalism in local school context. Onyx Press.
American Journal of Education, 102, 123–153. Time Magazine. Do poor kids deserve poor schools?
Tamir, E. (2008). Theorizing the politics of educa- (1991, October 14), pp. 60–61.
tional reform: The case of New Jersey’s alternate Toenjes, L. A., Dworkin, A. G., Lorence, J., & Hill,
route to teacher certification. American Journal of A. N. (2002). High-stakes testing, accountability,
Education, 115(1), 65–95. and student achievement in Texas and Houston.
Task Force on the Common School. (2002). Divided In J. E. Chubb & T. Loveless (Eds.), Bridging the
we fail: Coming together through public school choice. achievement gap (pp. 109–130). Washington, DC:
New York: The Century Foundation. The Brookings Institution.
Taylor, G. (2009), Choice, competition, and segre- Toppo, Greg. (June 11, 2008). Sharpton, education
gation in a United Kingdom urban education plan may tear union ties, USA Today. www.usa
market. American Journal of Education, 115(4), today.com/news/education/2008-06-11-race-
549–568. equality_N.htm. Accessed April 2, 2010.
Taylor, K. (2017). Harlem schools are left to fail as Torche, F. (2016). Torche comment on Downey
those not far away thrive. New York Times, and Condron. Sociology of Education, 89(3),
January 24. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/ 229–230.
nyregion/harlem-schools-are-left-to-fail-as-those- Torres, C. A. (2008). Education and neoliberal global-
not-far-away-thrive.html?_r=0. Retrieved, January ization. New York: Routledge.
25, 2017. Tough, Paul. (2008). Whatever it takes: Geoffrey
Teacher Education Project. (1986). A compilation of Canada’s quest to change Harlem and America.
the major recommendations of teacher education. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Washington, DC: National Educational Project. Tractenberg, P., Holzer, M., Miller, G., & Sadovnik,
Teachers College Record. (1979, Winter). 81(2), A. (2002). Developing a plan for reestablishing local
127–248. control in the state-operated districts. Newark, NJ:
Teske, P. & Schneider, M. (2001). What research can Institute on Education Law and Policy, Rutgers
tell policymakers about school choice. Journal of University. www.ielp/rutgers.edu. Accessed Octo-
Policy Analysis & Management, 20, 609. ber 1, 2012.
Text of statement of goals adopted by the governors. Tractenberg, P., Liss, B., Moscovitch, R., & Sadovnik,
(1990, March 7). Education Week, 9, 16–17. A. R. (2006). Don’t forget the schools: Legal
Thernstrom, A. & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: considerations for tax reform. Institute on Educa-
Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon tion Law and Policy, Rutgers University
and Schuster. Tractenberg, P., Sadovnik, A., & Liss, B. (2004).
Thomas, K. J. & Staiger, D. O. (2003). Unintended Tough choices: An informed discussion of school
consequences of racial subgroup rules. In P. E. choice. Newark, NJ: Institute on Education Law
Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? and Policy, Rutgers University. www.ielp/rutgers.
The politics and practice of accountability. Wash- edu.
ington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Traub, J. (1994). City on a hill: Testing the American
Thornburg, D. & Karp, K. S. (1992). Lessons learned: dream at City College. Reading, MA: Addison-
Mathematics + science + higher order thinking Wesley.
second language learning =? Journal of Language Trilling, D. (2016). School vouchers and student
Minority Students, 10, 159–184. achievement: reviewing the research. Journalist’s
574 Bibliography
Resource. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical abstract
and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School. of the United States, 1998. Washington, DC: Gov-
September 14. ernment Printing Office.
Trow, M. (1961). The second transformation of Amer- U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003a). Current popu-
ican secondary education. International Journal lations reports. Washington, DC: Author.
of Comparative Sociology, 2, 144–166. In Karabel, J. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003b). Annual demo-
& Halsey, A. H. (Eds.), Power and ideology in educa- graphic survey. Washington, DC: Author.
tion (pp. 105–118). New York: Oxford University U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2012). Current Popula-
Press, 1977. tion Reports. Washington, DC.
Trueba, H., Jacobs, L., & Kirton, E. (1990). Cultural U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2015). Current Popula-
conflict and adaptation: The case of Hmong children tion Reports. Washington, DC.
in American society. New York: Falmer. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2016). American
Trujillo, T., & Renee, M. (2015). Irrational exuber- Community Survey 2015 five-year estimates.
ance for market-based reform: How federal U.S. Department of Education (2003). National
turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1–34. U.S. Department of Education, National Center
Turner, R. H. (1960, October). Sponsored and con- for Education Statistics. (1989a). The condition of
test mobility and the school system. American education, 1989 edition. Washington, DC: Govern-
Sociological Review, 25, 855–867. ment Printing Office.
Tushnet, M. (1994). Making civil rights law: Thurgood U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Marshall and the supreme court, 1936–1961. New Education Statistics. (1989b). The digest of educa-
York: Oxford University Press. tion statistics, 1989. Washington, DC: Government
Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Federal Printing Office.
Elementary and Secondary Education Policy. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
(1983). Making the grade. New York: Author. Education Statistics. (1996). NAEP 1994 trends in
(ERIC ED 233 112). academic progress. Washington, DC: Author.
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
MA: Harvard University Press. Education Statistics. (1997a). The digest of edu-
Tyack, D. (1990). Restructuring in historical cational statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
perspective: Tinkering toward utopia. Teachers U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
College Record, 92, 170–191. Education Statistics. (1997b). Pursuing excellence:
Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward A study of U.S. fourth grade mathematics and science
utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, achievement in international context. Washington,
MA: Harvard University Press. DC: Author.
Tyack, D. & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Public school leadership in America, 1820–1980. New Education Statistics. (1998). The condition of edu-
York: Basic Books. cation, 1998 edition. Washington, DC: Author.
Tyack, D. & Hansot, E. (1990). Learning together: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
A history of coeducation in American public schools. Education Statistics. (2006). The digest of education
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. statistics. Washington, DC.
Tyson, K. (2003). Notes from the back of the U.S. Department of Education, National Center
room: Problems and paradoxes in the schooling for Education Statistics. (2012a). The condition of
of young Black students. Sociology of Education, 76, education. Washington, DC.
326–343. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Tyson, K. (2011). Integration interrupted: Tracking, Education Statistics. (2012b). NAEP trial urban
black students, and acting white after Brown. New district assessment, http://nationsreportcard.gov/tuda.
York: Oxford University Press. asp. Accessed October 1, 2012.
Tyson, K., Darity, W., & Castellino, D. (2005). It’s not U.S. Department of Education, National Center
“a Black thing”: Understanding the burden of for Education Statistics, Office of Educational
acting White and other dilemmas of high Research and Improvement. (1994). School-to-
achievement. American Sociological Review, 70(4) work: What does research say about it? Washington,
(Aug.), 582–605. DC: Author.
UCLA Civil Rights Project. (2012). http://civilrights U.S. Department of Education, National Center
project.ucla.edu. Accessed October 1, 2012. for Education Statistics, Office of Educational
UCLA Civil Rights Project. (2017). http://civilrights Research and Improvement. (1998a). Tools for
project.ucla.edu. Accessed December 15, 2017. schools: School reform models supported by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016), Current National Institute on the Education of At-Risk
Population Survey. Students. Washington, DC: Author.
Bibliography 575
U.S. Department of Education, National Center and Office of Elementary and Secondary Edu-
for Education Statistics, Office of Educational cation. (2015). The digest of education statistics.
Research and Improvement. (2000b). Monitoring Washington, DC: Author.
school quality: An Indicators Report (NCES U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
2001–030). Washington, DC: Author. Education Statistics. (2015). NAEP Trial Urban
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for District Assessment. Washington, DC.
Education Statistics, Office of the Under Secretary U.S. Department of Education, National Center
and Office of Elementary and Secondary Educa- for Educational Statistics, Office of the Under
tion. (2000a). The digest of educational statistics. Secretary and Office of Elementary and Secondary
Washington, DC: Author. Education. (2016). The digest of educational statistics.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Washington DC: Author.
Education Statistics, Office of the Under Secretary U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning and
and Office of Elementary and Secondary Evaluation. (1998). Turning around low-performing
Education. (2001). First annual school improvement schools: A guide for state and local leaders. Wash-
report: Executive order on actions for turning ington, DC: Author.
around low-performing schools. Washington, DC: Useem, E. L. (1991). Student selection into course
Author. selection sequences in mathematics: The impact
U.S. Department of Education, National Center of parent involvement and school policies. Journal
for Educational Statistics, Office of the Under of Research on Adolescence, 1, 231–250.
Secretary and Office of Elementary and Secondary Useem, E. L. (1992a). Getting on the fast track in
Education. (2003). The digest of educational statistics. mathematics: School organizational influences
Washington DC: Author. on math track assignment. American Journal of
U.S. Department of Education, National Center Education, 100(3), 325–353.
for Educational Statistics, Office of the Under Useem, E. L. (1992b). Middle schools and math
Secretary and Office of Elementary and Secon- groups: Parents’ involvement in children’s place-
dary Education. (2004a). The condition of education: ment. Sociology of Education, 65, 263–279.
National assessment of educational progress. Useem, E. L. (1994). Renewing schools: A report on the
Washington, DC: Author. Cluster Initiative in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for PATHS/ PRISM: The Philadelphia Partnership
Education Statistics, Office of the Under Secre- for Education.
tary and Office of Elementary and Secondary Valentine, C. A. (1968). Culture and poverty: Critique
Education. (2004b). Parental involvement, Title I, and counter proposals. Chicago, IL: University of
Part A: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington DC: Chicago Press.
Author. Valentine, C. A. (1975). Deficit, difference and
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for bicultural models of Afro-American behavior. In
Education Statistics, (2008). The condition of Challenging the myths: The schools, the blacks
education. Washington, DC and the poor. Harvard Educational Review (Reprint
U.S. Department of Education, National Center Series No. 5), 1–21.
for Educational Statistics, Office of the Under Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.
Secretary and Office of Elementary and Secondary Mexican Youth and the politics of caring. Albany,
Education. (2009). The condition of education: NY: SUNY Press.
National assessment of educational progress. Wash- Vandenberg, D. (1971). Being and education: An essay
ington, DC: Author. in existential phenomenology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Prentice-Hall.
Education Statistics, (2010) Characteristics of the Van Dunk, E. & Dickman, E. (2003). School choice and
100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary the question of accountability. New Haven, CT: Yale
School Districts in the United States: 2008–09, University Press.
2010. Washington, DC: Author. Vanfossen, B. E., Jones, J. D., & Spade, J. Z. (1987).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Curriculum tracking and status maintenance.
Education Statistics, Office of the Under Secretary Sociology of Education, 60, 104–122.
and Office of Elementary and Secondary Educa- Van Hook, J. (2002). Immigration and African Amer-
tion. (2012). The digest of education statistics. ican educational opportunity: The transforma-
Washington, DC: Author. tion of minority schools. Sociology of Education, 75,
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 169–189.
Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in
education. Washington, DC. middle school: Effects on family involvement and
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for students’ science achievement. Journal of Educa-
Education Statistics, Office of the Under Secretary tional Research, 96(9), 323–339.
576 Bibliography
Velez, W. (1989). Why Hispanic students fail: Weakliem, D., McQuillan, J., & Schauer, T. (1995).
Factors affecting attrition in high schools. In J. H. Toward meritocracy? Changing social-class differ-
Ballantine (Ed.), Schools and society: A unified ences in intellectual ability. Sociology of Education,
reader (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. 68, 271–287.
Vergari, S. (2002). The charter school landscape, Weatherly, R. A. & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level
University of Pittsburgh Press. bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Im-
Verstegen, D. (1993). Financing education reform: plementing special education reform. Harvard
“Where did all the money go?” Journal of Education Educational Review, 47(2). In T. Hehir & T.
Finance, 19, 1–35. Latus (1992). Special education at the century’s end:
Verstegen, D. & McGuire, C. K. (1991). The dialectic Evolution of theory and practice since 1970 (pp.
of reform. Educational Policy, 5, 386–411. 89–119). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational
Viadero, D. (1999). Who’s in, who’s out. Education Review.
Week, 12. Weber, M. (1976). Types of authority. In L. A. Coser
Vinovskis, M. A. (1995). Education, society, and eco- & B. Rosenberg (Eds.), Sociological theory: A book
nomic opportunity: A historical perspective on per- of readings. New York: Macmillan.
sistent issues. New Haven, CT: Yale University Wechsler, H. S. (2001). Access to success in the urban
Press. high school: The middle college movement. New York:
Vinovskis, M. (2015). From a nation at risk to No Teachers College Press.
Child Left Behind: National education goals and Wehlege, G. G. & Smith, G. A. (1992). Building
the creation of federal education policy. New York, new programs for students at risk. In F. M.
NY: Teachers College Press. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achieve-
Viteritti, J. P. (1999). Choosing equality. Washington, ment in American secondary schools (pp. 92–118).
DC: Brookings Institution Press. New York: Teachers College Press.
Viteritti, J. P. (Ed.). (2009). When mayors take charge: Weikert, D. & Schweinhart, L. J. (1984). Changed
School governance in the city. Washington, DC: lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on
Brookings Institution Press. youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope.
Walford, G. (1992a). Educational choice and equity Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change. South
in Great Britain. Educational Policy, 6, 123–381. Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Walford, G. (1992b). Educational reform in Great Weiler, K. (1998). Country schoolwomen: Teaching
Britain. In P. W. Cookson, Jr., A. R. Sadovnik, & in rural California, 1850–1950. Palo Alto, CA:
S. Semel (Eds.), International handbook of educa- Stanford University Press.
tional reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Weir, M., Orloff, A., & Skocpol, T. (1988). The politics
Walford, G. (1999). Educational reform in England of social policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ:
and Wales. In D. L. Levinson, P. W. Cookson, Jr., Princeton University Press.
& A. R. Sadovnik (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology Weis, L. (1985). Between two worlds: Black students in
and education. New York: Garland. an urban community college. Boston, MA: Routledge
Walker, J. H., Kozma, E. J., & Green, R. P., Jr. (1989). & Kegan Paul.
American education: Foundations and policy. St. Paul, Weis, L. (Ed.). (1988). Class, race and gender in Amer-
MN: West. ican education. Albany, NY: State University of
Waller, W. (1965). The sociology of teaching. New York: New York Press.
Wiley. Weis, L. (1992). Working class without work. Albany,
Walters, P. B. (2001). Educational access and the NY: State University of New York Press.
State: Historical continuities and discontinuities Weis, L. (1993). White male working-class youth: An
in racial inequality in American education. exploration of relative privilege and loss. In L. Weis
Sociology of Education, 74, Extra Issue, 35–45. & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race,
Warren, D. (2014). American Indian histories as edu- and gender in United States schools (pp. 237–258).
cation history. History of Education Quarterly, 54(3), Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
255–285. Weis, L. (2004). Class reunion: The remaking of the
Warren, R., Grodsky, E., & Lee, J. (2008). State American white working class. New York: Routledge.
high school exit examinations and postsecondary Wells, A. S. (1991). Choice in education: Examining
labor market outcomes. Sociology of Education, 81, the evidence on equity. A symposium on politics,
77–107. markets, and America’s schools. Teachers College
Wasley, P. (1994). Stirring the chalkdust: Tales of Record, 93(1), 137–155.
teachers changing classroom practice. New York: Wells, A. S. (1993a). The sociology of school choice:
Teachers College Press. Why some win and others lose in the educational
Watkins, W. (2015). The assault on public education: marketplace. In E. Rassell & R. Rothstein (Eds.),
Confronting the politics of corporate school School choice: Examining the evidence. Washington,
reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. DC: The Economic Policy Institute.
Bibliography 577
Wells, A. S. (1993b). Time to choose: America at the schools and their class of 1980 graduates. Teachers
crossroads of school choice policy. New York: Hill and College Columbia University. Available at http://
Wang. cms.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/782_ASWells041504.
Wells, A. S. (1995). Reexamining social science pdf
research on school desegregation: Long- versus Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The
short-term effects. Teachers College Record, 96, effect of school district spending on academic
691–706. achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 221–237.
Wells, A. S. (1996). African-American students’ view Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American
of school choice. In B. Fuller, R. Elmore, & democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
G. Orfield (Eds.), School choice: The cultural logic Wexler, P. (1976). The sociology of education: Beyond
of families, the political rationality of schools. Who equality. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
chooses? Who loses? Culture institutions and the Wexler, P. (1987). Social analysis of education. London:
unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers Routledge & Kegan Paul.
College Press. Wexler, P. (1992). Becoming somebody. London:
Wells, A. S. (2016). How Racially Diverse Schools Falmer.
and Classrooms Can Benefit All Students. The Wexler, P. (1996). Holy sparks: Social theory, education,
Century Foundation. and religion. New York: St. Martin’s.
Wells, A. S. & Crain, R. L. (1992). Do parents choose Wexler, P. (2007). Symbolic movement: Critique and
school quality or school status? A sociological spirituality in sociology of education. Rotterdam,
theory of free market education. In P. W. Cookson, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Jr. (Ed.), The choice controversy (pp. 65–82). Wexler, P. (2008). Social theory in education primer.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. New York: Peter Lang.
Wells, A. S. & Crain, R. L. (1999). Stepping over the White, M. (1987). The Japanese educational challenge.
color line: African American students in White New York: The Free Press.
suburban schools. New Haven, CT: Yale. Whitehead, A. N. (1957). The aims of education and
Wells, A.S, and Roda, A. (2016). The impact of other essays. New York: The Free Press.
political context on the questions asked and Whitty, G. (1985). Sociology and school knowledge.
answered: The evolution of education research on London: Methuen.
racial inequality. Review of Research in Education, Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasimarkets in educa-
40, 62–93. tion: A review of recent research on parental
Wells, A. S. & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture: choice and school autonomy in three countries.
Understanding local political resistance to detrack- Review of Research in Education, 22, 3–48.
ing in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Whitty, G. & Power, S. (2000). Marketization and
Review, 66, 93–118. privatization in mass education systems. Inter-
Wells, A. S., Artiles, L., Carnochan, S., Cooper, C, national Journal of Educational Development, 20.
Grutzik, C., Holme, J., Lopez, A., Scott, J., William T. Grant Foundation Commission on
Slayton, J., & Vasudeva, A. (1998). Beyond the Work, Family, and Citizenship. (1988). The for-
rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten gotten half: Pathways to success for America’s youth
California districts. Los Angeles, CA: University of and young families. Washington, DC: William T.
California, Los Angeles. Grant Foundation.
Wells, A. S., Baldridge, B., Duran, J., Lofton, R., Roda, Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class
A., Warner, M., White, T., & Crzeskowski, C. kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia
(2009). Why boundaries matter: A study of five University Press.
separate and unequal Long Island school districts. New Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
York: Teachers College, Columbia University, inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago,
Center for Understanding Race and Education. IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wells, A. S., Duran, J., & White, T. (2008). Refusing Wilson, W. J. (1995). When work disappears. Cam-
to leave desegregation behind: From graduates of bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
racially diverse schools to the Supreme Court. Wilson, W. J. (1998). The role of the environment
Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2532–2570. in the Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks &
Wells, A. S., Holme, J. J., Revilla, A. J., & Atanda, A. M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap
K. (2008). Both sides now: The story of school (pp. 501–510). Washington, DC: Brookings Insti-
desegregation’s graduates. Berkeley, CA: University tution Press.
of California Press. Wilson, W. J. (1999, March 6). Rising inequality and
Wells, A. S., Holme, J. J., Tijerina Revilla, A., & the case for multiracial coalition politics. Keynote
Atanda, A. K. (2004). How desegregation changed address, Eastern Sociological Society, Boston.
us: The effects of racially mixed schools on Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. (1972). Political and social foun-
students and society: A study of desegregated high dations of education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
578 Bibliography
Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. (1982). Schools in conflict. San tualized curriculum studies. Educational Researcher,
Francisco, CA: McCutchan. 28(1), 4–13.
Witte, J. (1990). Choice and control: An analytical Wright, L. B. (1957). The cultural life of the American
overview. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), colonies. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Choice and control in American education, Volume 1: Wright, R. (1969). Native son. New York: Harper and
The theory of choice and control in American Row.
education. New York: Falmer. Wrigley, J. (1982). Class, politics and public schools:
Witte, J. (1996). Who benefits from the Milwaukee Chicago, 1900–1950. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
choice program. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & University Press.
G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture Wrigley, J. (Ed.). (1992). Education and gender equality.
institutions and the unequal effects of school choice London: Falmer.
(pp. 118–137). New York: Teachers College Press. Yaffe, Deborah. (2007). Other people’s children: The
Witte, J. (2000). The Market approach to education. battle for justice and equality in New Jersey’s schools.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Witte, J. & Walsh, D. J. (1990). A systematic test of Yamamoto, Y. & Brinton, M. (2010). Cultural capital
the effective schools model. Educational Evaluation in East Asian educational systems: The case of
and Policy Analysis, 12, 188–212. Japan. Sociology of Education, 83, 67–83.
Witte, J., Sterr, T. D., & Thorn, C. A. (1995). Fifth- Yeomans, E. (1979). The Shady Hill School: The first
year report: Milwaukee parental choice program. fifty years. Cambridge, MA: Windflower Press.
Department of Political Science and the Robert Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870–
LaFollette Institute of Public affairs, University of 2033: An essay on education and equality. London:
Wisconsin-Madison. Thames and Hudson.
Witte, J., Thorn, C. A., Pritchard, K. M., & Claiborn, Young, M. F. D. (1971). Knowledge and control: New
