Kozol Assignment

Kozol Assignment In Jonathan Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation, the exploration of segregation – otherwise known as an apartheid system – is used to denote how American schooling has changed to negatively affect American students of minority status. Primarily, Kozol uses the inequalities of racial segregation and blanket education as evidence for his points; the former is used to explain how education for those of poor social classes, minority races, and certain geographical upbringings is deprioritized, while the latter is used to point out the flaws of a highly manufactured method of learning and teaching. Kozol argues that, ultimately, methods such as these make it significantly more difficult for minority students to learn, as they are consistently held by “chains…within caste-and-color sequestration and divorced…from the mainstream of American society” (Kozol 6). Throughout Kozol’s text, several examples are used to justify these methods of segregation; in this paper, I will examine two of the rationales used to justify re-segregation in American schooling, why these justifications exist, and how they are each identified as just.

            It is no secret that racial segregation in education is currently a prevailing issue, even decades after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. In his opening and first chapters, Kozol shares several anecdotes with his readers about his trips to various schools around the country—one story illustrated disheveled classrooms with broken glass and mistreated equipment; another transformed a conversation with a young girl who never even knew what school was like outside of her home into a moment of revelation; and another about his experiences as a white teacher in a primarily black school. Each of these stories took place between the decades of 1990 – 2000; even after forty years, several educational reforms, and an entire program dedicated to civil rights in America (The Civil Rights Project), segregation still exists, and in full force. Additionally, Kozol expresses his concern not only of the high rate of segregation in activist-/memorial-based schools (such as schools named after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) but also the lack of knowledge of said activists by the students. Martin Luther King, a school in New York City, is a school which had the goal of “attract[ing] white students by permitting them to walk to school while only their black and Hispanic classmates would be asked to ride the bus or come by train” (Kozol 25). Unfortunately, this goal was not met, as Kozol reports that “student enrollment at the school was 54 percent African-American and 42 percent Hispanic. Only 3.8 percent of the 2,600 students…were Asian, white, or ‘other’” (Kozol 26).

            When looking at the example of Martin Luther King, Kozol expresses that “Segregated schools…are often tense, disorderly, and socially unhappy places, and when episodes of student violence occur, the inclination for the parents of white children to avoid such schools is obviously reinforced” (Kozol 26). Incidents of violence frequently occur in schools because of these qualities. However, it is easy for onlookers – those who may attend different schools and don’t need to worry about being in such an environment – to have their vision of these schools tarnished by outlets such as public media. Most of these accounts, Kozol states, don’t “[point] to the segregated status of the school as a dishonor” to Dr. King’s legacy as a civil rights activist, but rather as man who fought for peace—and this completely ignores the reason the school was originally built (Kozol 27).

            Why exactly, then, is it that this type of behavior is mitigated with excuses but not action? Why are these schools so prone create uncomfortable atmospheres? And why is it that these schools mainly consist of minority students? The simple response to all these questions, and the first rationale that I will explore in this paper, is that of funding; it costs less money to keep these schools as they are. Why spend the extra money on enhancing establishments that most likely won’t succeed due to their location in poor developments?

            The rationale behind a lack in funding begins in Chapter 2 of Kozol’s text with the question “How…do you begin to measure something so diffuse and vast and seemingly abstract as having more, or having less, or having not at all?” (Kozol 44). Using the example of Alliyah, a student who Kozol knew personally, Kozol outlines the enormous gap between the amount of money spent on different types of schools; those of a New York City public school spent about $8,000 on the education of a student; a “fairly typical white suburb…would receive a public education worth about $12,000 every year;” and, in the wealthiest, white suburb in New York, she’d receive “as much as $18,000” every year (Kozol 45). Additionally, teacher salaries have had similar differences. Kozol reports that, despite being only eleven miles apart, teachers from Alliyah’s school are paid only $43,000 as opposed to the $81,000 teachers in the town of Scarsdale receive in the year 1997 (Kozol 45). It is also necessary to note the discrepancies between the schools in terms of population diversity. While the less-funded schools were in places of poverty and cultural diversity, schools that were more funded were in places where cultural diversity was significantly less noticeable; Kozol also reports that, in a population comparison of a poor neighborhood to Greenwich Village, New York, “20 percent of students were from families of low income” (Kozol 47). Poorer schools also did not have the luxury of, for example, being externally and privately funded by those who could afford to donate money for libraries, facilities, programs, staff, and so on (Kozol 46). In other words, schools that were externally funded had extra resources – these schools were attended by the children of the privileged, meaning that they would get the superior education while those in poverty did not; “parents won their children the advantage they had sought for them,” all the while ignoring the situation of poorer schools (Kozol 47). In yet another example given by Kozol, “parents at an elementary school and junior high had raised more than $1 million, mostly for enrichment programs for their children;” in another, poorer neighborhood, the PTA attempted to raise money for the same purpose through methods such as candy sales, but “tried without success to” and raised “less than $4,000” (Kozol 47-8).

