Chapter 8 - Social Problems

Structural-Functionalist Perspective

-According to structural functionalism, the educational institution serves important tasks for society, including instruction, socialization, the sorting of individuals into various statuses, and the provision of custodial care (Sadovnik 2004). Many social problems, such as unemployment, crime and delinquency, and poverty, can be linked to the failure of the educational institution to fulfill these basic functions (see Chapters 4, 6, and 7). Structural functionalists also examine the reciprocal influences of the educational institution and other social institutions, including the family, political institutions, and economic institutions. -A major function of education is to teach students the knowledge and skills that are necessary for future occupational roles, self-development, and social functioning. Although some parents teach their children basic knowledge and skills at home, most parents rely on schools to teach their children to read, spell, write, tell time, count money, and use computers. As discussed later, many U.S. students display low levels of academic achievement. The failure of many schools to instruct students in basic knowledge and skills both causes and results from many other social problems. -The socialization function of education involves teaching students to respect authority—behavior that is essential for social organization (Merton 1968). Students learn to respond to authority by asking permission to leave the classroom, sitting quietly at their desks, and raising their hands before asking a question. Students who do not learn to respect and obey teachers may later disrespect and disobey employers, police officers, and judges. -The educational institution also socializes youth into the dominant culture. Schools attempt to instill and maintain the norms, values, traditions, and symbols of the culture in a variety of ways, such as celebrating holidays (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Thanksgiving); requiring students to speak and write in standard English; displaying the American flag; and discouraging violence, drug use, and cheating. -Some have described schools as "spaces of cultural conflict where different values, beliefs, and norms create discord" (Fraise and Brooks 2015, p. 6). This is particularly true as the size of racial and ethnic minority groups continues to increase. American schools are thus faced with a dilemma: Should they promote only one common culture, or should they emphasize the cultural diversity reflected in the U.S. population? Some evidence suggests that most Americans believe that schools should do both—they should promote one common culture and emphasize diverse cultural traditions. Multicultural education—that is, education that includes all racial and ethnic groups in the school curriculum—promotes awareness and appreciation for cultural diversity and, ideally, leads to cultural competence among teachers and students alike (also see Chapter 9). -Schools sort individuals into statuses by providing credentials for individuals who achieve various levels of education at various schools within the system. These credentials sort people into different statuses—for example, "high school graduate," "Harvard alumna," and "English major." In addition, schools sort individuals into professional statuses by awarding degrees in fields such as medicine, engineering, and law. The significance of such statuses lies in their association with occupational prestige and income—the higher one's education, the higher one's income. Furthermore, unemployment rates and earnings are tied to educational status, as seen in Figure 8.2. -The educational system also serves the function of providing custodial care by providing supervision and care for children and adolescents until they are 18 years old (Merton 1968). Despite 12 years and almost 13,000 hours of instruction, some school districts are increasing the number of school hours and/or days beyond the "traditional" schedule. In 2013, Arne Duncan, the U.S. secretary of education and an advocate for a longer school year, argued that "whether educators have more time to enrich instruction or students have more time to learn how to play an instrument and write computer code, adding meaningful in-school hours is a critical investment that better prepares children to be successful in the 21st century" (quoted in Smyth 2013). To date, more than 1,000 U.S. schools have extended their academic year.

Inadequate School Facilities

-Almost half of all schools in the United States were built in the 1940s and 1950s, and many need costly repairs and renovations. School enrollment is projected to increase through 2019, state and local building funds remain low, and federal spending is about half what it was prior to the 2007 recession, further exacerbating the problem. The American Society of Civil Engineers, assigning a letter grade of D (poor) to the infrastructures of American schools, estimates that at least $270 billion or more is needed to "modernize and maintain" our nation's schools (American Society of Civil Engineers 2014). -Nationally representative data collected by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics reports similar concerns (Alexander et al. 2014). Results indicate that in 25 percent or more of public schools, the windows, plumbing/lavatories, heating and air-conditioning systems, ventilation/filtration systems, security systems and exterior lighting, roofs, and communication systems were rated as fair or poor. Furthermore, 27 percent or more of outdoor features such as parking lots, fencing, athletic facilities, sidewalks, and playgrounds were also rated as fair or poor. In general, the lower the socioeconomic status of the student population as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch, the worse the overall condition of the facilities. -Because of development patterns, many of the most disadvantaged schools are in large urban areas. A study of the condition of New York City public schools found that it is directly associated with poverty—the more impoverished the neighborhood, the worse the school (Service Employees International Union 2013). In 2013, the city of Philadelphia closed 23 public schools, some because of underuse and others because they needed millions of dollars in repair (Hurdle 2013). Because courts have consistently held that the quality of building facilities is part and parcel of equal educational opportunities, state governments monitor spending on infrastructure needs to ensure equitable distributions of funds (American Federation of Teachers 2009). -A considerable body of evidence documents the relationship between the school physical environment and academic achievement. Milkie and Warner (2011), after interviewing more than 10,000 parents and teachers of first grade students, conclude that students' stress levels are negatively impacted by deteriorated school facilities. Tanner (2008) found a significant relationship between school environment (e.g., space, movement patterns, light, etc.) and academic achievement of third graders even when controlling for the socioeconomic status of the school. Air quality, noise, overcrowding, inadequate space, environmental contaminants, and lighting all affect a child's ability to learn, a teacher's ability to teach, and a staff member's ability to be effective.

Challenges of Higher Education

-Although there are many types of postsecondary education, higher education usually refers to two- or four-year, public or private, degree-granting institutions. In 2014, there were nearly 5,352 colleges and universities in the United States (Ginder et al. 2014). -Of the 24.5 million undergraduate and 3.8 million graduate students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, full-time students, women, and racial and ethnic minorities have disproportionately contributed to enrollment growth over the years. However, projected enrollment through 2022 is expected to slow down in part because of demographic changes—the number of people who are of typical college age, 18 to 24, is expected to decline (Lederman 2014). -Over the last decade, there has been a significant decrease in full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty, once the "core" of academia, and significant increases in noninstructional staff (e.g., administrators) and non-tenure-track, part- or full-time instructors. In general, as academic rank increases—that is, from instructor to assistant professor, to associate professor, to full professor—salaries increase and the proportion of women and minorities decrease. In academic year 2013-2014, the average salary for female faculty was $70,400; for male faculty, $85,500 (NCES 2015a). -In the academic year 2013-2014, the total cost for a first time, full-time student, who lived on campus and paid in-state tuition was $22,190 at a public institution and $44,370 for a private institution (NCES 2015a). Out-of-state students' costs are even higher. For many students and families, without financial aid, the expense of a four-year degree would make a college degree unobtainable. Nearly three-quarters of college students graduate with some kind of debt averaging $29,400 (White House 2014a), 40 million graduates are still paying on their student loans, and another 7 million have defaulted (Dynarski 2014). -As student debt surpassed the $1 trillion mark, a total larger than the sum of all mortgage debt or all credit card debt (Dynarski 2014), President Obama signed an executive order designed to ease the burden of borrowers. Among its many provisions, it will cap loan payments at 10 percent of the borrower's income and, by working with the private sector, help students with payment options by expanding the financial counseling students receive. -In a recent book, Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream (Mettler 2014), the author argues that higher education perpetuates inequality rather than expanding opportunities. Although the book outlines many ways in which this is the case, central arguments include the growth and expense of for-profit colleges and universities (e.g., the University of Phoenix, Kaplan Higher Education) that predominantly serve students from low-income families, the dismal graduation rates—25 percent on the average—at for-profit colleges and universities, the increased cost of going to college at a time when student aid programs cover less and less of the expense, and the underfunding of community colleges at a time when federal loans to students at for-profit institutions increases student debt (i.e., they are more expensive that nonprofit institutions), often without a degree, and costs taxpayers millions of dollars in defaulted loans -For example, evidence indicates that the number of students receiving merit-based aid rather than need-based aid is growing (Marcus and Hacker 2014). From a college or university's perspective, spreading what aid there is to more people in smaller amounts both increases enrollment rates and the institutions' reputation as grade point averages and the proportion of incoming freshmen who graduate increases. By definition, those who receive merit-based aid are high achievers and more likely to have graduated from better-funded high schools where enrollment for students from low-income backgrounds is small. Thus, not only is need-based aid for low-income high school graduates less available, but these graduates are less likely to be eligible for merit-based aid. -Because socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity are related, the same social forces behind "degrees of inequality" that impact low-income students disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities. Of the total fall enrollment at four-year degree-granting institutions in 2013, only 14.3 percent of students were black and 16.5 percent Hispanic (NCES 2015a). Note that minority enrollment at four-year for-profit institutions and two-year for-profit institutions was 52 percent and 60 percent, respectively (NCES 2015a). -Additionally, although college enrollments of racial and ethnic minorities have increased over the last several decades, the increases have been accompanied by "separate and unequal" access to "selective and well-funded four-year colleges" (Carnevale and Strohl 2013, p. 6). Between 1995 and 2009, 82 percent of incoming white college students were enrolled at the top 468 colleges and universities in the United States, compared to 9 percent of African American college students and 13 percent of Hispanic college students. -Lastly, African American and Hispanic students with A averages in high school are more likely to be enrolled in community colleges compared to their similarly qualified white counterparts. The 468 most selective four-year colleges where white students disproportionately attend have more financial resources, higher graduation rates, higher enrollment in and completion of graduate degrees, and graduates with greater future earnings -Despite being called the nation's "unsung heroes of the American education system" (Obama quoted in Adams 2011, p. 1), just over half of the respondents in a survey of U.S. adults agreed with the statement that "community colleges offer high-quality education" (Lumina 2013). In contrast to such perceptions, enrollment in 2-year colleges continues to increase, with 7 million students in 2013, expected to increase to over 8 million by 2024. The number of associate degrees awarded in the same year was nearly twice that awarded a decade ago (NCES 2015a). -Community colleges play a vital role in U.S. educational policy. They are starting points for many Americans who hope to eventually transfer to baccalaureate institutions. Minority and low-income students and women are more likely to enroll in community colleges than their white, male middle-class counterparts for a variety of reasons. Community colleges are often closer to where students live, and they offer a more flexible schedule, allowing students to work full- or part-time while attending school and avoiding the cost of room and board by living at home. -Because of the importance of community colleges and the role they play in higher education, in 2015, President Obama proposed that, for some students, community college be tuition-free (White House 2015). Called America's College Promise, this federal government initiative would work with states to waive tuition for responsible students who maintain a minimum grade point average and are in high-performing programs. Additionally, as proposed, there would be institutional reforms that would help ensure that community college students complete an associate's degree. As many as 9 million students could benefit from America's College Promise, with a full-time community college student, on the average, saving $3,800 in tuition per year.