M. (1994). Fourth-year report: Milwaukee parental directions for the sociology of education. London:
choice program. Department of Political Science Collier-Macmillan.
and the Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Young, M. F. D. (2007). Bringing knowledge back in:
Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison. From social constructivism to social realism in the
Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C., Chau, D., & Polhemus, sociology of education. Oxford: Routledge.
J. (2003). Improving schools through networks: A Zajda, J. I. (1980). Education in the U.S.S.R. New York:
new approach to urban school reform. Educational Pergamon.
Policy, 17(4), 399–430. Zavadsky, H. (2009). Bringing school reform to scale:
Wolk, R. (1998). Strategies for fixing failing public Five award winning urban districts. Cambridge,
schools. Education Week Supplement, 43. MA: Harvard Education Press.
Wong, K. K., Shen, F. X., Anagnostopoulous, D., & Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the
Rutledge, S. (2007). The education mayor: Improv- struggle for social justice. New York: Routledge.
ing America’s schools. Washington, DC: George- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 122 S.Ct. 2460 (2002).
town University Press. Zigler, E. & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The
Wong, S. L. (1991). Evaluating the content of text- inside story of America’s most successful educational
books: Public interests and professional authority. experiment. New York: Basic Books.
Sociology of Education, 64(1), 11–18. Zigler, E. & Styfco, S. (1993). Head Start and beyond:
Wong-Fillmore, L. & Valdez, C. (1986). Teaching A national plan for extended childhood intervention.
bilingual children. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Zigler, E. & Valentine, J. (Eds.). (1979). Project Head
Macmillan. Start: A legacy of the war on poverty. New York: The
Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Educational psychology (4th Free Press.
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Zirkel, S., & Johnson, T. (2016). Mirror, mirror on the
Wraga, W. G. (1997). Patterns of interdisciplinary wall: A critical examination of the conceptual-
curriculum organization and professional know- ization of the study of black racial identity in
ledge of the curriculum field. Journal of Curriculum education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 301–311.
and Supervision, 12(2), 98–117. Zweigenhaft, R. L. & Domhoff, G. W. (1991). Blacks
Wraga, W. G. (1999). “Extracting sun-beams out of in the white establishment? A study of race and class
cucumbers”: The retreat from practice in reconcep- in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Index
A Nation at Risk 11, 12, 13, 53, 87, 139, 472, 477, agency 210, 219, 220, 223, 431–2
489, 492–3, 503 Ainsworth-Darnell, J.W. 407–8, 409
A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century Alexander, K. 335
(Carnegie Report) 489–91 Alexander, K.L. 354, 405
Abbott v. Burke 9, 85, 316, 338, 395, 396, 499 Alexander, L. 473
ability grouping see tracking alienation 129, 146, 148, 158, 159, 213, 391
accountability 10, 42, 65; charter schools 512, 513, “America 2000” 474–5
515; federal involvement 474, 475; National American Dream 1, 22, 30–1, 83, 97, 313
Curriculum 285, 290; school improvement 472, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 18, 484,
477, 478, 479; school-based reforms 481, 484, 488, 493
487, 493; state intervention and mayoral control American Revolution 69–70, 72
466–7; teachers 18, 222, 239 America’s Choice 495–6
achievement 8: burden of 406–30; educational Anastasiou, D. 365–82
inequalities 383–6, 388–9, 392; equality of anthropology 179, 301, 387, 388, 389
opportunity 312, 314, 315, 316–30, 333–4; Anyon, J. 52–68, 395, 398, 480, 481, 500
politics 26–7, 31–2, 52–5; poor/disadvantaged Apple, M.W. 32, 209, 210, 211, 263, 266, 274, 276,
students 58–60, 92, 116, 139, 242–52, 388–9; 284–96
school improvement 472–3, 480–1; school- apprenticeships 232, 233
based reforms 481, 483, 484–5, 486, 487–8, 489, Aquinas, Thomas 200, 201
493–4; schools as organizations 226, 237–8; aristocracy 70, 72; of talent 71, 72, 330
sociology 139–40, 142, 145–6, 148–9, 150–64, Aristotle 199–201, 202
173 Aronowitz, S. 212
achievement gains 13, 60–4, 483 Asians 5–6, 8, 32, 144–5, 177, 178, 253, 255, 256,
achievement gaps 5–7, 18, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41–2; 276, 284; educational inequalities 385, 392, 438,
federal involvement 474, 476, 477–80; race 440, 448–9, 469; equality of opportunity 315,
316–30, 344–50, 354–5, 359, 361 316, 330, 354–5; school improvement 470, 477;
active learning 77, 503, 505 see also Japan
activism 107–8, 114–15, 284, 366 aspirations 281, 300, 342, 349, 390, 399, 401
Addams, J. 76, 93, 94 assessment issues 13
Adler, M. 199 asthma 64, 348–9, 392, 481
administrators 33, 139, 146, 149, 188, 189, 190, attainment 8, 282, 315, 330, 383; equality of
193; flexibility 397; school improvement 472, opportunity 316–30, 341–3; status-attainment
489, 493, 497; schools as organizations 235, 236, process 313; see also achievement
239, 241 authoritarianism 1, 71, 81, 148, 206, 212, 279, 398;
adult education 116, 500 populism 287
advanced placement (AP) courses 5, 6, 13; authority 29, 80, 82, 87; educational decision
detracking 183–4, 185, 186, 189, 191–2, 193; making 33–4; hierarchy 219–20; sociology 139,
educational inequalities 390, 412; school 140; structures 226–9
improvement 471, 475 autonomy 219, 220, 222, 223; autonomous visible
advocacy groups 41, 106, 373, 504, 508 pedagogy 292–3; liberalism 299, 300; schools as
aesthetics 231 organisations 228, 240–1, 259, 260
affirmative action 392
African-Americans see black/African-Americans bachelor degrees 55, 117, 237, 240, 313, 330, 341,
after-school activities 346–7, 350, 499 448
580 Index
back to basics 1, 29, 199 Bowles, S. 30; and Gintis, H. 31, 90, 128–34, 139,
Bacon, F. 200, 201, 203 140, 209, 210, 213, 273–4, 282, 330, 343, 351,
Bailyn, B. 69, 70 352, 389, 398
Baker, B. 13, 18, 32, 88, 485 boy problem 315, 403–4
Baker, D.P. 242–52, 335 Bradley Commission 203
Banks, J.A. 203, 275 Brameld, T. 204
Barnard, H. 89, 134 Brint, S. 90, 230, 231, 232
Baudrillard, J. 212 Britain see UK
Beauvoir, S. de 402 Broader Bolder Approach 480, 500, 501
Becker, S. 166, 171 Brooks-Gunn, A. 58–9, 60
Beecher, C.E. 75 Brooks-Gunn, J. 58–9, 60
behavioral difficulties 61, 64, 371, 373, 375, 376 Brophy, J. 170, 171, 173
behaviorism 135, 204, 300 Brown, G. 25
Belenky, M.F. 279, 402 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education 83–4, 85–6, 115
Bell, T. 87 Bruner, J. 16
The Bell Curve 387 Bryan, W.J. 269
Bennett, K. P. 21, 265, 403 Buber, M. 207, 208, 221
Bennett, W. 87, 91, 92, 199, 263, 472 budgets: crises 132, 395–6; Head Start 110, 113,
Berg, I. 143, 343 118, 121, 122–3; per-pupil expenditure 244,
Berliner, D. 502, 505–6 393, 395, 479, 507; reforms 484, 494, 498, 500,
Bernstein, B. 141, 262, 266, 278, 279–80, 284, 505, 514
292–3, 389, 390, 398 Bulkley, K. 488
Bestor, A. 80, 269 bullying 60, 430–44
between-school differences 393, 396–7, 398–9 Burbules, N. 212
Biddle, B. 502, 505–6 burden of acting white 389, 390, 406–30
bilingual education programs 10, 392 burden of high achievement 406, 408–9, 421–4,
biological theories 74, 152, 269, 402; disability 425
368, 371, 374, 377–8; genetic differences Bureau of Labor Statistics 341–2
387–8 bureaucracy 28, 54, 65, 219, 225, 268, 269; Head
Black English 307–8, 390 Start 105, 108; school improvement 470–1,
black/African-Americans; achievement gap 472–3, 481, 482, 483, 484; schools as
344–50, 354–5, 359, 361; burdens 389, 390, organisations 225, 227, 229, 235, 241; sociology
406–30, 466–9; Civil Rights movement 33, 81, of education 140, 144, 145, 166; special
83–6, 97–128, 132, 148; curriculum 276; education 331
detracking 176, 178, 180–1, 182, 183, 190, 192, Burkham, D. 59–60
193; educational inequalities 385, 387, 389, 390, Bush, G. H. W. 34, 39–40, 474, 482
391–2, 405; equality of opportunity 314, 315, Bush, G. W. 5, 23, 31, 88, 98, 113–14, 118, 121,
316–30, 338, 341, 342; power and pedagogy 123, 226, 472, 474, 477, 530
296–310; school improvement 471, 477, 481,
486, 495, 500–1, 509; slavery 72, 73, 75, 378, California 45, 73, 81, 85, 105, 113, 145, 177–8,
407; sociology 143, 144–5, 148, 170; urban 227, 270, 285, 341, 390, 392, 393, 396, 498
poverty 58, 63, 104; see also minorities; race Cameron, D. 25
Blair, T. 25, 231 Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) 9, 85, 395–6, 500
Blau, J.R. 424 Camus, A. 218, 222, 224
Bloom, A. 19, 91–2 Canada, G. 500–1
Bloom, B. 104, 105, 106 capacity building 493, 495, 498
boarding schools 81, 265, 398, 399, 434 “Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict, and
Bobbit, F. 78 Educational Change” 128–34
Booker, C. 32 capitalism 139–40, 209–10, 211, 233, 249, 267,
Borman, G. 336, 476, 496 273–4, 279, 282–3; equality of opportunity 351,
Boston 33, 63, 64, 75, 84–5, 109, 151–2, 483, 362, 369; politics 23, 24–5, 27, 90
498 Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education 79,
Bourdieur, P. 177, 181, 184–5, 186–7, 192–3, 194, 264
274, 284, 351, 389, 405, 444–5, 446, 462; and Carnegie Report (A Nation Prepared: Teachers for
Passeron, J.-C. 140–1, 179, 274, 389, 461; the 21st Century) 489–91
and Wacquant, D. 178, 179, 185, 186, 446 caste stratification 312
Index 581
Castellino, D.R. 406–30 college: community colleges 86, 90, 233, 280, 302;
Catholic schools 17, 201, 228, 335–6, 397, 434, educational inequalities 392, 399, 414–15; entry
457, 509 requirements 78, 79; equality of opportunity 82,
Catholicism 72, 73, 74, 201 86, 313–14, 330, 347; four-year colleges 63, 90,
Catsambis, S. 399 199; gender 86–7, 149, 403–4; history 69–70,
Cazden, C. 308 71, 72, 73, 75, 86; politics 40, 55, 62;
centralisation 226–7, 229, 230, 231, 246, 247, 288, preparatory programs 42, 78, 151, 161, 398;
472 protests 81; school improvement 473, 474,
charter schools 9, 10, 88, 118; educational 500–1, 509; sociology 141, 142–3, 144–5, 146,
inequality 448, 449, 456–7; equality of 149, 151–2, 160–1, 162
opportunity 359, 388–9; politics 29, 31–3; college graduates 142–3, 161, 341–3, 348, 491, 492
school improvement 478–9, 483–6, 511–16 Collins, R. 140–1, 269, 275, 282, 342
Chauncey, H. 330 colonial era 15, 69–73
cheating 471 Committee of Ten 78–9
Chicago 8, 62–3, 118, 205, 349, 391–2, 501–2 Common Core Standards 11, 12, 35–51, 268–9,
child rearing 141, 147, 259, 389–90 478
child-centered approach 33, 77, 80, 204, 207, 301, common culture 91, 92, 263, 273, 289–92, 294
503–4 common schools 15, 73–5, 76, 80, 82, 89, 130, 228,
Children’s Defense Fund 99, 107, 113, 114, 118 335
Christian-Smith, L. 291 communism 24–5, 209, 233, 269–70
Christianity 70, 73, 201, 207–8, 460 community 273, 276, 305; school boards 226, 271;
Christie, C. 32 school improvement 497, 498, 499, 501– 2;
Chubb, J.E. 335, 482, 483 schools 500–1
citizenship 21, 26; history 71, 74, 75, 79, 83 community college 86, 90, 233, 280, 302
civic education 70–1 compassion 221, 471, 503
civil religion 143, 333 compensatory education programs 10, 13, 103–6,
Civil Rights movement 33, 81, 83–6, 97–128, 132, 116, 119–20, 132, 388, 475
148 competition: tournament selection 144, 314;
Civil War 75; Reconstruction era 83 voucher system 483, 486, 487, 508, 518
class 5, 6, 9, 314; curricula 266, 267, 274, 282; Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) 495–6
educational inequalities 383, 384, 385, 387–90, comprehensive schools 338
391, 398–9, 405; international comparisons compulsory education 77, 89, 232, 243
230–1, 233; pedagogy 279–80; politics 30, 31, computers 473, 474
32, 40, 59–60; sociology 142, 143–4, 147; Conant, J. B. 82, 330
struggle/conflict 128–34, 139–41, 209–10; The Condition of Education 316, 330
tracking 401; see also elites; lower classes; middle Condron, D.J. 336, 344, 350–64
classes; underclass; upper classes; upper middle conflict theories 139–41, 210, 342, 384, 400, 404;
classes; working classes curricula 267, 272–5, 282
“Class and the Classroom: Even the Best Schools conformity 21, 29, 116, 167, 172–3, 294
Can’t Close the Race Achievement Gap” Conservative Party, UK 25
344–50 conservativism: curriculum 263, 264–5, 266,
class size 146, 194, 246, 399, 494–5 269–72, 276, 278, 285, 286–9; effective teachers
Cleveland 482, 486 472; equality of opportunity 315, 333, 352, 362;
Clifford, M. M. 169 history 74, 76, 80, 86–8, 91–2; neo-conservatism
Clinton, W.J. 39–40, 88, 118, 287, 289, 472, 475, 286–9, 291, 292; politics 22–33; school
476, 477, 503 improvement 502–4, 513
Closing of the American Mind 91 Constitution of the United States 75, 83–5, 93–5,
closing schools 32–3, 84, 518 226, 311, 395, 482, 486
codes of power 298–9, 300, 301 contest mobility 143, 249
coeducation 86–7, 156, 157, 163, 403 contradictions of control 241
cognitive ability 21, 58, 59–60, 154, 160–1 Cookson, P. W. 398, 399, 408, 483, 506
cognitive development 58–60 Core Knowledge program 495
cognitive outcomes 250, 282, 333–4, 350–64 correspondence theory 273–4, 389
Cohen, D. 42, 79, 115, 286, 398 corruption 497, 498
Coleman, J. 17, 85, 120, 333–6, 350, 351–2, 386–8, Counts, G. 204, 266
393, 396, 397, 408 Cremin, L. A. 20, 21, 72–3, 76, 77, 89, 92, 206
582 Index
crime 61, 63, 64, 405 Deutsch, M. 105, 388

