Social Justice and Education in the 21st Century: Research from South Africa and the United States (Diversity and Inclusion Research) 3030654168, 9783030654160

Citation preview

Diversity and Inclusion Research

Willie Pearson Jr. Vijay Reddy Editors

Social Justice and Education in st the 21 Century Research from South Africa and the United States

Diversity and Inclusion Research Series Editor Thomas Köllen Institute of Organization and HRM University of Bern Bern, Bern, Switzerland

​ he book series ‘Diversity and Inclusion Research’ examines the facets of diversity T in a variety of contexts, as well as approaches to and perspectives on diversity and inclusion. It presents organizational research on workforce diversity, and covers diversity and inclusion-related issues within communities, cities, regions, nations, and societies. The series welcomes functional and intersectional perspectives on diversity, as well as constructivist perspectives on processes of “doing” or “performing” diversity. In terms of inclusion, it welcomes research on broader initiatives (such as generalized diversity management approaches), as well as on practices of inclusion that focus on specific dimensions of diversity; these can include age, appearance, ethnicity, disability, gender, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, or any other characteristic or demographic in which persons can differ from each other, or, conversely, which they share. The series publishes research from the broad range of academic disciplines within the social sciences (e.g. economics and business administration, linguistics, political science, history, law, psychology, sociology, geography, and education) and humanities (e.g. philosophy and religion). It strongly encourages interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, as well as critical perspectives on diversity and inclusion-related issues. By welcoming research from a variety of sectoral, national, and cultural contexts, the series will make an essential contribution to shaping the academic discourse on diversity and inclusion. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16463

Willie Pearson Jr.  •  Vijay Reddy Editors

Social Justice and Education in the 21st Century Research from South Africa and the United States

Editors Willie Pearson Jr. School of History and Sociology Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, USA

Vijay Reddy Human Sciences Research Council Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

ISSN 2662-5997     ISSN 2662-6004 (electronic) Diversity and Inclusion Research ISBN 978-3-030-65416-0    ISBN 978-3-030-65417-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65417-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021, Corrected Publication 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To: Drs. Cheryl de la Rey and Cora B. Marrett for our longstanding friendship and life-long personal and professional commitment to a more just world. —Willie Pearson, Jr. To: The young children in our schools. We hope we leave you a more just world and you continue the South African journey for a better society. —Vijay Reddy

Foreword

“Unprecedented,” “historic,” and “once-in-a-century” are a few of the adjectives in use to describe the current global condition caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is in times of crisis like this, that levels of inequality and injustice are illuminated. As we have seen across the world, the pandemic is having a disproportionately negative impact on ethnic minorities, women, and people who are marginalized. Within this context the Black Lives Matter movement, initiated in the United States of America (USA), has resonated globally, drawing attention to historic and persistent forms of discrimination such as racism. But experiences elsewhere also potentially contain lessons of global import. South Africa, in particular, warrants attention, given its significant number of confirmed coronavirus cases, and the inequalities it confronts. More than half of the cases in Africa can be found in South Africa, although the nation contains barely five percent of the population on the continent. Both the USA and South Africa have long histories of racism, in all of its manifestations. A stubbornly high rate of poverty, with attendant effects on life chances, represents a persistent and glaring set of challenges. Both nations have made efforts to alter the continuing inequities. Often, education—at every level—has been the target of such efforts. This edited volume considers education, in South Africa and the USA, as a means for opening the doors of equal opportunity to all citizens. The discussions consider in detail, the extent to which efforts undertaken, do indeed achieve greater social justice. Specifically, the chapters delve into factors shaping educational access and success, from early childhood education through to university. Although comparisons can be drawn, the chapters point to distinctive features of the two nations. Government has played a greater role in restructuring higher education in South Africa than has been the experience in the USA.  The financial aid options in the USA differ noticeably from those found in South Africa. The types of language issues highlighted in South African universities are generally absent in the USA. In South Africa, as in the USA, social justice is now associated with the economic well-being and public participation for all. Earlier, however, the South African push for social justice generally coincided with the movement against apartheid. Contemporary differences within the South African context still appear, as evident in the directions of two entities. The Social Justice Coalition emerged in 2008 to improve the lives of persons in informal settlements. The Social Justice vii

viii

Foreword

Initiative, founded in 2013, extends beyond the informal settlements to incorporate all who seek to expand opportunity and participation. While applying a social justice lens to education is not new, the authors have determined that social justice should be the very purpose of education. The cogent opening quotations by Nelson Mandela and Michelle Obama remind us that education provides us with the means to transform our own lives, to contribute to the democratic process, and to lead in our communities. Data from both countries show significant relationships between level of education and economic impoverishment. In fact, empirical research from around the globe illustrates without any doubt that countries providing high-quality education for all citizens, are countries with a better quality of life. Why are the equity gaps so persistent and stark in the USA and South Africa, despite the ostensible commitment to equality, human rights, and democracy? Several of the chapters point to changes—in policy, legislation, and curricula— undertaken to reduce the gaps. And some improvements and successes have occurred. South Africa has made significant progress in broadening access to school education. But the quality of education accessed by poverty-stricken communities is low, and there are cases where even well-intended interventions fail to reduce inequality gaps. Also, the policies and practices put in place leave segments of the population—persons with disabilities; and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender—on the margins. Changes within the sphere of education, such as those associated with the greater use of technology, could potentially weaken rather than strengthen the drive towards equal justice through education for all. Even though race is the focal issue, the chapters in this volume show how race intersects with many other social markers such as poverty, gender, disability, and sexuality to shape educational outcomes. The issues are complex, and this volume aims to illuminate the contours of race as it intertwines and intersects with other social markers to limit or expand opportunities. The chapters invite reflection and engagement in the pursuit of interventions, research, and policies designed to enhance social justice in education. University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI, USA University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand

Cora Marrett Cheryl de la Rey

Acknowledgments

This book is the culmination of an exceptional international collaboration that has its roots in a 2018 workshop supported, in part, by grants to Willie Pearson, Jr. (National Science Foundation 1643308 and the Georgia Institute of Technology Foundation Travel award) held in Cape Town, South Africa. First, we owe a special debt of gratitude to the contributors who provided the most important ingredient: their ideas and research findings that make this collection exceptionally timely and uplifting in the midst of the global Covid-19 virus pandemic and anti-racism protests/movement. Without the authors willingness to write original chapters and put up with constant harassment from the editors, a book of this type would be virtually impossible to complete. We owe special thanks to our editorial review board, which includes the following: Rachel Adams, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa; Daniel Amsterdam, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA; Paul Baker, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA; Likho Bottoman, National Department of Basic Education, South Africa; Robyn Brown, University of Kentucky, USA; Lura Chase, National Science Foundation, USA; Sybrina Collins, Lawrence Technological University, USA; Victor De Andrade, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa; Elizabeth B. DiSalvo, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA; Leroy Durant, Claflin University, USA; Xiaoli Fang, Sichuan University, China; Samuel Fongwa, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa; Martin Gustafsson, Stellenbosch University, South Africa; Sandra Hanson, Catholic University (Professor Emerita), USA; Kathryn Isdale, Quest Educational Research Consulting, South Africa; Caesar R. Jackson, North Carolina Central University, USA; Andrea Juan, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa; Buhle Khanyile, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa; Thierry Luescher, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa; Ying Ma, Sichuan University, China; Cekiso Madoda, Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa; Nhlanhla Mbatha, University of South Africa, South Africa; Haley McEwen, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa; Selvarani Moodley, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa; Elizabeth Ndeukumwa Ngololo, University of Namibia, Namibia; Debra Panizzon, Monash University, Australia; Finn Reygan, Human Science Research Council, South Africa; Alvin Schexnider, Schexnider and Associates, USA; Carmen Sidbury, National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering Inc. (NACME), USA; Jean Shinn, National Institutes of Health, USA; Kelly Stone, Independent Legal Scholar, South Africa; Yu Tao, ix

x

Acknowledgments

Stevens Institute of Technology; Martinus van Rooy, University of South Africa (Professor Emeritus), South Africa; Mike Rogan, Rhodes University, South Africa; Terrence Russell, Association for Institutional Research (Executive Director Emeritus), USA; Louisa Schmidt, University of South Africa, South Africa; Lolita Winnaar, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa; Michael Woodard, Woodard Associates, USA; and Jungwon Yoon, Hanyang University, South Korea. We thank these scholars for not only reviewing the chapters a number of times but also providing cogent and insightful commentary that greatly improved the quality of the final product. The development of human resources is a vital part of the book project. We editors made a special effort to include early career scholars. Furthermore, the project benefitted enormously from the invaluable administrative assistance of two graduate students: Dara Bright (USA) and Zama Mthombeni (South Africa). Both played an indispensable role in serving as liaison between authors and reviewers. Bright also served as editorial assistant. Special mention of appreciation goes to Nitza Jones-Sepulveda, Editor, Business, Economics & Statistics at SpringerNature. She convinced the editors of the importance and relevance of the subject matter. Perhaps equally important, she challenged the editors to be deliberate in selecting authors who would devote the time and energy to produce a high-quality product. In addition to Nitza, we recognize the editorial expertise and professionalism of Maria David, Springer Editor, who skillfully guided the production of the book. We owe considerable appreciation to our Project Manager, Ms. Kala Palanisamy, for her patience and professionalism. We thank our colleagues who attended the workshop held in Cape Town: Geesje van den Berg (University of South Africa) and Martinus van Rooy (University of South Africa), Jann Adams (Morehouse College), Gilda Barabino (Olin College of Engineering), Michael S. Gaines (Miami University-Florida), Medeva Ghee (Brown University), Judy Jackson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Elva Jones (Winston-Salem State University), Cheryl B.  Leggon (Georgia Institute of Technology), and Peter Romine (Navajo Technological University). Without their intellectual engagement and sharing of personal commitments to social justice, this project would not have reached maturity. Finally, the views expressed in this book are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of their institutions or agencies. As co-editors, we take all responsibility for any deficiencies in the final project.