Character Education

-Character education entails teaching students to act morally and ethically, including the ability to "develop just and caring relationships, contribute to community, and assume the responsibilities of democratic citizenship" (Lickona and Davidson 2005). Despite most schools' emphasis on academic achievement, knowledge without character is potentially devastating. Sanford McDonnell (2009), the former CEO of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and chairman emeritus of the Character Education Partnership, recounts a letter written by a principal and former concentration camp survivor to his teachers at the start of a new school year: "My eyes saw what no person should witness: gas chambers built by learned engineers, children poisoned by educated physicians, infants killed by trained nurses, women and babies shot and burned by high school and college graduates. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters and skilled psychopaths. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are important only if they serve to make our children more humane. (p. 1)" -In 2010, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) began an investigation into the University of North Carolina football program focusing on "impermissible benefits from sports agents," and in 2012, they sanctioned the football program. In the same year, an investigation began into one academic department's role in fraudulently assigning grades. The results indicated that over the course of two decades, there were over 200 "make believe" courses and more than 500 unexplained grade changes involving over 1,500 student-athletes, and several administrators, faculty members, academic advisors, and coaches (Beard 2014; Friedlander 2014). In 2015, the NCAA acknowledged that academic misconduct is rising in college athletics and that it is currently handling more than 20 investigations (Russo 2015). -Unfortunately, the scandal at UNC, although highly publicized, is just one of many examples of academic integrity violations that occur at all education levels. Seventy-five percent of students report cheating at least once in their college career (Buchmann 2014), and cheating among high school students is at an all-time high (Dorff 2014). Furthermore, technological advances have made academic dishonesty easier. Khan and Balasubramanian (2012) report that over a third of undergraduate students surveyed reported cheating in the traditional way (e.g., copying someone's homework), while over three-quarters admitted to cheating using various technological devises (i.e., cell phones, iPods). -Given the lack of academic integrity plaguing schools today, school violence, bullying, and crime and violence, character education is a much needed and essential ingredient of a positive school environment. This is particularly true given that a lack of academic integrity is associated with a higher likelihood of dishonesty after graduation (King and Case 2014). On the other hand, character education in schools is associated with "higher academic performance, improved attendance, reduced violence, fewer disciplinary issues, reduction in substance abuse, and less vandalism" (Lahey 2013, p. 1).

Advocacy and Grassroots Movement

-Concerns about failing schools, standardized testing, and value-added measurement (VAM, or the practice of teachers' salaries being tied to students' performances) have led to a growing movement of parents and educators "opting out" of high-stakes testing. There have been writing protests, new campaigns by teacher unions, boycotts of standardized testing by teacher and student groups, and even Facebook pages with names like "Parents and Kids against Standardized Testing" and "Scrap the MAP"—the Measurement of Academic Progress (Toppo 2013). -Parent Revolution, whose mission is to "transform underperforming public schools by empowering parents to advocate what is good for children," began in 2009 in Southern California and was instrumental in passing the first parent trigger law (Parent Revolution 2014, p. 1). The principle behind parent trigger laws is that, with a sufficient number of signatures, parents can intervene on behalf of their children by taking one or more actions as statutorily permitted. In general, these actions include replacing administrators, principals, and/or teachers, converting the school to a charter school (see the section titled "The Debate over School Choice" in this chapter) or closing the school altogether. -To date, seven states have enacted parent trigger laws, sometimes called empowerment laws, with more than 24 states considering their adoption (Lindstrom 2015). For example, Ohio schools that rank "in the lowest five percent in performance statewide for three or more consecutive years" are eligible for intervention based on the state's trigger laws (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL] 2013a, p. 1). Options for action include converting the school to a charter school, replacing "at least 70 percent of the school's personnel related to its poor performance," turning control of the school over to the state, and privatization (NCSL 2013a, p. 1). Based on Ohio's parent trigger law, 20 percent of Columbus, Ohio, schools now qualify for key leadership changes (Prothero 2014). -As a structural functionalist would argue, trigger laws empower parents who heretofore had little to say about the quality of their children's education. Compatible with conflict theory, opponents hold that trigger laws are part of a political agenda funded by wealthy donors to privatize schools (Lu 2013, p. 1). Ironically, because privatization "outsources school governance to educational management organizations (EMOs) who have no obligation to (and often no physical presence in) the community, the parent trigger ultimately thwarts continued, sustained community and parental involvement" (Lubienski et al. 2012, p. 2). -The Network for Public Education (NPE) is an "advocacy group whose goal is to fight to protect, preserve and strengthen our public school system, an essential institution in a democratic society" (NPE 2015, p. 1). The NPE endorses political candidates, provides support and information for similarly minded "friends and allies," and issues grassroots reports on essential issues in public education. Recent NPE actions include protesting the role of business leaders (e.g., the Gates Foundation) in education policy, the continued increase in class size, the closing of schools in Chicago, high-stakes testing and their use in teacher evaluations, and charter schools that divert needed funds from public schools.

Conflict Perspective

-Conflict theorists emphasize that the educational institution solidifies the class positions of groups and allows the elite to control the masses. Although the official goal of education in society is to provide a universal mechanism for achievement, in reality, educational opportunities and the quality of education are not equally distributed. -Conflict theorists point out that the socialization function of education is really indoctrination into a capitalist ideology (Sadovnik 2004). In essence, students are socialized to value the interests of the state and to function to sustain it. Such indoctrination begins in early childhood education. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1972) coined the term the organization child to refer to the child in nursery school who is most comfortable with supervision, guidance, and adult control. Teachers cultivate the organization child by providing daily routines and rewarding those who conform. In essence, teachers train future bureaucrats to be obedient to authority. -In addition, to conflict theorists, education serves as a mechanism for cultural imperialism, or the indoctrination into the dominant culture of a society. When cultural imperialism exists, the norms, values, traditions, histories, and languages of minorities have been historically ignored. A European-Mexican American recalls the richness of European history and that the little time spent on ancient Mexico and Central American societies was "largely spent establishing their many evils: Blood sacrifices to hungry gods, an insatiable lust for power and conquest, and a morbid, crude fascination with death.... The text compared these primitive societies with the more advanced Europeans, making list of things they didn't have. They didn't have beasts of burden. They didn't have guns. They didn't have steel. And, of course, they didn't have wheels. (Brammer 2014, p. 1)" -The conflict perspective also focuses on what Kozol (1991) called the "savage inequalities" in education that perpetuate racial disparities. Kozol documented gross inequities in the quality of education in poorer districts, largely composed of minorities, compared with districts that serve predominantly white middle-class and upper-middle-class families. For example, in high-concentration poverty schools, California teachers report that such chronic conditions as insufficiently qualified substitutes; noisy, dirty, and disrupted classrooms; inadequate access to the school library; nonteaching duties (e.g., janitorial tasks); and a lack of computers reduce the average instructional time for poor students by two weeks when compared to students in low-concentration poverty schools (Rogers and Mirra 2014). -Kozol also revealed that schools in poor districts tend to receive less funding and to have inadequate facilities, books, materials, equipment, and personnel. It should be noted, however, that such inequities exist in other countries as well as evidenced by, for example, per-pupil expenditures in developed versus developing countries (OECD 2014).

