Group items tagged

I found this quote interesting: "The idea that education can be 'selfish' - a belief largely alien among the upper-middle class - is one poor students often confront, even if it remains unspoken." I think the quote generalizes a bit and, interpreted by a particularly sensitive person, could be seen as trying to induce guilt on the part of rich people (though their guilt MIGHT say something about their unacknowledged privilege). However, I can see that poor students would not want to burden their families by pursuing higher education and thus they get stuck in the cogs of poverty. To close the gap between high and low income students, I don't think we need the privileged to feel guilty for what they have or the underprivileged to feel guilty in asking for easier access to education. Maybe this is an obvious question, but why is college so expensive, anyway? What would really happen if colleges lowered tuition so higher education was actually attainable for a broader group of people? Money isn't the whole issue in why people aren't going to college, but the only argument I've heard in favor of high tuition have been to benefit the already-rich and educated.

In response to Lisa: I definitely understand the meaning of the quote you chose and the inherent guilt that any student might feel because of the high cost of higher education. Building on your point about lowering college tuition, it seems that this would be an ideal goal in a society acknowledging, more and more, the growing need for a degree in the competitive global economy. If America wants to remain competitive, we must produce students capable of handling the issues of today. When more and more jobs require a college education, it seems logical that the necessary training would be more readily accessible, to all groups. Perhaps it is simply the static nature of conflicting politics that prevents change. Or, does the lack of change reflect an attempt to protect the already established class privileges, despite all of the discourse revolving around closing these gaps?

Lisa, I liked that quote when I read the article too. Its very interesting and makes you think. It is true that this remains unspoken and I never thought of education as selfish but when I think about it, it can definitely be seen as such.

Totally agree, Nadia. I don't think we're limited to 4-year liberal arts degrees, either... Vocational/trade schools prepare their students for jobs in the real world too, just in a different way. I'm thinking about that video we watched with the guy who got paid by his company to go to a trade school - that's seriously the best of both worlds! One of my professors says that more than half of the students at UF shouldn't be here because they don't want to be, they weren't wired to study liberal arts. Even though it sounds harsh, I can think of at least a few of my friends who are miserable because they think the only way they'll be happy is to be here and to get this part of their lives over with so they can start getting paid. I'm starting to go off on a tangent here, but I wonder if high school students receive more career counseling, maybe they would actually think about which jobs would give them life satisfaction and not just a 401K... Vocational college could be a great option, but we don't hear about them much! There may be some negative stigma attached to trade schools that make them seem blue collar in a white collar society, and that goes into what you mentioned about the politics of class privilege.

Lisa Lee, In response to your last response, I'm not sure if I understand fully what your professor said. I understand that you're trying to say that students should not be here because they don't want to be, but I don't understand why being wired to study liberal arts would be a requirement for attending a college. I agree that high school students should receive more career counseling but for the most part ( I know my career counselor in high school) did not have that large of an impact on my current professional pursuits. By the time students come to college, they change their minds about what they want to do at least four or five times. Also, often what drives students to go for the 401K is because of their family situation. Whether we would like to be in a financially better position than our parents or our parents are pushing us into that desk job, they often have the largest influence on our initial thoughts of our careers. While vocational college has its merits, I think the main issue with that is that jobs that come from a vocational school are usually less respected and paid less than 4-year college jobs, as you said. Having poor students go into vocational colleges to get less well paid jobs just continues the cycle. I think we should lower tuition though. I honestly don't see why it costs so much.

Krystal, what I got from my professor was that there's a power structure in place that says you must go to a 4-year liberal arts college, you need that "well-rounded" education to be "qualified" for the job market (and thus achieve a certain status in society). But does an electrical engineer need to have 9 credit hours of humanities to be a good engineer? In that way, some professions shouldn't require students to be in a liberal arts program - thus, they "shouldn't be there." From a functionalist/conflict perspective (not saying it's the right perspective, just one way to look at it), those students in poverty are being denied access to higher paying, higher status jobs because they can't afford this type of liberal arts instruction. I don't know how salaries are determined, but I agree that jobs obtained through vocational schools shouldn't be stigmatized in addition to tuition being lowered at liberal arts colleges. About the career counseling, I was just wondering if high school students were more open to vocational schools, they'd take advantage of them. Sure, a student who wants a liberal arts education should be able to receive one and it's a problem that they can't. I'm not suggesting that vocational schools are the second rung, leftover alternatives where we can hide our inner city students, either. But for those students in poverty who give up altogether and don't pursue ANY higher education at all because of the cost, having guidance counselors who suggest this as an option might be helpful - assuming, of course, that they have guidance counselors in the first place.

