<p>Does anyone have experience with a racially or socioeconimically diverse school where high achieving minority students are clustered together?
Most of our “inner” and “outer” city schools here in Pittsburgh are actually diverse, and we would like to keep them that way! But we have to conquer this achievement gap…</p>
<p>“…and to reverse the traditional attitude towards schooling.”</p>
<p>The traditional attitude in the African-American community towards schooling was struggle, perserverance and achievement. This was prevalent until a couple of generations ago.</p>
<p>Very true, Lake Washington.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, that was me :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know there are other parents on CC whose kids have experienced this, and mine certainly have as well. I would not say our kids were treated as total outcasts, but they were seen as “different” and not a part of the “inner circle” so to speak – in either community, black or white. Even as parents, my wife and I were criticized by some of our friends and family about the way we were socializing our kids. So, on the one hand we felt strongly we were doing the right things for them educationally and in terms of being broadly competitive. On the other hand, there was definitely a sense, a fear even, that socially, we were putting them on an island. We all felt it. Once in awhile these issues still come up in some form or another, but we’re well beyond grappling with all that these days. But during those formative years it was absolutely something with which we had to come to terms. It can certainly be a problem, especially if there’s not a lot of support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong descriptor. What I meant was </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>levirm, it could be a geographical anomaly; I don’t know how to compare your region. I am only saying that mixed minorities, or comprehensively diverse student bodies, have not been so helpful for African-American males in particular, until these specially configured schools have arisen. Obviously there is no racial component to admission qualification, but as charters go, they do attract populations for which they are intended, and conversely communities tend to form charters based on perceived cultural needs. (There are Muslim public charter schools as well, as a separate topic.)</p>
<p>For example, I have taught in KIPPs which are 100% Latino. They have the same aura about them: assumptive attitude toward college, extremely long day, double-to-triple immersion in language arts & math vs a non-charter site school, etc. Unlike other site schools of 100% Latino enrollment, all instruction is in English in the “chain” charter schools, and I will tell you that the achievement is miles ahead of the site schools in which the students are being instructed largely in Spanish.</p>
<p>I antiicipate that some here might be concerned that any population would be encouraged so universally to attend 4-year college. Understand that divergent needs are becoming more of a spoken issue in minority communities recently. As with all populations, some minority students will not be inclined toward 4-year college, or yet mature enough, confident enough for it, but can become energized by vocational exposure prior to age 18, and ready to commit to a vocational track even within the high school years. Not every black and every Latino urban student will thrive maximally in a KIPP-type school, despite the optimum environment. For such students, neither the “theme” charters nor the traditional underperforming site schools are addressing their futures. That’s why there’s been more attention recently to developing local alternatives which address the right brain more than the left.</p>
<p>Regardless, what is not serving underperforming students of any kind – urban/suburban, minority/majority – is a status quo school culture which de-emphasizes structure, expectations, consequences, and outcomes. In my work with these students, the sine qua non is structure. That works for me because that’s my natural teaching style anyway, but it does not work for an awful lot of teachers these minorities typically encounter (esp white and Asian females, slightly less so for white and Asian males I see teach).</p>
<p>epiphany, given the reality that not all minority students will attend a charter school, but only those with the most motivated families who had it together enough to sign up, what do you think should be done to combat the problem described in this article in the regular public schools? Should high achieving minority students be clustered whenever possible?</p>
<p>I discussed this article with my coworker, who is an African American woman in her 20’s. She says it rings true. She experienced it herself as a middle schooler when she moved from a diverse area to one that was more segregated (overwhelmingly AA). She said she dumbed herself down to fit in, and she eventually started bullying to cope with her conflicting feelings. </p>
<p>She is now earning a masters degree in counseling.</p>
<p>kelsmom, did she feel that pressure in the diverse area also?</p>
<p>“dumbed herself down” to fit in? sounds like your coworker had/has other issues…</p>
<p>Perhaps, calimami, but a task of development for adolescents is to conform to a peer group - so an anti-achievement culture among peers does put pressure on the individual teenager. I am not at all surprised by this reaction.