Understanding Problems in Education

-Educational reform continues to be the focus of legislators and governments across the country and the world. Although there is disagreement as to what needs to be done and how, all can agree that significant reform is needed to meet the needs of a global economy in the 21st century and, perhaps more importantly, to fulfill Horace Mann's dream of education as the "balanced wheel of social machinery," equalizing social differences among members of an immigrant nation. -First, we must invest in teacher education and in teaching practices that have been empirically documented to work in raising student outcomes. Teachers' salaries also need to better reflect the priority Americans place on children, education, and the education of children and should not be tied to student performance. As a society, we need to help teachers overcome the obstacles that have led to a growing teacher dropout crisis (see Figure 8.8). -Second, the "savage inequalities" in education, primarily based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, must be addressed. Segregation, rather than decreasing, is increasing—a reflection of housing patterns, local school districts' heavy reliance on property taxes, and immigration patterns. Public schools should provide all U.S. children with the academic and social foundations necessary to participate in society in a productive and meaningful way; however, for many children, schools perpetuate an endless downward cycle of failure, alienation, and hopelessness. -Third, the general public needs to become involved, not just in their children's education but also in the institution of education. An uneducated and unthinking populace hurts all of society, particularly in terms of global competitiveness. As Kohn (2011) observes, children from low-income families continue to be taught "the pedagogy of poverty" (Haberman 1991) or what has been called the "McEducation of the Negro" (Hopkinson 2011). Like Big Macs, children are being packaged in one-size-fits-all wrappers—with learning how to think, explore, question, and debate being replaced by worksheets and standardized tests. Sadly, as education historian Diane Ravitch notes, the present reform movement that "once was an effort to improve the quality of education [has] turned into an accounting strategy" (Ravitch 2010, p. 16). -Fourth, as conflict theorists would note, we must be wary of market principles in schools and of those who advocate them. Educational policy in the United States is increasingly influenced by K-12 corporate providers, many of which have political ties and vested interests. The number of schools operated by for-profit education management companies has increased from 6 in 1996 to 758 in 2012 (Davis 2013). -Finally, as a society, we must attend to and be cognizant of the importance of early childhood development (UNESCO 2014c). As Poliakoff (2006) notes: "Children's physical, emotional, and cognitive development are profoundly shaped by the circumstances of their preschool years. Before some children are even born, birth weight, lead poisoning, and nutrition have taken a toll on their capacity for academic achievement. Other factors—excessive television watching, little exposure to conversation or books, parents who are absent or distracted, inadequate nutrition—further compromise their early development. (p. 10)"

The Debate over School Choice

-Historically, children have gone to public schools in the district where they live. However, a 2014 survey of more than 5,000 U.S. adults indicates that over a quarter of American families have a school age child who is or has been educated in a nontraditional school setting (Henderson et al. 2015). School vouchers, charter schools, and private schools provide parents with alternative school choices for their children (see Figure 8.7). -School vouchers and state tax credits allow families to send their children to private schools. School vouchers are state-funded "scholarships" that allow public school students to attend private schools. Eligibility for vouchers is usually confined to special populations, for example, low-income students, special education students, and students in chronically low-performing schools (NCSL 2013b). Similarly, "tax credit programs ... allow businesses or individuals to contribute to organizations that distribute private-school scholarships to low income families" (Henderson et al. 2015, p. 15). Presently, about half the states have some kind of school voucher or tax credit program. -Proponents of the voucher system argue that it increases the quality of schools by creating competition for students. Those who oppose the voucher system argue that it will drain needed funds and the best students away from public schools. Opponents also argue that vouchers increase segregation because white parents use the vouchers to send their children to private schools with few minorities. -The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is the "oldest and largest publicly funded voucher program in the United States," beginning in 1991 and continuing to the present (Cowen et al. 2013). Wisconsin state law requires an evaluation of the voucher program and its impact on academic achievement. To assess attainment, students attending voucher schools were matched (e.g., percentage black, percentage female, etc.) with those attending public schools so that an accurate comparison could be made. The results indicate that students who were exposed to a voucher environment in the eighth and ninth grades were more likely to graduate from high school, enroll at a four-year institution, and stay in school beyond their first year of college (Cowen et al. 2013). -In some states, vouchers can be used for charter schools. Charter schools originate in contracts, or charters, which articulate a plan of instruction that local or state authorities must approve. Although foundations, universities, private benefactors, and entrepreneurs can fund charter schools, many are supported by tax dollars. There are about 6,400 charter schools in the United States with a student population of 2.5 million (Center for Research on Educational Outcomes [CREDO] 2015). -Charter schools, like school vouchers, were designed to expand schooling options and to increase the quality of education through competition. Like vouchers, charter schools have come under heavy criticism for increasing school segregation, reducing public school resources, and "stealing away" top students. Proponents argue that charter schools encourage innovation and reform, and increase student learning outcomes. Fifty-four percent of Americans are in favor of the formation of charter schools (Henderson et al. 2015) (see Figure 8.7). -A CREDO study of 41 major U.S. urban areas indicates that, overall, charter school students outperform students in traditional public schools. In 2014, students in urban charter schools had higher levels of annual growth in both mathematics and reading than their traditional public school counterparts. Such growth is equivalent to students in the urban charter schools receiving 40 days of additional learning in math and 28 days of additional learning in reading a year. Furthermore, the learning gains measured were the highest for black, Hispanic, low-income, and special education students (CREDO 2015). -Another school choice parents can make is to send their children to a private school. The number of students enrolled in private schools in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, was 5.3 million, a decrease from previous years (NCES 2015a). The decline in private school enrollment is associated with an increase in students attending charter schools (Ewert 2013). -Parents send their children to private schools for a variety of reasons, including the availability of academic programs and extracurricular activities, smaller class size and a lower student-teacher ratio, religious instruction, and dissatisfaction with public schools (Ewert 2013). Many people believe that private schools are superior to public schools in terms of academic achievement, and some evidence suggests that is the case. For example, private school students outperform public school students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), their average score being higher on the 4th grade reading test and the 4th, 8th, and 12th grade mathematics and science tests (Chen 2015). -In addition to traditional private schools, there's a growing movement for local or state governments to "contract out" schools and other educational services to private for-profit corporations. Some experts are "alarmed at what they see as increasingly aggressive moves by companies to make money from the K-12 system; others say the expanding role of for-profit ventures is just a natural evolution of the interplay between the private and public sectors in efforts to improve schools" (Davis 2013, p. 52). Research comparing Michigan public schools, nonprofit managed charter schools, and for-profit charter schools operated by education management organizations (EMOs) indicates that charter schools, in general, have a higher proportion of black students than traditional public schools, charter schools have a lower proportion of Hispanic students than traditional public schools, and for-profit charter schools are less likely to enroll poor students than nonprofit charter schools

Distance Education

-The number of students enrolled in online classes and degree programs continues to rise (NCES 2014a). In 2012, the latest year for which data are available, 14.2 percent of undergraduates were enrolled in at least one online course, and 11 percent were enrolled exclusively in online courses. In general, the larger the college or university, the higher the percentage of online students. Over half of students enrolled exclusively in online classes are located in the same state or jurisdiction as the institution they attend (NCES 2014b). -Online education serves a number of functions. First, it often serves a segment of the population that would not otherwise be able to attend school—older, married, full-time employees, and people from remote areas. Thus, for example, 30 states have complete school curriculums online allowing students anywhere in the state to attend classes (Watson et al. 2014). Second, some research suggests that online learning benefits those who have historically been disadvantaged in the classroom. A study by DeNeui and Dodge (2006) indicates that females in a blended course were more likely to use a learning management system (e.g., Blackboard) than males and to significantly outperform them as measured by final grades in an introductory psychology class. Third, a survey of high school administrators indicates that offering online courses is important because they allow schools to offer courses that would otherwise not be available, permit flexibility in schedules, extend the school day and year, are financially beneficial, build linkages with colleges, and prepare students for 21st-century jobs (Picciano and Seaman 2010). -Despite the many functions online learning serves, a survey of 656 employers and 215 community college students indicates that there are concerns about the quality of online education. Over half of the employers reported that they would prefer to hire a graduate from an average school with all face-to-face courses rather than a student from a top school who completed their degree entirely online (Public Agenda 2013). Furthermore, 42 percent of community college students indicate that students learn less in online-only classes compared to face-to-face classes, and nearly half expressed a desire to take fewer online courses. Finally, in a survey of more than 2,800 colleges and university officials, two-thirds of the respondents indicated that "concerns about the relative quality of online courses" will continue over the next five years (Allen and Seaman 2014).