"Neighborhoods have grown more segregated by class, leaving lower-income students increasingly concentrated in lower-quality schools. And even after accounting for financial aid, the costs of attending a public university have risen 60 percent in the past two decades" Schools get funded through property taxes and because of this low income communities get less money to distribute to local schools as compared to higher income communities with lots of home owners. More home owners leads to more property taxes which gets schools in high income communities more money to contribute to better qualified teachers, better technology, nicer school facilities, etc. The first step to closing the gap between high low income students is allowing schools to provide the same opportunities to all students. This can be done if all schools receive the same amount of money to contribute to student's education. Rather than funding money from property taxes directly to local schools, local governments should collect the money and distribute it evenly among schools in high and low income communities. This way all schools could afford to provide the same learning tools for all students.

In the article, I found the following quote to be very interesting: "With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them." I chose this quote because its saddening to see that education, typically a path that people choose to overcome low economic status, is not available for those students who are academically qualified. Low-income students already have to endure enough obstacles in order to reach a point where they are ready for college studies. By not being able to attend school or be successful in school, these students will be the ones taking the low income jobs. This is just a continuation of the widening of the gap between high and low income students. I believe that Emory's financial aid program is a beginning step to minimizing the income gap. If a student's family made less than $50K/ year, then Emory would turn some of the student's loans into grants. Also, there could be a highly recommended push for low-income students to apply for work-study programs. These programs are usually not too strenuous and are flexible to student's schedule. Overall, I do agree with the previous posts that college tuition needs to be decreased drastically. I was speaking with a friend of mine about this topic and he asked me why couldn't college be free like K-12 schooling. I didn't really know how to respond besides "Oh that's not going to happen." I did not know any legitimate reason as to why some college programs could not do this. It just seemed unrealistic for colleges to do this. Any thoughts on this question?

Its hard to say if it was their low socioeconomic status that led them to not graduate or pass some courses in 4 years, or if it was their social group and the people that surrounded themselves. "schools may have also changed in ways that make parental income and education more important". Education could be reformed in public education by making public schools fair and even for all parents. Taking exams like SAT which determine admissions into colleges, it is important to get a good score. Those who can afford the tutors and prep classes will have a better chance of getting in. I think that there has to be other ways to do this and money should not have to be related to achievement.

"It's becoming increasingly unlikely that a low-income student, no matter how intrinsically bright, moves up the socioeconomic ladder," said Sean Reardon, a sociologist at Stanford. "What we're talking about is a threat to the American dream." This quote really stood out to me because it really shows the issues that we are seeing with higher education. These poor, first generation students are going to colleges that they can't afford, not knowing how the process works and how to deal with it. Without any sort of support system, they are setting themselves up for failure. In order to close the gap between high and low income students, schooling should start by being more affordable. Loans and grants should not be as difficult to obtain, and shouldn't be falsified like in this article. I also think that there should be more work-study programs for those students who have to pay their own way through college. There should also be more involvement at the high school level. Guidance counselor's need to be more helpful in preparing students for college. Especially if they are first generation college students, these kids have no idea how college works and that's not really something that you can learn without any help. In this article, one of the professors tried to reach out to the girl, which is awesome, but she wasn't very responsive and I'm concerned that would be the response of most kids who don't know what they're doing and end up failing. No one wants to admit that they failed so it's easier to just ignore it.

