In my opinion, to reap the full benefits of economic integration, the parents of the low income student must be motivated to find a balance for their child. Not only do you have to worry about parents at affluent schools hunkering down; you also have to worry about the fact that your child is in essence, living in two worlds. The low income child must have family support and possess a strong sense of who they are and where they want to go. Perhaps then, they can successfully maneuver the duality.
Study of Montgomery County schools shows benefits of economic integration
The idea is easier to apply in areas with substantial middle-class populations and more difficult in communities, such as the District, with large concentrations of poverty. Yet it lends fresh support to an idea as old as the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954: Segregated schools - in this case, separated by economics, not law - are rarely as good as diverse ones at educating low-income students.
Today, 95 percent of education reform is about trying to make high-poverty schools work," said Richard Kahlenberg, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank based in New York that published the report. "This research suggests there is a much more effective way to help close the achievement gap. And that is to give low-income students a chance to attend middle-class schools."
"The conventional wisdom - and I don't want to knock the foundation of it - is that we really need to infuse the poorest schools with lots of resources," said Stefanie DeLuca, associate professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, who has studied the issue and read an advance copy of the report. "This study turns that wisdom on its head to some extent. It says, actually, it's who you are going to school with."
Researchers say that poor schools often struggle because they tend to attract rotating staffs of less-experienced teachers and administrators, among other problems. Schools with lower levels of poverty have a range of benefits that include more stable staffs, fewer discipline problems and more support from volunteers. Parents who have one job instead of three also have an easier time being involved. And expectations are usually higher.
"This is not about 'poor kids can't learn,' " DeLuca said. "It's about the fact that we've had a legacy in this country of segregated neighborhoods and socioeconomic isolation from opportunities and the mainstream of life."
Today, 95 percent of education reform is about trying to make high-poverty schools work," said Richard Kahlenberg, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank based in New York that published the report. "This research suggests there is a much more effective way to help close the achievement gap. And that is to give low-income students a chance to attend middle-class schools."
"The conventional wisdom - and I don't want to knock the foundation of it - is that we really need to infuse the poorest schools with lots of resources," said Stefanie DeLuca, associate professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, who has studied the issue and read an advance copy of the report. "This study turns that wisdom on its head to some extent. It says, actually, it's who you are going to school with."Researchers say that poor schools often struggle because they tend to attract rotating staffs of less-experienced teachers and administrators, among other problems. Schools with lower levels of poverty have a range of benefits that include more stable staffs, fewer discipline problems and more support from volunteers. Parents who have one job instead of three also have an easier time being involved. And expectations are usually higher.
"This is not about 'poor kids can't learn,' " DeLuca said. "It's about the fact that we've had a legacy in this country of segregated neighborhoods and socioeconomic isolation from opportunities and the mainstream of life."
Scars from busing battles
But questions about integrating school systems have not been front-and-center since the 1970s, and scars from school busing battles have made policymakers leery of raising such issues again. Most districts nationwide now assign students to schools based only on where they live.
But questions about integrating school systems have not been front-and-center since the 1970s, and scars from school busing battles have made policymakers leery of raising such issues again. Most districts nationwide now assign students to schools based only on where they live.
Parents with the means to live close to top-performing schools often have resisted efforts that would send their children to schools with larger numbers of students from low-income families.A growing number of school districts - at least 60 so far - has in recent years been experimenting with strategies that promote economic diversity. These include magnet schools, student assignment policies that take into account economic status and agreements that give poor kids a chance to attend schools in wealthier suburbs.
Dominique Johnson, 13, who attended an elementary school in the District before moving to a public housing apartment in Bethesda, said the difference was obvious.
"It was a bad, bad school," she said of her old school, shaking her head. "The principal, I don't think she did anything about all the fights. I had this one teacher who would curse at the kids."
At North Bethesda Middle School, she said, she found rules, focus and difficult classes with attentive teachers. Her grades dropped. But after a year or so, they improved.
"Now I understand the work," she said. "I've made friends. The principal is nice. It was harder at first, but at lunch I'd go to classes and the teachers helped me."
Hat tip @ Frustrated. Read the entire article here...
19 comments:
Sorry Laura I lost your comment when I reposted. But I agree, the little girls in the photo are adorable. I like the old schools bucks and dresses.
