Customer Reviews

Class And Schools: Using Social, Economic, And Educational Reform To Close The Black-white Achievement Gap

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Class and Schools" is a perceptive study of what we can - and cannot - expect public schools to do on their own to narrow the black-white achievement gap. Rothstein is particularly astute in his descriptions of the subtle cognigitive and psychological skills that middle class students bring to school and how these skills serve them well, particularly in the upper grades. He also offers a critique of the "outlier" literature that draws overly broad conclusions from the fact that some schools serving disadvantaged students are effective. Many, if not most, readers will take issue with Rothstein over his policy recommendations, but anyone thinking seriously about the achievement gap will have to confront the major points that he makes and the evidence behind them.

This book really takes a look at the different "reasons" behind the Black-White Achievement Gap, because let's face it there still is one and when we talk about "poorer" familes, they tend to make up much of the black population. The book takes into account the very reasons why it is difficult for those who end up in the low achievement bracket, to make their way up the ladder. Quick, easy read and great for those who have an interest in education.

I had the opportunity to listen to Richard Rothstein speak in Little Rock, Arkansas in 2006. I spoke with him for about 20 minutes after his presentation. Most educators who read his book miss out on many of his messages. There are several. It is more than just a book about Race in Education. He does an excellent job of portraying the differences between traditional public schools and charter schools. He writes at length about how difficult it is to legislate systemic change from any level. He also talks about socio-economics and opportunities and their effect on public education. Many educators agree with Rothstein that the breakdown of the American family is one of the leading systemic problems in American Public Education. There are also many inherent problems with government incompetence and corruption in terms of nationally legislating public education. When Rothstein spoke he was very honest that he was a researcher and not a practitioner in education. But yet his arguments are very compelling. Anybody who thought that this book was just about Race probably needs to sit down and read it again.

I looked to Rothstein's book for a thoroughly documented defense of public education in light of its inability to resolve fundamental inequalities. I was not disappointed but those who seek feasible proposals to remedy the problem will not find it here. The basic solution seems to be to extend the public education system into early childhood. I see a number of problems: 1. if we cannot afford the employment of highly paid teaching professionals in K-12, how will we do it for early childhood professionals paid at comparible salaries. 2. If the stress on on cognitive skills is problematic, why would such professional status be required anyways. He points out the importance of behavioral/character training but rules out the use of less educated adults in these communities to impart that training. I believe that they will be most effective in training and disciplining the children than a middle class college grad. Moreover, they will provide the intensive coverage needed at the lowest cost. Have the high priced professionals train the aides from the area and then send them to the day-care and other preschool programs to do the early childhood education. In conclusion, the non-sequitars involved in the proposed soluctions do not invalidate the objective summaries of the research and the entirely valid objections to standardized testing as enshrined in the NCLB. I would certainly recommend it for a critical understanding of the issue. Then go to Valerie Lee and Ted Sizer for better solutions.

With the vast resources devoted to closing/reducing the achievement gap, this book is a much needed addition to the discussion. While this book sets up the argument that some of the gap is a expected (if undesirable) outcome of social class, it omits the part of the argument that outlines (a) how we determine the magnitude of the gap that is a construct of inequitable constraints on opportunity and (b) what are the best methods to eliminate this gap.

Basically, Rothstein uses some solid empirical evidence to prove many of the causes of the White Black Achievement Gap, and his findings might be of great use to intelligent policy-makers, but he himself is obviously not one of those. Based on his findings, he suddenly jumps to radical conclusions that we need more public housing, welfare, linkages between schools and housing projects etc. I would say that Rothstein is half academic, half radical socialist. The former half is of great value, the latter is in fact dangerous.

This book has opened our eyes to many issues we did not think about or explore prior to reading this book. Richard Rothstein does an excellent job pointing out the many contributing factors to the "Black-White Achievement Gap" in America. Even though some of Rothstein's ideas are expressed in other articles and books, these important issues and topics he reiterates only emphasizes the attention that this issues needs. Rothstein addresses that, as a society, we need to do more for students than just a good job of addressing issues and raising questions. The last chapter of his book deals with different ways teachers, educators, parents, and health officials can step in and intervene into children's lives in order to work on closing the achievement gap between lower- and middle-class families.

Rothstein's Class and Schools compiles empirical, quantitative studies that have investigated effects on child learning in school to show that children enter school with significant differences in abilities and potentials. These differences are caused by various factors such as class, race, health status, home situation, and so on--all factors typically outside the domain of influence of the school. Essentially Rothstein shows that, because children spend much of their time outside of schools--in their homes and communities, schools cannot be expected to solve all problems (or at least cannot be faulted for not being able to do so). Rothstein's recommendations include moving some of the factors involved into the school or into the dominion of the state. For example, he suggests school health/vision clinics and increased supervision in before and after-school programs (and over the summer). Rothstein further suggests broader policy is needed to restructure the inequality outside of the school--for example, by providing stable, safe housing for low-SES communities.

I absolutely agree with Rothstein's conclusion: schools can't fix all problems. What is unclear to me is (1) why this is a contentious point, and (2) that scientific quantitative ahistorical methods are best suited to answer this question.

