Susan F. Semel

Education and inequality: historical and sociological approaches to schooling and social stratification

The 30th International Standing Conference on the History of Education was held at Rutgers-Newark from 23 July to 26 July 2008. The conference theme, “Education and Inequality: Historical Approaches to Schooling and Social Stratification” reflected our decade-long interest in both historical sociology and sociological history. One of us, a sociologist, has written historical sociology1 and the other, a historian, has written sociologically informed history.2 Our collaborations have attempted to combine history and sociology to understand the history of progressive education and the role of women in progressive reforms.3 Based on these works, the conference theme was an outgrowth of our interest in integrating history and sociology to understand important educational problems. The role of schools in either reducing and ameliorating or reproducing and exacerbating social inequalities has long been the subject of debate in both disciplines. Therefore, the papers presented at ISCHE 30 and those included in this special issue of Paedagogica Historica all examine the theme of education and inequality through a sociological and historical lens. The study of education and inequality has been a central theme in the sociology of education since the 1960s. Sociological studies have focused on a number of questions. First, what does the empirical evidence tell us about the nature and extent of social class, race, ethnic and gender achievement gaps? Second, what are the causes of these educational inequalities—that is, are they caused by factors inside and/or outside schools. Third, what do the answers to these questions tell us about the role of education in ameliorating or reproducing existing inequalities?

Notes of a Progressive Educator from the Academy and the Classroom

Each of the three chapters reviewed in this essay addresses progressive reforms in curriculum, albeit from very different vantage points, dictated by the disciplinary lenses employed by the authors. Nevertheless, what resonates throughout the readings are three themes: the difficulty of defining progressive education—its philosophy, curriculum, and practice; the influence of social, political, and economic forces that drive the curriculum; and finally, the lasting effects of the progressive impetus in educational reform. The first section of this article will provide a summary and analysis of the three chapters. The second section will provide an autobiographical reflection on the issues raised by the chapters. Consistent with feminist autobiography (Grumet, 1988; Miller, 2005) and the regressive (past), analytic (present), and progressive (future) aspects of what Pinar (2004) calls

Urban School Improvement: A Challenge to Simplistic Solutions to Educational Problems

In his latest book, Ordinary Resurrections, educational reformer Jonathan Kozol again asks why students of color living in urban areas are not provided with the minimum educational opportunities to rise out poverty and, at times, hopelessness. As in his muckraking Savage Inequalities (1991), Kozol paints a bleak picture of urban educational inequalities; urban children receive significantly less than privileged, White suburban children, in large measure because of unequal school financing. Although Kozol’s black and white, good and evil portrayals of urban and suburban schooling have provided a much needed wake-up call to policymakers, political leaders, and citizens, his analyses (Sadovnik, 1992) too often fail to acknowledge the complex interrelationship among schools, family, and other institutions, and the difficulties of reforming urban schools. Two recent problems in the New York City school system, one of the most complex urban systems in the United States, reveal these complexities. First, New York State Commissioner of Education Richard Mills mandated that low-performing Schools under Regents Review (SURR) schools only hire certified teachers to ensure that the most needy New York City schools did not continue to hire uncertified teachers. When New York City Chancellor Harold Levy challenged this mandate by saying there were insufficient certified teachers to staff these schools, Mills filed suit. Under an agreement between the city and state, Levy agreed to phase in the process, but mandated that all certified teachers had to be placed in a SURR school before they could apply to a non-SURR school. As a result, certified teachers had no choice where their first position would be and uncertified teachers were given more choices. Amid the controversy, many certified teachers refused assignments, decided not to teach in New York City, and opted for higher paying suburban positions or lower paying positions in parochial schools. The staffing of urban schools is a complicated problem. Most policymakers would agree that having the least qualified teachers in the most difficult schools, where children need the best and most experienced teachers, makes little sense. However, without a systemic policy to improve city schools, solutions such as the Commissioner’s often deal with symptoms and more often than not exacerbate already difficult situations. The second problem was described in a report in the New York Times (Sunday, September 23, 2000) chronicling the troubled history of John Jay High School in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn. Park Slope is a historic section of the borough, largely White and affluent, where brownstones sell for over a half a million dollars. It is surrounded by less gentrified communities, including Sunset Park, which is largely Hispanic; Red Hook, which is largely African American, Hispanic, and working class White; and Fort Greene, which is African American. John Jay High School, a SURR school, has one of the lowest graduation and achievement rates in the city. Less than 25% of the first year students are still in attendance by grade 12; only 25% take the SAT and their average combined score is less than 800. Less than 25% of the students come from District 15, the elementary and middle school district where the high school is located. Given New York City’s complex high school admissions system, affluent Park Slope parents have all but opted out of their neighborhood school. Either they send their children to one of New York City’s elite examination schools, such as Stuvysant or Bronx Science; to one of its other high quality schools, such as Midwood High School; or to one of the many private schools in Brooklyn, such as Brooklyn Friends, Packer Collegiate Academy, St. Anne’s, or Poly Prep. Last year, the president of the District 15 School Board proposed a restructuring of John Jay, which he believed would “These children are not going to be lawyers and psychiatrists,” I’m told. “They’ll be lucky to get jobs as medical assistants or as sanitation workers with a union and good health benefits. . . .”

The Transformation of Progressive Practice: a Case Study of Education on the Dalton Plan

This article examines the transformation of progressive pedagogic practices at the Dalton School in New York City. Founded in 1919 by Helen Parkhurst, the Dalton School was the site for the implementation of her internationally renowned Dalton Plan, with its constituent parts: House, Laboratory, and Assignment. Based upon archival research, school assignments, and interviews with teachers, students, and administrators, the article traces the evolution of the school from its early progressive roots to its present status as an elite, independent college preparatory school, with vestiges of its early progressivism. In particular, the article looks at how the Dalton Plan has changed during the subsequent administrations of Charlotte Durham, Donald Barr, and its current head, Gardner Dunnan. Sections of this article are adapted from Susan F. Semel, The Dalton School: The Transformation of a Progressive School (New York, Peter Lang, 1992) with permission.