The Culture of Education Policy by Sandra J. Stein
http://76.12.35.68/who_we_are/leadership/sandra_stein
Overview:
Labeling and defining a “culture of poverty” led the way for many politician and policy makers to make changes and take charge to “fight the War on Poverty” and save the nation from the vicious cycle. In the politician’s language and wording, being poor and living in poverty was akin to delinquency and being uneducated. The problem was identified and the solution was to fix the “cultural tendencies of poor people”, disregarding other aspects of poverty. Cultural and academic consequences of poverty were identified, but what really contributed to poverty in the first place? Why are people living in poverty and why does it persist? How do we even define poverty? The culture of poverty suggests that poverty is passed down from generation to generation and that we maintain poverty status regardless of material conditions. This idea holds true internationally, across many different cultural and community groups. At the time, the culture of poverty provided the window of opportunity for new education policies. It also provided the right conditions for federal involvement. Here enters ESEA, Title 1 services, and Project Head Start. As a nation, we would come together to “solve” poverty and break the cycle through education services and educational professionals would be the ones held responsible. Title 1 and ESEA certainly contributed to better educational opportunities, but it also prompted stigmatizing labels of children based on a formula of dollar amounts and test scores.
Policy is motivated by deficiency… the concern as this relates to educational policy is that deficiency is not attributed to the “structural economic and social conditions,” but rather the “individual characteristics of the poor.” Within learning institutions, Stein argues that government programs are used as a corrective force to come to the aid of “defective citizens,” who fall outside expected norms. Sadly, the labels attributed to these students have perpetuated a cycle of low expectations, which I believe have the danger of fostering an attitude of complacency and expectancy from others. I agree with Stein that politicians are often too far removed from impoverished settings to fully understand the values of the community at hand, and fear that as students travel to school in communities other than their own, teachers will also develop this limited lens.
1980s: Cutting and Consolidating
The Reagan era brought sweeping social and economic changes. The 1981 reauthorization of ESEA cut Title I (renamed Chapter 1) by 12%, while all remaining Titles were rolled into the all-encompassing Chapter 2. The block grant philosophy of the new Congress was also extended to educational funding.
However, Title I, Today: A Factbook contradicted the results of earlier national evaluations (finding that there were dramatic gains in reading and mathematics for students participating in Title I programs). This report attempted to present research-based evidence into the funding conversation. The authors asserted that not all poor students are “educationally needy” in an effort to remove earlier stereotypes placed on economically disadvantaged students. Despite these recommendations the national educational policy still did not focus more on instructional services instead of recipients, but lawmakers started to place less focus on poverty.
1988: Beating Around the Bush
The George HW Bush Congress focused on three main educational concerns: a) international competition, b) education of children in areas with high concentrations of poverty, and c) accountability for federal dollars. At this time, the term “at risk” introduced, but “without any description of explanation of what the students were at risk of doing or not doing.” A major change at this reauthorization was that schools with 75% poverty rates were allow to use their Chapter 1 funds to serve the entire school population, which ended contested pullout programs. However, this change merely shifted critical eyes away from individual students to entire schools.
Bizarrely, much of the educational discussion was sidelined by a focus on “dial-a-porn,” which distracted much of the debate. Many lawmakers felt the easy access to this new phone service placed the nation’s children in danger, and repeated calls for action took away from valuable time previously allotted to the funding process.
On a positive note, this round of debate did address the issue of lower expectations being placed on students in Chapter 1 schools and strategies for overcoming this problem.
1990s: Going Schoolwide
The 1990s only saw one reauthorization of ESEA, in 1994. The Title I name was resurrected, and the use of the term “all children” to address low expectations, include gifted, etc. was purposefully introduced. Notably, the new legislation removed disincentives for Title I funding (not pulled away if test scores improved), but would be based on eligibility for free and reduced lunch. Continuing the early shift to “Title I School” enhanced the idea that poor schools, rather than poor children, were in need of corrective intervention.
Discourse of Talents
Stein concludes this chapter with a discussion of discourse analysis in the educational debate. For example, recognition of the existence of “gifted poor” is seen as a major revelation for many lawmakers. The use of terms that equated financial deprivation to educational disability dominated much of the thinking for the first three decades of ESEA. Stein feels that these have been slowly replaced by more accurate terms, but the philosophies behind them still linger.
Stein presents a case of well-meaning policy gone horribly awry. In an attempt to institute bilingual education, the studied elementary schools actually achieved the unintended consequence of reinforcing segregation. Separating classes into English and non-English speaking students for primary language instruction, the district determined that establishing a 20% block of time to integrate would be an ideal way to get the students to appreciate those of other cultures. In a tragi-comic outcome, teachers would say things such as “let’s line up for integration,” “make room for the little Chinese people,” and “we don’t have integration today.”
The amazing thing about this story is that it occurred in the ’90s. What does it say about our policy leaders (and the teachers who blindly follow their advice) when integration is relegated to an activity that only looks at scheduling and proximity (racial tolerance might rub off on students during playtime) and not at equitable access to a quality education? Most of the teachers, students, and administrators that Stein describes seem to have drunk the purple Kool-Aid in this case of misguided intentions.
Final thought:
So reflecting on Title 1 policy, is this what the policy and policy leaders intended? Or is it how educators and schools interpret the policy?
Thoughts and Wonderings of a doc student 