E27.0041 American Dilemmas: Race, Inequality, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Public
Education
Lecture/Discussion Section: Wednesday 9:30-12:15 in Kimball 806W
Professor
Pedro Noguera
726 Broadway 5th floor
212 998-5787
[email protected]
Graduate Student Instructor
Amy Scallon
[email protected]
Staff Assistant
Raquel Sanders
726 Broadway 5th floor
212 998-5100
[email protected]
Course Description
W.E.B. Dubois, the renowned African American historian and sociologist, predicted that
the question of the “color line”, and the ways in which our society has been divided on the basis
of race, would be the primary problem for American society in the 20th century. Fifty years later,
Swedish sociologist Gunmar Myrdal characterized America’s race problem as a moral dilemma,
one that threatened the veracity of nation’s proclaimed commitment to equality and democracy.
Though the 21st century is only a few years old, it seems clear that controversies related
to race, class, language, ethnicity and culture, will persist into this century as well. America is in
the midst of a seismic demographic transformation. By 2041, most demographers expect that
those who have historically been in the minority (at least as determined by membership in
specified racial and ethnic groups) will be in the majority, and those who previously were in the
majority (those we have historically categorized as “whites”), will be in the minority.
In this new course, students will be encouraged to think about the ways in which race has
influenced the character of public education and the struggle for democracy in American society.
They will also be encouraged to reflect upon the ways in which this struggle has shaped the
educational experiences of those who have historically been discriminated against. Throughout
the course, students will be provided with analytical tools to make sense of the many issues
involving race and education in American society today. They will also be provided with
practical skills for working in the public schools as educators who can make a positive difference
in the lives of the children they serve.
Our nation’s public schools have long served as a key site where conflicts related to race
and racial privilege have played themselves out. As the institution primarily responsible for
introducing youth to the values and norms regarded as central to “American culture”, schools
have historically played an important role in perpetuating the social, political and economic order.
In addition to teaching basic academic skills schools also play a role in sorting students into
career trajectories based upon measures and perceptions of their acumen and ability. These
experiences influence the occupations and ultimately the adult roles and occupations they will
assume later in life.
1
Given the important role they play it is not surprising that schools are also key places
where Americans have struggled with basic principles of equity, merit, equal opportunity and
civil rights. Public education is the only service that all students, regardless of their status, are
entitled to in America. Yet, it is also an institution that is profoundly influenced by the inequities
that are prevalent in this society. Today, our public schools are by far the most accessible
institutions in American society and for many, the only means available to achieve social
mobility and the hope of a better life.
Through an examination of the evolution of public education we will trace the process
through which groups that have historically been excluded and discriminated against have
gradually been granted the rights associated with full citizenship. Access to quality public
education has never been equal for all segments of our society. Over 50 years after the historic
Brown decision, both explicit and subtle forms of discrimination can still be observed in our
nation’s schools. This course will provide students with a basis for understanding the historical
and sociological processes that have shaped the character of public education in the United States.
By focusing deliberately and explicitly on race, we hope to illuminate why and how the poorest
and neediest children in American society continue to be relegated to inferior schools and
classrooms, and why education continues to be so important to ameliorating inequality.
Understanding the contradictions, controversies and dilemmas created by the hope and
unfulfilled promise of American education is a central theme of this course.
In this course, we begin by interrogating the very existence of “race groups,” utilizing the
perspectives of sociology and history to question these categories long framed as clear-cut
realities in American society. We continue by examining the structural and informal ways in
which Americans build and sustain racial hierarchies in schools and beyond. Students are
provided with practical skills for working in the public schools as educators who can make a
positive difference in the lives of the children they serve. We conclude the course with sustained
analysis of key solutions currently proposed to achieve racial justice through education in
America. Throughout, we make use of a variety of sources -- academic scholarship, films,
government documents, newspapers, and the testimony of practitioners, policymakers, and
students -- to identify the deepest dilemmas of practice, policy, and theory pertaining to race in
American education. In grappling throughout the course with these central controversies of race
and schooling in the United States, we hope to provide students with theoretical and practical
assistance in responding to these dilemmas as they continue to play out in American life.
Learner Objectives: Students enrolled in the course should be able to:
1) describe the ways in which race has influenced the character of public education and the
struggle for democracy in American society;
2) analyze the ways in which the struggle for racial justice has shaped the educational
experiences of those who have historically been discriminated against;
3) evaluate the many issues involving race and education in American society today.
