School Failure
Widespread and intractable school failure among millions of students in kindergarten through grade 12 (Kâ12) education in the U.S. is deplorable. Unfortunately, many African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, some other Latinos, and American Indiansâespecially those students of color from economically poor and working-class backgroundsâexperience such failure (e.g., disproportionately high dropout rates from secondary school). School failure is the persistently, pervasively, and disproportionately low academic achievement among a substantial proportion of low-SES students of color (Valencia, 2002). Indeed, this pattern of low academic achievement of many students of color is long-standing. As a case in point, let us examine the 1927 masterâs thesis by Rollen Drake.1
A Comparative Study of the Mentality and Achievement of Mexican and White Children reports one of the earliest comparative investigations of academic achievement of Mexican American and White students. Seventh- and eighth-grade students attending a public school in Tucson, Arizona, participated in Drakeâs (1927) study. Table 1.1 presents comparative descriptive statistics for this investigation undertaken more than eight decades ago. For the Mexican American sample, I present, on the bottom half of Table 1.1, characteristics that describe the groupâs performance on the Stanford Achievement Test. As the data show, the Mexican American students, compared to their White peers, as a group demonstrated a depressed mean, restriction in variability, and a positively skewed distribution.
I must underscore that the Mexican American group also demonstrated overlap, meaning that some Mexican American students in Drakeâs study performed higher in achievement than some of their White peers (i.e., 15.4% of the Mexican American students exceeded the median score for the White students). It is important to emphasize that these four characteristics of Mexican American achievement test performance seen in this 1927 study became a recurring pattern for Mexican American students, as well as other Latino and African American students, for decades to come (Valencia, 2002). In addition to the features of a depressed mean, restricted variability, and positive skew in test scoresâwhich signal troubleâwe also need to be mindful of the overlap feature. To disregard or ignore overlap demeans students
Table 1.1 Descriptive Statistics for Stanford Achievement Test (Form A) for Mexican and White Students
of color as it may lead to a stereotype that all such students are low achievers.
School failure among numerous low-SES students of color manifests in various ways. Once again, let us take Mexican American students as a case in pointâwho share much in common with Kâ12 Puerto Rican and African American students regarding school failure. In a previous publication (Valencia, 2002), I discuss nine schooling conditions that play a significant role in shaping and reproducing school failure among numerous Mexican American students (i.e., school segregation, language/cultural exclusion, school financing, teacherâstudent interactions, teacher certification, curriculum differentiation, special education, gifted/talented education, and the Mexican American teaching force). For example, school segregation continues as a ubiquitous contemporary schooling reality for these students. Historically, the school failure of Mexican American students in the Southwest region of the U.S. originated and intensified in the crucible of forced segregation (Valencia, 2008, chapter 1; Valencia, Menchaca, & Donato, 2002). Segregated schooling of Mexican Americans and other students of color frequently led, and still leads, to inferior schooling, hence school failure (San Miguel & Valencia, 1998; Valencia, 2005; Valencia, 2008, chapter 1; Valencia et al., 2002). Another influential schooling condition, inequities in public school financing, also contributes to the school failure of students of color, particularly Mexican Americans and African Americans. For example, historically in Texas property-rich White school districts, in comparison to property-poor Mexican American school districts, regularly provided considerably broader and superior educational experiences for their students (e.g., better equipped libraries; lower teacherâpupil ratios; higher paid teachers; see Valencia, 2008, chapter 2).
In Valencia (2002), I also discuss six schooling outcomes (i.e., school failure) that characterize the educational reality of a substantial segment of the Kâ12 Mexican American public school enrollment. Mexican American studentsâin comparison to their White peersâperform, on average, at lower levels on various academic achievement tests, have higher rates of grade retention, and drop out of high school at higher rates (the three other schooling outcomes concern college enrollment, high-stakes testing, and school stress). In summary, the structural inequality perspective contends that strong and predictable linkages exist between schooling conditions and schooling outcomes: Racialized opportunity structures lead to racialized academic achievement patterns.
Theoretical Perspectives Proffered to Explain School Failure
What accounts for school failure experienced by a sizeable proportion of low-SES students of color?2 To be sure, scholars have not kept silent on this issue. They have offered many contrasting explanations, and we should best think of them as âfamiliesâ of explanatory paradigms. In brief, these models focus on:
Communication Process
The earliest variant of this family of models is the âcultural differenceâ framework, which has its roots in the early 1970s (Baratz & Baratz, 1970; Labov, 1970; Valentine, 1971). This perspective, launched as a reactive, but serious critique of the 1960s deficit thinking models (see Pearl, 1997b), asserted that one should view the alleged deficits among children and families of color (particularly of low-SES background) more accurately as differences. Proponents of the cultural difference framework contended that the basis of the discontinuity between student and school often lay in a mismatch between the home culture and the school culture (e.g., regarding childrenâs mother tongue; childrenâs learning styles) that leads to learning problems for culturally diverse students (e.g., Hale-Benson, 1986; RamĂrez & Castañeda, 1974). Regarding the early culturally shaped learning styles viewpoint, scholars have critiqued this viewpoint for its unsupported generalizations, and even stereotypes (see Irvine & York, 1995).