Opinions on how to address this in a non-charter, diverse urban school, anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I personally find clustering helpful/useful, particularly as students advance and peer interaction becomes more important, not just socially but cognitively. (It’s always a factor cognitively, but students as they age become more aware of it and take steps to seek it, and reflect on the validation of peers.)</p>
<p>I strongly believe, having bridged several radically different phases in education (on both sides of the desk), that many of our current problems are stuck back in “political” territory. (“Bad to label,” “bad to track,” "bad to separate out "- for whatever reason; ‘all separation is reminiscent of segregation,’ ‘all separation ostracizes or produces shame,’ yadayada.)</p>
<p>I’ll tell you what concerns me, though: the trend – now at least outspoken and frank – that schools should be doing even more of what they have heavily been doing in my region: diverting (by law) funds for academics into funds for social services-- on site, in school. That in itself is to me problematic in an era of shrinking education budgets, but what is far more problematic is how this assumption and diversion is expanding. </p>
<p>Examples:
(1) A few weeks ago, when perhaps another study on minority gaps was made public, the response locally was to insist (given huge social needs locally) that in order to close such gaps, districts must become even more dedicated to social services than currently. Further, an expansion of that was proposed: “the whole community” being served, as a foundation for academic achievement, with specific needs being listed for whole families: medical, economic, legal, and more. Interestingly, I didn’t see among that list what I would put as a priority: community educational centers which would include a wide range of resources for a wide range of ages, child through adult – late-hour library, tutoring center, adult classes, etc. (I have to grin that what I proposed several years ago is becoming an interest of the Obama administration; no, they didn’t hear from me; they’re just smart. ;))</p>
<p>I get it that when a student is distracted due to one’s environment, and specifically due to poverty, it’s difficult to stay attentive & motivated. I’ve been there, less severely but there nonetheless. But the idea, as massively as being suggested, would have to be enormously expensive. Those proposing it are suggesting (I think) that cities fund such community efforts, not school districts. (Good luck with that anyway.) In fact the very cities in greatest need are those with the fewest discretionary funds.</p>
<p>If this is “essential” (so the proponents claim), where will the funding come from? If it’s “essential,” then what society is doing is formally accepting, at taxpayer expense, the suggestion that individual households are no longer responsible for their children, and/or can no longer be held accountable for their children – because of comprehensive incapacity. What is being suggested is a massive foster-care system, and not just for the students – for their parents! Over and over, these advocates have said that minority students “will not perform” without vast, government-initiated social support external to the school.</p>
<p>I sound really critical; I don’t mean to be. I’m just suggesting that citizens should stop and examine the assumptions. Are we first of all saying that urban minority students need extreme levels of rescue due to virtual abandonment? (One of the spoken rationales was that the parent or parents “can’t” provide support or oversight because of – in many cases – underemployment, desperate financial situations, negativity, sometimes imprisonment of one parent, and insufficient commitment to school itself as essential to success; no enthusiasm and possibly even resistance at home to making an effort in school.)</p>
<p>It may be true; it may not be true; and to what degree I can’t calculate, not being a social scientist. But to me it could be a slippery slope – this shift of responsibility. And at what point or population do we stop? I’ve lost count of the number of dual-career upper-middle-class parents in the last 3 years who have told me that they “can’t” support Janey or Johnny either, because (a) they’re too busy making $100,000 - $300,000 a year in a 65-hr work week; (b) they’ve all but lost authority over their child, due to neglect of involvement for several years; (c) they find it extremely uncomfortable to confront their child regarding his underperformance (thus they choose not to); (d) they are “afraid” to enforce consequences for academic underperformance because of the child’s strong reaction and rebellion to consequences. They tell me frankly that they would prefer that I create discipline and suggest consequences. (!)</p>
<p>Are these families also candidates for foster-care? Should we ask the local or federal gov’t to fund mandated parenting workshops at taxpayer expense, in those communities? Conduct as part of those “community services” workshops in values (family relationships vs. materialism?) Where does this end? That’s a philosophical matter. The practical question is identical to what I asked above: Who would/should pay for this, and how?</p>
<p>(2) I forget who the spokesperson was on Andrea Mitchell’s Education Nation segment on I think Monday. I think she was a head of a teacher’s union group. She volunteered the same “solution” that some of my local leaders are suggesting: whole-solution approach to transforming communities. Again that seems ambitious, particularly as a prerequisite to academic achievement. I not only think – I know – that in schools of my childhood there were families which were highly dysfunctional. Today perhaps CPS would whisk the children away in an instant. But it wasn’t considered a subject for negotiation that you show up in school prepared to behave and exert your best effort, regardless of what was happening at home. Sensitive teachers would often gently probe, to inquire of the student or parent(s) in case the teacher could be a helpful ear or otherwise offer after-school academic support, but there was no suggestion that “the community” should come in and rescue the family, despite what emotional and financial state the family might be in. Maybe that’s good; maybe that’s bad. Again I’m talking about public funds, not private community support, which is entirely appropriate, and which happened often at my girls’ religious school.</p>