Contents

 Social Justice and Education in the Twenty-First Century����������������������������   1 Willie Pearson Jr and Vijay Reddy Part I Early Education and Schooling Social Injustice in the United States Early Elementary Education System��������������������������������������������������������������������������  13 Elizabeth Fair  Education and Labour Market Inequalities in South Africa������������������������  29 Vijay Reddy and Bongiwe Mncwango Reproducing Inequality in the South African Schooling System: What Are the Opportunities? ������������������������������������������������������������  53 Fabian Arends, Lolita Winnaar, and Catherine Namome The Pursuit of Social Justice Through Educational Policy for Poor, Rural and Special Needs Learners in South Africa������������������������������  75 Andrea Juan, Jaqueline Harvey, and Sylvia Hannan Children with Disabilities in South Africa: Policies for Early Identification and Education������������������������������������������������������������  95 Selvarani Moodley  Just Want to Have a Better Life and Be Who I Want to Be’: Competing ‘I Perspectives on LGBTI Inclusion in South African Schools�������������������������� 113 Finn Reygan Part II Higher Education The Remaking of South African Higher Education: A 25-Year Journey �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131 Crain Soudien Race, Social Justice, and Higher Education Financial Aid in the United States: The Case of African Americans ���������������������������������������������� 149 Dara Bright and Willie Pearson Jr xi

xii

Contents

Higher Education Outcomes in South Africa: The Role of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme���������������������������������������������������������� 171 Neryvia Pillay, Haroon Bhorat, and Zaakhir Asmal A Holistic Model for Black Student Success in STEM: The Case for a Comprehensive and Holistic Approach in Building the Pipeline ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 195 J. H. Adams, D. Bright, J. Jackson, and O. S.Simmons Black Women Professors in South African Universities: Advancing Social Justice ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 221 Ncamisile Thumile Zulu African American Women in Engineering: Intersectionality as a Pathway to Social Justice�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 241 Yu Tao and Cheryl Leggon Towards an African Linguistic Renaissance: A Case Study of a South African University���������������������������������������������������������������� 273 Zama Mabel Mthombeni Ableism in the Academy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experiences of Students with Disabilities in U.S. Higher Education ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 293 Robyn Brown, Monica Silny, and Jordan T. Brown Models of Excellence for Social Justice: Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities�������������������� 309 Cheryl Leggon, Peter Romine, Elva Jones, Christine Reidhead, and April Chischilly Part III Education and Technology The Role of Open Distance Learning in Addressing Social Justice: A South African Case Study���������������������������������������������������������������� 331 Geesje van den Berg  General Perspectives Toward the Impact of AI on Race and Society ���������� 347 Armisha L. Roberts, Brianna Richardson, Kiana Alikhademi, Emma Drobina, and Juan E. Gilbert The Gendered Impact of Artificial Intelligence and the Fourth Industrial Revolution in South Africa: Inequality, Accessibility and Skills Development ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 365 Rachel Adams

Contents

xiii

Bringing Inequalities to the Fore: The Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic and Other Disasters on Educational Inequalities in the United States�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 381 Allen Hyde, Angran Li, and Amanda Maltbie Correction to: Black Women Professors in South African Universities: Advancing Social Justice ��������������������������������������������������������������C1 Postscript: Decreasing Educational Inequalities and Advancing Social Justice���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 401 Glossary�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 407

Contributors

J. H. Adams  Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, USA Rachel Adams  Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa Information Law and Policy Centre, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London, London, UK Kiana Alikhademi  University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Fabian Arends  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Zaakhir Asmal  University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Haroon Bhorat  University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Dara Bright  Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Jordan T. Brown  University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Robyn Brown  University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA April Chischilly  Navajo Technical University, Crownpoint, NM, USA Cheryl de la Rey  University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Emma Drobina  University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Elizabeth Fair  Notre Dame of Maryland University, Baltimore, MD, USA Juan E. Gilbert  University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Sylvia Hannan  Human Sciences Research Council, Durban, South Africa Jaqueline Harvey  Human Sciences Research Council, Durban, South Africa Allen Hyde  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA J. Jackson  Colby College, Burlington, MA, USA Elva Jones  Winston-Salem State University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA Andrea Juan  Human Sciences Research Council, Durban, South Africa Cheryl Leggon  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA xv

xvi

Contributors

Angran Li  Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Amanda Maltbie  University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA Cora Marrett  University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Bongiwe Mncwango  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Selvarani Moodley  University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Zama  Mabel  Mthombeni  Human Sciences Research Council, Durban, South Africa Catherine Namome  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Willie Pearson Jr.  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA Neryvia Pillay  University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Vijay Reddy  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Christine Reidhead  Navajo Technical University, Crownpoint, NM, USA Finn Reygan  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa University of the Western Cape, South Africa Brianna Richardson  University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Armisha L. Roberts  University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Peter Romine  Navajo Technical University, Crownpoint, NM, USA Monica Silny  University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA O. S. Simmons  Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA Crain Soudien  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Yu Tao  Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA Geesje van den Berg  University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Lolita Winnaar  Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Ncamisile Thumile Zulu  University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

Social Justice and Education in the Twenty-First Century Willie Pearson Jr and Vijay Reddy

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. The power of education extends beyond the development of skills we need for economic success. It can contribute to nation-building and reconciliation. Nelson Mandela

The ability to read, write and analyse; the confidence to stand up and demand justice and equality; the qualifications and connections to get your foot in that door and take your seat at that table—all of that starts with education. Michelle Obama

Abstract

This chapter chronicles the relationships between social justice and education in the context of the racialized histories of South Africa and the United States (US). Both countries share a common history of structural and systematic racism and sexism, and emerging classism that continue to reverberate. The countries share contemporary social problems, especially in terms of being able to afford to access quality education. In the first half of 2020, Covid-19 pandemic is harshest

W. Pearson Jr (*) School of History and Sociology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] V. Reddy Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Pearson Jr., V. Reddy (eds.), Social Justice and Education in the 21st Century, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65417-7_1

