Inequality, Power and School Success

Case Studies on Racial Disparity and Opportunity in Education

Gilberto Conchas, Michael Gottfried, Gilberto Conchas, Michael Gottfried

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317562061
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Student Life

This volume highlights issues of power, inequality, and resistance for Asian, African American, and Latino/a students in distinct U.S. and international contexts. Through a collection of case studies it links universal issues relating to inequality in education, such as Asian, Latino, and African American males in the inner-city neighborhoods, Latina teachers and single mothers in California, undocumented youth from Mexico and El Salvador, immigrant Morrocan youth in Spain, and immigrant Afro-Caribbean and Indian teenagers in New York and in London. The volume explores the processes that keep students thriving academically and socially, and outlines the patterns that exist among individuals—students, teachers, parents—to resist the hegemony of the dominant class and school failure. With emphasis on racial formation theory, this volume fundamentally argues that education, despite inequality, remains the best hope of achieving the American dream.

Part I
Overview

1 Conceptualizing Disparity and Opportunity in Education as a Racial Project

A Comparative Perspective

Alex Romeo Lin, Sean Drake, and Gilberto Q. Conchas

On August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, an unarmed Black male teenager was gunned down by a police officer in broad daylight. The shocking incident compelled the local community to mass protest and stoked the fire of an on-going national debate about the inextricable link between race and policing. But the full story runs deeper than the horrific events of that summer afternoon.

In a town where Blacks make up 63% of the population, Ferguson, Missouri is one of the most racially segregated neighborhoods in the country. The community suffers from a high poverty rate (22%) and decades of under-investment in public schools and services. The mistrust between Ferguson residents and police officers is emblematic of racial tensions that exist in schools. In the wake of the Ferguson story, an Education Weekly article (Blad 2014) reports that Black students in the Ferguson-Florrisant school district were more likely than any other racial group to be suspended, expelled, or referred to the justice system (U.S. Department of Education 2012). These discipline patterns are consistent across the country. Despite the fact that Blacks make up roughly 16% of total school enrollment, they represent 33 and 34% of students who were suspended and expelled, respectively (McNeil and Blad 2014). The Ferguson story is a glaring reminder that race matters, especially in social settings involving youth and schools.

The opportunity gaps are glaring between dominant and nondominant students in school grades, standardized test scores, drop-out rates, and college completion rates (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center 2011). Our use of the term nondominant students refers to youth and young adults in school whose demographic characteristics and life circumstances jeopardize their ability to succeed academically (Aron and Zweig 2003; Stormont, Espinosa, Knipping, and McCathren 2003). Nondominant student populations must contend with in-school and out-of-school challenges— such as poverty, crime, and a lack of access to adequate housing or health care—that deleteriously affect the quality of education provided to these youth in distinct schooling contexts. Put differently, the educational issues faced by nondominant students are inextricably linked and related to issues and problems that are present within the urban environment marked by limited opportunity (Noguera 2003; Conchas 2006; Conchas, Lin, Oseguera, and Drake 2014). In this chapter, we focus on ethnic groups that have been historically marginalized and oppressed.

One major finding from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report in 2009 and 2011 is that African American and Latino students trailed behind their White and Asian counterparts by more than 20 points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 4th and 8th grade math and reading assessments—a difference of about two grade levels (NCES 2009 and 2011). Moreover, analysis of a national sample of the 2008 high school graduating class revealed racial disparities in graduation rates: 78% of White students graduated high school on time, whereas just 57% of African American and 54% of Latino students achieved the same result (Education Week 2011).

The schooling performance of Asian American students should not be ignored either; intraracial comparisons yield critical insights. Although students of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese descent tend to earn higher grades and test scores than Whites, students from Southeast Asian communities (e.g., Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong, and Vietnamese) continue to lag behind in school performance (Tang, Kim, and Haviland 2013). The 2011 U.S. Census reports that the college persistence and graduation rates for Southeast Asian students among Cambodian (16.0%), Hmong (14.8%), Laotian (13.2%), and Vietnamese (25.5%) remain far below the national average rate (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). In light of these achievement data, population growth of these subgroups of Asian Americans over the last 10 years (20% Vietnamese, 15% Khmer, 5% Cambodian) represent new challenges for school systems (Uy 2008). In addition, there is strong concern regarding students from American Indian/Alaska Native backgrounds. In 2007, Native American students were found to be 2.4 reading grade levels behind their White counterparts, as measured by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) assessment (NCES 2007). A 2003 report by the National Center for Education Statistics also indicates that Native American students had lower college completion rates (39%) than White (60%), Asian (65%), and Hispanic (46%) students (Ingels et al. 2007). Overall, these reports call for closer examination as to why nondominant groups lag behind their more racially privileged peers.

