Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Education Racism in Tracking Racism in Tracking Ideally, the education system in the United States aims to serve as the great equalizer in the constant struggle to counter decades and centuries of historical oppression against those of non-European descent. The ideology of education as a great equalizer purports a pedagogy as a starting point for those oppressed and separated by such forces as race and class to have access to a quality education, and hence an equal chance at all the US has to offer. It attempts to bring children from disparate realms in a place that serves them all equitably. This ideal constantly challenges the broader values of equality, liberty and democracy considered to be at the core of American ideology. In interpreting this conception, two questions are indirectly answered by examining our educational practices: Does equality in education simply foresee that all students are treated the same, despite their different needs? Or, does it intend to challenge and rectify past inequalities for a truly equitable educational system? The ideology of education as the great equalizer rests on several assumptions. The first, as stated by bell hooks, is the idea that, "To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn" (hooks, p.13, 1994). hooks expresses well the understated notion that, education as a democratic practice, available for all, is based on the assumption that all children, all people, are capable of learning. Another assumption is that children have different needs, and at its best, aims to provide resources according to need. Most importantly, naming this ideology "the great equalizer" in itself assumes that education has the potential to be the key force to counter inequality in society. Though a powerful assumption to make, it can fail to acknowledge the need to reconstruct all other institutions affecting children. The assumptions that everyone can learn, and that schools have the potential to transform a country with a tradition of hatred and an unequal distribution of wealth, extend from the vision of education as a democratic practice where there is "a struggle for both change and the freedom to change" (Irwin, p. 51, 1991). The change is about transforming an exclusive, often oppressive and disempowering system into a more inclusive, equal, and equitable one that is accessible to children from all neighborhoods. Simply, the goal of education is to realize learning environments that foster and nurture the inherent potential of all students, regardless of the class and race privilege they do or do not hold outside of school. National polls suggest that 62% of Americans commit to this goal on an ideological level (Gallup, p. 125, 1993). This sentiment however has scarcely led to action from those with power and resources. Furthermore, this value is countered by the practices of the ideology of education as a gatekeeper. The disputing force mirrors the striations in society where only those born into privilege have access to quality education and life opportunities, while those born into groups excluded from privilege are given subordinate access to equivalent life opportunities, or occlusive access to mediocre ones. In school systems where urban schools are considered breeding grounds for workers of the wealthy, roles and privilege in society are maintained, not challenged, and gates are kept instead of doors opened, all in the spirit of reflecting a larger game of "just the way life is"--a game where only the so-called fittest survive and the "fittest" have a head start. As long as education lives under a gatekeeping system, society remains unchanged as its children learn-rather than learn to change-dominant, White hegemony. Overwhelmingly, this notion is rooted in a historically oppressive society where those who have the power to judge merit, and hence to discriminate, are most often White, wealthy, and male. In other words, the system "has the surface aspects of a meritocracy but merit in this case is predetermined by conditions that are closely tied to class and race" (Kozol, p. 60, 1991). By cheating students who are not lucky enough to receive what they need to excel, the gatekeeper perpetuates inequalities in society by continually widening the gap between those with privilege and those with less privilege, according to race and class. In other words, the gatekeeper works in direct opposition to the great equalizer as a vigorous force that maintains and exacerbates injustice in society. Three ideological socio-economic forces provide a starting point to discuss the practices that support the implementation of education as the gatekeeper or as the great equalizer: notions of who can learn, who deserves resources, and Whiteness and its consequences. These forces encompass three key sentiments that shape the way we educate children in this country. The concept of who can learn informs the ideology of education as the great equalizer in a fundamental way. As a sign in the hallway of one school expresses: "All children are capable of learning" (Kozol, p. 85, 1991). To foster this faith in children, some school districts have been able to employ equitable practices where "equity is viewed as equal access to an appropriate education" (B&S, p. 257, 1996). Appropriate, in this case, is understood as being different for everyone and opposes the idea of a "one size fits all" education system that is not effective for all, and hence, not equitable. In other words, schools respond positively and skillfully to the varying needs that children bring to classrooms. In practice, supplying resources equitably, in terms of giving each student what they most need to learn, translates into different practices (B&S, p. 266, 1996). In contradiction to this, in an attempt to equalize education, state policies regulate curriculum along the lines of graduation requirements, proficiency examinations, and accountability systems (Oakes, p. 23, 1995). These policies cannot be successful because they assume that students enter schools with the same skills, interest in learning, and expectations from parents, schools, and society. In other words, only some students have what they need to achieve the state's goals for them. The fundamental problem is that like many that support the ideology of education as the great equalizer, state policies often erroneously interpret "equality" as treating everyone the same when, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "there is nothing so unequal as the equal (same) treatment of unequals" in society (B&S, p. 267, 1996). Accordingly, if education is to truly function as an equalizer, each student must be given what they most need in order to learn, even when this is not the same for everyone. The notion of who can learn infuses the ideology of education as a gatekeeper in its contrasting view that students' "abilities, motivation and aspiration are fixed attributes over which educators have little control" (Oakes, p. 10, 1995). In practice, this dictates a curriculum that accommodates, not cultivates a student's learning potential. As an example, racist notions of Blacks and Latinos as being incapable of challenging jobs has resulted in the widespread offerings of vocational and trades training in urban communities (Kozol, p.