<p>Clearly, the reasons for underperformance can vary by class, but my question is that the justification for the response chosen (if any) has to be considered. Levirm, I’m answering your question indirectly as this evolves. There are still segments among any diverse group, which might call for being addressed variously rather than uniformly (thus partial segmentation in some cases), but all students of all colors and classes would benefit tremendously from a hugely different school culture. Remember that the KIPP, etc. students are not in any new-fangled “foster-care.” They go home to various situations – I’m sure some are better environments than others, but there is a uniformity to the school structure which benefits performance. They are literally ‘all on the same page’ together. It has been since my own childhood that we have gone around the room, each student reading orally a section of the assigned in-class reading. Standard stuff in my childhood, probably in yours; standard stuff when I began teaching; standard stuff still in many primary classrooms, but now virtually abandoned that “we all do things together” after Grade 2 or 3. The “modern” educational trend is that that’s too structured, too confining, doesn’t respect students’ individuality enough, too embarrassing for students who don’t read well orally. :rolleyes: Um, yeah: That’s how they get to be better readers: with practice, and from mutual auditory-visual stimulus. </p>
<p>Again, it happens to be that charters in my region segment themselves culturally, but the point is that the high-expectation charters with 100% Latino populations are performing exactly as well as the 100% African-American populations, and neither of those school categories is privileged with massive “community services.” That would suggest to me, levirm, that minority students can thrive in diverse environments as long as those environments are directed toward maximum service of the high-need students. Because the rest will also benefit (And they do.)</p>
<p>In addition, it’s pretty criminal that gifted kids continue to be so deprived in publics, especially when “budget crises” hit, a phenomenon that seems to have recurred every year for the last 15 years minimum. If structure in such schools does not address the needs of the gifted (very often it does not, or at least it’s not sufficient in itself), then darn it, they need some appropriate segmenting for intellectual opportunity during the school day. Gifted kids have a profound need to group together, because they experience themselves as so very different from the mainstream, and that difference disturbs them and/or pains them. They even sometimes think that they’re “crazy,” because their perceptions of the world are often askew of others their age. Therefore, they need to ‘get their bearings’ with others in their peer group. Just an aside to this: I have taught whole gifted classes which include minority kids. When choosing between segmenting by race vs. segmenting by intellect, where those minorities feel “at home” is segmenting by intellect/ability, not by race.</p>
<p>levirm, she was in a gifted program in the diverse area. She did very well academically there. The new school did not have a gifted program, so it’s not really comparing apples to apples. We live in a mostly white, socioeconomically mixed area. We put our son in a private school for middle school because boys in our area tend to stop trying in order to fit in … we put him in an environment where boys thought it was cool to excel academically. This is not an uncommon phenomenon, but it seems to really affect the AA community, and many in that community are concerned & trying to figure out how to make a positive change in the culture.</p>
<p>Calimami, are you a parent or a student? I will assume you are a student and have some maturing to do before you can understand.</p>
<p>Epiphany, the very reason that I am asking these questions is that I am on a district-wide parent advisory committee for our gifted program. We are very fortunate in that our gifted program, at the high school level, is an everyday program, with separate gifted classes in all core academic subjects. On the one hand, the existence of this program (and also the “scholars” program) is saving our city from experiencing total taxpayer flight, as so many other mid-sized cities have experienced. Most of our schools are still diverse - amazing for a mid-sized city! On the other hand, minorities are under-represented in the gifted classes. We need to figure out how to do something about that. Until now, identification has been only through an I.Q. test, and that will be changing to “multiple measures” OR an I.Q. test, we believe. The last thing we need is this peer pressure to reject achievement among minorities, so we need to figure out how to combat it! We have had gifted minority kids in gifted classrooms who feel very awkward, especially when there are just one or two in a class of 20, they do not speak up, are marginalized by other minority kids, etc. This does not hold true for some minority kids who socialize only with the white kids, and always have. Some schools try to create support for gifted minority kids - by forming a “club”, etc. - but these are almost always all girls.
As far as these total services go, I have a hunch that if there are scarce funds, they should go into infancy and early childhood. An enriched infancy and toddlerhood can go a long way toward school achievement. I don’t mean enriched in terms of money, I mean enriched in terms of appropriate stimulation. How to get that across to these families? I really don’t know, but it probably should come from the community organizations.
Everyone is into this Geoffrey Canada model - and it is very expensive. I think that his “Baby College” is a fascinating aspect of what he does.
We need empirical research on what works!