crisis in education 1, 7–10, 149–50 development: cognitive 58–60; delay 480; hierarchy
critical curriculum theory 263, 266, 276–7 402; intellectual 263, 468, 469
“A Critical Look at the Charter School Debate” developmental curriculum 265
511–16 developmental realm 503
critical literacy and empowerment, active voice of deviance 165–8, 171–3
teachers 18–19 DeVos, Betsy 88, 479, 488
critical pedagogy 30, 211, 213–14, 279 Dewey, J. 76–7, 82, 204–6, 207, 215–18, 503–4
critical theory 212–14 dialectic: bidialectic students 390; of freedom 205;
critical thinking 21, 301, 469 method 15–16, 198–9, 200, 202, 211, 278–9
Cuban, L. 82, 88 Dickman, E. 487
Cubberly, E. 89, 134 disabilities 62, 105, 331–2, 348, 356–7; social
cultural capital 140–1, 179–82, 184–5, 187, 274, constructionist approach 365–82
284, 300, 351, 389–90, 405, 444–5, 451; high- disadvantaged students 10, 12, 13; educational
status 177 inequalities 386–7, 388–9, 391, 403; equality of
cultural deprivation theories 388, 389, 391–2 opportunity 82–3, 344–50; history 73, 81, 82,
cultural difference theories 388–92 85, 86, 90; politics 27, 29, 59–60; school
cultural literacy 1, 19, 28, 91, 203 improvement 492–3, 495, 497, 512; schools as
curricula 262–3; and ability grouping 399–401; organizations 242–52; see also Head Start
effects 281–3; hidden 272, 273–4, 386, 403; discipline 28, 71, 109, 137, 335
history 263–6; multicultural 10, 12, 28, 30, 91, discrimination 34, 75, 148–9, 311–12, 391–2,
211, 271–2, 275–6, 291, 403; national 284–96; 400–1, 407, 499; antidiscrimination laws 53, 56,
and pedagogic practices 277–8, 398–9; 57, 58, 65, 508
philosophy 199, 202–3, 207, 208, 211, 213–14, diversity: cultural 26, 92; schools 177–8, 183, 227;
263–6; politics 267–72, 284–96; teachers 237, 252–61
reconceptualisation of studies 276–7; school division of labor 21, 27, 128, 264, 273–4
improvement 473, 493–4, 495, 505–6; sociology Domhoff, W. G. 189, 267
272–6; standards movement 477, 479; dominant culture 211, 273, 389, 391, 392, 461
stratification 266, 274–5, 280–1 dominant groups 139, 140, 210, 272–3, 274–5, 294,
Curti, M. 69, 89 404
Dornbusch, S.M. 309, 407
Dale, R. 288 Dougherty, K. 90, 384, 388, 398, 472
Darity, Jr., W. 406–30 Douglas, J. 170
Darling-Hammond, L. 19, 233, 234, 236, 238, 351, Dowling, M. 336
490–1, 494, 502 Downey, D.B. 336, 344, 350–64, 407–8, 409
Darwin, C. 22, 132, 204, 269, 378 Dreeben, R. 273, 282, 401
Datnow, A. 315, 403 dropout rates 5, 7, 12, 145–6; teachers 240, 492
de facto segregation 84, 85, 148 drugs 391–2, 470, 474, 476, 500; cocaine 149, 220,
de jure segregation 227 316
decentralization 29, 30, 131–3, 226, 230, 247, 472 Dryfoos, J. G. 500
Delpit, L.D. 296–310 DuBois, W. E. B. 83
Demientieff, M. 306 Duncan, A. 31–2
democracy 17, 21, 24–5, 26, 30–1, 34; curriculum Duncan, G. 58–9, 60, 61, 62, 64, 502
and pedagogy 267, 273, 279, 288, 290, 293, 294, Durkheim, E. 136, 139, 205, 212, 273
301; equality of opportunity 331, 343; history
69, 70–1, 73, 76–7, 80, 83, 84; school Ebonics see Black English
improvement 489, 503, 504, 505 economic achievement 341–3
Democracy and Education 206 economic capital 179–80, 284, 389–90, 445–6, 451,
Democratic Education 33 458, 461–2
Democratic Party 107–8, 313 economic disadvantage 7, 82, 244
democratic-liberal approach 89, 90, 91, 92, 489 economics 21, 23, 24; see also capitalism;
democratization of schools 30, 236 finance/funding
demographics 7–8, 9, 100, 149, 188, 259–60, 426–7 Edmonds, R. 142, 334, 396–7, 492–3
Descartes, R. 198 Education for All Handicapped Children Act 53
desegregation 8, 9, 33, 53, 84–6, 119, 148 education policy 29–30; issues 7, 8–9, 11–12;
detracking 65; local resistance to 176–95 schools as organizations 226, 243, 244–5, 247–8,
Index 583
252; urban 52–68; see also educational reform equity era (1945–1980) 80–7
and school improvement Erickson, F. 299
Education Trust 7, 40, 55, 238, 341, 477, 479, 492, Erikson, K. T. 167, 172
496 Escalante, J. 471
educational outcomes see equality of opportunity ethnicity see minorities; race/ethnicity; specific
educational problems 4–13; definition of 28–9; groups
theory 502–7 ethnocentrism 271, 391
educational reform and school improvement 29–30; ethnography 13, 62, 170, 298, 310, 390, 405
1980s to 2016 87–8, 472–4; approaches 480–1; Evans, S.A. 405, 444–65
charter schools 478–9, 483–6, 511–16; effective Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 5, 7, 12, 32,
schools research 492–6; federal involvement 88, 96, 316, 472, 479–80
474–80; finance reforms 499–500; full service “Evidence Use and the Common Core State
and community schools 500–2; privatization Standards Movement” 35–51
488; “Ravitch–Tilson Debate” 516–24; school The Evolution of Educational Thought 139
choice 481–3; school vouchers 507–11; school- existentialism 135, 207–8
based 481–96; state intervention 496–9; expectations: educational inequality 392, 397, 399,
teachers 470–2, 492; theory 502– 7 400, 401, 403; school improvement 471, 491,
Educational Testing Service (ETS) 238, 330, 471 493, 505; sociology 144, 145–6, 153–4, 158,
effective schools movement 9–10, 396–8, 492–6 159–60, 162–3, 165, 168–70
effective teachers 470–2
efficiency 32; social 77–8 failing schools 29, 31, 32, 477, 488, 496, 498–9
egalitarianism 89, 279, 357, 482, 504 family–school relationships 13, 122
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte 14 Farkas, G. 244, 332, 357, 407, 409
Eisenhower, D.D. 84 Farrar, E. 78, 79, 398
Elementary and Secondary Education Act 5, 53, 81, Faubus, O. 84
100, 117, 395, 475, 476, 479 Featherstone, J. 82
Eliot, C. 78, 79 federal government 5, 11–12, 16, 31–2, 33;
elites: culture 284; definition of just society 33; Common Core Standards 35, 39–40, 42–3, 45,
equality of opportunity 314, 333, 334, 335–6; 46, 268–9; funding 85, 86, 87, 88, 495; law 81;
history 71, 80, 82, 86–7, 89, 90; intellectual 231; policies 53–4, 55–8, 64–5, 226; school
local resistance to detracking 176–95; sociology improvement 472, 474–80, 481; schools as
141 organizations 226
elitism 88, 236, 277 feminism 210–11, 213, 279, 386, 402–3, 441, 503,
Ellsworth, J. 110–11, 114, 210 504
Émile 74, 204 Ferguson, D. L. 370
empiricism 17, 18, 135 Ferguson, P. M. 370
employment 142–3 Ferguson, R. 408, 417
“Empowerment and Education: Civil Rights, “Fifty Years since the Coleman Report” 350–64
Expert-Advocates, and Parent Politics in Head finance/funding 5, 32, 85, 86, 87, 88; inequalities
Start, (1964–1980)” 97–128 6–7, 9, 54, 393–6; school improvement 495,
Engels, F. 209, 210, 212 499–500
Entwistle, D. R. 61 Fine, M. 398
epistemology 197, 207 Finland 233–4, 358
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Finn, C. 11, 12, 91, 114, 203
(EEOC) 402 Flanders, N. 137
equality of opportunity 23–4, 26–7; calculating Florida 486, 508, 510
educational and life outcomes 311–32; “Class for-profit organizations 268–9, 488, 522–3
and the Classroom” 344–50; educational Fordham, S. 389, 406, 407, 408, 411, 414, 415, 422,
attainment and economic achievement 341–3; 424
and educational outcomes 311–82; “Fifty Years formal education 72–3, 150, 152, 160, 163, 181,
since the Coleman Report” 350–64; history 82; 250
reproduction 343, 351; school differences and Foster, M. 276, 304
educational outcomes 332–41; school Foucault, M. 290, 368
segregation 341; “A Social Constructionist foundations perspective 14–17, 18, 196, 470, 472,
Approach to Disability” 365–82; see also 506–7
inequalities France 204, 212, 231, 246, 250
584 Index
Franklin, B. 70, 71 Great Britain see UK