Symbolic-Interactionist Perspective

-Whereas structural functionalism and conflict theory focus on macro-level issues, such as institutional influences and power relations, symbolic interactionism examines education from a micro-level perspective. This perspective is concerned with individual and small-group issues, such as teacher-student interactions and the self-fulfilling prophecy. -Symbolic interactionists examine the consequences of the social meaning conveyed in teacher-student interactions. From the teachers' point of view, middle-class students may be defined as easy and fun to teach. They grasp the material quickly, do their homework, and are more likely to "value" the educational process. Students from economically disadvantaged homes often bring fewer social and verbal skills to those same middle-class teachers, who may, inadvertently, hold up social mirrors of disapproval. Teacher disapproval contributes to lower self-esteem among disadvantaged youth. -The differences in interactions may be subtle and are often unconscious. Consider the impact of two only slightly different statements: "You only have a B?" (message: you can do better) versus "I'm so proud of you; you got a B!" (message: you can't do much better) (Anderson 2014; Avery 2014). Because students from economically advantaged homes are more likely to bring to the classroom social and verbal skills that elicit approval from teachers, they may be more likely to invoke the former, whereas students from economically disadvantaged homes may invoke the latter. -The example above may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, a tendency for people to act in a manner consistent with the expectations of others. If I'm already working to my potential, there's no need for me to try harder. Teachers who define a student as a slow learner may be less likely to call on that student or to encourage the student to pursue difficult subjects. The teacher may also be more likely to assign the student to lower-ability groups or curriculum tracks (Riehl 2004). As a consequence of the teacher's behavior, the student is more likely to perform at a lower level. -A classic study by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) provides empirical evidence of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the public school system. Five elementary school students in a San Francisco school were selected at random and identified for their teachers as "spurters." Such a label implied that they had superior intelligence and academic ability. In reality, they were no different from the other students in their classes. At the end of the school year, however, these five students scored higher on their intelligence quotient (IQ) tests and made higher grades than their classmates who were not labeled as spurters. In addition, the teachers rated the spurters as more curious, interesting, and happy, and more likely to succeed than the nonspurters. Because the teachers expected the spurters to do well, they treated the students in a way that encouraged better school performance. -For years, ability grouping—which takes place within classes, in contrast to tracking, which takes place between classes—has been criticized for its potential negative effect on students and, consequently, went out of favor several decades ago (Loveless 2013). The fear, still held by some today, was that ability grouping not only reflects differences in race and class but also contributes to those differences; that is, it perpetuates inequality. Nonetheless, a recent study by the Brown Center on Education Policy reports a resurgence of grouping students based on ability. For example, using data from the United States, 61 percent of fourth grade teachers and 76 percent of eighth grade teachers report creating math groups based on student achievement (Loveless 2013).

Strategies for Action

-Americans consistently rank improving education as one of their top priorities (Pew Research Center 2015). Recent attempts to improve schools include raising graduation requirements, barring students from participating in extracurricular activities if they are failing academic subjects, providing three-year bachelor's degree programs, lengthening the school day, prohibiting dropouts from obtaining driver's licenses, implementing year-round schooling, and extending the number of years permitted to complete a high school degree. -However, educational reformers on both sides of the political aisle continue to call for changes that go beyond these get-tough policies. On the one hand, many Republicans believe that increasing competition and accountability lead to better schools, teachers, and students. Democrats, on the other hand, argue that increased funding and a commitment to ending educational inequality is what is needed. Differences aside, all agree that something needs to be done.

Problems in the American Educational System

-For years, the PDK/Gallup annual survey on education asks a random sample of U.S. adults to "grade" our nation's schools (Bushaw and Calderon 2014). In 2014, 29 percent of respondents assigned a letter grade of D or F to the nation's schools, and another 51 percent assigned a C. Given budget cuts, low academic achievement, high dropout rates, questionable teacher training, school violence, and the challenges of higher education, such concern may be warranted.

School Dropouts

-In the last several decades, the male and female status dropout rates have declined significantly to 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively... Nonetheless, more than 1 million students drop out of school every year. -The status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds that is not in school and has not earned a high school degree or its equivalent. In the last several decades, the male and female status dropout rates have declined significantly to 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively (NCES 2015a). Nonetheless, more than 1 million students drop out of school every year (NCES 2015c). Figure 8.4 graphically portrays the percentage of ninth graders in 2009 who dropped out of high school, by sex and parents' socioeconomic status. -Dropping out of school is associated with increased costs of public assistance, poorer health, higher medical costs, and dying at a younger age. Because 45 percent of graduates with a GED (general educational development) smoke compared to 10 percent of college graduates, high school dropouts cost Medicare $20 billion a year (Segal 2013). The dropout rate is also associated with lower incomes (Alliance for Excellent Education [AEE] 2014a). In general, dropouts, earn $8,000 a year less than their high school graduate counterparts, and $26,500 a year less than college graduates. Furthermore, it is estimated if the male dropout rate was reduced by just 5 percent, "the nation could save as much as $18.5 billion in annual crime costs.... [T]he nation would also see a decrease in annual incidences of assault by nearly 60,000; larceny by more than 37,000; motor vehicle theft by more than 31,000; and burglaries more than 17,000. It would also prevent nearly 1,300 murders, more than 3,800 occurrences of rape, and more than 1,500 robberies. (AEE 2014a, p. 1)" -Second-chance initiatives such as GED certification allow students to complete their high school requirements. Other dropout interventions include early or middle school college programs that allow dropouts to enroll in community colleges or, in some cases, four-year degree programs. There, they receive a secondary school education, earn a high school diploma, and often accrue college credits. There are also efforts, at the state and federal levels, to increase the age of compulsory school attendance in the hopes that it will deter students from dropping out of school.