Thanks for your thoughts!</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s anything weird or pathological about a middle schooler adopting bad habits in order to fit in with peers. Completely normal behavior at that age, just like tantrums in 2-year-olds. Parents need to address it, but it’s the norm and not the exception.</p>
<p>where the ‘pathology’ comes in (in my opinion) would be if a kid felt they needed to “dumb down” in order to relate to people who looked like them! i found that phrase very odd… and no, kelsmom, i’m not a student (other than a student of life in general). i’m a parent. 36 years old, so i suppose i have some “maturing” yet to do-- if i’m lucky. hopefully, you don’t think you’ve got it all figured out!</p>
<p>i take issue with the notion that black and brown children somehow need to be surrounded by white folks in order to escape this ‘culture’ of pathology. it’s a racist assumption. </p>
<p>the so-called ‘achievement gap’ should really be called an ‘equality gap’. poor people who succumb to hopelessness come in all colors.</p>
<p>are we really talking about an achievement gap…???</p>
<p>[A</a> $95,000 question: why are whites five times richer than blacks in the US? | World news | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/17/white-people-95000-richer-black]A”>A $95,000 question: why are whites five times richer than blacks in the US? | Race | The Guardian)</p>
<p>where the ‘pathology’ comes in (in my opinion) would be if a kid felt they needed to “dumb down” in order to relate to people who looked like them! i found that phrase very odd</p>
<hr>
<p>I was relating what a person experienced. It’s one thing to discuss in the abstract. It is quite another to live it, feel it, be swept up in it. Middle school students are not middle aged adults. While I do not have it all figured out, I certainly have more figured out than I did in 6th or 7th grade. If you never felt the need to fit in when you were that age, I think you were one of the fortunate few. Should it be this way? That is beside the point. What matters is what IS, not what SHOULD BE. Once we figure out what is, we can find out why. Only then can we attack the issue to try to bring about positive change. To look at a situation from our own eyes is different than looking at that same situation through another’s eyes … </p>
<p>Avoiding judgment is also helpful when attempting to understand how another perceives his or her lot in life.</p>
<p>“The last thing we need is this peer pressure to reject achievement among minorities, so we need to figure out how to combat it! We have had gifted minority kids in gifted classrooms who feel very awkward, especially when there are just one or two in a class of 20, they do not speak up, are marginalized by other minority kids, etc.”</p>
<p>Rather than changing (lowering?) the standards for gifted classes, my suggestion would be to offer better training for the teachers of these classes. It is the teachers who can ensure that the kids (of all races) are not marginalized in their classes for any reason. When this is done naturally and in the context of the usual classwork activities, it lessens the likelihood that any pupil will feel as though they have been singled out from the rest of the group.</p>
<p>BTW. I know a little bit about this subject: I was a member of one of the first (if not the first) “gifted” classes in California. Back then, they called it the “I.S” program. Classes were divided into “I.S.” (highest level courses), “MGM” (the next level down) and regular classes. I was one of 7 or 8 kids in the I.S. class (and, the only African-American).</p>
<p>I felt completely at home with the other kids: We shared mutual geekiness and the desire to go beyond the usual curriculum. As a part of this sort of group, none of us had the option “not to speak up”. Our teachers encouraged us to participate, to have “odd” ideas, to be ourselves.</p>
<p>Clearly, in a class of 20, that becomes more difficult, but that is where the better, more specialized training should come in. Not just any teacher can or should effectively train high-IQ kids. So, Levirm, as a member of your advisory committee, IMO, you should suggest training and proper recruiting of the teachers who come into contact with these kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my experience (only) the ones who socialized (past tense) with the white kids were of the same economic stratum as them. (Professional parents, hill address, etc.) And regardless of status, 4 or 5 in one gifted classroom seemed to be enough of a critical mass, just in my experience. That is not to deny that I did honestly see occasional signs of self-conflict, but as I said earlier, it’s important to watch that for any indication of a turning point, because they can be singled out to attend high-achieving private high schools at which it is more than cool to be an achiever, and you will feel isolated if you are not.</p>
<p>Again, we can all look at the history of minority academic achievement and the lack thereof. The biggest challenge, historically, has been to sustain both the fact of achievement and the conviction within the student that it’s essential.</p>
<p>I guess my underlying question in my previous post was, How much can that motivation be assigned to “the community,” and how realistic is it that the community itself be the (meaningful!) support center, the motivator, the provider of resources, the disciplinarians?</p>
<p>Levirm, sounds like a much better gifted program than any in my region (most of which are not funded in publics any longer. They are in name only, and all targeted funding is put into special ed.)</p>