Education, Race and Culture
Harry at Crooked Timber had an interesting post a couple of days ago on an issue that has been kicking around for quite awhile now: the issue of minority underachievement in school and what causes it. Another way to characterize the issue might be whether it’s just one thing that causes the underachievement or an array of factors, and if it is an array of factors, what they are and how significant each is, and whether and why some get more attention than others. Whether and why some factors are downplayed or ignored while others are exaggerated and overfocused on.
Harry puts it this way:
Our school district devoted another in-service training to the Courageous Conversations program; every employee (except the many who took sick days) had to participate…It’s a kind of involuntary therapy session — the kind of thing that my friends who used to be in obscure Maoist organizations report having gone through regularly. The pretext is a concern with minority underachievement, which the District regards as being caused by institutional racism, on which the day’s conversation focused. You might expect that a focus on institutional racism would look at the racism in the criminal justice system and the labor market, which deeply affect the prospects of minority males and, presumably, therefore indirectly effect their aspirations and marriageability (with predictable consequences for family structure). But: no mention of these things. It is all about the racism inherent in the schools, and particularly in the attitudes of teachers.
He also has an Op-ed in the Madison paper, where he makes this point among others:
The second assumption the Conversations approach makes is that what is explained by race can by addressed by making teachers face up to their own privilege and racism. The problem, in other words, is in the attitudes of teachers and other district employees. But we have evidence to the contrary. Analyses of the data from summer learning often suggest that the entire growth in the socio-economic class achievement gap each year occurs in the summer, when students are out of school. It looks as if out-of-school experiences, not in-school experiences, are responsible at least in part for that gap. In fact, our understanding of summer learning suggests that schools are truly remarkable places, in which, throughout the school year, the unequal effects of out-of-school experiences on achievement are held in check.
Other people make different though compatible points. Laban Tall collected some useful links on the subject last month, at the time of a conference on ‘London Schools And The Black Child’. There was BBC sports presenter and former Tottenham Hotspur striker Garth Crooks, for example, who told the conference ‘there was a direct link between films and rap music glorifying violence and the drift of black boys away from education and into crime and violence.’ There was a March 2002 article by Joseph Harker:
If, 10 years ago, you asked black people in inner-city areas what they most feared when walking the streets, they would probably have said it was police officers; today they’d reply that it’s loud, aggressive gangs of young black boys – who may or may not be criminals, but are deliberately trying to strike terror into those around them, living up to the gangsta-rap culture which has been imported from the US since the late 1980s. “We’re from the street,” they grunt, “we want respect” (expletives deleted). For a decade now, backed by the profane, misogynistic imagery of rap videos, these people have been given free rein to hijack black culture. Being black is all about music, sex, guns, drugs and living on “the street”, they say, and their message has been taken on board by too many impressionable youngsters. As Sewell said, education has been portrayed as “white” – what use is it when strutting the streets?
And an email debate between Tony Sewell and Lee Jasper on the subject, in which Tony Sewell put it this way:
Many black head teachers and black students are clear that underachievement can be due to the individual student, parents, community, peers and, of course, school. They don’t agree that poverty and institutionalised racism are the most important factors. I would go further and say that political correctness has avoided the real issue of an anti-school black masculinity that pervades not only our inner city but those black boys who attend schools in the suburbs. When it comes to the CRE challenging failing schools, its remit must be wider than just white racism. It must also challenge a youth culture that still thinks to do well in school is to “act white”.
And Jamie Whyte had a piece in the Times about the way the evidence was used:
In the 17th century accusations of witchcraft could be made on flimsy evidence: warts and buoyancy would do. In the 21st century accusations of racism can be made with no evidence at all, or even with evidence pointing in the opposite direction…Pupils were asked how strongly they agree with the following statements, from 5 “strongly agree” to 1 “strongly disagree”:
“Q14. My teachers expect me to do well at school. Q15. My teachers expect me to do my homework. Q16. My teachers care about my progress. Q17. Teachers listen to what I say. Q18. I am often in conflict with teachers.” The average answers of black and white pupils were the same: exactly the same for questions 14 and 15 and so close for the others that the difference is statistically insignificant.
Yet the opposite answer was somehow found – the school system was declared racist when the evidence indicated it wasn’t. That’s the kind of thing that makes one want to rush out and become a teacher, isn’t it.
Clearly there is a strong taboo against saying ‘the culture’ might be playing any part in the underachievement – no doubt it seems too much like blaming the victim. But is it going to be possible to correct the problem while ignoring crucial factors? One wouldn’t think so.
HOT BUTTON ON
The book to read is discussed here.
Enjoy.
HOT BUTTON OFF
Mike S: I guess because otherwise you’d have millions of kids in state-run institutions and millions of angry parents demanding their kids back, and any politician nowadays who tried to implement such a massive program of hauling away kids would be voted out of office. And if too many of the hauled-away kids were racial minorities, there would be cries of “cultural genocide”–and perhaps with good reason. And most of these kids might not be any better off being raised by the state.