free market capitalism see capitalism Great Depression 54, 56–7
Freedman, S. 398–9, 470–1 Greeley, A. M. 335
Freire, P. 209, 210, 213, 266, 279 Greene, M. 205, 208, 211, 218–24, 506–7
Friedman, M. 23, 507–8, 513 Greer, G. 402
full service schools 500–1 Gross, B. 82
functionalism 138–9, 150, 263, 267, 272–3; Gross, R. 82
curricula 267, 272–3, 275, 282–3; educational Gumperz, J. 299
inequality 383–4, 400, 404, 405; equality of Gutek, G. 71, 72
opportunity 342 Gutmann, A. 20, 33, 34
funding see finance/funding Gymnasium, Germany 232, 243
Gagnon, P. 203 Habermas, J. 212

Gardner, H. 207 Hall.G.S. 77, 79
Gardner, H. 207 Hallinan, M. T. 400
gatekeeping 306 Hanushek, E. 361
Gay, G. 275–6 Harlan, J. M. 83
gender 5: boy problem 315, 403–4; bullying Harlem Children’s Zone 500–1
amongst girls 430–44; coeducation 86–7, 156, Harrison, P. R. 177, 179, 181, 184–5, 186, 187,
157, 163, 403; curriculum and pedagogy 271, 192–3, 194
274, 279; educational inequalities 383, 384, Hart, B. 347
385–6, 402–4; equality of opportunity 314, 315, Hauptschule, Germany 232
316–30; history 70, 72, 74–5, 86–7; school Head Start 10, 29, 53, 85, 97–128, 316, 356–7, 388
improvement 503, 504; schools as organizations health 59, 63, 64, 79, 348–9, 392, 480–1
227; sociology 137–8, 144, 147, 148–9; health insurance 62, 349
transgender students 271 healthcare 24, 59, 98, 105, 117, 350, 480–1, 500
genetic differences 387–8 Hechinger, F. 3–4, 470
Germany 232–3, 243, 246, 249, 250 Hegel, G. W. F. 198, 204
Giddens, A. 25 Heidegger, M. 207
gifted and talented (G/T) programs 186–7 Herrnstein, R. J. 374
Gilligan, C. 402–3 heterogeneity: American Studies course 183–4,
Gintis, H. 31, 90, 128–34, 139, 140, 209, 210, 213, 186; disabling conditions 373–4;
273–4, 282, 330, 343, 351, 352, 389, 398 grouping/classrooms 193, 280, 281, 400, 506;
Giroux, H. 209, 210, 211, 212, 213–14, 266, 355 society 166, 291
Goals 2000 12, 53, 88, 316, 472, 475–6, 477, 503 Heyns, B. 142, 354
Goertz, G. 42, 395, 396, 493 hidden curricula 272, 273–4, 386, 403
Goffmann, E. 367 hierarchies 140, 147, 155–6, 250, 286, 312, 404;
Goldstein, M. 86 of authority 219–20; developmental 402; of
Good, T. 170, 171, 173 knowledge 291, 292; track structures 178,
Gooden, M. A. 509 189
Goodlad, J. 148, 237, 241–2, 490 high school graduates 6, 12, 40, 42, 54–5, 86, 87,
Goodman, P. 173 89, 143, 151–2, 179, 500, 503, 508, 509
Gornick, V. 402 high schools, emergence of 78–9
Goslin, D. A. 169 higher education 40, 43; history 69–70, 73, 75,
Goslin, W. 270 82–3, 86–7, 90; international comparison 231,
governance 226, 246, 247, 493, 497, 498–9, 505, 232–3; privatization 488
514 Higher Education Act 477
government 510–11, 512–13; local 33, 52, 54, Hill, A. 402
496–9; see also federal government; state Hirsch, E. D. 12, 19, 91–2, 172, 203, 263, 270–1,
government 291, 495
grades 5–6, 8, 12, 13, 29; grade-point averages 144, Hispanics 5–6, 8, 32, 57, 86, 144–5, 477;
146 educational inequality 302, 467, 468–9; equality
graduation: rates 54–5, 341, 474, 477, 508; of opportunity 314, 315, 316–30; schools as
requirements 40, 54, 472, 475 organizations 253, 254, 255, 256
Gramsci, A. 177, 181, 191, 367 history of education 14–15, 69–134; colonial era
Grant, G. 9, 10, 400 15, 69–73; common school 73–5; curricula
Index 585
263–6; different interpretations 88–92; politics 27, 28, 29, 31; schools as organizations 242–52;
29–31, 33–4; post-World War II equity era sociology 146–9
(1945–1980) 80–7; Standards Era (1980s-2016) Ingersoll, R. 252–61, 492, 494
87–8; timeline of events 93–6; urbanization and interactionism 141–2, 150
progressive imperative 75–8 interest groups 16–17, 97–8, 114, 225, 272, 472
Hodgkinson, H. 149 International Baccalaureate (IB) 6, 411
Hoffer, T. 17, 147, 335, 393, 397, 481, 501 intrapsychic level 135, 313, 385, 404–5
Hofstadter, R. 76, 78, 79, 264 IQ tests 105, 387
Hogan, D. 90 “It’s Not ‘a Black Thing’: Understanding the
Holmes Group 19, 277, 489, 490 Burden of Acting White and Other Dilemmas
homework 347 of High Achievement” 406–30
homosexuality and homophobia 162, 435–7
honors courses 5, 146, 182, 183, 185, 188, 190, 192, Jackson, A. 73
193; equality of opportunity 390, 406– 30 Jackson, P. W. 278
Horace’s Compromise 236–7, 239 Jacobson, L. 145, 165, 168, 171, 174
Horvat, E. M. 408, 415 James, W. 203
housing 52, 56, 481, 500, 510; gaps 348–9; Move to Japan 231–2, 243, 246, 247, 250, 285
Opportunity (MTO) projects 63–4; segregation Jefferson, T. 70–1, 82
57, 62–3, 65, 84, 86 Jencks, C. 120, 142, 335, 341, 342, 351–2, 386–7,
Housing and Community Development Act 63 393, 396
How Teachers Taught 82 Jensen, A. 119–20
“How You Bully a Girl: Sexual Drama and the Johnson, J. 471
Negotiation of Gendered Sexuality in High Johnson, L. B. 23, 85, 97, 98, 99–101, 102, 104,
School” 430–44 105–6, 107–8, 116, 121
Hoxby, C. 485, 487 Johnson, M. 64
Hubbard, L. 315, 403 Juku, Japan 232
human capital 41, 135, 249–50, 251, 257, 289
humanism 287, 398; curriculum 263, 264, 265, 266, Kagan, J. 97–128
269, 275, 280 Kant, I. 198
Hunt, 104, 105, 106, 120 Kappan, P.D. 511–16
Hurn, C. J. 273, 274–5, 281, 282–3, 384, 387, 391, Karabel, J. 90
401, 404 Karier, C. 90
Husserl, E. 207 Katz, M. 90, 173
Huston, A. C. 61–2 Kauffman, J. M. 365–82
Hutchins, R. M. 80, 82 Kennedy, J. F. 23, 85, 100, 101, 103
Kentucky 85, 357, 393, 395, 498, 499–500
idealism 197–9, 263 Keynes, J. M. 23
ideology 129, 133, 134, 209, 210, 404; Common Kidder, T. 398–9
Core Standards 43, 45, 46–7; of privilege 178; Kierkegaard, S. 207–8, 222
sociology 139, 147, 160, 177; of tracking and Kilgore, S. 17, 147, 335, 393, 397, 481
detracking 181–4, 186–7, 189, 191, 400 kindergarten 59–60, 116–17, 170, 226–7, 228;
Ideology and Curriculum 284, 294 equality of opportunity 316, 322–3, 345, 356,
Illich, I. 168 357, 444–65
illiteracy 2, 72, 73; adult 11, 87 Kirst, M. W. 33, 268, 270
immigrants 73, 74, 76, 90, 91, 470; labor 76, 130; Klein, J. 480
student 188, 230, 345, 392 Kliebard, H. M. 263, 265, 269
immigration 75, 205 knowledge and attitudes 142
inadequate schools 147–8 Knowledge as Power Program (KIPP) 501, 516
incentives 35, 37, 46 Kohl, H. 81
individualism 1, 32, 76, 80, 82, 207, 235 Kohlberg, L. 402
individuals, effects on schooling on 142–4 Kozol, J. 81, 243–4, 247, 248, 292, 295, 351, 393,
Industrial Revolution 73, 75–6, 372 399, 504
industrial societies 168, 184, 312
industrialization 17, 139, 273 labeling theory 165–76, 178–9
inequalities: curricula 280–1, 290, 292; educational labor: child 372; conflict theory 139, 210; division
383–469; history 82, 83, 84–5; politics 24, 25, of 21, 27, 128, 264, 273–4; equality of
586 Index
opportunity 312, 313, 341–2; immigrant 76, McGee, C. 203, 275

