Doesn't make any difference.
1. Successful schools are all different. Failing schools are all the same. Tolstoy's "Family Happiness" in reverse.
Failing schools get more monitoring because it's not just the kids who suffer, it's not just the school that suffers, it's the district. And if the school's failing, it's assumed that it's the teachers' fault because the local administrators aren't doing things right. So wham! Scripted teams all doing everything in centralized lockstep.
2. I've taught for years now. I've had some AfAm 504s and IEPs. Mostly they've been white, and the higher the SES the more likely the 504 or IEP.
In fact, if you want to run into a buzz saw tell most of my black kids who I really think needed a 504, if not an IEP, that their kids needed them. You just don't go there. "You callin' my kid retarded?" Just ... no. I may talk to the counselor, but never again to a parent on that particular topic. And if my name would be associated with a SpEd or 504 referral, I smile and say, "Never mind." The last few years have been enough.
3. My school has no metal detectors. Where I taught before didn't, but now does. The difference? More fights, some stabbings, and cases where administrators searched lockers and found guns. After resisting such measures for years, the all-AfAm school board implemented a zero-tolerance policy and metal detectors under media and parental pressure.
Two years later parents are complaining that most of the kids suspended and caught are AfAm and Latino. This surprises nobody: AfAm standardized test scores there are 67, Latino test scores are 75, and white test scores there are 92. If you're white, you're from one set of neighborhoods; if you're AfAm or Latino, you're from new nearly lower SES all-minority neighborhoods or from formerly white lower-to-middle class neighborhoods that flipped to being nearly all minority in the last 12 years or so. Go back to the older reports and you find that the stabbings and fights and guns rarely involved the middle/upper-middle class white kids.
4. This is true. But it doesn't get to the "how", it stops at a nice statistical generalization and leave causality to be attributed to racism or prejudice. It entirely ignores the mechanisms involved. On the one hand we have advocates pointing out cultural differences, but then we see high-level generalizations that assume there are none.
The situations bristle with problems that I haven't even seen characterized, much less quantified or with solutions provided. Given race relations in the US, I doubt I'll ever seem them characterized. They'll just form the basis of mutual miscommunication and recriminations, as they have for the last 40 years.
= new reply since forum marked as read