This chapter advocates for using the Racial Formation Framework (RFF)— advanced by Michael Omi and Howard Winant (2014)—to understand how schools are historically shaped by past policies and practices reflecting significant racial implications that seemingly produce unequal learning opportunities for nondominant students, nationally and globally. RFF shifts focus from the observed characteristics of the groups themselves to the sociocultural processes that impact the social mobility among youth and young adults in a racialized ecology. First, we explain the significance of race and why it is relevant in the education context. Then, we highlight structural factors that contribute to the often marginalized schooling experiences of nondominant students. The highlight of this chapter is exploring how racial formations in the form of inequality, passivity, and opportunity have had a profound impact on distinct groups in various U.S. and international contexts. We offer critical implications to the study of RFF in a comparative and global perspective and conclude by discussing the significance of racial formation in schools, as well as the theoretical contributions made to the relevant literature. The aim is to show how racial inequality in education—in schools and communities— can be viewed as a product of racial projects.

The Conceptual Power of Structural Explications of School Success

In trying to account for disparities in academic performance among students from different backgrounds, some researchers have focused on cultural differences to explain individual- and group-level school failure and success, whereas others have investigated the structural antecedents of racial educational inequality. Cultural explanations tend to focus on “the (human) product of beliefs, values, norms and socialization” shared among particular families and ethnic groups that shape the individuals’ own actions (Noguera 2003, 439). In contrast, structural explanations view individuals as the product of external factors that shape their social realities (Noguera 2003). Class structure and social geography are external, structural factors that are particularly consequential for the educational opportunities and life chances of American youth (Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 2012). More recently, empirical researchers have primarily shifted their focus from cultural to structural arguments to explain underrepresented minority students’ schooling experiences, and ethnoracial disparities in academic engagement and achievement.

Structural Explanations on Schooling Inequalities

Bowles and Gintis’s (1976) seminal study of schools— Schooling on Capitalist America— represents the most cited account of how structural factors explain educational disparities between dominant and nondominant student groups. The study considers how schools operate according to correspondence theories, whereby students experience varying levels of social interactions and individual rewards depending on their position for the workforce (Bowles and Giles 2002). Students are socialized differently depending on the class characteristics of their origins. The educational system prepares future blue-collar workers by subordinating lower-class children to external control related to conforming to the work place needs. According to Bowles and Giles (1976), schools may constrain these lower-class children from developing close interpersonal relationships with their peers. Students set for upper-class positions, however, are more likely to experience active peer involvement and opportunities to develop independent skills. Although the study shares useful insights on the possibility that schools have a social reproduction function, Oakes (1982) argues that the study fails to demonstrate actual classroom differences in students’ peer relationships that reinforce differences in social class.

To address these concerns, Oakes (2005) studied the tracking phenomena and how it produces schooling experiences that vary for students from different backgrounds. In the groundbreaking book, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Oakes (2005) presents results from a comprehensive study on school tracking policies that analyzed data¹ from students, teachers, administrators, and parents in 25 middle and high schools. Oakes argued that tracking, as defined as the process of grouping students by ability, was related to students being assigned to academic (high track) and non-academic (low track) preparation. A major finding in her study was that curriculum content and instruction quality varied substantially between different tracks. Students in the higher track were enrolled in courses that stressed critical thinking and problem-solving skills conducive to raising their college entrance exam scores. In contrast, lower-tracked students were typically enrolled in remedial courses that focused on developing rote memorization skills. Oakes contends that poor and nondominant students were largely overrepresented in the lower track. Further, these students developed more negative attitudes about their future plans than their high-tracked counterparts. The implications of her study suggest that socioeconomic status (SES) is central to explaining why students from lower-class backgrounds were typically enrolled in the lower tracks. In considering these findings, Oakes emphasizes that more research is needed to understanding how race and ethnicity play a role in school tracking.