I am not sure how I feel about about this topic. I guess I think it might be an approach to be used in conjunction with other methods. With 70% proverty in District 150, there are not very many middle class schools/students left in which to integrated low-income students.
I agree with Emerge that a certain type of low-income student would benefit most from this type of placement, but unfortunately, I don't see the District handling transfer requests and providing learning opportunities based on the "best fit" for the student. At least this is my impression.
The Raleigh Durham area has been using economic integration for a number of years and considers it a success. The well off kids do better and the poor kids have done better for it.
The biggest barrier here in Illinois to doing something like that is the balkanization of our school districts. They were laid out for different time (19th Century?). Illinois needs to consolidate districts. Unless that happens you will never see Dunlap kids being bussed south.
It is my understanding that John Parkhurst, when he was a state legislator, made certain that Dunlap would never be part of District 150. I don't know how secure that ruling is. John was extremely upset when Richwoods was forced into District 150 and wanted to make sure that the same never happened to Dunlap. Do I think his anger had something to do with integration? Yes, I do--just my perception.
Just because you are poor doesn't mean you have to be stupid.
Mahkno that's right, however, recently citizens voted in a new BOE and the economic diversity policy was eliminated.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/24/404299/tumultuous-session-ends-diversity.html
@Sharon- as a friend to the Parkhurst family I am offended by your comment. To assume any racial motivation behind Mr. Parkhurst's actions is just plain wrong. He was a kind and loving man who did many great things for the community.
Hey, Sharon, from what you said on the DWG topic, would your comment on Parkhurst qualify as an attack on a person's character?
I'm pretty sure we'll see from you an "I errred when I said...." - but the damage has already been done.
No, John wrote about that decision in a letter to the editor, not too many years ago (before he died). In the letter he bragged about insuring that Dunlap could never be part of 150 and, I believe, stated that he was glad his grandchildren would never be forced into 150.
Anyone who knows anything about Peoria history knows that the opening of Richwoods coincides with the Brown vs. Brown decision and the knowledge that District 150 would be forced to integrate. And the decision that brought Richwoods into 150 happened not that long after--integration was still a hot-button issue.
John was a kind man--and I absolutely loved his wife. He was no more a racist than all my other friends who were, also, friends of John's. I agree it isn't fair to equate racial attitudes then with racial attitudes today--everyone has had a chance to move beyond some of the views of the 1960s (although when I read PJS blogs I realize not far enough).
Nevertheless, that era is fairly clear in my mind and the decision to open Richwoods and the anger when it was annexed into 150 was very related to integration. And please do not put words into my mouth--I didn't say racism and I didn't call John a racist. I cannot judge whether or not race had anything to do with his decision, but he was more than likely against integration. We can't rewrite history.
John Parkhurst can speak for himself (I think I'm on firm ground saying he was against integration):
This is John Parkhurst’s letter to the editor in 1995—Pat Benassi wrote a rather scathing response of anyone would like to check out the PJS archives
FORCED SCHOOL INTEGRATION>IT KILLED PUBLIC EDUCATION, AUTOMATIC ANNEXATION
Sunday's editorial raised the question of whether Diane Cullinan's proposed shopping mall at the corner of Route 150 and
Route 6 should automatically take the development area out of the Dunlap School District, which it's in, and add it to the city's School District 150. Shouldn't 150 get the added tax money? You refer to the 1961 special legislation, which I sponsored along with my two Peoria colleagues in the Illinois House of Representatives, Bob Burhans and Jim Carrigan. Peoria was about to annex Richwoods Township, after referendum approval, and our bill would permit the annexed area to become part of the city school district -- not a separate Richwoods Township school district. It happened and District 150 took over the Richwoods schools. In came Kellar and Richwoods High School. Economy, uniformity and efficiency. Good law.