In regard to (1): it is fairly well accepted in most other disciplines that focus on social phenomena--sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, others--that things never happen in a vacuum, that there are always relationships between what happens at home, at school, at work, in public and in private, in body and in mind, at the individual level and at the societal level. This is never something that has to be proven: it is always taken as a premise. Rothstein twists this logic on its head.

[He vaguely accuses a "They" for expecting schools to fix all ills, without any proof--In Rothstein: "Americans have come to the conclusion that the achievement gap is the fault of `failing schools'" (p. 1)--additionally, monolithic conceptions are suspect.

Which brings me to (2): it seems that if one were really trying to show how forces intersected to shape child learning, one might be much better served by historical methods. The unequal structures that still shape American society today that have roots in colonial times, in slavery, in the unique construction of racism in the United States. Rothstein acknowledges that there is a deep connection between race and class in the United States, but leaves the nature unspoken. Instead, he attempts to quantify the correlation between race and class, essentially trying to extricate the effects of race from class by a number.

Historically this construction is absurd. It ignores the fact that race and class have an intricate, intertwined history in America as they do nowhere else. It is here that the racialization of slavery occurred, here that class formation emerged along lines of race because of the nature of racialized slavery. Scholars have written about how racialization, or the construction of race, occurred during American slavery (for example as shown by Ira Berlin, professor of history at UMD in his various works including Ira Berlin, Generations of captivity: A history of African-American slaves. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press). Splitting the two by a number cannot be done in general, but in particular here in the United States, where class formation occurred along racialized lines institutionalized in slavery. This not a simple problem of addition--race and class are not distinct in any way that can be quantified by a number (as a `correlation', or alleged overlap between the two separate phenomena--see figure below).

There is certainly a place for quantitative work in assessing schools, curriculum, and even individuals. However, to draw lines from what little quantitative data can tell us to implications for how people should live their lives (i.e., in school from `before-school' programs through `after-school' programs, 6am-8pm) seems far-stretched if the problem is placed in historical/holistic perspective. Then, it becomes clear that a whole structuring of society is at play, and that transformations of such structurings have historically taken centuries of gradual change in all aspects of society.

Schools have a long history of segregation in the United States: as old as this land has been colonized by English speaking settlers. From the very beginning (1600s) schools have been a mechanism of preservation (or enhancement) of the dominant culture. In the emergence of the common school (that occurred everywhere from the 1830s/40s in parts of the North through the 1870s in parts of the South), segregation was key to the organization and allocation of school resources and to dictating curriculum. Blacks, were, for example, encouraged towards schools of manual labor as women were trained to be good wives and white men continued on to Harvard et al (see, for example, Lawrence Cremin, American Education: The National Experience, New York, Harper & Row, 1980).

There are many other problems with the work: Rothstein speaks of 'averages' yet never shows us a distribution graph (what he means by 'averages' is distribution), he casually throws around the phrase 'black culture of underachievement' while never mentioning slavery and his white-maleness, he repeatedly confuses class and race without defining either, he uses his own ancestors (Jewish immigrants) as example of 'superior' adjustment over Italian immigrants in the States, he never examines his position/bias, he takes tests at their value and fails to critically examine who wrote the tests and for what purpose, ... and much more. He exalts middle-class culture as an ideal to be imparted upon the 'disadvantaged', he suggests we should attempt to assess "non-cognitive skills" like "tolerance, comprehension of pluralism, self-direction, responsibility, and commitment to craft" (p. 97); he is often contradictory, and at times even racist.

For example, Rothstein's views on biology are either not genuine in the worst or contradictory in the least. On one hand, he writes that a "family's economic, educational, and cultural traits are influenced by the genetic traits of the parents"; in other words, "smarter" parents have "smarter" babies and such reasoning (17). On the other, he says blacks and whites do not have inherent different genetics--but then again, whites do test "smarter", according to him, and there is nothing wrong with the testing in essence (i.e., who constructs the tests, the framework tests follow, etc)... we are left to work out the ambiguities of the position on our own. What saves Rothstein's ambiguity from more blatant expression is that he believes it's essentially out of policy's range at this point to regulate genetics or to do anything about them, so he "does not dwell on the possible genetic contributions" (p. 17).

This work is truly disturbing in its lack of critical examination, considering it claims its place within a critical tradition.

Richard Rothstein is no more qualified to advise on education than the new governor of California (who is a body-builder). The objective of education is economic self-sufficiency. Getting ahead in life requires connections, not "knowledge." American blacks are denied connections. We all know why and how. The black-white gap which Rothstein writes about is not information but access.

Valuable knowledge is learned on the job, not in school. Teachers do not control access, employers do. Blacks who are told otherwise are being cheated.

Centuries ago schools were for the elite, whose privileged positiion in life was predestined. This was not changed by free public schools. America's political leaders never learned this fundamental lesson. US Grant - who in fact liberated blacks - imagined blacks would quickly join mainstream America. KKK put an end to that dream. Just saying again and again that there is a gap does not acknowledge the reality. Ask a bona fide teacher.

When black youth knows schooling will be rewarded, education will command respect.

Wallace F. Smith, Walnut Creek, CA