Required Books:
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lemov, Doug. 2010. Teach Like A Champion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marsh, John. 2011. Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way Out of
Inequality. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
2
Brill, Steven. 2011 Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Course Readings and Lectures:
Week 1: Sept. 5
Introduction to Course
Week 2: Sept 12
Race, Education, and American Dilemmas
Payne, Charles. 1984. “Black Bastards and White Millionaires.” In Getting What We Ask For.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Fine, Michelle. 1997. “Witnessing Whiteness.” In Off-White: Readings on Race, Power and
Society, ed. M. Fine, L. Weis, L. C. Powell and L. M. Wong. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapters 1 & 2.
Marsh, John. 2011. Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way Out of
Inequality. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, chapters 1 & 2.
Delpiit, Lisa (2012) Multiplication is for White People. New York: New Press. Chapters 1 and
2.
Week 3: Sept. 19
Race and Schooling in American Society
Omi, Michael. and Howard Winant. 1986. “On the Theoretical Status of the Concept of Race.”
in Race Identity and Representation ed. C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Marger, Martin N. 1991. Race and Ethnic Relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing,
chapter 1.
Lewis, Amanda E. 2006. Race in the Schoolyard, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, chapters 1 & 2.
McWhorter, John H. 2001. Losing the Race, New York, NY: Perrenial, chapters 1 & 2.
**RESPONSE PAPER DUE
3
Week 4: Sept. 26
Education and Inequality
Bowles, Samuel and Herb Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform
and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, chapter 4.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities. New York, NY: Harper, chapter 1.
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapter 3.
Henry, William A. III. 1995. In Defense of Elitism. New York, NY: Anchor Books, chapter 1.
Week 5: Oct. 3
What Works in School: Motivating Students to Learn
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Books, chapter 2.
Marzano, Robert. 2007. “What Will I do to Engage Students?” In The Art and Science of
Teaching. Washington, D.C.: ASCD.
Lemov, Doug. 2010. Teach Like A Champion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
chapters 1-3.
Delpit, Lisa. 1998. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s
Children.” in Education: Culture, Economy and Society, ed. A. Halsey et.al. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
**RESPONSE PAPER DUE
Week 6: Oct. 10
Midterm
Week 7: Oct. 17
What is Good Teaching?
Lemov, Doug. 2010. Teach Like A Champion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, chapters 4-6.
Tyrone, Howard. 2010. “Examples of School Success for Culturally Diverse Students.” In
Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 2009. Dream Keepers: Successful Teachers of African American
Children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, chapters 2 & 3.
Tomlinson, Carol Ann and Jay McTighe. 2006. Integrating and Differentiating Instruction:
Understanding by Design. Washington, D.C.: ASCD.
4
Duncan-Andrade, Jeffrey M.R. and Ernest Morrell. 2008. "Critical Pedagogy in an Urban High
School English Classroom" and "What a Coach Can Teach a Teacher." In The Art of Critical
Pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Brill, Steven. 2011 Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools. New York:
Simon and Schuster. Pp. 1 – 150.
**RESPONSE PAPER DUE
Week 8: Oct. 24
What Works in School: Strategies for Maintaining Safe and Orderly Classrooms
Marzano, Robert. 2007. “What will I do to establish and maintain classroom rules and
procedures?” In The Art and Science of Teaching. Washington, D.C.: ASCD.
Ballenger, Cynthia. 1992. “Because You Like Us: The Language of Control.” Harvard
Educational Review, 62(2), 199-208.
Johnson, Tammy, Jennifer Emiko Boyden, and William J. Pittz. 2001. “Racial Profiling and
Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: How Tolerance Policies and High Stakes Testing
Subvert Academic Excellence and Racial Equity.” Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
Noguera, Pedro. 2000. “Listen First: How Student Perspectives on Violence Can Help in
Making Schools Safe.” In The Assault on America’s Children edited by V. Polakow. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapter 6.
Week 9: Oct. 31
Teaching English Language Learners
Suarez-Orozco, Carola, Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, and Irina Todorova. 2008. “The Challenge of
Learning English.” In Learning a New Land. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bernstein, Basil. 1998. “Class Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible.” In Education: Culture,
Economy, and Society, ed. A. Halsey et al. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hill, Jane and Kathleen Flynn. 2006. Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language
Learners. Washington, D.C.: ASCD.