1

2

W. Pearson Jr and V. Reddy

on the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalized communities. During the post-­ Covid-­19 era, it is likely that inequalities—especially in education—will be heightened further. Scholars extended racism theory by developing a construct: structural racism, that focuses on institutional interactions across time and space which embolden racism. Racial inequality in housing is linked to racial inequality in schooling, which contributes to racial inequality in the labor market. This results in an intergenerational chain of oppressive and cyclical events in both the United States and South Africa. Despite differences in the cultural, economic, and social power of groups, all aspire to higher levels of education and skills to access better lives. This book focuses on the social justice approach which views education as a political issue. Differential educational opportunities lead to disparities in educational outcomes and labor market opportunities. This pattern often reproduces, across generations, the privileges and persistent inequalities of groups in a society that are resistant to change. With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent national shutdown, the transition to distance learning revealed the gaping and persistent racial inequities in public education opportunities exaggerated the digital divide. However, the ability to continue educational studies amidst a global pandemic is also hindered by factors beyond wireless connectivity and housing and food insecurities. As regards higher education, both countries have a long history of racially segregated higher education systems. In the United States, separate and under-resourced public colleges and universities were established to serve Blacks and American Indians. Similar public institutions were established for Blacks, Indians, and Coloreds in South Africa. Within each country, racial, ethnic, and gender populations experience life and educational trajectories differently.

Introduction This introductory chapter chronicles the relationships between social justice and education in the context of the racialized histories of South Africa and the United States (US). These two countries were selected because they share a common history of structural and systematic racism and sexism, and emerging classism that continues to reverberate throughout both nations—especially in terms of access to quality education. Both countries are struggling to reduce mathematics and science achievement gaps between Black and non-Black groups. In the United States and South Africa, Blacks and other groups (including women) bear a disproportionate share of economic and social burdens with limited access to resources and opportunities. Both countries share similar racialized histories and contemporary social problems in general (e.g., HIV/AIDS, violence, high Black unemployment, health disparities) and in education in particular (e.g., high school dropout rates, low school and tertiary or college completion rates, low Black faculty representation at major research universities, education affordability). Local and multinational companies

Social Justice and Education in the Twenty-First Century

3

with facilities in both countries cite challenges to find highly qualified and skilled Black workers, especially for knowledge-based, technological economies with jobs that provide compensation to support a standard of living that includes homeownership, and greater intergenerational wealth. In the first half of 2020, two significant world events occurred that amplified the theme of this collection: (1) the Covid-19 pandemic and (2) the death of George Floyd, a Black American, while in police custody. While Covid-19 does not discriminate about who gets infected, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic is harshest on the poorest and most vulnerable and marginalized communities. According to Yancy (2020), Blacks (in the US) are contracting and dying of COVID-19-related complications at higher rates than Whites is evidence of egregious health care disparities. This should come as no surprise because Blacks tend to reside in communities characterized by rates of high poverty, housing density, violent crimes, and food deserts. In South Africa, as of 27 June 2020, there were 2413 deaths from Covid-19-­ related complications. The demographic data released at this time is limited to age and gender, we are unable to comment on the race, social class, or occupations of the deceased. However, as the country went into lockdown at the end of March 2020 to slow down the spread of the coronavirus, the government had to respond to more than the health crisis. The government scrambled to send water trucks to many communities that did not have an adequate water supply for months; the loss of household income for millions of vulnerable workers meant hunger and food parcels were distributed; more social grants were disbursed to poorer households. The lives, work, and education of the small South African middle class (one-quarter of the population) could continue because of access to network connectivity and digital devices. Education is the instrument for millions of South Africans to escape inequality traps; however, during the pandemic and due to social distancing, there was no or minimal educational inputs (radio and TV) for three-quarters of school students. In a country that had ten  million people unemployed at the start of the pandemic, there will be between two and five million further job losses. Covid-19 has exposed and amplified the fissures of racial and socioeconomic inequities in South Africa and the United States. During the post-Covid-19 era, it is likely that inequalities—especially in education—will be heightened further. The second event, the killing of George Floyd by the police in Minneapolis, Minnesota (United States) prompted a global movement exposing and condemning racial inequalities and espousing the need to rewrite and represent the histories of all people. The movement, #BlackLivesMatter, is at the forefront of demanding change and the global environment seems more receptive to change.

Historical Overview According to Schaefer (2012), the United States and South Africa share a common history of slavery, colonialism, and de jure segregation. While the start of discrimination was based on the color of one’s skin and racial classification, the present discrimination is more complex and complicated, and race is not the only arbiter.

4

W. Pearson Jr and V. Reddy

It is important to note that in the sociological literature the terms majority and minority differ from the common quantitative usage. A group can be a numerical majority but still be a minority group. South Africa is an excellent example of this: although 80 percent of its population is Black, the economic system remains largely under the control of Whites. Therefore, a disproportionate share of the country’s wealth has remained in the hands of the White minority. Despite being an overwhelming numerical majority, Blacks are a minority in the sociological sense because they were forced into a subordinate role (Farley, 2000). Poverty, an extreme symptom of societal inequality, is not equally distributed in either country. The legacies of slavery and colonization continue to over-burden Blacks, American Indians, and the indigenous populations. Although the distribution of legislative powers somewhat changed post-apartheid South Africa, much economic power remained in the hands of Whites. The periods of de jure racial segregation in both countries now manifest as structural racism and continue to perpetuate the economic status.