 When taking all this information into account, a conclusion is reached: funding isn’t a priority for poorer schools because it simply isn’t beneficial in the long run; it’s too difficult, requires more attention, and doesn’t seem to result in the desired outcomes. This example is exacerbated by other examples. “Baby Ivies,” which is a program in which “affluent parents pay surprisingly large sums of money to enroll their youngsters in extraordinary early-education programs…that give them social competence and rudimentary pedagogic skills unknown to children of…poorer neighborhoods” (Kozol 50). The very existence of programs such as this completely undermines the purpose of education, as the system is transformed from one with a moral goal to one of strict competition. This extends even to simple pre-K education; “of approximately 250,000 four-year-olds in New York State in 2001-2002, only about 25 percent…were believed to be enrolled in the state-funded preschool program” (Kozol 51). The majority of those who weren’t enrolled in this program – those who were not members of the economic middle-class – included the poor; students who were not given “priority” (Kozol 51). By the third grade, many poor students must partake in “high-stakes tests;” tests which privileged children (such as those who participated in the Baby Ivies program) have an apparent advantage (Kozol 53). With poor students who aren’t as prepared as affluent students, one may assume that the poorer students will, statistically, fail more often than those who were prepared.

Kozol summarizes his feelings best towards the end of Chapter 2:

There is something deeply hypocritical in a society that holds an inner-city child only eight years old “accountable” for her performance on a high-stakes standardized exam but does not hold the high officials of our government accountable for robbing her of what they gave their own kids six or seven years before. (Kozol 53-4)

            Kozol, in Chapter 3, brings to light another contributor to the segregation of education in the United States, and it is one less subtle than that of a lack of funding: the transformation of the traditional classroom (in which the goal is for students to learn) to one of “Taylorism” (where students are to learn specific skills that can help make them effective workers/members of society in the future), as a teacher, Mr. Endicott, shared (Kozol 62). Essentially, schools began to follow what Kozol explains is a “Skinnerian approach,” which is “commonly employed in penal institutions and drug-rehabilitation programs as a way of altering the attitudes and learning styles of black and Hispanic children” (Kozol 65). This Skinnerian approach, which Kozol explains in an anecdote was used at the elementary school P.S. 65 in the South Bronx, New York, was used to keep the students heavily in check and strictly monitor their learning. Phrases such as “Success for All,” “Authentic Writing,” “Principles of Learning,” and “Portfolio Protocols” are printed on posters and distributed throughout the building, finding homes in hallways and classrooms alike. Teachers are tasked with writing down curriculum goals and standards on the boards for students to see – although the numbers ultimately wouldn’t mean very much to the students (Kozol 66). It is because of this that “teachers working in a school like this have little chance to draw upon their own inventiveness or normal conversational abilities” and, therefore, the learning opportunities of the students are severely limited (Kozol 71). Kozol restates an analogy he heard for the reader, stating that, for the students, the school, the principal, and the community at large, “the cover of the book is more important than whatever is inside” (Kozol 81).

            Again, it is interesting to want to question why this is. Does the community believe that minority students of black and Hispanic descent are more difficult to control in their learning? Are these techniques put in place to quell the chance of violence in schools?

            One of the justifications for this inequality is the idea that teachers who follow such a program will have a significantly easier time with their students. Say, for example, that a teacher who is unable to find employment in more reputable schools was hired by a school such as P.S. 65 Elementary. This teacher, under the curriculum set in place for the school, would theoretically need only to follow written instructions, obey the objectives that need to be taught, and ingrain in his/her students what procedures are necessary for the class. Kozol agrees with this argument to a degree, stating that “scripted lessons and the other elements of order and control…are essential strategies for schools in which the teachers frequently are inexperienced” (Kozol 84). However, Kozol disagrees with the argument as well, as there is always a chance that teachers may “reject” the lessons they are given “intellectually;” for example, perhaps a teacher does not feel comfortable with the lessons that are being taught or doesn’t see the value in what is being taught—they may even feel that their students deserve more (Kozol 85). Secondly, this nature extends to standardized testing, a practice that is still relevant today. “Both privileged and poor” students must deal with standardized testing in the public sector; however, poorer schools, as Kozol states, will always have a disadvantage in these tests, as mentioned previously in this paper (Kozol 110).

This, however, proceeds beyond the idea of funding being an issue, reaching a precipice that extends to all types of students, of all types of backgrounds. With school systems that encourage a blanket or “one-size-fits-all” approach to learning, standardized testing has become significantly more prominent. Students are tested on very specific techniques in a varying number of subjects, usually centering on math, science, and language arts. As one may expect, preparation for these tests “subtract from actual instruction,” and with fewer resources in the classroom as it stands, poorer schools have less time to focus on studies. Kozol acquired an example from the principal of an elementary school in Peoria, Illinois, claiming that “[the faculty’s] entire 90-minute literacy block was knocked out all last week in second, third, and fourth grades” due to the requirements of standardized testing (Kozol 112). Even with the justifications for this type of instruction – it’s easier, or it’s cost-effective, or it brings results – it creates students who aren’t learning, but rather consuming, information and gaining knowledge.

            Segregation in schools is the result of several factors and is perpetuated by an inability to determine how to truly provide equal opportunities for all students. This segregation is not forced but chosen; a lack of funding is seen as justifiable because of the amount of work required to successfully provide adequate changes for poor schools, and blanket, “one-size-fits-all” approaches to learning limit student abilities and freedom regardless of social class with the justification being that more students are taught with less effort from the teachers. While arguments can be made on both sides of whether each choice is justified, segregation in schools still exists, and this was ultimately Kozol’s goal with The Shame of the Nation.

Works Cited

Kozol, Jonathan. The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York, New York: The River Press, 2005. Print.