"Weekends and summers were devoted to a college-readiness program, where her best friends, Melissa O'Neal and Bianca Gonzalez, shared her drive to "get off the island" - escape the prospect of dead-end lives in luckless Galveston. Melissa, an eighth-grade valedictorian, seethed over her mother's boyfriends and drinking, and Bianca's bubbly innocence hid the trauma of her father's death. They stuck together so much that a tutor called them the "triplets." " This article brought up a lot of good points and had great example stories. This quote stuck out to me because of the influence peers and friend groups can have on an individual. Families have a huge influence on one's well being and their ability to excel in education. They also can be supportive or detrimental. Not that I am saying it is all the families fault if a student fails, but there is a strong influence. Families do the best they can and some circumstances are challenging ,like finances or trauma within a household. No matter what, a family's situations will effect someone, especially the children. But, there is an alternative when people thing in terms of support. Friend groups can be extremely influential. In my experience, this is what was where my sister and I found the most support, specifically in scholastic areas. I can relate to the "triplets' mentioned in this article. I had friends like that. Through all the chaos of one's home front, there can be outside support that can undesirably beneficial. Although the girls did not excel the way I hope hoped they would, this still brings up a good point. Another good point was the pressure of needed finances as adults and outside influences. Now as far as education reform. I see a lot of hope and promise in after school programs. An example of this working in a beneficial way is when a student is suppose to go home alone when the parent or parent is still at work. An option of just staying at school and working on homework would be

Alexa- That quote stood out to me as well. It is an unfortunate aspect of our economic system, since cost is calculated in relation to the economic condition of the society as a whole, while the individuals are expected to satisfy this generalized goal independently. In other words, what a person must pay is dictated by the wealth of people that have nothing to do with that person, while the individual is left to rely only on his/her resources to pay that cost. It is contradictory to say that an individual has no right to another one's resources, while the resources of all others creates what is demanded of that specific individual.

Lisa- That quote stood out to me because some of the friends I graduated high school with didn't attend college because they felt it would be inconsiderate to do so. When I asked a particular friend why he wasn't applying to colleges, he simply said "I couldn't do that to my dad". It was a response that really expanded my view of education, because I hadn't ever thought of the decision to educate oneself as one which negatively affects the family of the individual.

Keri- This quote stood out to me because it was shocking. I think people underestimate privilege all the time. We can't influence the family we are born into, the environment we live in, or the financial situation our caregivers are in. It would be easier if we were all dealt the same hand of cards but it's more complicated than that. These girls were not born into privileged families and the fact that these girls needed to travel out of their town because of its suppressing environment shows this lack or privilege. Future educators should work on ways to level the playing field so all students have an equal opportunity to exceed in their education.

Lisa-- I like this quote. I remember speaking about this during class discussion one day. Basically, it's the idea that for the wealthy or privileged there is no reason to question the education system as it today. Why would they question something that has worked for them so far?

Yes, I agree Lisa. I do not think there is anything positive that can come from the two extreme classes feeling any sense of guilt for their class. The solution has to come out of accepting the facts and moving on. I also agree that college is expensive! Some more than others, of course. Some areas do have no cost tuition colleges. I had a friend that was from Germany and just here for the summer. She did not pay for college. It was free where she lived. She could not understand why we were actually paying for college. Also, why pay for college and not other schooling? This is something we could work on. This system works in some areas. This change could benefit our goal for equality in education.

Gabrilla-Exactly! "Future educators should work on ways to level the playing field so all students have an equal opportunity to exceed in their education." I loved this thought. This is so true. Making the students feel as if they are all equal is essential. The fact is if a student "leaves his baggage at the door" in some way, they open themselves up to an entire new world. The world outside of the classroom could slip away during the day. Equality in the classroom could help everyone do well regardless of their SES. This would also promote a solid foundation and a feeling of community. This would encourage a "we are in this together" mentality, as well. There are several different ways we could change the educational structure so that the SES could matter less in terms of individuals being educated. I think the small differences we could start with could change the bigger picture more than we initially think.

It is an unfortunate, yet undeniable fact that money opens doors to opportunities. Because of the way schools are funded through property taxes, schools in higher income areas are automatically going to be embellished more so than schools receiving less funds. This fact is obvious in the Oprah video presented in the beginning of the course. However, money isn't the sole factor in a student's success. This is evident in the following excerpt: "'Early life conditions and how children are stimulated play a very important role,' he said. 'The danger is we will revert back to the mindset of the war on poverty, when poverty was just a matter of income, and giving families more would improve the prospects of their children. If people conclude that, it's a mistake.'" It is imperative for parents to positively influence their students from early on in their school careers so that they may overcome obstacles such as little funding.

