Segregated proms in a "post-racial" USA

When Obama ran to be the democratic nominee for the US Presidency, many asked if it was the end of black racial politics. When he was nominated as the Democratic candidate, won the election in 2008, some people (like conservative Dinesh D'Souza) claimed that racism in the USA was over, and that the United States had entered a new post-racial era. Still, others note that one election won (no matter how historic), does not change the fact that the US has yet to deal with a major paradox of injustice in its national psyche: the belief in freedom and that all people are created equal and the long standing historical de-jure and de-facto discrimination against particular members of its citizenry.

As a teacher, I point out to my students that just because something has happened once, does not mean that it signals a permanent change, a new reality, or a confirmation of a belief. It's a blip, an anecdote. Until there is an existing pattern supported with evidence in the form of data, it unfortunately can't tell us much. This is not to say that one cannot find hope in that unique instance. One must weigh it against the data from the current reality.

So, imagine my classroom last week when I pointed out to a group of students studying urban education that segregated proms still exist. Some were shocked, and wondered how that could be so. My students are bright and from very diverse backgrounds and life-experiences. It doesn't change the fact that they have more or less been raised in an era in which social studies education teaches them that "we had the Civil Rights movement. Segregation is over." Imagine my reaction this morning when I read the NYT magazine article about segregated proms in Georgia.

The article tells me nothing new but I am sure it will be a surprise to some of my students. What really disturbs me about the article is the Times's failure to really dig deeper than they did. The piece basically focuses on the hurt feelings of the black students. It talks about failed efforts to integrate the proms, and the fact that white students are welcome at black proms (but black students can only stand outside white proms and take pictures of their white friends). I don't want to minimize the grave insult here, or the emotions of the students who were excluded. By focusing on the emotions of students, however, the Times reduces this act of segregation and discrimination to something that is committed against one or a few individuals, when in fact, it is institutionally and community-sanctioned against an entire group of the community itself.

But, some would say, the proms are paid for by the parents. But, other would say, it's the white parents who want to keep black students away from their prom and their children. If that were the case, why didn't the white students protest? Or, as one young black woman mentioned in passing, why did none of the white students text their black friends during prom, or choose not to go? This, in my mind is the crux of the matter: white students, while they may have black friends, girlfriends, or boyfriends, still observe the de facto reality of the community. It's OK to be friends or maybe date outside your race (as long as your parents don't know), but officially, you stick to your own.

The fact that the school does not pay for the segregated proms does not absolve the school administration from its role in this story. The reality that this is the way it has been done since schools were integrated in the 70's does not make the "tradition" (used in the article) does not make it right. This story does serve, however, as data point in a growing list of them that a "post-racial" USA is still a long way off.

Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education

When the list was initially floated around, names like Duncan, Rhee, Vallas, Klein, and Darling-Hammond were present, as were those of a number of governors. On the one hand, I was shocked at the number of pro-privatization, anti-union, pro-business front-runners. On the other hand, it didn't, given the US's love-affair with most things market-driven (only now are we beginning to see how misplaced that love was). Nor was I surprised, then or now, at the union-bashing that occurred. It never ceases to amaze me how quick the US public is to blame teachers' unions (and there are TWO prominent ones at the national level-- the NEA and the AFT). The public seems to forget that when administrators do their jobs regarding ineffective teachers, tenure is no protection. It's easier to blame teachers and unions than understand the complex ways in which schools function. In fact, it's easier to blame unions for anything, especially if it turns attention away from poor management.

I was dismayed at how the NYT jumped to characterize Darling-Hammond as anti-reform. She does not agree with the punitive measures of NCLB, nor does she view standardized tests and attendance rates as appropriate ways of assessing student learning. That does not mean she is anti-assessment, however. Her research into teacher preparation and student achievement indicates that many factors connect the two, and yet, the focus has remained on her criticisms of Teach For America. To present Darling-Hammond as anti-reform because she is critical of business market-applied models of accountability implies that only those who believe in testing and accountability (as it is narrowly defined in NCLB) have the cache to cal the shots. That is a very narrow understanding how what successful reform entails.

The reality is that schools and teachers cannot do what they are charged without support from society. It's easy to blame teachers and schools because it absolves the community of its responsibility. Yes, schools need to be held accountable for student learning, growth, and development. But, they also need adequate support to be able to do that. Part of that support is understanding how challenging teaching can be, even in the most ideal of settings. It's no surprise to me that people would choose not to teach when teachers get so much of the blame for what is wrong with the US and so little credit or thanks for what is right.

Ultimately, NCLB needs to be altered, and the new Secretary of Education needs to work with all stake-holders, not just those with the most power. I will withhold judgment on Arne Duncan until I learn more about him. But, I hope he is more effective than what this nation has endured for the last eight years.

The new NCLB, or, how can we once again punish urban communities for being, well, urban?

I will not deny the fact that I have been highly critical of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for a very long time. True, I was hopeful when it was first released in January 2001. A lot has changed since then as I have watched the federal government narrow public education to tests, scripted curriculum, and more tests. I have been enraged at how poor and under-resourced communities have been expected to produce the same results with fewer resources, only to be further financially penalized when they missed the mark. So imagine my reaction when I read this New York Times article this morning.

NCLB is up for reauthorization this year, and a number of different groups have been weighing in on what ought to be changed. There are the “accountability” advocates who say that they will consider no plan that weakens testing. There are those who want to change teacher licensure so that it can be easier for anyone with a Bachelors degree. And now there’s Miller’s latest idea: to ease requirements for suburban schools.

That’s right, folks. Middle class and suburban communities would be held to different standards. Then again, the article notes that states with large immigrant communities would also have different requirements. So why am I not screaming about the changes for immigrant students? It has to do with understanding privilege and language acquisition. This proposal would relax adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements for suburban schools that have small numbers of students in different groups. What that means is that as long as the schools aren’t failing across the board, it’s OK that a student group or two (as long as it’s small) don’t make it. I thought that was the purpose of NCLB: to ensure that all students are counted. Under this plan, suburban schools don’t have to count all their students.

The changes for states with large immigrant populations are equally problematic. Rather than require schools with large English Language Learner (ELL) populations to test their students in English after two years, schools would have five years. This is good because the research on language acquisition indicates that it takes five years of instruction in English before ELL students would excel academically in an English-only classroom. The downside, of course, is that ELL students will be tested in their native languages for five years, which means that schools need to provide tests in many different languages (in my “suburban” district, that would mean up to sixty different languages). That will be a huge burden to individual districts, to say nothing about the educational impact on ELL students.

So why am I so crazed after reading this article? Because it once again indicates to me that NCLB is nothing more than a shell game to achieve the end of public education. If suburban schools aren’t held to the same standards as urban or rural schools, then the federal government is punishing the students who attend urban or rural schools for being “urban” or “rural” students. And, given the fact that urban and rural public schools tend to have fewer economic resources than their suburban counterparts, the federal government is engaging in a very pernicious form of discrimination. Let me be honest, I am a former inner-city school teacher who is committed to urban education. To have a proposal floated that exempts suburban districts because of their access to academic resources and their lack of “diversity” (read: predominantly middle class and of western European descent) while continuing to punish urban districts is unconscionable.