Country Profiles: South Africa and the United States In 2017, the United States’ population was nearly six times (334 million) that of South Africa (58.7  million) (United Nations, 2017). The population density between the two countries varies notably. A substantial majority (82%) of the United States population resides in urban and suburban areas compared to South Africa (66%). Moreover, the racial composition of the populations differs significantly. In the United States, Whites comprise roughly 77% of the population, while Blacks comprise the second-largest racial group (13%) followed by Asians (6%), and then those identifying as two or more races (3%). In sharp contrast, Blacks comprise approximately 81% of South Africa’s total population, followed by Coloreds (9%), Whites (8%), and Indians and Asians (3%). Further, there is also a distinct difference in age distributions between the two countries; compared to the United States, a larger percentage of South Africa’s population is under age 18 (24% versus 34%). Another major element of culture within a country is language. Although the United States does not have an official language, English is widely spoken. In contrast, South Africa recognizes 11 official languages: isiZulu is the first language of nearly a quarter (23%) of the population, followed by isiXhosa (16%), Afrikaans (14%), and English (10%). Nevertheless, in South Africa, English is de facto the official language and is widely spoken, especially in urban areas, businesses, and government. Further, there are striking variations in the wealth of each of these countries as measured by the GDP per capita in the United States ($59,532) and South Africa ($6100).1 Within each country, there are striking income inequalities. With an

 World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Data accessed 13 May 2019.

1

Social Justice and Education in the Twenty-First Century

5

income Gini coefficient of 0.63, South Africa is considered the world’s most unequal country.2 However, the United States’ Gini coefficient of 0.43 is the highest among G-7 countries with the UK trailing behind at 0.39 and France at 0.32 (Schaeffer, 2020). Between 1989 and 2016, the wealth gap between America’s richest and poorest families is more than doubled (Schaeffer, 2020). The top 1% of South Africans possess 71% of the country’s wealth, whereas the bottom 60% own 7% of the country’s assets (Sulla & Zikhali, 2018).

Theories of Racism Following the tragic death of George Floyd, the term “systemic racism” became a social media sound bite. Popularized in the scholarly literature on racism, American sociologist Joe Feagin defined systemic racism as that which “encompasses the white prejudices, stereotypes, emotions, discriminatory practices, and institutions that are integral to the long-term domination of Americans of color” (Feagin, 2012, p. 46). Sociologists extended racism theory by developing another construct: structural racism, that focuses on institutional interactions across time and space which emboldens racism. For example, in the US, racial inequality in housing is linked to racial inequality in schooling, which contributes to racial inequality in the labor market. Therefore, parents who are not well positioned in the labor market are less likely to have the resources to afford housing in better neighborhoods. This phenomenon results in their children being more likely to attend under-resourced schools (Golash-Boza, 2018). In South Africa, the Population and Registration Act of 1950 classified all South Africans by racial categories (Black, Colored, Indian, White) making skin color one of the most important arbiters in the lives of an individual. As educational opportunities are also determined by socioeconomic status and housing patterns. These factors in turn influence one’s ability to succeed in higher education and secure a high salary career (Caliendo, 2015, p. 83). The effects of apartheid legislation continue today with three-quarters of the population still living in poor households and environments, attending schools with fewer resources and poor learning environments, and continuing to work in low skilled and low paying jobs. In short, this results in an intergenerational chain of oppressive and cyclical events. Thus, the impact of socioeconomic status and housing patterns on educational opportunities are products of structural racism. In both South Africa and the United States, structural racism produces similar outcomes for Blacks in both the United States and South Africa.

 World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Data accessed 13 May 2019.

2

6

W. Pearson Jr and V. Reddy

Social Justice Framework In the United States and South Africa, despite the different cultural, economic, and social power of groups, all aspire to higher levels of education and skills to access better lives. As previously noted, socioeconomic status is a powerful predictor of education and labor market trajectories that has differential effects for people of different races. As a result, these present patterns must be disrupted. The approaches that inform scholarly thinking on education include the human capital, rights-based and social justice perspectives (Tikly & Barrett, 2011). This book focuses on the social justice approach which views education as a political issue. Consequently, the outcomes of education are constantly under examination and require ongoing discourse. Fraser (2008) defines justice as achieving parity of participation; and overcoming injustice requires “dismantling institutionalized obstacles that prevent some people from participating […] with others as full partners in social interaction” (p. 16). Fraser argues that institutionalized obstacles include the economic structures that deny access to resources needed to interact with others as peers; the institutionalized hierarchies of cultural value that may deny and exclude from the community, and the procedures that structure the public processes of contestation. Fraser further argues that achieving social justice related to institutional barriers requires: (1) redistribution (access of resources), (2) recognition (identifying and acknowledging the claims of marginalized groups), and (3) participation (rights of individuals and groups) to have their voices heard and to actively participate in decision-making. Differential educational opportunities lead to disparities in educational outcomes and labor market opportunities. This pattern often reproduces, across generations, the privileges and inequalities of groups in a society. Those at the lower end continue to remain in the cycle of poverty and inequality. These cyclical systems are persistent and resistant to change.

