School Inequities
Brian Kelly
EDLD 5397 Supervision Internship-FA2 11-EA1266
Professor Dr. Diane Mason
October 23, 2011
School Inequities
A school’s socioeconomic status was once, and still is, viewed as a handicap that deters students from prevailing and developing into good students. While the fact that a schools resources can be lesser or greater than other schools, the simple explanation on why certain schools fail to develop into educationally developmental factories is due to their socioeconomic status is false. Many findings reverse the assumption of the above mentioned belief, like findings by Douglas Reeves (2003). Findings derived from the Coleman Report offer evidence that socioeconomic status does affect a child’s educational development, yet not the schools socioeconomic status; as stated by Cornelius Riordan (2004). The Coleman Report based the inequities of schools on the individual student and their family characteristics rather than the characteristics of the school as a whole. The updated fact is that schools that possess low SES (socioeconomic status) students can be just as effective as schools with economically privileged students. The characteristics of the school, the teachers and curriculum have more of an impact on a child’s educational development than anything else; as stated by Douglas Reeves (2003). With the information researched this author is going to try to emulate and create certain interventions that could help an underperforming school become a school that breeds positive student development.
According to Riordan (2004), “the results of the Coleman Report led to the conclusion from lower-SES backgrounds did poorly in school had more to do with the students themselves, their families, their community, their culture, and possibly even their genetic makeup” (p. 110). Peer influence is a major focal point in the Coleman Report as well. According Robert Kahlenberg (2001), “the report found that a student’s achievement appears to be “strongly related to the educational backgrounds and aspirations of the other students in the school…. Children from a given family background, when put in schools of different social compositions, will achieve at quite different levels” (paragraph 6). In other words, if a school mixed up their racial/cultural demographic that school would be a better provider of overall success for all of its students. James Coleman’s conclusions that family had a significant impact on a child’s education are true, in this author’s belief, yet the fact that the quality of the school has little to no significance on the child’s development is untrue. According to Riordan (2004), James Colman found that “Whatever differences did exist in school quality (facilities, curricula, teacher characteristics) had very little influence on student test score performance” (p. 109). The above statement is widely debated, if a student’s teacher does not have the qualifications to teach the specific subject/topic or grade, than that student is going to do worse on their assessment and education in general than a student that possesses teachers with appropriate qualifications.
According to Reeves (2003), “The keys to improved academic achievement are professional practices of teachers and leaders, not the economic, ethnic, or linguistic characteristics of the students” (paragraph 29). The quality of the teacher has everything to do with the educational development of the student. Better qualified teachers produce better qualified students due to their interest in the students and their abilities explain the curriculum. President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) called for more and better qualified teachers, this implementation has raised assessment scores throughout the country. Teachers also must collaborate with one another on their teaching techniques in order to produce the most appropriate instruction, as stated by Reeves (2003). Teachers must provide many assessments that leave room for improvement and the teachers must provide appropriate feedback on the student’s assessments and class work, in order to provide chances for improvement and appropriate development; as stated by Reeves (2003). Academic achievement must also be the main focal point of a class and a school, preaching and displaying achievement breeds success no matter what the demographics of the school is; as stated by Reeves (2003). Reeves agrees with Coleman that family and peer influence can affect a child’s educational development, yet the more important variable is that of the school’s overall characteristic which goes against the findings of Coleman.
Other interventions may cure the underperforming school; possible extra incentives for achievement, upgraded head start programs to include more than just low SES families, and more of a focus in preschools. According to Gary Klass (2001), “For example, Doris Entwisle et al. offer recommendations more closely tied to recent research demonstrating that good preschooling, enhanced summer programs, and programs targeted to poor children in the early grades can reduce achievement gaps” (paragraph 3). According to this author, more teacher training and extended school hours will create positive growth for an entire school and the individuals that inhabit the school. School characteristics are extremely influential to the overall development of a child.
Overall, Reeves’s (2003) research provides better solutions on how to cure the inequities present in some schools. The demographics of certain schools and students are sometimes unchangeable, yet the way a school is ran and how the curriculum is taught is easily changeable. Coleman’s Report gives very informational data on why family influence is so important in a child’s educational development, yet the report offers very little interventions on how to cure the problem. A schools socioeconomic status is important, yet the overall achievement of student success lies with the characteristics of a school.
References
Kahlenburg, R.D. (2001). Learning from James Coleman. Public Interest, n.a.(144), 54-
74. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from ProQuest Direct database.
Klass, G. (2001). A Notion at Risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine for Social
Mobility; Kahlenberg, Richard D. Perspectives on Political Science, 30(4), 251.
Retrieved October 17, 2011, from ProQuest Direct database.
Reeves, D.B. (2003). High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond.
Retrieved Sept. 28, 2011, from http://www.sabine.k12.la.us/online/leadershipacadem
y/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf
Riordan, C. (2004). Equality and Achievement. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