As scholarly discourse of the cultural difference model evolved, one variant focused on possible misunderstandings between student and teacher in verbal and nonverbal communication styles (Erickson, 1987). Such misunderstandings from these marked boundaries often result in teachers labeling students as unmotivated to learn. In short, such linguistic differences may lead to trouble, conflict, and school failure. An insightful analysis of this communication process perspective is seen in Lisa Delpitâs 1995 book, Other Peopleâs Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. Drawing from her experiences as a school teacher, graduate student, and a professor of teacher education (i.e., preprofessional teacher training), Delpit delves deeply into communication blocks between students of color and teachers (predominantly White). One of the major themes Delpit focuses on is what she refers to as âthe culture of powerâ (p. 24). She proposes that five premises need to be considered in regard to understanding how teachers have power over students. To wit:
1. Issues of power are enacted in the classroom.
2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a âculture of power.â
3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.
4. If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier.
5. Those with power are frequently least aware ofâor least willing to acknowledgeâits existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence. (pp. 24â26)
With these premises in mind, Delpit contends that instructional methodology, centering on different perspectives concerning the disagreements over âskillâ versus âprocessâ methods of teaching, can lead to an awareness of student detachment and miscommunication, and thus to a comprehension of what she refers to as the âsilenced dialogueâ (p. 24). Rather than a âskillâ versus âprocessâ instructional pedagogy, Delpit contends that âthe actual practice of good teachers of all colors typically incorporates a range of pedagogical orientationsâ (p. 24). In summary, Delpit (p. 45) suggests that in order to optimize the teaching/learning of children of color and of low-SES background, these students
The communication process framework certainly has theoretical import in advancing our understanding of school failure, as well as success, for low-SES students of color. Researchers in this area, however, have raised issues about the dearth of empirical inquiry that has been advanced to demonstrate the nature, presence, and academic effects of cultural discontinuity between home and schools. Such concerns have existed for at least two decades (see Kagan, 1990; Tyler et al., 2008), and have led researchers to design methodological approaches to investigate, quantitatively, cultural discontinuity (e.g., Tyler et al., 2008). Notwithstanding that scholars have conducted extremely little empirical research in this area, the communication process family of models has considerable potential to further our understanding of academic performance variability among students of color.
Caste
Another explanation of school failure lay in âcaste theory,â a model advanced by the late educational anthropologist John Ogbu (see, e.g., Ogbu, 1978, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1994). In his numerous writings, Ogbu classifies racial/ ethnic minority groups in the United States as either âimmigrant minoritiesâ (e.g., some Latinos from Central America; Koreans; Japanese) or nonimmigrant or âinvoluntary minoritiesâ whose current societal status is rooted in slavery (e.g., African Americans), conquest (e.g., American Indians), or conquest and colonization (e.g., Mexican Americans; Puerto Ricans). Sometimes referring to these involuntary minorities as âcaste-like,â Ogbu (1991) asserts that members of these groups âresent the loss of their former freedom, and they perceive the social, political, and economic barriers against them as part of their undeserved oppressionâ (p. 9). Ogbu (1991) also argues that involuntary minorities experience frequent discriminatory treatment with respect to being âconfronted with social and political barriers, given inferior education, and derogated intellectually and culturally, and they may be excluded from true assimilation into the mainstream societyâ (p. 9). Obguâs caste theory is not without its critics (see, e.g., Foley, 1991, 2004, 2005; Trueba, 1991). For example, Ogbuâs framework tends to assert that caste-like studentsâ school failure is endogenously based. Once overwhelmed, such minority students
Social Reproduction and Resistance
Numerous scholars have advanced this family of theories (e.g., Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; De JesĂșs, 2005; Oakes, 1985; Pearl, 1991, 2002). This cluster is also referred to as âstructural inequalityâ or âsystemic inequalitiesâ models. When one analyzes the poor academic achievement of many students of color in the widest cultural, economic, and political contexts, macrolevel elements pertaining to (a) vicissitudes of the national economy, (b) political influence over school policy and practice (macropolitics), and (c) the top-down, authoritarian nature of schooling are all factors theorists deem to contribute to school failure (Pearl, 1991, 1997a, 2002). In his discussion of systemic inequities, Pearl (2002) comments on the vital role of history in understanding school failure of students of color:
Furthermore, De JesĂșs (2005) remarks that according to social reproduction and resistance theories,
Deficit Thinking
Of the several theories that scholars, educators, and policymakers have advanced to explicate school failure among low-SES students of color, the deficit model, the subject of this book, has held the longest currencyâspanning well over a century, with roots going back even further as evidenced by the early racist discourses from the early 1600s to the late 1800s (Menchaca, 1997). The deficit thinking model, at its core, is an endogenous theoryâpositing that the...