I was so glad to hear that, "the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades," but at the same time it is unfortunate to hear that, "the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." Race is merely a construct; therefore I hope Americans begin to realize that success does not lie in which race you come from. Now it seems that, "we have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race." The question is what can we do about this? I think we need to regain our middle class. Nowadays it seems that people are either upper or lower class. We see, "that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children's schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources." There needs to be a middle ground in which all students are able to have access to these additional resources. It is quite alarming to know that, "by the time high-income children start school, they have spent about 400 hours more than poor children in literacy activities." More focus needs to be put on this issue because if not the gap between the rich and poor will continue to grow, making it more and more difficult to ever resolve.

Sean Reardon was quoted in the article saying, "We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race." Although this has truth to it, I think money has always been a motivation, even if it was overshadowed by race at one point. However, the statistic that it has grown 40% since the 60s is shocking. Money drives the American economy. It is a sad unfortunate truth. The American dream to come here from nothing and make something of yourself is extremely difficult in today's American society. "One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children." I agree with this. Wealthy parents have more time and effort to put into their children. This does not make lower SES parents bad parents by any stretch. However, the lower SES parents are probably single-parent homes. These parents might have to work more than one job in order to cloth and feed their child. The parent is doing the best they can but they do not have the monetary means to provide above and beyond for their child.

In this article, the New York Times is quoted saying "One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children's schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources." I think this is very true in our society today. I think this article is a perfect description. At my high school, this was truly the case. The higher end families children received the best grades and always seem to do the best in school. I agree with this quote that it comes from how the wealthy parents spend more time with their children, helping them become who they want to become. Wealthier parents seem to push their children more than low-income parents do. In my personal experience, the low-income parents don't always know how to push their children and help them through school because they were never taught themselves.

The fact that, "the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period" only surprised me when it was being compared to race. I have personally heard many times that there is an achievement gap between races, yet never read about so much evidence supporting a larger gap between SES. I agree with the section of the article that talks about parents that have excess money investing in their children with extracurricular activities and services. It makes sense that a child with access to tutors, supplemental stimulation of the brain, and a well rounded up-bringing would have an advantage academically. This relates to the point that the main concern for many of these adolescent students is doing well in school to please their parents, rather than making money to help their parents pay bills. A personal example of this came to my mind while reading this article. When I was younger, my mom used to make my siblings and I help with chores on the weekends, but if we had a lot of homework, projects, or extracurricular activities during the week days my mom wouldn't make us do our chores so we would have time to finish everything else. My mom was fortunate to be able to stay home during that period of time while my dad made enough for both of them. Because she had the time and energy to do the housework, she was able to let us concentrate on schoolwork and activities instead of helping her. This lead to me being able to use my time to take on classes with a larger work load and spend extra time making sure I was successful in school since my mom would continually say, "right now, doing well in school is your job". Yes, the statistics from the article were shocking when I first read them; however, I can see reasons for them that aren't as unexpected. The data has been presented; what we need to focus on now is how to fix this.

I found this quote interesting because I never really noticed that more affluent children do better in school. At first, I thought that intelligence is not connected to wealth but then realized that if a student is not necessarily the smartest student in the classroom, more affluent families have the money and resources to push their child academically. More affluent families have the money for tutors, SAT prep courses, and programs that can help their child's development. I think that there should be more programs that are free to all students that can help all students succeed. A child's success should not depend on how much money his/her family has.