Ever see Rabbit-Proof Fence?
Ah yes, The Bell Curve. Examined very well here:
http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html
“Imagine that we had decided that in order for someone to succeed in college they had to be over six feet tall and so you only accepted people who were over six feet tall. Well, within a generation or two, you would find that most of the people who were in the high paying jobs were over six feet tall. And you would note a correlation between success and being over six feet tall. But why did you get that correlation? Because you created a system to make that come true. We have created the kind of system that Herrnstein and Murray talk about by using SATs for college and GREs for graduate school, LSATs for law school, and GMATs for business school. In other words, almost any access route to the high-paying occupations requires you to do well on these tests.”
“What if young black men (like young white men in a similar structural position) are weighing up the life chances they will enjoy if they go straight, against those that they will enjoy if they bling out? And making a what seems to them to be a rational choice – for those values of rationality which apply to 14-year olds?”
Well, just so. What if, indeed. Surely part of the point is that if that is what’s going on, it’s worth trying to teach and/or persuade them that that’s in fact not a particularly rational choice, and why it’s not.
And arguably many young teenagers don’t make such decisions on any rational grounds at all. (I don’t recall ever thinking rationally as a teenager.) They make them on quite other grounds. Contagion, mimesis, what’s hip and cool and bad and rad and oppositional and transgressive and all the rest of it. So it seems worth taking that into account and thinking about it.
“And most of these kids might not be any better off being raised by the state.”
Couldn’t agree more with you on this one.
In fact most would not be any better off and would be considerably worse off. The state is a notoriously bad child minder. Wards of state are lucky if they get through childhood never having been sexually abused.
On the other hand. Granted, the state as child minder is not an ideal plan. But read Harry’s article. The studies show achievement declining in summer (during the long vacation) and rising during the school year. The state is much better at education than a lot of parents are, and that really is part of the overall subject.
“Clearly there is a strong taboo against saying ‘the culture’ might be playing any part in the underachievement – no doubt it seems too much like blaming the victim.”
There is no strong taboo on ‘blaming the victim’, at least not in the right-wing circles of ‘National Review’ etc. where I ‘and my ilk’ occasionally tend to loiter. But of the two ‘environmentalist’ approaches it is certainly the weakest one. Michael Levin hits it spot on in the first chapter of ‘Why Race Matters – Race Differences and What they Mean’ (1997):
“Yet on matters of race, the orthodoxy of the Right is no more enlightened than that of the Left, and in some ways less coherent. The Left holds that blacks would do as well as whites but for racism, the Right that blacks would do as well as whites but for well-meaning government policies like welfare that sap black ambition. (The seductions of popular culture are sometimes added.) The Left’s theory may be wrong, but it observes the forms of correct reasoning. It tries to deal with conflicting evidence, positing unconscious ‘structural’ discrimination to explain black failure in the United States after the passage of civil rights measures, and internalization of the white man’s image of blacks to explain the decline of postcolonial Africa. On the other hand, while conservatives have made a strong case that welfare has accelerated black crime, poverty, and illegitimacy, they ignore the failure of whites to respond as blacks do to welfare incentives available to both races, and explain black failure in the post-civil rights era as a legacy of slavery in language borrowed from the Left. Conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, aware of the worldwide failure of black cultures to develop European/Asian levels of technology, circularly attribute this failure to black culture. The truism that a bad theory beats no theory may explain why the Right’s account of race relations is seldom taken seriously. […]
For the Left it is malicious racism, for the Right it is foolish welfare […] The upshot is scolding and lecturing, as the Left scolds whites for “racism” of which they may be innocent, the Right […] lectures everyone about a work ethic blacks may be unable to follow, and the Left scolds the Right right back for “blaming the victim.””
Basically, Michael Levin’s book defends the hereditarian position that nobody is really to blame for anything — except dark Nature herself, and the grim and depressing realities of Darwinian selection. And if there really is a ‘strong taboo’ in this domain, it is the taboo against dragging nature in where nurture rules the roost.
“The state is much better at education than a lot of parents are, and that really is part of the overall subject.”
I don’t doubt that. But it is a different facet of the state, and different demmand being made of it in the case of education versus full time care. There are plenty of ignorant people who no doubt could be doing a better job of bringing up their offspring. And the state does a better job of educating them. However, they really would have to be extraordinarily incompetent or malicious in order for life in ‘the’ home to be worse than life in ‘a’ home. It is not so much I am romantic about the goodness of family life at all costs, as that I am fairly sure that state institutions are worse than all but the most extreme households.
It must all be down to heredity – that’s why there’s hardly any youth crime in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, and no culture of working-class youths under-achieving there, and
Ah.