Education Education has been touted as the great equalizer and the road or pathway out of poverty to upward mobility (Caliendo, 2015, p. 83). Education, the most fundamental competency and right, continues to be used a political tool of exclusion and domination in both the US and South Africa. In the United States and South Africa, Blacks have been subjected to systematic and unjust exclusions from quality education. But these excluded communities have to overcome steep barriers to improve the educational outcomes of the group. In the United States, Blacks and Native Americans encountered centuries of educational exclusion that drastically limited upward mobility. During slavery in America, Whites prevented enslaved Blacks from learning to read and write. While freed Blacks were not permitted to enroll in the few public schools that existed in the southern states. After emancipation, Blacks across the South started schools for

Social Justice and Education in the Twenty-First Century

7

themselves in fields, one-room schoolhouses, and private residents. Similarly, formal public education for Native Americans was also limited. One controversial federal policy led to the creation of so-called “Indian”3 boarding schools. Native American children were removed from reservations around the country to various boarding schools with the primary purpose of stripping away their native cultures. This egregious act aimed to facilitate rapid assimilation into American culture, particularly Christianity; in 1993, the program was officially ended. Before the Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme decision of 1954, non-­ white children were systematically prevented from attending White schools via segregation and Jim Crow laws.4 Once integration occurred, White parents began to enroll their students in private schools. This trend continues today, particularly in regions and localities that are predominantly Black. To illustrate this, since fall 2014, less than half of public-school students have been White (Golash-Boza, 2018, p. 220). The apartheid education system in South Africa provided an inferior schooling for Blacks (African, Indian, and Colored). The Bantu5 Education Act of 1953 legislated a curriculum to provide elementary skills for Africans to work in unskilled and low skilled sectors. In particular, the apartheid social engineering project withheld mathematics as a school subject for Africans and the then Minister of Education pronounced in Parliament […] “what is the use of teaching the Bantu mathematics when he cannot use it in practice?”6 There was a differentiated allocation of resources to schools, based on the racial classification of students and schools. In 1970, government spent 18 times more on the education for White students than for Black students. In 1994, the spending gap decreased to a differential of five times. The lower spending for Black students meant that these schools could not afford to spend their scarce resources on items like school infrastructure and maintenance of existing buildings or educational equipment and resources. South Africa with its present GDP is categorized as a middle-income country; its educational spending of 6.7% of GDP is comparable to other middle-income countries. The share of government budget allocated to education continues to increase and is now at 20% of the budget. From a macro-perspective, it seems that South Africa’s education expenditures are high; however, it must be examined against the historical backdrop of extensive inequalities and absence of reparations. It is still unimaginable, and unforgiveable, that today there are still 3500 (15%) schools with a critical water shortage and only have pit latrines for sanitation.

 Indian is considered a derogatory term used to refer to the Native peoples residing in the Americas prior to colonization. They are often still referred to as “American Indians” which is a misnomer. 4  Jim Crow laws refer to collective state and local laws (as well as policies) that legalized segregation and discriminatory practices towards people of color, specifically Black people. 5  Black Africans were officially called “Bantu” by the apartheid regime. 6  Hansard (1954) Debates of the South African Parliament. 3

8

W. Pearson Jr and V. Reddy

With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent national shutdown, the transition to distance learning laid bare the gaping and persistent racial inequities in public education opportunities that exist across the United States and South Africa (Strauss, 2020; Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020). Of particular note were the challenges associated with poverty and near poverty. For example, an estimated 2–5% of students in American public schools live in unstable housing and have a severe lack of access to computers and/or the Internet. Consequently, children from lower income households are more likely to struggle to complete homework and online courses because of their precarious housing situations. In South Africa, approximately 56% of residents report using the Internet, compared to 90% in the United States. However, the ability to continue educational studies amidst a global pandemic is also hindered by other factors beyond wireless connectivity and housing insecurity such as food insecurity. In schools in low-income areas, many children are on free and reduced meal plans. In the United States, most schools provide free or reduced-price lunch.7 While in South Africa, 70% of schools provide a meal. Without these interventions, food insecurity will be even more widespread and further exacerbate existing barriers to access learning. In low-income South African households, many children do not have a desk, books, computer, or internet connectivity. The disparity in access to digital devices and connectivity between rich and poor households is immense. For students from low-income households, only one in five students have a computer, and only half of them have an internet connection at home. For students in more resourced environments, around half of them have a computer and three-quarters have an internet connection at home. The digital divide is also drastic across socioeconomic status in the US. Approximately one-third (35%) of students from low-income homes do not have access to high-speed internet connection at home (Pew Research Center, 2020). In comparison, only 6% of students from upper middle-class backgrounds8 face a similar plight (Pew Research Center, 2020).

Higher Education The United States and South Africa have a long history of racially segregated higher education systems. In the United States, separate and under-resourced public colleges and universities were established to serve Blacks and American Indians.9 Similar public institutions were established for Blacks, Indians, and Coloreds in South Africa.10 With the passage of various federal civil rights legislation in the mid-­1960s, racial minorities began to gradually attend historically white colleges  The free, or reduced price, lunch program is protected by the National School Lunch Program implemented under President Harry Truman in 1946. 8  These households earn $750,000 or more a year. 9  See Chap. 16 for more on historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as a result of this system. 10  See Chap. 10 for more on these institutions in South Africa. 7