130; supply and demand 260–1; wage labor McLaren, P. 210, 212
128–34 McNeil, L. M. 241
labor market 60, 63, 64, 247, 348, 383, 386, 391 magnet schools 10, 54, 181, 334, 481
labor unions 56, 90, 102 Mann, H. 73–4, 76, 78, 82, 85, 89, 311, 355
Laboratory School 77, 204, 206 Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
Labour Party, UK 25 (MRRC) 61
Ladd, H. 64, 480 market model 32
Ladson-Billings, G. 276 Marshall, T. 394
Laird, S. 210, 279, 402, 503 Marx, K. 14, 24, 139–40, 209–10, 212
Lareau, A. 141, 183, 210, 389–90, 402, 405, mass education 133, 247–8, 249, 355, 489
444–65 Massachusetts 45, 70, 73, 75, 393, 483, 499–500,
Lasch, C. 14 517
Lather, P. 210, 212 mayoral control 496–9
Latinos 56, 57–8, 470–1, 496; sociology 176, 177–8, Mehan, H. B. 169
180, 181, 182, 183, 188, 192 Meier, D. 9–10, 505
learning disabilities 63, 331, 348, 371, 373, 375, mental health 64, 173–4
480 meritocracy 26–7, 30–1; curricula 280–1;
LeCompte, M. D. 21, 403 educational inequality 383–4, 399, 400–1, 404,
Lee, V. 59–60 405; equality of opportunity 311, 330, 333,
Lemann, N. 330, 391–2 336–7; history 71, 72, 82; schools as
Lemert, E. 167–8 organizations 231, 247–8, 249–50; sociology
Letende, G. 242–52 181, 184–5, 273
Levin, H. M. 488, 495 Merleau-Ponty, M. 207
Lew, J. 392 Merton, R. K. 171
Lewis, K. 408, 415 Metcalfe, K. K. 487
Lewis, O. 388 Metz, M. H. 235
liberalism 23–4, 29, 31, 34, 386; curricula 263, Meyer, J. W. 250, 333
270–1, 275, 276; equality of opportunity 315, Mickelson, R. 415, 417, 422, 425
333, 372; history 74, 76, 86, 87–8, 89, 90, 91–2; middle classes: curricula and pedagogy 266, 274,
neo-liberalism 31–3, 286–9, 498, 502–3, 504; 275, 279–80, 398; educational inequalities
sociology 142, 183, 187 178–94, 285, 388, 389–90, 391, 392, 398,
Lieberman, A. 236, 239 444–65; equality of opportunity 312–13, 314,
life adjustment education 77, 79, 80, 206 334, 336–7, 398–9; politics 31, 32, 54, 56, 57;
Lincoln, A. 75 sociology 141, 144, 146, 147, 149
literacy: critical 18–19, cultural 1, 19, 28, 91, 203; Mill, J. S. 34, 511
decline of 10–13 Miller, S. A. 430–44
local government 33, 52, 54, 496–9 Millikan v. Bradley 85
Locke, J. 33, 200, 201, 203 Mills, C. W. 4, 14, 18
Lortie, D. 240–1 Milwaukee 88, 482, 483, 486, 487, 509
Los Angeles 8, 63, 109, 112, 227, 471 mimetic teaching 278–9
low-income families 8, 9, 86, 149, 180, 182, 349, minimum wage 55–7, 358
405; see also poverty and education policy minorities 7–8, 13; educational inequalities 467–9;
low-income schools 9, 341, 408, 479, 495–6 health 480–1; politics 28–9, 52, 57, 58; school
lower classes 105, 111, 149, 391; equality of improvement 483, 487, 492, 496, 498, 500, 501;
opportunity 344–50 teachers 9, 10, 237, 252–61, 489; voucher
lower middle classes 147, 312, 313 system 507, 509–10; see also race/ethnicity;
Lubienski, C. 485, 508 specific groups
Lucas, S. R. 244 Miron, G. 485
Lukas, J. A. 84 Moe, T. M. 335, 482, 483
Lyon, M. 75 Moe, T.M. 335, 482, 483
Lyotard, J. F. 211, 212 moral education 218–24, 232
morality 33, 289, 396, 481, 513; sexual 432–3
McCarthy, J. 270, 272 multicultural curricula 10, 12, 28, 30, 91, 211,
McDill, E. 334 271–2, 275–6, 291, 403
McDonnell, L. M. 35–51 multiculturalism 237
Index 587
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach 17 Oakes, J. 13, 148, 188, 243, 264, 281, 282, 400–1
Murray, C. 374 Obama, B. 5, 12, 18, 31–2, 88, 226, 271, 472,
“My Pedagogic Creed” 215–18 478–9, 503, 518
Myrdal, G. 84 objectivism 262, 272
Ogbu, J. U. 348, 389, 406, 407, 408, 411, 414, 415,
Nassaw, D. 96 422, 424
National Assessment of Educational Progress Old Deluder Laws 70, 71
(NAEP) 5–7, 13, 41, 317–21 “On Understanding the Processes of Schooling:
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) The Contributions of Labeling Theory” 165–76
41, 78, 88, 144, 145, 225, 227, 228, 233, 237, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and
315, 316, 494 Development (OECD) 10
National Commission on Excellence in Education out-of-field teaching 240, 492
11, 12, 87 outcomes: cognitive 250, 282, 333–4, 350–64; see
National Commission on Teaching and America’s also under equality of opportunity
Future 19, 237, 242, 277, 490–1
National Curriculum 284–96 Pallas, A. M. 335
National Education Association (NEA) 79, 263, panaceas 2, 30, 31, 92, 196, 482
264, 488 parents: choice 10, 29, 88, 481–2, 483, 486, 487;
National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) education 20, 501; elite, resistance to detracking
408 176–95; Head Start 97–128; impact of poverty
National Governors Association (NGA) 41, 472, and familial support 58–64; involvement 7, 9,
474, 475 495, 498, 499; middle class, transmission of
Native Americans 69, 72–3, 177, 253, 305, 477; advantage 444–65; social networks 111, 193,
Athabaskan Indians 306–7; Cherokees 60 447, 451, 453, 454, 459, 462
natural growth model 389–90 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
Neill, A. S. 81, 265 School District No. 1 148
neo-conservatism 286–9, 291, 292 Parks, R. 284
neo-liberalism 31–3, 286–9, 498, 502–3, 504 parochial schools 32, 267–8, 399, 449, 487, 508
neo-Marxism 209–11, 213, 267, 273–5 Parsons, T. 150–64
neo-Thomism 201 particularism 154, 157–8, 273
networks see social networks Passeron, J.-C. 140–1, 179, 274, 389, 461
New England 70, 71–2, 73 Passow, A. H. 473
New Jersey 9, 32, 85, 238, 240, 316, 338–41, 391, pedagogy: autonomous visible 292–3; critical 30,
393–5, 396; school improvement 483, 484, 489, 211, 213–14, 279; and curricula 277–8,
491, 492, 496–7, 498, 499, 500 398–9; educational inequalities 398–9, 400–1,
New Teacher Project (NTP) 19, 491 402–3; philosophy 278–80; and power
New York 8, 9–10, 55, 63, 225; Campaign for 296–310
Fiscal Equity (CFE) 9, 85, 395–6, 500; peer: culture 177, 384; groups 146, 153–4, 155–60,
curricula 266, 271; educational inequality 391, 161–2; influence 220, 314, 333, 334; regulation
393, 394, 395–6, 398–9, 403; equality of of sexual morality 432–42
opportunity 313, 337–8, 349, 359; history 72, Perry, I. 466–9
74–5, 82, 86; school improvement 470–1, Persell, C. H. 135, 144, 145–6, 148, 150, 235, 313,
480, 483, 485–6, 491, 492, 496–7, 498–501, 385, 398–9, 401
505, 509; schools as organizations 225, 227, 236, Peters, B. 111
238 phenomenology 207–8
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 7, 12, 31–2, 88, philanthropy 514
476–8, 479, 488, 492, 503 philosophy of education 15–16, 196–224;
Noguera, P. 480, 501 curricula 199, 202–3, 207, 208, 211, 213–14,
non-profit groups 500, 510 263–6; definition of 196; meaning of
norms 12: curricula 273, 290, 292; educational philosophical inquiry 197; perspectives 33–4,
inequality 391, 407, 425, 431, 433, 435; 197–214; reflective practitioners 18, 135, 196
philosophy 197, 219, 222–3; professional vs Piaget, J. 265
bureaucratic 241; sociology 137, 157, 158 Pinar, W. 277
North Carolina 40, 41, 60–1, 110, 271, 341, Plato 33, 197, 199–200, 202, 278–9
390, 409–28, 496; school improvement 496–7, Plessy v. Ferguson 83–4, 85
510 pluralism 28, 92, 131–2, 213, 267, 275–6
588 Index
Pogrow, S. 495 property taxes 9, 54, 226, 243, 248, 393–4, 395, 504
policy see education policy Prosser, C. 79
political capital 180, 184–5 psychology 43, 60–1, 77, 103, 104, 135, 152, 155,
political correctness 272 490
political economy 23, 24, 28, 55, 90, 140, 209 public high school, emergence of 78–9
Politics, Markets, and American Schools 482, 483 Puritans 70, 71–2, 73
“The Politics of Culture” 176–95 Putnam, R. D. 405
politics of education 16–17, 20–1; curricula Pygmalion in the Classroom 165, 171
267–72, 284–96; definition of educational
problems 28–9; perspectives 22–5; purpose qualitative studies 13, 39, 177, 375, 406–8, 445–6,
of schooling 21; role of school 26–7; 447
traditional and progressive visions 25–6;
unequal performance explanations 27–8; Race to the Top (RTT) 7, 88, 478–9, 503; value-
see also educational reform and school added models (VAM) 12, 13, 31–2
improvement race/ethnicity 5, 315; achievement gap 316–30,
“The Politics of a National Curriculum” 284–96 344–50, 354–5, 359, 361; burden of acting white
Popular Education and Its Discontents 89 389, 390, 406–30; educational inequalities 383,
postmodernist 212–14 384, 385, 468–9; politics 32, 40, 59–60; school
postsecondary education: curricula 280, 503; history improvement 496, 503, 504, 505; sociology 146,
75, 82, 86, 89 147, 148, 169–70; tracking 401; see also
poverty and education policy 52–68 minorities; specific groups
poverty-wage work 61 racially mixed schools 148, 424; local resistance to
power: codes/culture of 298–9, 300, 301; detracking 176–95
Knowledge as Power Program (KIPP) 501, 516; radical-revisionists 90–1
and pedagogy 296–310; powerlessness 133–4; radicalism 24–5, 30, 31, 209; curricula 264–6, 272,
relations 16, 24, 33, 173, 177; structures 111, 273, 279; educational inequalities 384; equality
190–1, 362; see also conflict theories; elites of opportunity 333, 352; school improvement
pragmatism 203–7 477, 480, 486, 500, 504
preschool program see Head Start Ravitch, D. 11, 18, 19, 26–7, 31, 32–3, 34, 263;
preschools see kindergarten curricula 263, 264, 265, 267, 268–9, 270, 271;
principals 9–10, 137, 235, 397; assistant 183, 410, history 78, 79, 80–1, 82, 83–4, 91–2, 96–7, 114;
416–17; educational inequalities 410, 412, 418, philosophy 203, 206; school improvement
447, 451–2, 454–7, 459, 461; school 478–9, 516–24
improvement 473, 474, 478, 480, 492 “Ravitch–Tilson Debate” 516–24
private schools 8, 9, 17, 29, 226, 228–9; curricula Raymond, M. E. 511–16
199, 266, 274; educational inequality 466–9; Reagan, R. 23, 53, 87, 92, 121, 199, 226, 263,
equality of opportunity 333, 335, 336–7; history 475–6, 482
74, 88; school improvement 481, 482, 483, 486, realism 199–203
487, 488; sociology 143–4, 147–8 Reardon, S. 86, 353, 357
privatization 488 reflective practitioners 18, 135, 196
privilege 17, 144, 159; transmission of 194; see also regular education initiative (REI) 331
elites relativism 28, 80, 220–1, 291, 368, 372, 391
professionalization of teachers 168, 225, 240–2, religion 70, 71–2, 73, 74, 200, 201, 460; caste
490 stratification 312; civil 143, 333; France 231;
Programme for International Student Assessment fundamentalist 269
(PISA) 41, 233, 257 religious schools 228–9, 230, 482, 486; see also
progressive education 204, 206, 207, 215–18, 504; Catholic schools
curricula 265–6, 269–70, 276, 279–80; history remedial courses 41, 86, 301, 350
76, 77, 80, 82, 91, 130 reproduction theory 27, 128–30, 131–2, 134, 210;
Progressive Era 54, 80, 82, 89, 90 curricula 274–5; educational inequalities 404–5,
Progressive Movement 76 442, 445; equality of opportunity 343, 351;
progressive imperative and urbanization 75–8 sociology 140–1, 177, 179, 181–2
progressive and traditional reform cycles 80–2 Republican Party 313, 519
progressive and traditional visions 25–6 resegregation 85–6, 148, 178, 180, 185
progressivism 81, 204, 264, 265, 269 revisionism 15, 372–3
project method 16, 205, 206 Rice, S. 212
Index 589
“Rich Land, Poor Schools: Inequality of National school-business partnerships 473, 474
Educational Resources and Achievement of school-centered explanations of inequality 393–404
Disadvantaged Students” 242–52 school–society relationship 137–8
Riordan, C. 335, 403 School-to-Work Opportunity Act 53, 476
