|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 2 -Problematizing failure: the role of urban schools in the reproduction of social inequality
Particular incidents such as those described at the beginning of this paper, help in understanding the ways in which urban schools interact with the communities they serve at a micro level, however it is also important to understand how broader patterns of interaction operative at the macro influence the formation of social capital. As has been demonstrated in numerous studies, public schools in the United States, serve as great sorting machines through which inequality and privilege is reproduced (Bowles and Gintis 1977; Carnoy and Levin 1986; Katznelson and Weir 1988). They are not alone in carrying out this function, but they more than any other social institution reproduce existing social and economic inequities with an air of legitimacy that makes the process seem almost natural(Apple 1982; Giroux 1982). This is because the production of workers and professionals, future leaders and future criminals, conforms to prevailing ideological conceptions of merit and mobility. That is, those we expect to succeed - such as children from affluent families - tend to be more likely to succeed, while those we expect to fail - poor children, especially those from the inner-city and those whose primary language is not English - tend to be more likely to fail. The conventional wisdom is that the winners and losers earn what they receive in the end, and that the process of sorting is fair and based largely on achievement (Bowles and Gintis, 52). It is also assumed that school failure is the by-product of individual actions - a failure to study and do homework, to behave in class, to attend school regularly - while the collective and cultural dimensions of school failure are ignored.(Apple: 91-102).
The fact that the production of winners and losers corresponds so closely with larger societal patterns of race and class privilege, has not generated much public concern in recent years, beyond those most directly affected. This is due in large part to hegemonic forces which condition popular attitudes and expectations such that the persistence of these patterns seem "normal" or even "natural"(MacLeod 1987). For this reason, even in a period in which more public attention and resources are being channeled into education than at any other time in this nation's history(Cuban and Tyack 1994), little if any of the public discourse focuses on the issues and questions related to social reproduction. Certainly, policy makers speak out with indignation about the "crisis in public education", and decry the failure of urban schools in particular(NY Times February 2, 1999). But individual outcome measures (e.g. grades, test scores, graduation rates, etc.) are used to gauge progress, while more nebulous indicators: school climate and perceptions of safety, the morale and collegiality of teachers, the quality of relations between a school and the parents it serves, are ignored. Amidst all the outpouring of concern about the state of public education, too often the factors that those most directly involved regard as important - access to resources and materials, the state of facilities, availability of trained professionals - receive little attention while instead, resources are directed to preparation for the newest test and the latest curriculum innovation. So far, there is no renewed interest in equalizing funding between schools(Anyon 1997), interest and funding for desegregation is waning (Orfield 1996), and there is no urgent effort afoot to address the acute lack of resources in personnel, materials and services, for schools in the most economically and socially marginal communities(Kozol 1994).
If there is a crisis in public education, (2) few commentators would disagree that it is most acute in America's urban areas. The inner-city, especially those areas now referred to by some city planners as "No-zones" - no banks, no grocery stores, no community services, no hospitals - (Greenberg and Schnieder 1994) possesses more than its share of failing schools. At schools in these areas, drop-out rates hover at around 50%, test scores are generally well below national averages, and metal detectors are as ubiquitous as swings and slides on the playground(Maerof 1988). To the extent that the media carries any news of success at such schools it is most likely that it will appear in some human interest story about a single student, teacher or coach, who managed to overcome tremendous odds to accomplish something noteworthy that normally isn't possible or expected for children living in the ghetto or barrio. (3)
Urban schools in the United States are the backwater of public education, and their continued failure blends in easily with the panorama of pathologies afflicting the inner-city and its residents. This fact is so well known and so taken for granted that like inner city crime, the issue is often not even deemed newsworthy. Following the random shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998, the refrain repeated most often was that "this wasn't supposed to happen in a community like this"(Perlstein 1998). White middle class boys in a white middle class community, aren't supposed to shoot their teachers and classmates. Such a scenario is presumed to be limited to schools in the impoverished inner-city. As such, its occurrence in suburbia is to be explained, at least in part, by "urban influences" that creep into wholesome neighborhoods like an infectious disease via the media or through children from "broken families". (4)
For all of these reasons, the failure of urban schools and the children they serve, is not problematized, rather it is expected. New programs and policies are adopted with some regularity, but there is little willingness to address the fact that urban schools are inextricably linked to and affected by the economic and social forces present within the urban environment. However, they are not merely creatures of their environment. They have the potential to either contribute to the further decline of the quality of life in urban areas, or to serve as a viable social asset that can further the development of positive social capital. My own experience working with urban schools leads me to believe that any serious policy for improving urban public schools must address the educational issues in concert with other issues such as poverty, joblessness, the lack of public services, etc. Such an approach has not been attempted to since the Great Society programs of the 1960s (Pinkney 1984; Wilson 1980), and under the present paradigm of neo-liberalism, there is little likelihood that such a comprehensive effort will be launched again in the near future.
Absent the political will to support the re-creation of massive social welfare programs and investments that would spur development in economically depressed urban areas, it may still be possible that social reforms can be initiated which can bring gradual and concrete improvement to conditions in the inner-city. I believe such an approach must focus centrally on the development of social capital through the improvement of urban public schools. Specifically, the goal must be to transform urban schools into sources of social stability and support for families and children by developing their potential to 1) serve as sources of intra-community integration, and 2) to provide resources for extra-community linkages. These forms of social capital have been identified by Coleman (1988) Woolcock (1998), Putnam (1995) and others as key elements of strategies for addressing the needs of poor communities. I believe the urban public schools are uniquely and strategically situated to contribute significantly in both of these areas, and that the benefits which will derive from such developments will extend beyond the confines of school to the broader community.
Before explicating the elements of such a strategy, two points must be made regarding why it is needed:
The implication of both of these points is that it may be possible to generate significant investments in urban public schools (and charter schools) as a strategy for addressing poverty, social isolation and economic marginalization in the inner-city. A key element to achieving such a possibility necessarily involves directing resources and adopting policies that promote the development of social capital among inner-city residents. Specifically, strategies which encourage the development of social organizations and social networks that can exert influence over local schools are needed. As will be shown in the pages ahead, the cultivation of these forms of social capital can facilitate a greater degree of empowerment, accountability and control by parents and community residents over the schools that serve them. I will argue that to the extent that such outcomes can be realized, urban schools can become a powerful resource for community development and facilitate other forms of political and economic empowerment that can ultimately transform the character and quality of life of urban areas, through bottom-up, grassroots initiatives.
Forward to:
Back to:
Dr. Pedro Noguera is a professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also past president of the Berkeley School Board.
Published in In Motion Magazine May 20, 1999.
The portrait of Dr. Noguera is by freelance photographer Kathy Sloane (kataphoto@aol.com).
If you have any thoughts on this or would like to contribute to an ongoing discussion in the
In Motion Magazine E-mail, Opinions & Discussion column send e-mail to publish@inmotionmagazine.com.