Education was once thought to equalize opportunities between rich and poor students. Public education was designed to increase the chances for success among the less fortunate. However, recently researchers have found that the gap between rich and poor has grown substantially. The recession may be responsible for the widened gap. Also, it is predicted that wealthy parents invest more time and money into their children. Excessive money may be spent on tutors, music lessons, sports, and overall involvement in school. According to a study by Sabino Kornrich and Frank F. Furstenberg, "Americans at the upper end of the income spectrum were spending five times as much per child as low-income families. By 2007 that gap had grown to nine to one; spending by upper-income families more than doubles, while spending by low-income families grew by 20 percent." Another reason for this gap may be due to the amount of time spent exposed to literacy activities. According to Meredith Phillips, "Affluent children spend 1,300 more hours than low-income children before age 6 in places other than their homes, their day care centers, or schools." It is unfortunate that money opens the doors to opportunities. Because schools are funded by property taxes, schools in higher income areas are going to have better programs and more opportunities for their students. Although money does not solely determine a student's future success it does make it easier to pursue goals because of exposure to academic opportunities.

While reading the article the fact that "by the time high-income children start school, they have spent about 400 hours more than poor children in literacy activities" really surprised and upset me. That time spent with reading is 400 hours of extra practice that low income students don't get, which leads me to believe now more than ever schools should offer more reading practices before and after school, which would bring the community together and help out to bridge the gap between rich and poor. That was why I was glad to read that "The connection between income inequality among parents and the social mobility of their children has been a focus of President Obama as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates." The fact that political figures are taking action with this problem leaves me with hope that it become a known problem, which can be fixed.

This article discuss the achievement gap in affluent and poor students. That students are being treated differently based on their parent's income. This is harmful because it can cause problems for all students. One of the quotes from our class readings remind me of this article, "even worse, the new black classes provided white school officials with a handy excuse for "doing little or nothing" to alter the so-called regular curriculum, as another scholar warned" from Black Activism, White Resistance, and Multiculturalism by Jonathan Zimmerman (page 109). Even though the quote and the article are quite different since predominately the affluent families are Caucasian and the poor families are mostly African-American this quote can relate to the fact that this type of division of classes can be destructive.

I was delighted to read in the article that the racial achievement gap is lower than ever before. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in terms of family income. While reading, the first reason that popped into my head that could explain this was families of higher income being able to afford the best educational opportunities for their children. As stated in the  article, "One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents and that's more time and money than ever before in their children… " Because these parents can afford to make these types of investments, their child is more likely to have a more well-rounded educational experience and more opportunity to engage in extracurricular activities. 

"One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children's schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources." This definitely is a big factor contributing between the achievement of kids from poorer and richer backgrounds. Another factor is that property taxes determine how much money schools get. If a child lives in a poor neighborhood and goes to the local school they are at a diadvantage. Children in richers areas that have better schools hire more teachers with masters and doctorate degrees and have better libraries, more computers, and after school activities. If property taxes were not a factor in a school funding, poor students would have the same resources as richer students.

"When the economy recovers, you'll still see all these problems persisting for reasons that have nothing to do with money and everything to do with culture," In my opinion it is also the subject of parenting. Yes, higher income families can provide their children with better resources and extra curricular activities, but that does not stop certain "poor" students from excelling, especially if the parents push them. Unfortunately, lower income families don't always support education due to the financial situation. These students may have to work and don't have the time to do extra things outside of the home.

I have been thinking a lot lately on ways to change the school system for the better. Out teacher suggested the idea of finding a different way to pay for public schools than property tax. This would give students a more equal opportunity than social class creates. Our current system places the students in a specific environment to fail and tell them hard work will get them out when in all reality the class you are in seems to be a determining factor in America life within the last few years. I believe focusing on the allocation of resources with help bridge the gap between class and education.

"Researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." The quote from this article points out a good fact that the gap is shying away from it being a racial issue to a financial issue. However, with that still comes the idea of which races fit into those categories of who is rich and who is poor. It is still evident that even though society doesn't want to shine light on the idea that racism still exists in today's society. Racism doesn't necessarily have to be about color even though it has a factor in the achievement gap. For instance, the schools in inner-city neighborhoods are over-crowded and the resources for adequate achievement don't exist. However, the same cannot be said for students in suburban neighborhoods, where classes don't exceed more than 25 students and books are available for every student. Another quote that rings true for me from the articles says, "when the economy recovers, you'll still see all these problems persisting for reasons that have nothing to do with money and everything to do with culture." Every season has its reason (in my opinion an excuse) as to why achievement gaps exist.