Well, if your main concern is the declining achievement among poor kids, why not just abolish summer vacation and lengthen the school day in those areas where it is a serious problem? In particularly blighted areas you might offer after-hours extra-curricular activities (anyone remember “midnight basketball”?) Seems like a more sensible solution than creating huge state asylums for kiddies or whatnot.
“as that I am fairly sure that state institutions are worse than all but the most extreme households.”
I spent a couple of years working in children’s homes, so I’d be interested to hear why you think this…
“so long as we fail to criticise the notion that any biological parent is better than none.”
I am quite happy to critise incompetant parents. I am also happy to critise the incompetance of the state in many matters involving children. This includes the ability to distinguish child abuse from other injuries, and keeping children safe from harm in care homes. I don’t think the parental home is best in all circumstances. But I do think that state care (given what it is) should be a last resort, and not something to be just applied flippantly).
“I spent a couple of years working in children’s homes, so I’d be interested to hear why you think this…”
Because the state does not have a very good record for child care. And because children can be far crueller than adults. I have read that upto 1/2 of all children are bullied at some point. At least at school, those children’s torment ends at the end of the school day.
Connie’s idea sounds more pragmatic, cheaper, and better. (But then she and I always agree on everything ;-).
“I spent a couple of years working in children’s homes, so I’d be interested to hear why you think this…”
Hmmm, on second thoughts, a bit of honesty. I think this mainly because of anecdotes I have heard from some who have been in one, and the way homes always seem to be portrayed in the press.
If you tell me they are actually OK, I guess that is really only anecdotal evidence too, but you have worked at one so it has to be worth something.
Did you find the one(s) you worked at OK? If so do you think you were lucky or do you think most of them are OK?
I still don’t buy however, that a mass increase in the number of children in homes is in order and better targeting is defintely in order. Parting children from parents is an awesome right for a state to award itself and it should not be done lightly.
Chris
It isn’t as simple as saying they are “okay”.
I worked in three different homes; they were all okay in the sense that the children were never physically or emotional abused by the staff. Not once.
It’s the comparison which is pertinent. These children had been living nightmarish lives before they ended up in the homes. Stuff you would not believe possible. For example
A seven year old who was malnourished because his mother (his father was absent) had not fed him for what the social workers thought was close to a month (needless to say, he hadn’t been at school).
The sixteen year old girl – private school pupil – who had been systematically beaten by her father.
The six year old who had been found shivering outside his mother’s house (father absent again) at 6.00am in the morning; he’d been there all night. His mother was inside with a boyfriend who didn’t want him around. Mind you, he had been sent out to get them fish and chips the night before. He didn’t get any.
And then, of course, there were the children who just had to be there. Like the thirteen year old boy who could not stop killing things (his parent’s dog; next door neighbour’s cat; assorted fish; etc). I remember him watching a wasp die after it had been sprayed with insecticide. He had an erection (which he showed me).
The other thing: I’d be very wary of believing what people who have been in care tell you about their experiences. A lot of them – not all obviously – have had really fucked up lives.
Scylla and Charybdis. Stories like Anna Climbie’s and the ones Jerry relates are heartbreaking and all too common, and the state needs to intervene more often and more aggressively in such cases. On the other hand, the Orkney case shows how the state can sometimes go plumb loco.
A couple of points
a) if racist teachers are the cause, why do Indian students do better than white kids and Pakistani kids do worse ?
b) the group with the worst academic results is also the group with the highest number of one parent families.
None of the factors work in isolation though. Both Indian and Pakistani children tend to have strong family structures, yet one group performs better.
The issues – and the arguments – are pretty much the same in the states. I’d recommend John McWhorter and Thomas Sowell’s writing on the subject – especially McWhorter.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mcwhorter.htm
But one interesting difference is that Caribbean immigrant children do better in the US than black Americans.
“The prevailing orthodoxy lays the blame on other factors, of course, but none of them withstands scrutiny. The fact that the children of working poor immigrants, including black Caribbean and African immigrants, often do well in school, disproves the claim that their working-class roots deny today’s newly middle-class blacks the “cultural capital” to teach their children to excel in school. The success of Southeast Asian immigrants’ children in the same terrible inner-city schools in which black students fail disproves the Jonathan Kozol gospel that it is the “savage inequality” of school funding that makes black kids fail. Though Kozol’s followers counter that immigrants are an inappropriate comparison because they are a “self-selected” population, rich in initiative, Latinos are also self-selected immigrants and yet lag behind in school almost as much as blacks—which shows that culture plays a major role among immigrants. Finally, educators often assert that white teachers are biased against black children, dousing their initiative early on and then tracking them away from advanced placement classes. However, studies repeatedly suggest that teachers track based on demonstrated ability—and, again, black Caribbean and African children do fine, despite presumably suffering the same treatment as native-born blacks.”
http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/lingdept/Current/people/facpages/mcwhorter.html
Yeah, McWhorter is interesting. He makes me a little nervous at times, maybe only because he says things that it would be very awkward for a honky to say.