But you point out that in 1967, six years later, my colleagues and I apparently changed our minds and made consolidation of school districts only possible by referendum. That's the only way it can happen in Illinois now, and I think that's the way it should be. Let the people decide. No automatic annexation any more. Why did I change my mind? A compelling reason, which you failed to mention. In 1954 the Supreme Court had come out with a landmark decision. It was Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, and it mandated the racial integration of public schools in cities which had substantial minorities. How to do it became predictably difficult, and the federal courts in many areas became micro-managers of the local schools trying to figure out how to integrate the integration. Neighborhood schools were out, busing and cross-busing were in, and racial quotas were set for every school in a district. By the mid-'60s, the effects of forced integration were becoming dismally apparent. In many city districts test scores were down, drop-outs were up, parental participation was nil and the worst was yet to come. Now, 30 years later, in many fully integrated city school districts things are so bad we don't know what to do about it. Guns and knives carried to the school doors, drug-pushers on the playgrounds, violence inside and outside the school buildings, diplomas being given to high school graduates who can't read English and on and on. More money certainly isn't the answer.
So in 1967, your Peoria legislators saw what was coming and we voted to let smaller school districts around us, which didn't have integration problems, like Dunlap, remain independent unless their citizens voted to consolidate with an adjoining district. Thank goodness for our insight.
As for the effect of the Cullinan project, if it succeeds the likelihood is that being in the Dunlap School District will be a drawing card for substantial nearby residential development. More nice homes, more children in the high-quality Dunlap schools, more money for the district. What's wrong with that? And if the Dunlap schools get more money than they need from the shopping mall and the residential expansion, perhaps the School Board could give the property owners a decrease in the school tax rate. Even better! John C. Parkhurst Peoria
Might as well add Benassi's comment:
August 19, 1995
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: ALL
Page: A4
RACIAL BARRIERS UNFORGIVABLE>PEORIA DENIED MINORITIES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY[
John Parkhurst's recent letter to the Journal Star explaining that in the late 1960s, he and other white state senators from the
Peoria area enacted legislation, for the specific purpose of preventing school integration in the predominantly white communities around the city of Peoria, is an astonishing confession of racism and white separatism.
What is even more tragic is that Mr. Parkhurst still brags about this achievement. His letter demonstrates what happens when power and privilege unite with bigotry and prejudice to hinder the integration and advancement of all people in this community, goals which are vital to our survival and prosperity.
Unfortunately, Mr. Parkhurst and his colleagues have created a situation which has resulted in our community becoming more and more educationally isolated and deficient. The citizens of Peoria must address major problems which exist not only here, but throughout our country, with limited and shrinking resources, due in part, to a legislative wall erected to keep our black citizens out of surrounding white communities.
Like many Americans born after World War II, I grew up at a time with "colored only" drinking fountains and "colored only" bathrooms; where black Americans sat at the back of the bus, provided, of course, that no white people had to stand; where black Americans left the sidewalk and walked in the gutter if too many white people were on the sidewalk; and where black Americans were prohibited from attending white grade schools, high schools and universities. When I entered law school in 1966, there were racial quotas limiting the numbers of blacks who could attend. I watched in 1966, as a black American tried to enter the University of Mississippi, and was almost killed for doing so. I watched as Martin Luther King was assassinated for preaching love, racial unity and reconciliation.
In 1969, when my husband and I came to the Peoria area, to put down our roots, raise our children, make life- long friends, contribute to the community, earn a living and grow into middle age, we did so believing that the principles of racial equality, integration and reconciliation were the goals of the good and decent people of all races who lived here. However, while many Americans were helping racism crumble, Mr. Parkhurst and his colleagues silently, invisibly and unforgivably were building a barrier around Peoria designed to deprive some Peorians of the same equality of opportunity that the rest of us had.
The Baha'i faith analogizes the different races of peoples to flowers in a garden. Some are roses, some are daisies, some are lilies, but all make up the bouquet of humanity. Racism, however, is like a weed which chokes the life out of the flowers, stunts their growth and causes them to die before their time. Each generation of flowers must be protected against the weeds of racism, bigotry and prejudice. Equal education and opportunity for all is one way to do so. Let's all do what we can to pull these weeds from our Peoria garden. Patricia C. Benassi Peoria
I made a grammatical error that implies something that isn't fact--I stated "He was no more a racist than all my other friends who were, also, friends of John's."
I should not have used the word "other," implying that John was a friend of mine. I did have friends who were very good friends of the Parkhursts.
Also, of course, it was not Brown vs. Brown--it was Brown vs. the board of education.