From the article, "the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period". When taking that into consideration, I think that there are certain factors that are contributing to the gap between success and income level, not just the mere fact that some parents cannot afford to send their children to private school. Parents who are at the lower income levels cannot afford to provide supplemental materials for their children, so what they learn in public school could be the only type of education they receive. However, it can also be up to the child to want to be in a better position than their parents because they have seen what they go through firsthand, which could potentially spur their desire for a higher level of success. Although this theory is possible, it is not likely that the children of parents in lower income levels will move up. In fact, only about 10% of children will move up in a social class higher than what their parents are.

"Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." Americans say they believe in children getting equal opportunities for education, but not enough is being done about it. In Florida, the public school funding system just isn't working, and this quotes explains why. Children of the same or similar academic achievement should be receiving the same quality of education. If that is not the case, which it isn't, then a new method of funding should be made. We should be working to narrow the gap between rich and poor students, not merely watching it grow.

"Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." Americans say they believe in children getting equal opportunities for education, but not enough is being done about it. In Florida, the public school funding system just isn't working, and this quotes explains why. Children of the same or similar academic achievement should be receiving the same quality of education. If that is not the case, which it isn't, then a new method of funding should be made. We should be working to narrow the gap between rich and poor students, not merely watching it grow.

This is an issue that I am very concerned with, and I have gone as far as considering participating in Teach For America to help solve this problem and eliminate the education gap. What I do like about this article is something that is buried in the middle of it and could be easily overlooked. It says "now catching the attention of a broader audience, in part because income inequality has been a central theme this election season." It then goes on to say "focus of President Obama as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates." Although so far this is all talk and no action, I feel like the first step in changing this movement is spreading awareness of the problem and generating interest in a solution. I am glad that this is an issue that is being talked about and openly discusses, because that means we are at least one step closer on the road to solving the problem. I have high hopes that if Americans make it an important issue and make that fact known to our law makers, then we will eventually see change and progress in the system to help solve this problem.

Shame of the Nation presents many examples of the sad fact that many New York schools are segregated by race and class, and how students are negatively affected by this. While this Pennsylvania study is ridiculous, it might be interesting to spotlight student achievement if emphasis was placed on segregating genders, rather than focusing on racial differences. The following quote presents an interesting idea about single-gender classrooms: "A national study from UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies claims to show that girls from single-sex schools have an edge over their co-ed peers. 'Single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science,' the 2008 study said." However, segregating seems ineffective all together, because society is not segregated by gender once students reach the real world in adulthood. Moreover, it is important for the development of males to grow and mature with the presence of female peers.

This article was extremely interesting and I could see how segregation could really benefit the students, as long as it is done in a minimal way. A huge issue in the education system is the clash of cultures between teachers and students. Many teachers are white; middle-class women while the students come from all sorts of backgrounds. Therefore, I can see how, "Educators immediately noticed strong bonds being formed between all students and mentor teachers." It is much easier for students to relate to a teacher/mentor that is a lot like them. Our schools today center around a very white, "Christian" curriculum and this may not be the best learning style for minority students. With this said, I think "rolling the clock back to the time before Brown vs. the Board of Education," is not the answer. Segregating students for, "six minutes each day and 20 minutes twice a month," though could help solve the clash of cultures crisis. It is interesting to note the national study from the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information studies, which claims that, "girls from single-sex schools have an edge over their co-ed peers." It is especially interesting that the girls became more confident in areas related to math and science. In a typical co-ed classroom girls may get discouraged since boys usually pick up math and science with more ease. The same could be true with minority groups; sometimes they might be discouraged with the "whiteness" of the curriculum. I think this idea of "segregation" as long as it is minimal could produce results.

I found the idea behind the article quite surprising. At the end of the article it states that this school might be on the right track because of the single-sex research that is mentioned in the two previous posts. I do not think this is a remotely similar comparison. Single sex schools actually exist. Multiple races can be in the same sex school. The idea of segregating by race is not acceptable. This can have so many negative repercussions that it is not worth the risk. There are many things I think the article should have elaborated on because the program was not described that well. This was one of them: "They plan to replace the policy with a 'neighborhood schools system' that critics say will establish real segregation." I wanted to see more information on this because it was wondering how it would be done. Separating by zones (which are primarily determined by SES) would be interesting and not necessarily race discrimination. Poor white people and poor black people would live in the same area so it would not be completely separated by race. However, even this form of separation may make poor students feel inferior and like they will never go anywhere in life because of their SES. I do not think that separation is a good idea; however, I am interested to know the outcome of this experiment.