===1991). Overwhelmingly, since race and class are used as indicators for ability and motivation, Blacks and Latinos, as well as those for whom English is a second language, are often cheated of the best educational opportunities. These indicators influence curriculum decisions such as which ability-based tracks students will enter--decisions which correlate directly with the types of opportunities these students will have access to, in terms of college entrance and jobs, if they are tracked to graduate at all. (Oakes, p. 15, 1995). These practices are based on the belief that it is unrealistic to expect equal educational outcomes from non-white children given the "robust findings from developmental and educational psychologists and behavior genetics which have concluded that at least half of the differences in the rate of learning of school children are the results of genetic variation" (B & S, p.267, 1996). This notion of who can learn fails to take into consideration that in the end, we must constructively deal with individual differences whether they are environmental or innate (B&S p. 264, 1996). In terms of resources, education as the great equalizer embraces the idea that everyone deserves the means to learn. At its best, it acknowledges and challenges the scarcity of resources as a myth of society that hurts children by unnecessarily denying them what they need to learn and grow. The great equalizer acknowledges that "we can give terrific schools to all our children. There is enough money. No one needs to ration crayons, books or toilet paper" (Kozol, p. 173, 1991). For education to truthfully serve as a great equalizer, resources beyond these essentials must be distributed equitably. Though seemingly equitable, the practice has been to raise funds in the same way in every district. To expand, funds are raised for public schools mainly through the collection of property taxes determined in accordance with a property's value; this means that those residing in wealthier areas raise substantial sums for the schools in their neighborhoods while those residing in poorer areas are only able to raise mediocre amounts of money for their schools. While the idea of raising funds for schools in the exact same way in every area may seem, in theory to be a fair practice, the results are most unfair. Our education system, because it relies on an unequal funding system that allows the wealthy to raise more money than the poor, is unquestionably inequitable in its allocation of resources; it is precisely the poorer areas that need the most money in order to counter the weighty forces of oppression they face outside of the school in comparison to wealthier children. There is a crucial need for money raised by property taxes as well as by the state and federal government to be shared more equitably and responsibly. The fundamental question is if poorer, often non-White, children are not treated the same outside of the education system, how can they be treated the same within it? In sum, the great equalizer, has been implemented to provide, at its best, equal, but not equitable resources for children. The preceding notion of who deserves resources is challenged by the implementation of education as a gatekeeper and its relation to how resources are distributed. In terms of resources, the notion of who is deserving is tied to the myth of scarcity inherent to the gatekeeper ideology: "Efficiency in educational provision for low-income children...is secreted and doled out by our municipalities as if it were a scarce resource" (Kozol, p. 114, 1991). To this end, resources are rationed by those in power, according to who is considered most deserving and money is strategically invested to match the "potential economic value of each person"(Kozol, p. 74, 1991); Black and Latino children are most affected by this rationing because they are deemed least valuable to the economy. Concurrently, they are given less of what they need to learn, further perpetuating a cycle in which "those who have the fewest resources outside of school receive the least in school" (Children's Defense Fund, p. 71, 1997). Through complex federal and state policies the gulf between the richest and poorest schools is increased, ultimately resulting in an educational caste system, where caste implies stratification and little or no opportunity for mobility (Kozol, p. 55 & 199, 1991). A vivid representation of this unjust distribution of resources is the reality of urban schools that lack adequate books, equipment, teachers, facilities, as well as support and programs. It is in these communities that the most striking evidence of gatekeeping by rationing resources can be observed. In the context of both ideologies of education, the notions of who deserves resources and who can learn are not distinct, as has been discussed, from race. I expand on this association of race, not through a deliberation of the "problem" of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans, but through a discussion of the problem of Whiteness. The US is a racially-conscious society in which those with White skin are afforded power and privilege. The consequence of their power for our education system are deep-reaching and complex. This analysis understands the majority of decision-making power for education, as with other institutions, to be in the hands of elite Whites. The problems that result from this unrepresentative and unequal distribution of power manifest themselves in two overarching ways: by promoting and protecting dominant White ideology and by ignoring the existence of non-White populations. The promotion of dominant White ideology is evidenced on the decision-making level by the normative stance it takes-where all others are considered deviants and are granted less privilege to determine their academic destiny. In practice, this means that those in power determine the education for the poor and underprivileged. At the same time, "the dominant mode of education continues to camouflage its promotion of hegemonic ideology