Race and Ethnicity

-It is projected that by 2024, racial and ethnic minorities will comprise 54 percent of the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade student population (NCES 2015a). To a large extent, this demographic shift in the racial and ethnic makeup of public school students is a result of the growth in the number of Hispanic students. The white student population is expected to decrease from 60 percent in 2001 to 46 percent in 2024. Alternatively, the number of Hispanic students in public schools is projected to increase from 17 percent in 2001 to 29 percent in 2024. -In comparison to whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are less likely to succeed at every level. As early as the start of kindergarten, black children have lower reading, math, and working memory scores when compared to their white counterparts, much of the difference explained by student socioeconomic status and school quality (Quinn 2015). By fourth grade, approximately 80 percent of black, Hispanic, and Native American students are reading below grade level compared to 55 percent of white students. Similarly, by eighth grade, 86 percent of black, and 79 percent of Hispanic and Native American students compared to 56 percent of white students are below grade level in mathematics (Kids Count 2014). As Table 8.1 indicates, although educational attainment has increased over time for all groups, racial and ethnic disparities remain. -It is important to note that socioeconomic status interacts with race and ethnicity. Because race and ethnicity are so closely tied to socioeconomic status—that is, a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities are poor—it appears that race or ethnicity determines school success. For example, cities have the highest proportion of minority students as well as the highest proportion of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, a proxy for socioeconomic status (NCES 2015a). Although race and ethnicity may have an independent effect on educational achievement, their relationship is largely a result of the association between race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. -In addition to the socioeconomic variables, there are several reasons that minority students have academic difficulty. First, minority children may be English language learners (ELLs). The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that there are more than 4.4 million English language learners in the United States. In six states, including Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas, and the District of Columbia, 10 percent or more of the public school population are English language learners (NCES 2015a). ELLs come from over 400 different language backgrounds, the overwhelming majority being native Spanish speakers. -Now imagine, as Goldenberg (2008) suggests, "you are in second grade and don't speak English very well and are expected to learn in one year ... irregular spelling patterns, diphthongs, syllabication rules, regular and irregular plurals, common prefixes and suffixes, antonyms and synonyms; how to follow written instructions, interpret words with multiple meanings, locate information in expository texts ... read fluently and correctly at least 80 words per minute, add approximately 3,000 words to your vocabulary ... and write narratives and friendly letters using appropriate forms, organization, critical elements, capitalization, and punctuation, revising as needed. (p. 8)" -Not surprisingly, ELLs score significantly below non-ELLs on standardized tests in both reading and mathematics (NCES 2014a). To help ELLs, some educators advocate bilingual education, teaching children in both English and their non-English native language. -Advocates claim that bilingual education results in better academic performance of minority students, enriches all students by exposing them to different languages and cultures, and enhances the self-esteem of minority students. Critics argue that bilingual education limits minority students and places them at a disadvantage when they compete outside the classroom, reduces the English skills of minorities, costs money, and leads to hostility with other minorities who are also competing for scarce resources. -The second reason that racial and ethnic minorities don't perform well in school, and compounding the difficulty ELLs have, is that many of the tests used to assess academic achievement and ability are biased against minorities. Questions on standardized tests often require students to have knowledge that is specific to the white middle-class culture—knowledge that racial and ethnic minorities may not have. -The disadvantages that minority students face on standardized tests have not gone unnoticed. In 2012, a complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education alleging civil rights violations in New York City's elite public high schools that base admissions decisions solely on standardized tests scores (Rooks 2012). In the fall of 2013, although 70 percent of the city's public high school students were black or Hispanic, they received fewer than 12 percent of the invitations to attend New York City's elite public high schools (Hewitt et al. 2013). -A third factor that hinders minority students' academic achievement is overt racism and discrimination. Discrimination against minority students may take the form of unequal funding, as discussed earlier, as well as racial profiling, school segregation, and teacher and peer bias. In a qualitative study of racial discrimination in the classroom, black students recounted incidents of being disciplined more severely for the same behavior than white students, the expectation of failure by their teachers, and a lack of institutional support for racial inclusiveness (Hope et al. 2015). -In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education was unconstitutional because it was inherently unequal. In 1966, a landmark study titled Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al. 1966) revealed that almost 80 percent of all U.S. schools attended by whites contained 10 percent or fewer blacks and that, with the exception of Asian Americans, whites outperformed minorities on standardized tests. Coleman and colleagues emphasized that the only way to achieve quality education for all racial groups was to desegregate the schools. This recommendation, known as the integration hypothesis, advocated busing to achieve racial balance. -Despite the Coleman report, court-ordered busing, and a societal emphasis on the equality of education, U.S. public schools remain largely segregated. The majority of black and Hispanic students attend schools that are predominantly minority in enrollment. This is particularly true in large urban areas such as New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles where minorities comprise over 85 percent of the student population. -A study by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA indicates that not only does school segregation exist, it's increasing (Orfield et al. 2014). In the United States, the typical white student in a classroom of 30 could expect to have 22 white, 2 black, 4 Hispanic, 1 Asian, and 1 "other" classmates. Alternatively, a typical black or Hispanic student in a classroom of 30 could expect to have 8 white classmates and 20 or more black and/or Hispanic classmates. Attending a desegregated school, although having no negative achievement effect on white students, has been found to have a positive effect on black and Hispanic students in terms of learning and graduation rates (Orfield et al. 2014). -In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public school systems "cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student's race" (Greenhouse 2007, p. 1). At the time, the Court's decision reflected a general trend toward using socioeconomic or income-based integration rather than race-based integration variables. -Kahlenberg (2006, 2013) has long advocated this approach for several reasons. First, "socioeconomic integration more directly and effectively achieves the first aim of racial integration: raising the achievement of students" (Kahlenberg 2006, p. 10). Second, socioeconomic integration, because of the relationship between race and income, achieves racial integration, and racial integration, in turn, fosters racial tolerance and social cohesion. Third, unlike race-based integration that is subject to "strict scrutiny" by the government, school assignments based on socioeconomic status are perfectly legal. Fourth, the problem of low-income students in schools, regardless of race and ethnicity, is growing as poverty spreads beyond urban areas and into suburban neighborhoods. Finally, evidence suggests socioeconomic integration is a more cost-effective means of raising student achievement than spending additional dollars in high-poverty schools (Kahlenberg 2013).

Crime, Violence, and School Discipline

-Learning is impacted by any number of social variables—the quantity and quality of teachers, home environment, availability of resources such as computers and textbooks, parental involvement, and the like. One important variable is the extent to which a student feels safe and supported. Research indicates that "high stress environments in which students feel chronically unsafe and uncared for make it physically and emotionally harder for them to learn and more likely for them to act out or drop out" (Sparks 2013, p. 16). -Despite the horrors of high-publicity school killings such as those at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook Elementary School, the chance of a student dying at school is quite rare. Less than 2 percent of the total youth homicide rate, and proportionately even fewer suicides, take place on school property (Robers et al. 2015). The unlikelihood of such an event is reflected in students' perceptions of safety. According to the most recent data available, 3 percent of students report fear of attack or harm on their way to or at school. Fear is higher among minority students in urban public schools compared to their counterparts (Robers et al. 2015). -In 2013, 4 percent of the student population between 12 and 18 years of age reported being the victim of a nonviolent crime, resulting in 1.4 million in-school incidents (NCES 2015a). The most common in-school offense was theft. Violent (e.g., robbery) victimization of 12- to 18-year-olds was higher at school than away from school, higher for males than females, and higher for younger students (aged 12 to 14) than older students (aged 15 to 18). Eight percent of high school students reported being in a physical fight on school grounds within the last year, and nearly a quarter reported that they had been offered, sold, or given drugs while on school property (Robers et al. 2015). -According to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (2014b), an estimated 20 percent of women on campus, most often in their freshman or sophomore year, will be sexually assaulted while in college. Many will be victims of an "incapacitated assault; they are sexually abused while drugged, drunk, passed out, or otherwise incapacitated" (p. 6). The victim will probably know her attacker but will not report what happened. -President Obama has also launched federal investigations into sexual assault complaints at more than 100 college campuses across the country, both public and private, including the University of California, Ohio State, Knox College in Illinois, Harvard, and Catholic University of America. The investigations are being conducted under Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at colleges or universities receiving federal funds (Dockterman 2015; Williams and Hefling 2014). According to a national survey of 440 colleges and universities, 40 percent of schools had not conducted a single investigation of sexual assault in the five years prior to the survey, and even fewer provided sexual assault training for faculty and staff (Majority Staff 2014). According to two documentary filmmakers who traveled the country interviewing both sexual assault victims and assailants for their film The Hunting Ground, the assaults are usually premeditated; the "survivor was picked out, plied with alcohol and set up to be assaulted" (quoted in Dockterman 2015). -Teachers may also be victimized in schools. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, teachers were more likely to be threatened or injured in urban schools than in suburban or rural schools, and in public schools than in private schools (Robers et al. 2015). Female teachers reported being physically attacked by a student at higher rates than male teachers; and, somewhat surprisingly, a greater percentage of elementary school teachers reported being physically attacked than high school teachers. There were also differences in the likelihood of being threatened or physically attacked by race and ethnicity of the teacher. African American teachers were more likely to be threatened by a student and/or physically attacked by a student than white or Hispanic teachers. -Across grade levels, black, Hispanic, and Native American boys and girls are disproportionately suspended and expelled when compared to their white counterparts. For example, on average, 16.4 percent of African American students are suspended compared to 4.6 percent of white students (U.S. Department of Education 2014a). In addition, white students represent 51.0 percent of the public school population yet 39.0 percent of those arrested for a school-related incident. Black students, on the other hand, represent 16.0 percent of the public school population and 31.0 percent of those subjected to a school-related arrest (U.S. Department of Education 2014a). The debate, of course, is whether these disparities can be attributed to overt discrimination or a reflection of differences in behavior. -Disciplinary practices differ between schools and school districts, with some expelling or suspending 90 percent of the student body at least once. Such rates are the result of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies. Although the origin of the phrase is from the 1980s and fears over drug use and students bringing guns to school, today's zero-tolerance policies may include suspensions or expulsions for "bringing a cell phone to school, public displays of affection, truancy, or repeated tardiness" (National Public Radio 2013, p. 1). -Increasingly, educators, counselors, teachers, and psychologists "denounce such practices [suspensions and expulsions] as harmful to students academically and socially, useless as prevention tools, and unevenly applied" (Shah 2013, p. 1). Further motivation for school reform comes from the school-to-prison pipeline—the established relationship among severe disciplinary practices, increased rates of dropping out of school, lowered academic achievement, and court or juvenile detention involvement. The school-to-prison pipeline disproportionately hurts minority students who are more likely to be suspended or expelled, and when "forced out of school become stigmatized and fall behind in their studies, ... drop out of school altogether, and ... may commit crimes in the community" (Amurao 2013, p. 1). -Bullying "involves targeted intimidation or humiliation ... a physically stronger or socially more prominent person (ab)uses her/his power to threaten, demean, or belittle another" (Juvonen and Graham 2014, p. 161). Bullying may be direct (e.g., hitting someone) or indirect (e.g., spreading rumors) and is considered a form of aggression. Whether examining bullying by age, race/ethnicity, culture, country, or gender, boys are more likely than girls to participate in direct bullying such as kicking, hitting, and pushing. -Just over 20 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds report being bullied at school (Robers et al. 2015). Female students have higher rates of being the subject of rumors, being "made fun of, called names, or insulted," and being "excluded from activities on purpose" than male students (p. 46). Males students were more likely to be "pushed, shoved, tripped or spit on." 21 percent of whom reported being injured as a result of the incident (p. 46). Bullying is most likely to occur in hallways or stairwells and, somewhat surprisingly, in classrooms.