Risley, T. 347 school-to-work programs 474, 499
Rist, R. C. 165–76 Schooling in Capitalist America 31, 140
Roberts v. City of Boston 75 schools: centralisation 226–7, 229; degree of
Robinson v. Cahill 85, 499 openness 228; as despotisms 235; differences and
role models 9, 163, 199, 238, 347–8 educational outcomes 332–41; as gatekeepers
Roosevelt, F. D. 23 143; governance 226; inequalities 242– 52;
Rosenbaum, J. E. 144, 148, 314 international comparisons 229–34; oppressive
Rosenthal, R. 145, 165, 168, 171, 174 nature 1; organizational characteristics 343;
Ross, T. 3–4 processes and cultures 234–6; selectivity 229;
Rossides, D. 312 staffing problems 240, 252–61, 492; structure
Rothstein, R. 344–50, 392, 480, 481, 500, 501 226–9; student composition 227–8; scientific
Rouse, C. E. 486–7 management 78, 264
Rousseau, J.-J. 74, 204 Scopes, J. 269
Rowe, M. 170 Sedlak, M. 490
Rubington, E. 171 segregation 8, 9; de facto 84, 85, 148, 170, 227; de
Rubinson, R. 244, 249 jure 227; equality of opportunity 315, 336, 341;
Rugg, H. 266, 270 resegregation 85–6, 148, 178, 180, 185; separate
“The Rules of the Game and the Uncertain but equal 83–4, 85; see also desegregation
Transmission of Advantage” 444–65 select 16 boarding schools 399
rural areas 7, 13, 54, 60–1, 101, 107, 110, 181, 192, self-esteem 115, 142, 145, 149, 271, 276, 497
238, 248, 306, 418 self-fulfilling prophecy 145, 165, 170–3, 401
Russell, B. 200, 202 Sennett, R. 422, 424
separation of Church and State 228, 482, 486, 523
Sadovnik, A. R. 4, 9, 10, 18, 32, 86, 88, 138, 214, Serna, I. 176–95
276, 278, 400 Serrano v. Priest 85, 393–4
Safe Schools Act 476 sexism 28–9, 30, 129, 130, 149, 212, 214, 279, 403
safety 226, 228, 487, 506 sexual harassment 402
Salomone, R. 403 sexuality: girls’ negotiation of 430–44;
San Antonio (Texas) Independent School District v. homosexuality and homophobia 162, 435–7
Rodriguez 85, 394, 499 Shanker, A. 400, 522
sanctions 12, 32, 88, 166, 171, 496–7 Siegel, J. 470–1
Sarason, S. 239 Silberman, C. 81–2, 134
Sartre, J.-P. 207–8 “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in
SAT scores 10, 11, 87, 144, 237, 315, 330 Educating Other People’s Children” 296–310
Savage Inequalities 243–4, 351, 393, 399, 504 single parents 59, 60, 244–5
Schlesinger, A. 276 Sizer, T. 236, 239, 470, 495
scholarships 71, 315, 486, 509, 510 Skrtic, T. 331
Schön, D. 18 slavery 72, 73, 75, 378, 407
school boards 116, 118, 131–2, 178, 226, 235, 271, Slavin, R. 495
484, 497, 498 Small Victories 399, 470–1
school choice 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 29, 88, 148; educational Smith, M. 80
inequalities 445–6, 447, 460; school Sobel, T. 271
improvement 473, 474, 478–9, 481–3, 486, 487, social capital 140–1, 389–90, 392, 459, 460, 462
488, 507–8 social class see class; elites; lower classes; middle
“The School Class as a Social System: Some of Its classes; underclass; upper classes; upper middle
Functions in American Society” 150–64 classes; working classes
school improvement see educational reform and “A Social Constructionist Approach to Disability”
school improvement 365–82
school takeovers 496–9 social efficiency 77, 263–6, 269, 280, 281, 398
school-based management 29, 30, 236, 242, 473, social meliorist curriculum 263, 265–6, 279
474 social mobility 1, 27, 31, 143–4; educational
school-based reform 481–96 inequalities 383, 388, 405; equality of
590 Index
opportunity 311–12, 313, 330, 335, 343; history 280–1; educational inequality 404, 444–5, 446;
62–3, 64, 74, 76, 86, 91, 249; sociology 138, schools as organizations 229, 230–1, 249;
143–4, 147, 313 sociology 135, 147, 149, 161–2, 181
social networks 140, 235, 392; parents 111, 193, strikes 81, 129, 132, 498
447, 451, 453, 454, 459, 462 structural inequalities 106, 147, 431
social order 26, 74, 76, 139, 196, 205, 207, 210, student composition 227–8
266, 272–3; arbitrary nature 185; hierarchy 250; student loans 475, 476
multicultural education 276 student-centered explanations of inequality 386–7,
social reconstructionism 204, 265–6 405
social services 54, 97, 98, 101, 102, 106, 112, 114, subject-centered curriculum 80
498 suburban schools 7, 28, 63, 147, 188–9, 482, 499,
social status 26, 139, 151, 168, 171, 179, 187, 333 504
socialism 24–5, 140, 209, 210 suburbs 8, 9, 53, 54, 57, 65, 84, 85, 181
socialization 21, 76, 135, 137–8, 150–2, 163; gender summer programs 350, 500; Head Start 98, 101,
386, 402; teacher 241 105, 107, 115
sociological imagination 4, 14, 150, 426 Summerhill 81, 265
sociology: of curriculum 272–6; uses for teachers Sumner, W. G. 22
136–7 superintendents 181, 184, 189, 227, 270, 501
sociology of education 17, 135–6; current Supreme Court 83–4, 85–6, 228, 393–5, 402, 482,
educational crisis 149–50; effects on schooling 486, 499–500
on individuals 142–4; inequality 146–9; labeling Swan v. Charlotte Mecklenburg 148
theory 165–76, 178–9; “The Politics of Culture” symbolic capital 179–80, 186, 187, 192–3, 194
176–95; “The School Class as a Social System”
150–64; school perspectives 144–6; Tannenbaum, F. 167
school–society relationship 137–8; theoretical taxation 55, 56, 57, 65, 74, 78, 184, 399, 484;
model of relevant variables and credits 29, 62, 287; income 129, 395, 499;
interrelationships 136; theoretical perspectives property 9, 54, 226, 243, 248, 393–4, 395, 504;
138–42 proposed cuts 147
Socrates 197, 200, 278–9 Taylor, F. W. 78, 264
Sorokin, P. 249 Teach For America (TFA) 19, 238, 240, 491, 492,
Soviet Union 24, 81, 209 517
special education 5, 6, 228, 331–2, 403, 477, 481; Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS) 253
“A Social Constructionist Approach to teacher-centered education 80
Disability” 365–82 teachers 236–42; behavior 145–6; career ladder
Spring, J. 90 473, 490; deskilling 293; dropout rates 240,
Sputnik 81 492; education 19, 238, 240, 488–91; effective
standardized testing 10–11, 18, 264; Common Core 470–2; empowerment 18–19; minority 9, 10,
Standards 11, 12, 35–51, 268–9, 478; 237, 252–61, 489; morale 517; professional
educational inequalities 398, 400; politics 53, development 53, 260, 476, 477;
54, 62; school improvement 478–9, 492, 517, professionalization 168, 225, 240–2, 490;
519–21; sociology 169, 185, 187, 189 qualifications 237–8; quality 7, 13, 18, 237, 238,
standards 1, 4–5, 10, 11–12, 28, 29; history 80–1, 351, 358, 492, 494, 496; recruitment 260–1;
82, 86; movement 35–51, 118, 477; politics retirement 259, 517; roles 238–40; roles
64–5; school improvement 87–8, 472–3, 475, (philosophical perspectives) 199, 202, 206, 208,
476, 477–8 211, 213–14; salaries 237, 473, 521, 524;
Standards Era (1980s-2016) 87–8, 472–4 scapegoating 1, 18, 19, 146; shortages 252–61,
Stanton-Salazar, R. 392 517; turnover 9, 240, 253, 257–60, 261;
state government 33, 52, 118, 271, 473, 477; underqualified 240; unions 18, 31, 33, 44
intervention 496–9 Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools 490
status quo 21, 37, 46, 114, 147, 178, 210, 279, 306 technology 76, 149, 212, 273, 277–8, 375, 473–4,
status-attainment process 313 489
Stedman, L. 397–8 Tennessee 269, 358, 478, 494–5
Steele, C. M. 419 tenure 18, 31–2, 492, 517
stereotypes 137–8, 149, 371, 403, 419, 432, 471 Texas 227, 270, 285, 341, 395, 496–7, 511; San
Stinchcombe, A. 146 Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
stratification 8, 90, 312; curricula 266, 274–5, 85, 394, 499
Index 591
textbooks 33, 52, 71, 149, 225, 267, 269, 270, 285, Useem, M. 186
291, 298, 468 utilitarianism 70, 76
Thatcher, M. 230, 285
Thomas, C. 402 value-added models (VAM) 12, 13, 18, 31–2, 88,
Thomas, W. I. 170–1, 369 358–9, 484–5
Thoreau, H. D. 218 Van Dunk, E. 487
Thorndike, E. L. 77–8 Vanderbilt, C. 76
Tilson, W. 516–24 Varieties of Religious Experience 203
Tomorrow’s Schools 490 Velasco, A. 415, 417, 422, 425
Tomorrow’s Teachers 490 violence 61, 63, 64, 84, 146, 391–2, 474; sexual 439
Tough, P. 501 Virginia 70–1, 72–3
tracking 12, 80, 138, 148, 265, 274, 280–1, 282; vision impairment 366, 373, 480
educational inequalities 399–401, 424–5; Viteritti, J. P. 498–9
equality of opportunity 336, 356; school vocational education 33, 53, 65, 78, 79, 80, 83, 90,
improvement 473, 503; see also detracking 206; curricula 207, 264–5, 266, 280; inter-
Tractenberg, P. 85, 498 national comparisons 230, 232, 233; school
traditional approach 22, 25–6, 28–9, 32, 77, 78–9, improvement 473; sociology 143, 144–5, 146,
80–2, 495 148
traditional and progressive visions 25–6 vocationalization 288, 292
transformative teaching 278–9 voucher system 29, 31, 32, 54, 88, 287, 289;
transgender students 271 school improvement 477, 479, 486–8, 507–11,
Trends in International Mathematics and Science 518
Study (TIMSS) 41, 244–6, 249
Trilling, D. 507–11 Wald, L. 76
truancy 160, 173 Wales 230
Trump, D. J. 5, 88, 147, 479, 516 Waller, W. 140, 234–5
Turner, R. H. 143, 249, 314 Walster, E. 169
tutoring 399, 477, 488, 500, 501 Warren, E. 83–4
Tyack, D. 116 Washington, B. T. 84
Tyson, K. 390, 406–30 Washington, D.C. 75, 106, 112–14, 241, 395, 486,
509
UK 25, 143, 170, 230–1, 265, 293–4, 294, 390, wealthy nations 242–3, 244–6, 247–8
398 wealthy people 312–13, 314; history 69–70, 74;
underachievement 28, 314, 315, 348, 406, 415, politics 55, 56, 58, 65; schools as organizations
425, 469 227–8, 230; sociology 147; see also elites
underclass 147, 245, 312, 313, 314, 489 Weatherford, S. 35–51
unemployment 82, 105, 129, 132, 287–8, 292, 342, Weber, M. 140, 235
391 Weinber, M. S. 171
unions 56–7, 90, 102; teacher 18, 31, 33, 44 Weininger, E. B. 446, 462
universalism 154, 157–8, 185, 201–2, 243–4, 268, welfare 61, 63, 102, 105–6, 120–1, 129, 170
273 welfare state 23, 25, 210, 361
upper classes 141, 144, 147; curricula and pedagogy Wells, A.S. 176–95
274, 275, 280; educational inequalities 398, 468; Western civilization 12, 28, 29, 86, 271, 276
equality of opportunity 312–13, 314; history 70, “What “Counts” as Educational Policy?: Notes
72; see also elites toward a New Paradigm” 52–68
upper middle classes 31, 279–80, 312–13, 314, 390, “What Do the National Data Tell Us About
399, 435, 437; sociology 146, 147, 149 Minority Teacher Shortages?” 252–61
upward mobility 25, 27, 257 White flight 187–9
urban education 12–13, 28, 29, 31, 32; crisis 7–10; Whitehead, A. N. 135, 200, 201, 202
policy 52–68 Whittles, C. 295
urbanization 17, 75–8, 139, 205, 273 Whitty, G. 285, 289, 293–4, 295
U.S. Department of Education 5–6, 8, 10, 11, 13, “Wide-Awakeness and the Moral Life” 218–24
78; founding 226; Head Start 106–7, 112–14; Williams, R. 294
school improvement 493–5, 510 Williams v. State of California 85, 396
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Willis, E. 402
Development (HUD) 63 Willis, P. 391
592 Index
within-school differences 386–7, 393, 396–7, 128–34, 139–41, 209–10; tracking and ability
399–401 grouping 503
Witte, J. 483, 486 World War II 56–7, 79, 80–7, 208, 232, 372–3
women see gender Wraga, W. G. 277
Wong, K. K. 498 Wrigley, J. 90
Woolfolk, A. 138
workers organizations see unions Yee, A. 405, 444–65
working classes 52, 53, 80, 86, 90; curricula and Young, M. F. D. 262
pedagogy 274, 279–80; educational inequalities
387–90, 391, 396–7, 398, 405, 462; sociology Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 482, 486
141, 143, 145, 146, 147; struggle/conflict Zuckerberg, M. 32