Social Justice and Education in the Twenty-First Century

9

and universities in the United States. However, Title VI of the 1968 Civil Rights Act enabled colleges and universities to take affirmative action to enhance racial diversity on campus. The legislation allowed higher education institutions to give preferential admission to members of historically under-represented groups, including racial minorities. Over time, affirmative action policies and practices were challenged in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Generally, the Supreme Court upheld its ruling that race could still be used as one factor to determine admissions. In the most recent court challenge (June 2016), Fischer v. The University of Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the University of Texas has the right to take racial status into consideration in admissions (Golash-Boza, 2018, p.  228). Nevertheless, Blacks continued to be under-represented in the student bodies, in university faculties, and as senior administrators at many predominately white colleges and universities. In 2016, the percentage of American college students11 by race were: Asian (58%), White (42%), Two or More Races (42%), Hispanic (39%), Black (36%), Pacific Islander (21%), American Indian/Alaska Native (19%). In South Africa, participation in the university sector has improved to 76% African and 60% women. The present academic challenge is to improve graduation rates for Africans, especially African males. The challenges for the university sector are the under-representation of senior African staff in the faculties, the development of a more relevant and decolonized curriculum, change the culture of the high performing universities so that they are not an alienating experience for Black students from low-income backgrounds. Within each country, racial, ethnic, and gender populations experience life and educational trajectories differently, with some populations of people encountering unrelenting marginalization and disadvantage while other groups enjoy the privileges from structurally racist systems. Despite spatial, historical, and cultural difference, Black people across the two countries maintain the belief that increased education, and access to knowledge, will provide them with the opportunity for upward mobility. Because socioeconomic status is a powerful predictor of future achievements, it is important to understand and change the present educational achievement trajectory.

The Content and Purpose of This Book Given the educational inequalities in each country, the chapters in this collection analyze education using a social justice lens. The collection highlights inequalities in the school (achievements, disability, LGBQTI, and policy) and university sectors (funding, disability, distance learning, and language). The book ends by highlighting how developments like Artificial Intelligence and the present coronavirus pandemic also exacerbate inequalities. As scholars we have a responsibility to be vigilant about identifying inequalities, understanding its causes, and continuing to pursue a social justice agenda for education. 11

 Between the ages of 18 years old to 24 years old.

10

W. Pearson Jr and V. Reddy

References Caliendo, S. M. (2015). Inequality in America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Farley, J. E. (2000). Majority-minority relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Feagin, J., & Elias, S. (2012). “Rethinking racial formation theory: a sytemics racism critique.” Race and Ethnic Studies 36(6):931–960. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world. Cambridge: Polity Press. Golash-Boza, T. M. (2018). Race and racisms: A critical approach (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Pew Research Center. (2020). As schools close due to coronavirus, some U.S. students face a digital ‘homework gap’. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2020/03/16/ as-­schools-­close-­due-­to-­the-­coronavirus-­some-­u-­s-­students-­face-­a-­digital-­homework-­gap/ Schaefer, R. T. (2012). Racial and ethnic groups (13th ed.). New York: Pearson. Schaeffer, K. (2020). 6 Facts about economic inequality in the U.S. FACTTANK: News in the numbers. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-­tank/2020/02/07/6-­facts-­about-­economic-­ineqaulity-­in-­the-­u-­s/ Strauss, V. (2020). How Covid-19 has laid bare the vast inequities in U.S. public education. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/04/ how-­covid-­19-­has-­laid-­bare-­vast-­inequties-­us-­public-­education/ Sulla, V., & Zikhali, P. (2018). Overcoming poverty and inequality in South Africa: An assessment of drivers, constraints and opportunities (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/ Overcoming-­Poverty-­and-­Inequality-­in-­South-­Africa-­An-­Assessment-­of-­Drivers-­Constraints-­ and-­Opportunities Tikly, L., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 3–14. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). World population prospects 2017. Van Lancker, W., & Parolin, Z. (2020). “Covid-19, school closures, and child poverty: a social crisi in the making.” Comment. The Lancet e243-244.3. Yancy, C. W. (2020). COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA, 323(19), 1891–1892.

Part I Early Education and Schooling

Social Injustice in the United States Early Elementary Education System Elizabeth Fair

Abstract

The disparity in educational opportunities and outcomes for African American students compared to their White peers is well documented. While many studies look at secondary school and university data, the importance of formative elementary years should not be negated. Early school experiences are vital and results from this study are consistent with research showing race is a key variable influencing student outcomes. A strength-based framework will be used when examining the findings and making recommendations. A strength-based framework is evident in asset-based pedagogy and culturally relevant pedagogy as both require educators to examine the strengths that students bring to school rather than focusing what skills they do not have. A popular explanation for the disparity in test scores between African American students and their peers is to focus on student deficits. The main problem with the deficit approach is that it uses White middle-class culture as the norm. This chapter argues that a strength-based theory allows for the inclusion and growth of all students which would serve to decrease the disparity in test scores. The study in this chapter utilizes information from the 2011 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K:2011) conducted by the United States National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This study followed a large cohort of children from kindergarten through fifth grade. Only data from kindergarten entry to third grade was presented in this research study. ECLS-K:2011 gives multiple cognitive tests to students and ongoing, in-depth interviews were conducted with the test subject’s parents and teachers at least annually, but more

E. Fair (*) Notre Dame of Maryland University, Baltimore, MD, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 W. Pearson Jr., V. Reddy (eds.), Social Justice and Education in the 21st Century, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65417-7_2