Highest Level of Education Attained by Individuals Age 25 Years Old and Older, 2014

-Less than high school diploma - 11.6% -High school diploma - 29.7% -Some college, no degree - 16.7% -Associate's degree - 9.9% -Bachelor's degree - 20.2% -Master's degree - 8.5% -Professional or doctoral degree - 3.4%

The Global Context: Cross-Cultural Variations in Education

-Nearly 17% of adults cannot read or write, 2/3 of them women -Looking only at the American educational system might lead one to conclude that most societies have developed some method of formal instruction for their members. After all, the United States has more than 140,000 schools, 4.6 million primary and secondary schoolteachers and college faculty, 3.1 million public school administrators and support staff, and 77.8 million students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 2015a, 2014c). In reality, many societies have no formal mechanism for educating the masses. Nearly 17 percent of adults in the world cannot read or write—775 million people, two-thirds of them women. An estimated 122 million children in the world are illiterate and, according to the most recent data available, 57.8 million out-of-school children are of elementary school age (UNESCO 2014a, 2014b) -Education at a Glance, a publication of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), reports education statistics on more than 34 countries (OECD 2014). Some interesting findings are revealed. First, in general, educational levels are rising. For example, many countries saw an increase in the proportion of young people attending colleges and universities. However, large numbers of people do not graduate from tertiary institutions. On the average, just 33.3 percent of all adults attain a college degree. -Second, there is a clear link between education and income, and between education and employment. In general, across the OECD-participating countries, the more education people have, the higher their income and the greater the likelihood they will be employed. For example, the unemployment rates of college-educated people is nearly half of those with less than a high school degree. Furthermore, investment in a college degree has an "earnings premium"; that is, the benefits of having a college degree far outweigh the cost of getting one. Today, the average U.S. college graduate recoups their investment in about 10 years and has a lifetime earnings premium of approximately $300,000 (Abel and Deitz 2014). -Third, across all OECD-participating countries, an average of $9,487 is spent per student each year they are in school, from elementary school to college. Spending, although increasing in general, varies widely by country. In Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Turkey, less than $4,000 is spent per student per year. However, Australia, France, Japan, Sweden, Ireland, and the United Kingdom spend over $10,000, and Switzerland and the United States spend over $15,000, on the average, per student per year (OECD 2014). -Fourth, in reference to teachers, the average student-teacher ratio in elementary schools in OECD-participating countries is less than 16:1, but it ranges from a high of 28:1 in Mexico to 11:1 or less in Poland, Norway, and Saudi Arabia. Average elementary school class sizes range from a high of 52 students in China to a low of 17 students in Luxembourg (OECD 2014). -Teachers' salaries represent the single largest category in educational spending. Between 2008 and 2012, teachers' salaries rose in most countries with the notable exceptions of Hungary and Italy. In general, the higher the level of class taught, the higher the teacher's salary. Despite the fact that public school teachers in the United States, on the average, earned $56,382 in 2013 (NCES 2015b), near the OECD average, teachers in the United States work more hours than in any of the other OECD-participating countries. For example, elementary school teachers in the United States, on the average, teach 1,131 hours annually compared to the OECD average of 782 annual work hours (Klein 2014). -Fifth, educational attainment in OECD-participating countries has increased over the last decade. The percentage of people without a high school education has declined, and the percentage of people with a college education has grown. However, generational and regional differences exist. For example, more than 40 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds in OECD countries have college degrees, but fewer than 25 percent of 55- to 64-year-olds have completed college degrees. In the United States, the difference between the two age groups is slightly more than 1 percent; in Korea, over 50 percent (OECD 2014). -Finally, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is designed "to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students" (OECD 2013, p. 1). A random sample of more than 510,000 15-year-old students from 65 countries (34 OECD countries and 31 partner countries) participate in the PISA. The results of the most recent study indicate that of the OECD-participating countries, students in Shanghai-China scored the highest in science and mathematics, and students in Hong Kong-China, Japan, and Singapore the highest in reading (PISA 2014). Furthermore, in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which uses data from more than 50 countries, the United States scored higher than the international TIMSS average for both 4th and 8th graders in mathematics and science (Kastberg et al. 2013).

Gender

-Not only do women comprise two-thirds of the world's illiterate adults, but girls comprise more than 62 percent of the 125 million children who don't attend school (UNESCO 2014b). Although progress in reducing the education gender gap has been made, gender parity in primary and secondary schools has not been achieved. Sixty percent of countries for which there is data have achieved gender parity at the elementary school level, but just 20 percent in low-income countries. Just over a third of countries have achieved gender parity at the high school level (UNESCO 2014c). -Historically, U.S. schools have discriminated against women. Before the 1830s, U.S. colleges accepted only male students. In 1833, Oberlin College in Ohio became the first college to admit women. Even so, in 1833, female students at Oberlin were required to wash male students' clothes, clean their rooms, and serve their meals and were forbidden to speak at public assemblies (Fletcher 1943; Flexner 1972). -In the 1960s, the women's movement sought to end sexism in education. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving federal funds (see Chapter 10, "Gender Inequality"). These guidelines were designed to end sexism in the hiring and promoting of teachers and administrators. Title IX also sought to end sex discrimination in granting admission to college and awarding financial aid. Finally, the guidelines called for an increase in opportunities for female athletes by making more funds available for their programs. -Gender inequality in education continues to be a problem worldwide. High-performing girls underachieve compared to boys when "they are asked to think like scientists, such as when they are asked to formulate situations mathematically or interpret phenomena scientifically" (Borgonovi and Achiron 2015, p. 1). A self-fulfilling prophecy is likely at hand: parents are less likely to expect their daughters compared to their sons to go into STEM occupations. However, in general, international data suggest that 15-year-old boys are less likely to achieve academically than girls of the same age, particularly in reading. -In the United States, the push toward equality has had considerable effect. For example, in 1970, nearly twice as many men than women had four or more years of college; by 2013, those differences significantly declined (see Table 8.1). Furthermore, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam indicate that the gender gap in both mathematics and reading scores has decreased over the last few decades. However, significant differences remain and, in general, follow educational stereotypes—boys outscore girls in mathematics, and girls outscore boys in reading (Perry 2014). -Traditionally, the gender gap in achievement has been explained by differences in gender role socialization (see Chapter 10). More recently, however, popular portrayals of male and female differences in achievement have been attributed to "hardwiring," as though there are "pink and blue brains." As neuroscientist Lise Eliot (2010) notes: "A closer look reveals that the gaps vary considerably by age, ethnicity, and nationality, for example, among the countries participating in PISA, the reading gap is more than twice as large in some countries (Iceland, Norway, and Austria) as in others (Japan, Mexico, and Korea); for math, the gap ranges from a large male advantage in certain countries (Korea and Greece) to essentially no gap in other countries—or even reversed in girls' favor (Iceland and Thailand). What's more, a recent analysis of PISA data found that higher female performance in math correlates with higher levels of gender equity in individual nations. (p. 32)" -Boys are more likely to lag behind girls in the classroom, be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), have learning disabilities, feel alienated from the learning process, and drop out or be expelled from school. -Much of the research on gender inequality in the schools focuses on how female students are disadvantaged in the educational system. But what about male students? Boys are more likely to lag behind girls in the classroom, be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), have learning disabilities, feel alienated from the learning process, and drop out or be expelled from school (Dobbs 2005; Mead 2006; Tyre 2013). Furthermore, black and Hispanic males compared to white males score lower on the NAEP, are less likely to be in gifted and talented programs or to be in advanced placement (AP) classes, and are less likely to graduate from high school or college (Schott Report 2015). Thus, the problems boys have in school may indeed require schools to devote more resources and attention to them (e.g., recruit male teachers). For example, the District of Columbia has proposed an all-boys public high school in an effort to increase achievement levels and graduation rates of African American boys (Mitchell 2015).