5
**RESPONSE PAPER DUE
Week 10: Nov. 7
Re-Thinking Education: Making School Matter
Kohn, Alfie. 1999. The Schools Our Children Deserve. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Press,
chapters 4 & 8.
Noguera, Pedro A. 2008. “Bringing Freire to the Hood: The Relevance and Potential of Paulo
Freire’s Ideas to Inner-City Youth.” In Social Justice Education for Teachers, ed. Carlos
Albert Torres and Pedro A. Noguera. London, UK: Sense Publishers.
Davis, Jessica. 2008. Why Our Schools Need the Arts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press,
chapter 2.
Whitman, David. 2008. Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-city Schools and the New Paternalism.
Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (Chapters 1 and 2)
Chenoweth, Karin. 2009. “It’s Being Done”: Urgent Lessons from Unexpected Schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, chapter 1.
Brill, Steven. 2011 Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools. New York:
Simon and Schuster. Pp. 150 – 302.
Week 11: Nov. 14
Engaging Parents and Community
Lareau, Annette. 2007. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families
and White Families.” In Sociology of Education, A Critical Reader, ed. Alan Sadavonik. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Fine, Michelle, 1998. “(Ap)parent Involvement: Reflections on Parents, Power, and Urban
Public Schools.” In Education: Culture, Economy, and Society, ed. A. Halsey et al. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapter 5.
Noguera, Pedro A. and Alan M. Blankstein. 2010. “Engaging Families to Enhance Student
Success.” In Leadership for Family and Community Involvement. Boston, MA: Corwin Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. (What chapters?)
**RESPONSE PAPER DUE
6
Week 12: Nov. 21
Thanksgiving Break – No Class
Week 13: Nov. 28
Why Some Schools Beat the Odds and Some Schools Don’t
Blankstein, Alan. 2004. Failure is Not an Option. Boston, MA: Corwin Press, chapters 3 &
4.
Chenoweth, Karin. 2009. “It’s Being Done”: Urgent Lessons from Unexpected Schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, chapters 2 & 3.
Mortimore, Peter. 1998. “Can Effective Schools Compensate for Society?” In Education:
Culture, Economy, and Society, ed. A. Halsey et al. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Payne, Charles. 1984. “Westside High and The Production of Disorder.” In Getting What We
Ask For. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Smith, Lew. 2008. Schools That Change: Evidence-based Improvement and Effective Change
Leadership. New York, NY: Corwin Press, chapters 1-4.
Week 14: Dec. 5
Making A Difference Through Education
Nieto, Sonia. 2003. What Keeps Teachers Going? New York, NY: Teachers College
Press. ) (chapters 1, 2 and 3)
Kirp, David. 2011. Kids First: Five Big Ideas for Transforming Children’s Lives. New York,
NY: Public Affairs, (chapter 1)
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapter 7.
Brill, Steven. 2011 Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools. New York:
Simon and Schuster. Pp. 302 – 439.
**RESPONSE PAPER DUE
Week 15: Dec. 12
Lessons from School Reform
Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1997. The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that
Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, chapters 7 & 8.
Fruchter, Norm. 2007. Urban Schools, Public Will: Making Education Work for All Our
Children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapters 4-6.
7
Oakes, Jeannie and John Rogers. 2006. Learning Power: Organizing for Education and
Justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (chapter 1 and 2)
Stulberg, Lisa M. 2008. Race, Schools, and Hope: African Americans and School Choice After
Brown. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, chapter 9.
Ravitch, Diane. 2010. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing
and Choice are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books, chapter 1.
Payne, Charles. 2008. So Much Reform, So Little Change: The Persistence of Failure in
Urban Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. (chapter 1 and 2)
Assignments:
There will be an in-class midterm exam on October 10th. The exam will consist of two essay
questions (students will be able to choose from five possible questions that will be distributed in
advance). The midterm will be worth 35% of the final grade.
There will be a take-home final exam distributed December 7th, due December 12th. Like the
midterm, students will be given a choice of five possible questions and be expected to respond to
three. Directions on what will be expected will be distributed prior to the exam. The final will
be worth 45% of the final grade.
Students will write a response paper every other week. Prompts for the response papers will be
handed out a week in advance. 20% of the final grade will be based on the response papers.
All students are expected to attend class regularly and to participate in class discussions.