The article states that, "Educators immediately noticed strong bonds being formed between all students and mentor teachers." This initially sounds positive, however, it also sounds that as the individual groups grow closer, the bonds of the class as a whole may grow weaker as their differences are focused on, instead of their similarities. I understand that the administrators of the school are experimenting with the implementation of recently supported research, but as briefly mentioned in the article, I think they are playing with the fine line that separates individuals who can handle segregation for academic purposes and individuals who will take this application of segregating students to an inappropriate level.

This article was shocking to me. I think it's always good to look for ways to help students achieve more in school but I don't think it should be separated by race. It might be a good idea to separate students according to gender, or interests, but separating children by race is taking a step in the wrong direction. I think that education should be color blind, I don't think race should be considered in any decisions and I think everyone should have the same opportunities. I know that the intentions behind this experiment are good, but I don't think this will help the students in the long run. I think that this might encourage unconscious prejudice.

This article experiments with segregating high school students by gender, race, and language to see if this separation improves academic success. I feel that this article is absurd and experiments like this should not even be considered for they are unconstitutional. I agree that studies comparing the academic success of single-sex education verses co-ed education can be conducted, for single-sex schools exist. However, separating students based on race is wrong. In the real world, a person will always be exposed to others of differing races, so they need to learn to coexist and work together.

While reading this article I could definitely see how separation could be beneficial to students, for it could create a comfort in schools that previously was not there. The quote "single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science" made me think about how race could also be like that. If certain races are feeling inferior to another, separation could allow the students to work better. However, the problem I see with it is that if races are separated into another school, then most likely problems of achievement will still occur and there will be a gap of achievement in the school whether it is all black or white or gender specific. I do not really think that this should be done formally, a lot of times cliques are formed in schools, and I think that is quite enough separation. I think that if the gaps were filled, not dwelt upon, and there was no emphasis on race or gender mattering in school, there would be no one even talking about how one race is different, let alone how they can achieve better.

This article describes a school in Pennsylvania that tried to decrease the separation of students by race, gender, and language, so the administrators decided to create a purpose and goal in the classroom to target only African-American students. This experiment started problems with parents, NAACP members, and educators. I believe this is completely biased to the entire school because if the administrators wanted to truly close the separation of race, gender, and language at the school, the administrators should had focus on all races and cultures. I chose a quote from our readings that correlates with this article "Educators often failed to see that many problems children faced in school were sociological and economic in character and were, in C. Wright Mills's term, "public issues" rather than "personal troubles." from The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education by David B. Tyack (page 181).

After reading this article, I can see how segregation could improve student performance. The article stated that students were place in the classroom with a strong academic role model. I believe that this can improve student performance because students may find this academic role model more relatable or someone who's level of success they would like to reach. Students me also so that the role model understands them better than their teachers and can give them guidance for educational success. A quote in the article that supports this is, "Single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science."

The junior class at McCaskey East is voluntarily segregated by the students, who organize themselves "by gender, race and/or language," said school spokeswoman Kelly Burkholder. Segregating students will not solve problems with low test scores. Research shows that students from different races, ethnicities, and genders actually score better on tests when they are integrated in the same classroom. Regardless of what level students are on it is best for them to learn in the same classroom as their peers. Research says that if you pair a student who makes good grades with one that makes poor grades both students will do well. The student with higher grades will have practice recalling information and the student with lower grades will have the benefit of working with someone who is doing well in class.

As great as this article likes to make this "segregation" sound, there is NO ethical way of practicing this separation. I do believe that all races need to see someone that looks like them doing well in life, but this may be a bit overboard. If they can find a way to make this work then kudos, but this is a touchy subject. There needs to be more proof that it is effective, if not then these studies should stop before it gets carried away.