The strength of structuralist theories relates to understanding how certain school practices related to tracking and curriculum development may adversely influence students’ educational opportunities. More specifically, schools provide different experiences for students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds. Students from lower-class backgrounds are less likely to develop positive school experiences (Borman and Overman 2004). Theories that focus on structural factors are useful in considering why nondominant students may have limited success in school. However, one aspect that may be inadequate or weakly defined in structuralist theories relates to understanding the significance of race in school practices.

The Significance of Race and Racism

“Race” is a social construct that highlights differences in phenotype between broad groups of people. Historically, dominant groups have used race as a basis for human categorization and social organization, and to explain socioeconomic, educational, political, and labor market differences between groups (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Fields 1990; Loury 2002). Race is, by definition and praxis, about the creation and maintenance of human boundaries. As such, race is highly useful as an analytical tool to understand the structural, cultural, and agentic factors that perpetuate social inequality.

Students from different backgrounds attend schools in the hope of accessing equal education opportunities. Many researchers continue to be concerned about the ways that students’ racial identity development is linked to their self-esteem (Altschul, Oyserman, and Bybee 2006), motivations (Bowman and Howard 1985), and efficacy (Witherspoon, Speight, and Thomas 1997). Yet despite this substantial body of research, less is known about how school practices reflect unequal distribution of educational opportunities for ethnic/racial minorities. Even though race plays a role in students’ access to academic learning opportunities, it continues to be a powerful presence in other aspects of the school experience, such as friendship and peer groups, club membership (Steinberg, Brown, and Dornbusch 1997), and discipline (Meier, Stewart, and England 1989).

In considering these findings, we wanted to gain deeper knowledge of how nondominant students perceived and experienced racism at school. This required conducting in-depth interviews that enabled students to deliver honest accounts on how race manifested in the school setting. In considering this inquiry, Conchas, Lin, Oseguera, and Drake (2014) explored a sample of low- and high-achieving African American youth who were enrolled in a racially diverse high school² catered towards career preparation in the health, science, and technology fields. Students not only provided rich and detailed accounts on their schooling experience, but also their career aspirations. In general, our African American informants were acutely aware of racial discrimination at the school. These individuals perceived their teachers as having low academic expectations of them and other African American students, at the same time holding high academic expectations of their Asian and White peers. Such signals suggesting that African Americans were not compatible with academic achievement may explain why the participants were more likely to choose non-academic careers related to professional sports and entertainment. Although the respondents also expressed being exposed to racism through gang interactions in their neighborhoods and stereotypes portrayed in the media, they perceived these influences as aspects contributing to racial inequalities at school. It should be no surprise that these African American youths also wanted the school to make racial discourse transparent and an on-going process with administrators and teachers. The findings from this study suggest that nondominant students are not immune to experiencing certain forms of racism at school, and this threat can be detrimental to their perceptions of social mobility.

We argue that the significance of race is reflected in the structural aspects of schools. Race is constantly defined and interpreted in schools, which influences school climate (Ferguson 2001; Lewis 2003; Tatum 2003), curriculum (Banks 2006), and funding (Darling-Hammond 2010). The transparency of race varies considerably and manifests in various contexts from willful acts of hatred (race-based aggressions) to deliberate exclusion of race (colorblindness). Discussions of race, however, venture beyond actions or policy practices reflecting racial discrimination. Instinctively, students and teachers use race to read the world and make decisions on how to act (Lewis 2003). Race never stays static and continuously functions in a dynamic way. For these reasons, schools are often theorized as engaging in the “production of race” (Wacquant 2002), because it can provide lessons and practices that inform students on what it means to be White, Black, Asian, or Latino. Not only do schools ascribe racial meaning to ideas and identities (Almaguer and Jung 1999), but the institution may also draw racial lines on who receives benefits and privileges. Thus, schools are the product of a racialized institution and practices that produce unequal opportunities for students. The racial formation framework evolves from past struct...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• PART I Overview
• PART II Boys and Men of Color: Resilience and the Construction of Urban School Success
• PART III Gender, Self-Identity, and the Cultivation of Sociopolitical Resistance
• PART IV Immigrant Global Communities, Disparity, and the Struggle for Legitimacy
• Contributors
• Index