while insidiously undermining the diverse ideologies of Others" (Spina and Tai, p. 36, 1998). The consequences of this racist and classist practice are far-reaching: "What is considered 'adequate' for the poor...is decided in accord with their opinion of what children of the poor are fitted to become, and what their social role should be" (Kozol, p. 216, 1991). One aspect of this promotion relates the ignoble goal of a "melting pot" society in which individual cultures are shed and a collective "American" one is formed. This "common" identity is White and based on the notion that "equality means sameness rather than oneness" (B & S, p. 256, 1996). This idea corresponds with the "traditional 'wisdom' that assimilation via academic achievement is a desirable consequence of public education" (Spina and Tai, p. 36, 1998). This desire for assimilation is facilitated by the teachers and administrators that are hired, textbooks that are used, versions of history that are promoted, languages that are valued, as well as through in-school celebrations, rituals and holidays in a manner that strategically excludes and diminishes the power of racial minorities. The most significant way in which Whiteness infuses the educational system is by ignoring the needs and even the existence of non-White populations. This ignorance reflects a larger sentiment in this country where "cities have become so isolated racially, culturally, and economically...and unfortunately, most of the national leadership has either had an enormous sense of indifference or an overt hostility to the cities" (CQ Quarterly). It is no coincidence that urban schools, which enroll 5% of the nation's White children, 42% of Black children, and 28% of Latino children represent the nation's most decrepit and unhealthy schools (CQ Quarterly). That inferior education for the forgotten and oppressed in inner cities is accepted can be seen in the way that national school reform movements largely bypass urban populations. In its least explicit form, this bypassing means that "goals are tailored to fit the needs of urban schools" in the interest of (sometimes) maintaining a palatable level of education for urban schools rather than raising urban schools up to White standards. Perhaps children see it clearest; one child's answer to the question of whether (racially) "separate but equal" schools would in fact be equal is: "First, they wouldn't be equal...So long as there are no white children in our school, we're going to be cheated. That's America. That's how it is" (Kozol, p. 155, 1991). The reality is that those in power accept different, unequal goals for urban and suburban, colored and White schools and populations. These dual standards are rigidly enforced by the powerful political force of wealthy Whites for whom the system is working. Overwhelmingly, the promotion of Whiteness "divides children in a system with an uneven distribution of learning experiences and access to resources" (Oakes in O'Neil, p. 18, 1992). The foremost problem in education is the inequitable distribution of resources that has resulted from the conflict between two clashing ideologies in education. Although educational practices exist that support both ideologies, the three above-mentioned forces are inconsistent from one ideology to the other, making it self-contradictory for the two ideologies to co-exist. Presently, the ideology that education should serve as a gatekeeper dominates our educational practices; the gatekeeper is winning the battle of which ideology will pervade. The major consequence of this conflict in ideologies is that children "experience a large portion of their school day and year very differently from one another", where the "difference" is in quality (Oakes in O'Neil, p. 19, 1992). Why is our current education system maintaining the many inequalities outside of the classroom as opposed to countering these realities? Our education system is only a part of, as opposed to distinct from, a federal and state government that maintains oppression institutionally; schools are simply another institution and tool exploited to perpetuate oppression through government neglect. Jonathan Kozol has termed this practice "compulsory inequity" since the state, "by requiring attendance but refusing to require equity, effectively requires inequality. Compulsory inequity, perpetuated by state law, too frequently condemns our children to unequal lives"(Kozol, p. 56, 1991). A key technique for the state and other such powers to maintain inequalities that exist outside of school inside the classroom, is to exclude those with the least power and privilege in society from making decisions about their own children's education. Decisions are made for, rather than with people (Freire, p. 30, 1970). Without representation and power, only the needs of the privileged are met because only theirs will be voiced and deemed important and representative of all races and classes. An intense and deeply rooted problem as an unequal education system cannot be solved though a handful of well-intentioned, small-scale programs (Montag, p. 4, 1991). Rather than searching for one solution, the reality is that we need many solutions. In this search, we must acknowledge and accommodate the reality that not all solutions will work for every child in every school. Simply, the problem must be approached from the point of view that untangling it, just like democracy, is a process, and not an end in itself. In my view, system-wide, large-scale reform is needed to achieve the goal of "getting all young people as close as possible to their upper limits of learning potentialities" (Perrone, p. 15, 1991). This is crucial to ensure change because "trying to transform schools within the existing structure is a contradictory process" (Murphy, p. 38, 1991). The first step is to involve the traditionally voiceless at all decision-making levels to best determine what the needs of the least privileged are, if we are truly committed to providing opportunities that respond to children's needs. I specify, "opportunities" through funding based on my assumption and belief that money can improve education through attracting and keeping good teachers, reducing class sizes, establishing programs to respond to different needs, and maintaining healthy facilities and quality resources. Equitable funding, where all children have the chance to receive a high-quality education, is the first step towards education acting as the great equalizer in a country where oppression limits, dehumanizes, and disempowers in virtually every other life realm. Bibliography: Word Count: 3147
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.