This idea of modern segregation is appalling. Schools need to focus of the fact that race is a social construct in which we created and can diminish. The article talks about statistics and outcomes but forget that our social lens that is creating these outcomes. Maybe we should be looking at ways to improve testing and teaching methods that will help bridge the gap between races and gender instead of ways to reinforce them. I wonder if any civil right groups have jumped on this since last year.

I really thought this article was powerful in the face that many people would not believe in this. I thought it was interesting when they stated that they believe "that shows grouping black students by gender with a strong role model can help boost their academic achievement and self esteem." I agree with Cassandra in the fact that they are not focusing on what is really important. I personally do not agree with this article or this idea.

When reading this article, I honestly felt like I was going back in time. The fact that the high school was going to be segregated shocked me. I think that the means of this experiment originally meant well, but not everyone saw it that way. When it stated that "the principal defended it", I felt like the school would continue to conduct their experiment as long as possible.

"A national study from UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies claims to show that girls from single-sex schools have an edge over their co-ed peers. Single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science," the 2008 study said. I believe this statement can possibly be truer as it relates to college level education. Just based on my experiences in public school there were always boys that were smarter than girls but felt as though they couldn't perform to their highest achievement because they were concerned with how they might be perceived by their peers. Also in inner city schools it is evident that the drop-out rates of males are extremely high, leaving room for more female competitiveness.

I personally didn't have a male teacher until I reached high school, but I honestly don't have a problem with having a male teacher as an elementary teacher. If a male teacher wants to teach at the elementary/middle school level, then they should have the right to.

I think that this is such an interesting topic. I only had two male teachers before reaching high school, and neither of them were my home room teachers. One was my music teacher, and the other was a higher level math teacher. I really liked them both. But it actually wasn't until this topic was brought up in our conversation at our table this morning during class, that I realized how few male teachers I have. I can confidently say that I have really enjoyed and learned a lot from all of the male teachers that I've had. I think men can absolutely be passionate about teaching. I understand the reasoning for skepticism that is brought up in the article, but I also think that the reasons are kind of silly. if a man wants to teach, he should teach. If a woman wants to be an engineer, she should be one. Oy vay, gender bias.

"What's a young single dude doing teaching fourth grade anyway?!" Oh man...obviously, there must be something wrong with him. The young single girl though? She's in the right place.

"I really think it has a lot to do with the personality of the teacher," said Dr. Caryl Oris, a consulting psychiatrist for the Sewanhaka Central High School District on Long Island, N.Y. "What matters more than anything is that it's a good teacher and the teacher loves to teach." ^Amen, to the above. My elementary school had about four or five teachers assigned to teach the third grade. I distinctly remember one of them being a young male. He was not my teacher. My teacher was a young female, fresh out of college, with a degree but little experience in actually handling small children. She was mean, bitter, and obviously in over her head. She and my parents would constantly be on the phone with one another about something or other (for a child who had been considered a stellar example of good behavior, this was considered odd). I only bring this up because the other teacher, the young male teacher, taught the class that shared a recess with my own. The kids in both classes would play together and talk together and I remember, even now, how jealous I was of the kids in his class. They seemed to enjoy going to school, and their teacher always had some great game or movie to show about whatever the topic of the day was. When our classes played structured games together, he seemed more than willing to do what the kids were doing and had fun doing it. My teacher stood off to the side--a very sharp contrast. PS: My teacher was gone before I had finished the fifth grade. And the male teacher, last time I checked (a few years ago) was still at the elementary school, married and happily teaching.

Coming from another country where the "school district" concept doesn't exist, it is hard for me to understand how students are forced to go to a school that can't provide with what they need/want. For this I don't think that it is a crime for a parent to do anything to offer their kids a better schooling. Although this might not seem fair to some people, I'm sure that if they were in the same situation they will do the same. It could be argued that students could try really hard to be the top student but when they are competing with other top students in top schools...what are their chances?

I agree with this article in a lot of ways. I thought it was interesting that they pointed out how ability grouping starts when a child learns how to read and is separated into different reading groups. I feel like this is way to early to be assessing a child's "potential". Often this is the beginning of a cycle for that child of being constantly grouped into the "lower achievers" and can lead to kids having bad self esteem and therefore accepting their defeat by giving up and not desiring to learn.