Social Class and Family Background

-One of the best predictors of educational success and attainment is socioeconomic status. Children whose families are in middle and upper socioeconomic brackets are more likely to perform better in school and to complete more years of education than children from families of lower socioeconomic classes. For example, 15-year-old students from disadvantaged backgrounds in OECD countries are one and half times more likely to repeat a grade than their advantaged counterpart (Avvisati 2014). -Globally, in general, children of professionals outperform children of manual workers. That said, there are exceptions. In reference to mathematics performance, the children of cleaners in Shanghai-China outperform the children of professionals in the United States. Although there is a strong relationship between parents' occupations and students' academic performance, "the fact that students in some education systems, regardless of what their parents do for a living, outperform children of professionals in other countries [indicates] ... that it is possible to provide children of factory workers the same high-quality education opportunities that children of lawyers and doctors enjoy" (Biecek and Borgonovi 2014, p. 4). -On standardized tests such as the SAT and the ACT, "children from the lowest-income families have the lowest average test scores, with an incremental rise in family income associated with a rise in test scores" (Corbett et al. 2008, p. 3). Muller and Schiller (2000) report that students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to enroll in advanced courses for mathematics credit and to graduate from high school—two indicators of future educational and occupational success. In addition, a report to Congress on educational inequality acknowledges that students from high-income families compared to low- and middle-income families are not only more likely to attend college, they are also more likely to complete it (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 2010). -In one of the most significant studies to date on the relationship between family background and educational success, sociologist Carl Alexander and his colleagues followed nearly 800 Baltimore students from 1982 when they entered first grade until young adulthood (Alexander et al. 2014). Over the course of 25 years, the researchers obtained school records and interviewed and surveyed the children, their parents, and teachers. Research findings include the following: =Only 4 percent of children from low-income backgrounds completed college compared to 45 percent of children from high-income backgrounds. =Of those who did not attend college, white men from low-income backgrounds secured higher-paying blue-collar jobs than black men from low-income backgrounds. =White women from low-income backgrounds had higher incomes than black women from low-income backgrounds. =Nearly half of the children sampled remained in the same socioeconomic status as their parents—only 33 children from low-income backgrounds became high-income adults and only 19 children from high-income backgrounds became low-income adults. -The lead author concludes that the "implication is where you start in life is where you end up in life," contrary to the "popular ethos that we are makers of our own fortune" (quoted in Rosen 2014, p. 1). -Families with low incomes have fewer resources to commit to educational purposes—less money to buy books or computers or to pay for tutors. Disadvantaged parents are less involved in learning activities. As parental education and income levels increase, the likelihood of a parent taking a child to a library, play, concert or other live show, art gallery, museum, or historical site also increases. Parents who have less education and lower income levels are less likely to be involved in school-related activities such as attending a school event or volunteering at a school (NCES 2011). Furthermore, low-income students are less likely to be engaged in the kind of activities that build the "soft skills" (e.g., teamwork) necessary to be successful as an adult (Venator and Reeves 2015). -Local dollars make up 44 percent of school funding but varies dramatically by district based on socioeconomic variables (Federal Education Budget Project [FEBP] 2014). Local expenditures on schools come from taxes, usually property taxes, and as housing prices decline, property taxes decline. The U.S. system of decentralized funding for schools has several additional consequences. -First, school districts with low socioeconomic status are more likely to be in urban areas and in inner cities where the value of older and dilapidated houses has depreciated; less desirable neighborhoods are hurt by "white flight," with the result that the tax base for local schools is lower in deprived areas. Second, school districts with low socioeconomic status are less likely to have businesses or retail outlets where revenues are generated; such businesses have closed or moved away. Third, because of their proximity to the downtown area, school districts with low socioeconomic status are more likely to include hospitals, museums, and art galleries, all of which are tax-free facilities. These properties do not generate revenues. Fourth, neighborhoods with low socioeconomic status often need the greatest share of city services; fire and police protection, sanitation, and public housing consume the bulk of the available revenues, often leaving little for education. Finally, in school districts with low socioeconomic status, a disproportionate amount of the money has to be spent on maintaining the school facilities, which are old and in need of repair. -Although states provide additional funding to supplement local taxes, this funding is not always enough to lift schools in poorer districts to a level that even approximates the funding available to schools in wealthier districts. For example, in Leandro v. State (1997), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the state constitution required that all schools must provide adequate resources to fully educate disadvantaged students (i.e., those who are poor, in special education, and have limited English proficiency). Yet, over two decades later, problems continue to exist. In 2014, a county in North Carolina filed a motion alleging that the state had failed to fulfill its obligation "to provide all children in North Carolina the opportunity for a sound basic education and evidence regarding their ability to fulfill such a plan" (Education Justice 2015). One county in North Carolina was doing such a poor job of educating its disadvantaged students that a judge called it "academic genocide" (Waggoner 2009).

Recruitment and Retention of Quality Teachers

-School districts with inadequate funding and facilities, low salaries, lack of community support, and minimal professional development have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified school personnel. A study by the Alliance for Excellent Education in conjunction with the New Teacher Center (NTC) found that 13 percent of teachers either move schools or leave the profession every year (AEE 2014b). The percent is even higher in high-poverty schools—about 50 percent higher than low-poverty schools—with an annual turnover rate of 20 percent. Teacher movement tends to be from urban to suburban districts, and from schools with a high percentage of poor and/or minority students to schools with a low percentage of poor and/or minority students. -High teacher turnover is a problem in several ways. First, newer teachers are less experienced and often less effective. Effective teachers, those who are ranked in the top 20 percent of performance, add an average of 5.5 more months of learning each year compared to low performing teachers. (U.S. Department of Education 2014b). Second, teacher turnover contributes to a lack of continuity in programs and educational reforms. Finally, recruiting and training expenses, in addition to the time and effort devoted to replacing teachers who have left the profession, is considerable. The estimated cost to states of teacher turnover is upward of $2.2 million a year (Witt 2014). -Because teacher salaries are the largest component of a school district's costs, poor school districts have less money to offer qualified teachers (FEBP 2014). Thus, students in poorer school districts are more likely to be taught by teachers with less than three years of experience, teachers assigned to areas outside their specialty, substitute teachers, or less effective teachers, when compared to students in more affluent districts -Furthermore, teachers in poorer school districts are more likely to be impacted by conditions that make teaching difficult (e.g., noisy classrooms, too few computers) and to be tasked with noninstructional duties (e.g., janitorial duties, lunch/yard supervision) (Rogers and Mirra 2014). -Recruiting and retaining quality teachers in poverty-level schools is critical to the success of its students. Because minority students disproportionately populate poor school districts, it is also important to recruit and retain teachers who meet the needs of children from diverse backgrounds and of varying abilities. The number of minority teachers who can serve as role models, have similar life experiences, and have similar language and cultural backgrounds is far too few for the number of minority students. Called the "diversity gap," less than 20 percent of teachers are non-Hispanic, nonwhite, despite the fact that nearly half of public school students are minorities (Boser 2014). Not surprisingly, a survey of a representative sample of high school teachers in California found that teachers in schools with concentrated poverty reported higher rates of students with economic and social stressors (Rogers and Mirra 2014) (see Figure 8.5). -Recruiting and retaining quality teachers may be made more difficult with the recent emphasis on accountability and implementation of value-added measurement (VAM). VAM is the use of student achievement data to assess a teacher's effectiveness. Although the majority of Americans believe that using teacher evaluations to improve teaching skills and document ineffectiveness is very important, 61 percent of Americans are opposed to using test results in evaluating teachers (Bushaw and Calderon 2014), and not without reason. The American Statistical Association (ASA), in a 2014 open letter on educational assessment, note that the majority of differences in standardized test scores between students are "attributable to factors outside of the teacher's control, such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and [other] unmeasured influences" (ASA 2014, p. 7). -Assessing teachers based on student performance assumes all else is constant and ignores the reality of student differences in such nonschool factors as family life, poverty, emotional and physical obstacles, and the like (see Figure 8.5). In addition, there are concerns that teachers, fearing for their jobs and concerned about merit-based pay, may begin "teaching to the test" and worse. In 2015, 10 former Atlanta public school educators were convicted for providing students with answers to standardized test questions and changing incorrect answers to correct ones. -To place quality teachers in the classroom, many states have implemented mandatory competency testing (e.g., the Praxis Series). The need for teachers who are officially classified as "highly qualified" is tied to federal mandates that emphasize the importance of having licensed teachers in the classroom. Additionally, teachers who have a bachelor's degree and have been in the classroom for three or more years are also eligible for national board certification. Eighty-one percent of Americans believe that board certification should be required (Bushaw and Calderon 2014). Some studies indicate that students of "highly qualified" teachers and/or board-certified teachers perform better on standardized tests and have shown greater testing gains than students of teachers who are not "highly qualified" and/or board certified (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 2015).

