By stark contrast, the schools that my children attended, were predominantly white; students were from middle to upper class, in tact, "traditional" families. There were very few students, especially in early elementary to middle school, who were non-native speakers. Educators were highly qualified and were held accountable by a very involved school board as well as a body of very involved and vocal parents. The school(s) in which my children attended had access to up-to-date curricula, technology, and resources that wholly enriched the educational experience. The graduates of the high school, which both of my boys attended, had 100% acceptance rates to college.
As I read about the issue of desegregation and busing students of color to better performing schools, I began to question, why? If this strategy works, why aren't we doing more? What I mean by this is, if we know from research that desegregation and integration has positive effects on students of color, why is this strategy not employed more?
The answer is clearly brought to the forefront. When the Normandy School District was declared unaccredited and children needed to be bused into the Francis Howell School District, a woman, not identified in the piece, made this statement:
"Not to be naive about the types of students they would be receiving"; she then goes on to make the statement, "Coming from Normandy to Francis Howell, I am hoping that their discipline records come with them, like their health records".
There in lies the problem. By this woman referring to the 'types' of students that would be attending her child's school and hoping that 'their' discipline records follow, clearly indicates to me her feelings of children of color being with her child(ren). Assuming that this 'type' of student (of color) would have behaviors that would be discipline issues speaks volumes about her notion of children of color.
When Delpit wrote, "The Silenced Dialogue: The Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children", she discussed the culture of power. She listed five different tenets of her thoughts. Here first tenet was, "Issues of power are enacted int he classroom". The woman quoted, from "This American Life", was exhibiting such power her children had in the classroom and, in my opinion, was solely concerned with making sure her children continued to hold that power. As Delpit goes on to say, 'if schooling prepares for people for jobs, and the kind of job a person has determines her or his his economic status, and therefore, power, then schooling is intimately related to that power". I wonder if the woman in TAL felt that her children's power, and therefore, opportunities, would be threatened by a student of color receiving the benefits of a quality education along side her own children.
Finally, a woman in TAL was quoted as saying that her concern had to do with test scores, class size, and related issues. On the service, race did not seem to be the root of the concern. Yet, Beth Cerami made a telling comment:..."in two or three years when we all move out of the district". Nikole Hannah Jones makes the point that this is not a threat...'If you let those children in, we will leave, again".
This is why desegregation does not work: Because families of privilege do not want to give up their culture of power; they do not want their children competing with those 'type' of children (of color). Color insight is lost on such a way of thinking.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/06/496411024/why-busing-didnt-end-school-segregation
Your final paragraph brings up a point that I talked about in my reflection as well: the idea that families of privilege do not want to give up their culture of power. I see that as heavily related to Delpit's comment on the phrase "I want the same thing for other people's children as I want for my own." There is a huge fear of other people's success or opportunities taking away from one's own. That misconception is dangerous when trying to move forward and collaborate from the parties with power.
ReplyDelete