Alan R. Sadovnik, Peter W. Cookson JR., Susan F. Semel and Ryan W. Coughlan - Exploring Education An Introduction To The Foundations of Education (2017, Routledge) - Libgen - Li

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alan R. Sadovnik, Peter W. Cookson JR., Susan F. Semel and Ryan W. Coughlan - Exploring Education An Introduction To The Foundations of Education (2017, Routledge) - Libgen - Li

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Education

This much-anticipated fifth edition of Exploring Education offers an alternative to traditional

Alan R. Sadovnik is Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Education, Sociology,

Ryan W. Coughlan is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Guttman Community College, CUNY,

Alan R. Sadovnik, Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Susan F. Semel

ISBN: 978-1-138-22215-1 (hbk)

1 The Limits and Promises of Education: Toward Reflective Practitioners 1

2 The Politics of Education: Conservative, Liberal, Radical, and Neo-Liberal

3 The History of Education 69

Opposition to Public Education 74

4 The Sociology of Education 135

5 The Philosophy of Education and Its Significance for Teachers 196

Particular Philosophies of Education 197

6 Schools as Organizations and Teacher Professionalization 225

7 Curriculum, Pedagogy, and the Transmission of Knowledge 262

The Stratification of the Curriculum 280

8 Equality of Opportunity and Educational Outcomes 311

9 Explanations of Educational Inequality 383

The Rules of the Game and the Uncertain Transmission of Advantage:

10 Educational Reform and School Improvement 470

Appendix: Suggested Resources 525

The Achievement Gaps

57 percent at or above proficient and 84 percent at or above basic; Hispanic students: 21

The Crisis in Urban Education

The Decline of Literacy

Understanding Education: The Foundations Perspective

The History of Education

The Philosophy of Education

The Politics of Education

The Sociology of Education

The Foundations Perspective: A Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary

Critical Literacy and Empowerment: Toward the Active Voice of

The Purposes of Schooling

General Issues: Conservative, Liberal, Radical, and Neo-Liberal Perspectives

The Conservative Perspective

The Liberal Perspective

The Radical Perspective

Traditional and Progressive Visions of Education

The Role of the School

Explanations of Unequal Educational Performance

Definition of Educational Problems

Educational Policy and Reform

Liberals support the following:

Radicals support the following:

Education and the American Dream

The Neo-Liberal Perspective

From Political Perspectives to the Politics of Education

Evidence Use and the Common Core State

What “Counts” as Educational Policy?

Old World and New World Education: The Colonial Era

The Age of Reform: The Rise of the Common School

Opposition to Public Education

Education for Women and Blacks

Urbanization and the Progressive Impetus

of industry as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. Significantly,

Education for All: The Emergence of the Public High School

The Post-World War II Equity Era: 1945–1980

Cycles of Reform: Progressive and Traditional

Educational Reaction and Reform and the Standards Era: 1980s–2016

Understanding the History of U.S. Education: Different Historical

The Democratic-Liberal School

The Radical-Revisionist School

Text continues on page 96.