Low Levels of Academic Achievement

-The Educational Research Center uses several indicators to measure K-12 achievement in public schools, including current levels of performance, improvement over time, and the achievement gap between poor and nonpoor learners called the poverty gap (Hightower 2013). Based on a 100-point scale, the achievement average for the nation in 2015 was 70.2 (C-) and ranged from a high of 86.2 (B) for Massachusetts and a low of 64.2 (F) for Mississippi (Quality Counts 2015). -One way to measure performance is to look at the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) of public and private school students, over time. National trends indicate that reading and mathematics scores between 1998 and 2013 have improved but not for all students. In general, black and Hispanic students made larger gains during the same time period than white students, narrowing the reading and math gap between whites and minorities. Nonetheless, blacks and Hispanics remain significantly behind their white counterparts in both reading and math. The gender gap has also narrowed over time although, in 2013, females still outperformed males in reading and males still outperformed females in mathematics (NAEP 2014). -The results of the research yielded four major findings. First, leaving school and returning to it are the result of a "cluster of factors" such as homelessness, becoming a caregiver for a family member, living in a dangerous neighborhood, or being the victim of a violent crime. Both survey data and interviews support this conclusion. As one 16-year-old respondent recounts: -The second finding is that people who leave school are often living in a "toxic environment"—emotional, sexual, and physical abuse, bullying, and parental absence or neglect (p. 20). Using both the qualitative and quantitative data, the researchers identified the three most pervasive sources of toxicity: exposure to or victimization of violence, personal and family health trauma, or unsupported or unresponsive school policies. -Third, within these challenging environments, respondents who left school sought to establish connections with others (e.g., family members, teachers, peers) and those connections either lead a young person toward school or further away from it. Nongraduates often reported feeling alienated from school, bored, and disinterested, unable to connect with teachers or the curriculum. -Forty-one percent of the survey respondents mentioned encouragement by others as a reason they returned to school, and 27 percent credited family support as an important factor in the decision to reenroll. Unable to feel "connected" as a result of family abandonment (e.g., death), instability (e.g., homelessness), or a lack of school or community support, caring relationships can also contribute to leaving school. As one respondent related, "The gangs showed me love, showed me the ropes, showed me how to get money. After that I was like, what do I need school for?" (p. 30). -Finally, the authors describe nongraduates as "persistently resilient in their day-to-day lives; they are bouncing back, but need additional support to 'reach up' toward positive youth development" (p. 32). Interviewees did not want to be considered failures, and consistently said that they did not "drop out" but rather simply stopped going to school. -The authors conclude that both the interview responses and survey data support the conclusion that, in general, youth left school as a consequence of difficult social circumstances that required an immediate response to an immediate problem whether it be earning money for family bills, taking care of a sick mother, or physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. They also acknowledge that many nongraduates demonstrated enormous strength in overcoming difficult social circumstances. Of the nearly 2,000 survey respondents who had left school, nearly two-thirds had returned to and graduated from high school, and 18 percent had completed at least some college. About half were employed, and of those who were not employed 23 percent were attending school. -It is important to note that these gains, even if statistically significant, may mask poor performances. Nine-year-olds are typically in the 4th grade, 13-year-olds in the 8th grade, and 17-year-olds in the 11th grade. Because long-term assessments are based on age, not grade level, NAEP is able to assess the percentage of students at each age who are performing below their typical grade level. In 2013, for example, 58 percent or more of fourth graders and eighth graders performed below grade level in both reading and mathematics. Just 38 percent of high school seniors were proficient in reading, and about a quarter were proficient in math (Hefling 2014). -U.S. students are also outperformed by many of their foreign counterparts—something particularly troubling in a knowledge-based global economy that emphasizes STEM proficiency. The most recent results available from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) documents that U.S. students, although scoring above the global average, are consistently outperformed by students in several other countries (Kastberg et al. 2013). For example, nearly half of eighth graders in South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan scored in the "advanced" level in math in 2011, compared to only 7 percent of American students (Mullis et al. 2012). -Lastly, the results of Education at a Glance indicate that the United States ranks below the OECD global average, ranking 22nd out of the 29 countries for which graduation rates were available. With an 80 percent high school graduation rate, the United States ranks below Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Israel, Poland, and Chile (OECD 2014). The only countries with lower high school graduation rates are Sweden, China, Greece, Luxembourg, Austria, Turkey, and Mexico (OECD 2014).

Educational Policy Across the States

-The challenges facing national educational policies are considerable. In 2011, President Obama, speaking at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington, Virginia, stated that "unfortunately too many students aren't getting a world-class education today. As many as a quarter of American students aren't finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. And America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. Understand, we used to be first, and we now rank 9th. That's not acceptable. (quoted in Adams 2011, p. 1)" -No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law in 2002. It is the most current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) originally passed in 1965. As of midyear 2015, the act had not been reauthorized, predominantly because of political wrangling. Points of contention, in various degrees, include the adoption of Common Core State Standards, standardized testing and the federal role in developing accountability systems, and privatization of schools. -In 2008, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers convened to adopt a common set of academic standards for mathematic and language arts to be used across the states as a means of standardizing educational requirements. Known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the initiative was motivated by concerns that students in different states were not being prepared equally for postsecondary education and/or jobs in the global workforce. -CCSS have been implemented or are in some stage of implementation in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Nearly 80 percent of teachers in schools where they have been implemented report feeling prepared to teach CCSS, and 84 percent of teachers who have one year or more of full implementation report being enthusiastic about the new standards. Most important, the majority of teachers report that CCSS are having a positive impact on their students (Primary Sources 2014) (see Figure 8.6). -Public support for CCSS has declined over the years, with only 40 percent of Americans favoring the new standards. In a 2014 telephone survey of 1,001 Americans, of those in favor of CCSS, the most important reason for its support was that it would help students moving between schools and/or school districts. Of those who were opposed, respondents feared its adoption would limit a teacher's ability to teach what they think is best for their students (Bushaw and Calderon 2014). -The emphasis on teacher and school accountability requires that students take multiple standardized tests to allow comparisons within and between school districts, and between states. Teachers, students, and even schools are then "graded" based on the results. -Criticisms of "high-stakes tests" and their uses are numerous. First, and perhaps most important, standardized tests encourage rote learning, superficial thinking, and memorization rather than critical thinking skills (Harris et al. 2011; National Center for Fair and Open Testing [NCFOT] 2012). That said, second, there is concern that using standardized tests scores, either in whole or in part, to determine student placements, teachers' salaries, or school closures is highly unreliable (ASA 2014; Rothstein et al. 2010). -Third, there are concerns about the content of standardized tests. The NCFOT argues that "standardized tests are not objective.... [D]ecisions on what to include, how questions are worded, [and] which answers are 'correct' ... are made by subjective human beings" (NCFOT 2012). Often, questions reflect the cultural biases of the test maker. Finally, standardized testing is not cost-effective—a particularly salient concern in these times of budget cuts and sequestering. The cost of tests, testing services, and test preparatory materials, according to one estimate, is more than $2.3 billion a year and is rapidly increasing (Gardner 2013).

Lack of Financial Support

-When a national sample of public school parents was asked the biggest problems facing the public schools in their communities, the most common response was a "lack of financial support" (Bushaw and Calderon 2014). Despite the importance the American public places on education, efforts to increase state funding are often rejected. In Utah, a proposed increase in the state income tax that would have raised $400 million a year for education was defeated (Fox News 2015). -Per-pupil spending on public school students varies dramatically by state. For example, New York and Washington, DC, spend more than $19,000 per pupil per year. At the other extreme, Idaho and Utah spend $6,500 per pupil per year (Klein 2015). Despite a healthier economy and a growing need for a highly educated workforce, in 2014 over a third of states' per-pupil expenditures were lower than before the 2007 recession. Furthermore, in states where education spending has increased, it has not increased enough to make up for the budget cuts in previous years. A decrease in state education spending means that local school districts must reduce their educational services, raise their local tax base, or both. Between 2008 and 2013, local school districts eliminated more than 300,000 jobs (Leachman and Mai 2014). -Not supporting education financially is shortsighted and costly, and it perpetuates further deficits. For example, narrowing the achievement gap between children of different socioeconomic statuses by as little as one-third would yield $50 billion in fiscal savings and $200 billion (e.g., reduced cost of unemployment) in savings for taxpayers. But rather than invest in low-income schools, "we heap demands on those schools, deprive them of the resources they urgently need, and then declare them to be 'failing schools' when they don't perform miracles" (Welner 2014, p. 2).