Thanks for the information, Sharon. It is I who must say "I erred..."
I should have asked the question only - without the commentary/insinuation - until I had more carefully researched the topic, and had more carefully focused on what you actually wrote.
Even if you don't mind being the target or don't feel any damage was done, there is a better way to discuss the issue, IMO.
There is an interesting article on Wikipedia about racial integration and desegregation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_integration
I discusses what some, though not all, consider a distinction between desegregation (forced) and integration (voluntary or incentivized). It also discusses how the words are often used interchangeably - further confusing the distinction.
John Parkhurst's letter, for example, initially focuses on "forced integration", though later he says only "integration".
It brings up an interesting challenge. Choosing between "free will" and what is arguably the "greater good". While the current law allows the districts to combine if the citizens so choose - we also know that will probably never happen.
I can't help but think of the universal health insurance mandate and how that relates (or doesn't) here. That's one I'll have to think about for a while. (even though I often sound as a proponent of free choice generally, but especially for schools, I favor universal health care (as well as a single payer system supplemented by private insurance a la Medicare).
I guess you just can't simply say that you rushed to judgment when you made your comment previous to the posting of the letters to the editor.
Now you're switching the topic to a totally irrelevant issue--insurance. I think John made it abundantly clear that he was talking about racial integration as soon as he mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education.
Also, John's stance on integration wouldn't be important if it were in the past, but the legislation for which he takes responsibility/credit is very relevant today--it is the reason that Dunlap schools are not part of District 150. I am not saying they should be, but people have recently stated that Dunlap should be part of 150, etc.--I have provided the answer to that question.
Gee, my acknowledgment of my error wasn't done in a manner acceptable to you. Imagine that. How about this. I am sorry for ____ (you can fill in the blank most acceptable to you).
Did you even READ any of the article I quoted or what I WROTE?
The issue I brought up is one over forced racial desegregation (the greater good) and voluntary racial integration (free will). Arguably, John Parkhurst was against the former but not against the latter. That is far different from merely saying he was against integration. You have to delve into what exactly "integration" is and whether or not it is different from "desegregation", even though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
And when you think about the law, and how it could be changed, you have to understand that it could involve far more than a discussion of Dunlap and Peoria school districts. Why stop there? Why not county school consolidation, for example?
It is a discussion. And I made an observation about the the shared struggle (greater good vs free will) with another social issue.
I hadn't read your comment on the other blog--yes, coupled with that one, your comments are very acceptable. John may not have been against the latter, but--by his own admission--he did so, knowing that the chances of it every happening were almost nil. John was against integration--period.
Of course, you did make the distinction before you read John's letter--there should be no question where John stood. He blamed integration (forced or otherwise) for all manner of problems. That's why I didn't read your article--I knew the argument didn't apply to John's stance--and his efforts and stance were very much with Dunlap vs 150 in mind. You were offering John some excuses that he didn't even want.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the series of posts about Mr. Parkhurst is that in the fairly recent past I had the opportunity to coach one of his grandchildren for 4 years at a District 150 school.
Spikeless, glad to hear it! My own attitudes about integration and race certainly don't match the attitudes of the older generation in my family.
I didn't really aim to attack John--actually, don't think I did. The topic of this post related to integration--John's actions as a state legislator certainly affected that issue in the Peoria area.
The more I look into this topic, the more I find myself standing in favor of economic integration in public schools. I feel this way for several reasons, many of which are discussed in this blog post. First, current efforts to increase testing scores at high poverty schools are clearly not providing appropriate results. I am specifically referring to NCLB here. In my opinion, the benefits of NCLB do not outweigh the inherent disadvantages. This blog post also caused me to think more about the caliber of the faculty at low performing schools. Quality school teachers look for a stable school in which they can devote many years of practice. These low economic schools are definitely attracting a constant rotation of school teachers and administrators, which makes it difficult to see any real improvements made. Finally, I see economic integration as beneficial to both sides. Low income children will find the stability and resources they need at a middle class school. But I strongly believe that middle class students need exposure to diversity as well. Minorities in our nation may very well one day be majorities. In order to produce effective citizens who can work with all races, we need to allow our students to experience diversity early on. I will end by saying that again and again we see that separate is simply unequal.
Post a Comment