Shame of the Nation

As we read earlier in the semester, Kozol likes to visit schools and talk to students, sit in their classrooms, and even eat lunch with them. From these conversations we get the emotional side of the argument, which is how poor and minority students in this country feel about all aspects of their school. You can tell by his style that he believes in empowerment, because he asks open-ended questions and seems to let them talk about whatever is on their minds, although his questions for teachers and principals are sometimes a little more direct. I think his reason for being direct is that we wants to plant the seed of, or expand on, questioning some of the decisions made in and instructional style of poor, segregated schools.

If the stories that come from his direct observations aren't enough to persuade or break your heart, he also provides a more scientific angle and careful analysis. One of the key points we should all be aware of is this: in the years of decreasing school segregation in this country, the achievement gap between students in wealthy and mostly white districts and those in poor, mostly minority districts narrowed. Starting in the early 90s, when schools started a trend back to segregation, the gap has been on the rise once again. The standardization and accountability movement has not made any lasting or significant gains in the gap. If Kozol had decided to go with a subtitle for this book, I think it should've been something about segregation, because I think very few realize the extent of it and the problems created by it. Because of how we think but don't talk about race in this country, perhaps he was afraid that fewer people would've picked up the book if it had had a controversial title.

Is there a better way? What would that look like? Examples can be seen in a few medium cities and in New Jersey. In Milwaukee, four-year-olds get a full year of all-day preschool, and 22 suburban districts participate in a city/suburbs transfer program that has been going for 30 years. Similar programs exist in St. Louis and Louisville (but are now in jeopardy due to funding issues and regressive thinking). Integration has shown significant benefits and far fewer problems than critics or fearful parents have predicted. New Jersey has free pre-K in low-income districts, providing the extra help where it is needed, and is one of just 14 progressive states that actually take poverty levels into account in determining district funding levels (I think the latter point came from my paper research and not Kozol; I'm going from memory on this one). Sadly, Illinois and New York are among the worst in the country in terms of the severity of segregation and regressive funding levels.