Students will also be encouraged to participate in site visits to schools throughout the
semester.
A message from NYU to all students:
1) ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
All students are responsible for understanding and complying with the NYU Steinhardt
Statement on Academic Integrity. A copy is available
at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/policies/academic_integrity.
2) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Lucy Moses Center for Students with Disabilities provides comprehensive services and
programs for undergraduate and graduate students with hearing and visual impairments,
mobility impairments, learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders, chronic
illnesses, and psychological impairments. The Moses Center functions to determine
qualified disability status and to assist students in obtaining appropriate accommodations
8
and services. Services provided are designed to encourage independence and selfadvocacy, backed by a comprehensive system of supports.
619 Broadway, 2nd Floor, Phone and TTY: 212-998-4980 http://www.nyu.edu/csd/
Possible Evaluation Rubric:
Here is an example from the approved course, Growing Up in America.
Grading Rubric:
A: Outstanding
Students who earn an A for class participation are consistently present and prepared for class,
synthesize course materials, contribute insightfully and analytically, listen well to others, and
generally move the discussion forward and are actively engaged each class. For written work, an
“A” applies to outstanding student writing. A grade of “A” indicates not simply a command of
material and excellent presentation (spelling, grammar, organization, writing style, etc.), but also
sustained intellectual engagement with the material. This engagement takes such forms as
shedding original light on the material, investigating patterns and connections, posing questions,
and raising issues.
An “A” paper is excellent in nearly all respects:
It is well argued and well organized, with a clear thesis
It is well developed with content that is specific, interesting, appropriate and convincing
It has logical transitions that contribute to a fluent style of writing
It has few, if any, mechanical, grammatical, spelling, or diction errors
It demonstrates command of a mature, unpretentious diction
B: Good
Students who earn a B for class participation generally contribute consistently and thoughtfully
and listen well to other but may be less consistent in their participation and/or their presence in
class and may be less likely to move discussion forward with their contributions. On written
assignments, a “B” is given to work of high quality that reflects a command of the material and a
strong presentation but lacks sustained intellectual engagement with the material.
A “B” paper shares most characteristics of an “A” paper, but
It may have some minor weaknesses in its argumentation
It may have some minor lapses in organization and development
It may contain some sentence structures that are awkward or ineffective
It may have minor mechanical, grammatical, or diction problems
It may be less distinguished in its use of language
C: Adequate
Students who earn a C for class participation do not contribute regularly and may be absent from
class regularly and/or their contributions to class discussion are often tangential and unclear and
they do not listen well to others. Written work receiving a “C” is of fair overall quality but
9
exhibits a lack of intellectual engagement as well as either deficiencies in the student’s command
of the material or problems with presentation.
A “C” paper is generally competent; it is the average performance. Compared to a “B” paper, it
may have a weaker thesis and less effective development.
It may have serious shortcomings in its argumentation
It may contain some lapses in organization
It may have poor or awkward transitions
It may have less varied sentence structures that tend toward monotony
It may have more mechanical, grammatical, and diction problems
D: Unsatisfactory
Students who earn a D for class participation have spotty attendance, come to class unprepared,
and make comments that are off-topic. On written work, the grade of “D” indicates significant
problems with the student‚s work, such as a shallow understanding of the material or poor
writing.
It presents no clear thesis
It displays major organizational problems
It lacks adequate support for its thesis
It includes irrelevant details
It includes confusing transitions or lacks transitions altogether
It fails to fulfill the assignment
It contains ungrammatical or poorly constructed sentences and/or demonstrates problems
with spelling, punctuation, diction or syntax, which impedes understanding
F: Failed
Students who earn an F for class participation also have spotty attendance, come to class
unprepared, fail to participate, demonstrate lack of engagement, and might create a hostile
environment in the classroom. On written work, an “F” is given when a student fails to
demonstrate an adequate understanding of the material, fails to address the exact topic of a
question or assignment, fails to follow the directions in an assignment, or fails to hand in an
assignment.
NOTE: Pluses (e.g., B+) indicate that the paper is especially strong on some, but not all, of the
criteria for that letter grade. Minuses (e.g., C-) indicate that the paper is missing some, but not all,
of the criteria for that letter grade.
** This rubric is adapted from those developed by Prof. Fabienne Doucet and Prof. Helen
Nissenbaum, NYU Steinhardt.
10