13

14

E. Fair

often in the early years. The chapter will analyze and describe the findings from the ECLS-K:2011 data. Findings indicated a slight gap in reading and math scores between African American students and their White peers upon kindergarten entry. With poverty having a small effect size, data analysis showed that by the end of third grade, this gap had increased to White students’ benefit. This gap increased by 166% in math and by 155% in reading over a 4-year period. African American students consistently scored at the same level or lower than their White peers at a lower socioeconomic level. These findings merit a closer look at factors affecting early educational experiences for African American students as poverty had a greater overall impact on White students than African American students. Utilizing a strength-based theory is consistent with social justice as it challenges the usage of an educational approach that disempowers students beginning upon kindergarten entry. Rather than African American students be labelled as deficient, a strength-based approach seeks to build from the strengths the student already possesses. This approach does not force assimilation for students to be successful. It offers them to opportunity for validation and understanding rather than imposing the White middle-class culture as the norm. A strengths-­ based approach, especially culturally relevant pedagogy, has been adopted by many educators in an effort empower students. The study findings presented in this chapter show the prevalence of racism in early educational experiences for African American students. The recommendations suggest that a different pedagogical approach is necessary to achieve greater educational equity in the United States.

Introduction Social justice allows for equitable access to resources. In the United States, access to resources is highly stratified and it is widely believed that education is the equalizing force. Statistics tell a story that counters this belief. Of students entering a 4-year college in 2010, within 6 years, 40% of African American, 54% of Hispanic, 64% of White, and 74% of the Asian students graduated (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Disparate opportunities and outcomes in education tend to be reproduced in life. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) reported that in 2018, African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be unemployed than Whites or Asians. Furthermore, they revealed that the “median usual weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers were $706 for Hispanics, $735 for  Blacks, 945 for Whites, and 1174 for Asians  (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). These statistics reflect that race is a variable with significant impact and that resources are not allocated equitably. Further, these wide racial disparities lead to reduced access to health care, secure housing, strong schools, and safe neighborhoods. It is important to note that race is a variable that individuals

Social Injustice in the United States Early Elementary Education System

15

have no power to change. The only hope for different outcomes is changing other variables that can be controlled. The negative effects of stratification are cumulative and given the significant amount of time students spend in school, it is important to analyze how public education perpetuates racial disparities. This chapter aims to answer the questions: At what age do gaps in student performance emerge? What factors create and exacerbate this gap? There are significant societal implications that make it critical that these questions are addressed in a purposeful way.

Statement of Problem The study in this chapter will identify when the gap between African American students and their peers emerges and the factors that lead to this gap. A lack of social justice for people of color in the United States is upheld and reinforced by the public-school system. This is evident in racial disparities for high school and college graduation rates as well as many assessments that measure student achievement. There is a large body of quantitative research on the gap between African American and White secondary students’ standardized test scores in middle and upper schools as well as high school graduation rates. However, there is a dearth of research exploring when score discrepancies emerge. To address the multiple social justice issues that emanate from school inequities, it is crucial to identify when and why these gaps first appear. When noting why these gaps begin, it is also important to examine the factors that are and are not within the students’ control. This chapter is organized around six sections: (1) literature review, (2) theoretical framework, (3) methodology, (4) findings, (5) analysis, (6) recommendations. The literature review will highlight research relevant to the study.

Literature Between 1990 and 1999, the number of African American students meeting the passing benchmark on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) increased 17.1 percentage points while the increase for White students was only 4.5 percentage points (United States Department of Education, National Assessment for Educational Progress, 2015). This outstanding gain narrowed the gap but did not close it, as White students consistently stayed ahead of their African American peers. The major weakness of this study is that the results are categorized as advanced, proficient, and basic. Upon analysis of the tests and scores, critics note that the benchmarks are very high and while they are often interpreted to mean that proficiency is equivalent to “on grade level,” this is an inaccurate interpretation (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-­center-­chalkboard/2016/06/13/the-­naep-­ proficiency-­myth/). Although the comparison may be inaccurate, it is accurate that African American student scores trail behind their White peers on standardized tests (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2010).

16

E. Fair

Much of the research on the achievement gap has been focused on older students and standardized test scores, high school graduation rates, and university entrance and success. As noted above, African American students score lower than their peers because race is a factor that affects students’ grouping, school resources, and relationships with adults (Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings & Tate IV, 1995; Singleton & Linton, 2006). What remains less clear is at what age these gaps emerge, although we do know that early school success in the USA is indicative of later performance (Duncan et  al., 2007; Feinstein, Robertson, & Symons, 1999; Hooper, Roberts, Sideris, Burchinal, & Zeisel, 2010; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). How early does the gap emerge? In 1957 it was established that there is no gap by race at birth (Frankenburg, Dick, & Carland, 1975; Geber & Dean, 1957). In two studies using large data sets, race was found to correlate with test results by age 5 (Feinstein et al., 1999; von Hippel, Workman, & Downey, 2018). Feinstein focused on all race children and income and he found that test results correlated with income as early as 22 months old and that the gap widened over time for all students. Von Hippel et al. studied African American and White students and determined that prior to school entrance there was a gap, but it did not increase during this time. Feinstein focuses on income as the major factor for all student differences, while von Hippel et al. blame the homes and culture of the African American children. In his explanation he relies on a deficit framework and explains that the gap at kindergarten entrance is a result of children’s family structure in single family homes and less educated parents. Using a deficit framework to explain disparate outcomes is common in literature on the achievement gap. The most contemporary deficit model is attributing the gap to a “culture of poverty” (Payne, 2005), “culture of anti-intellectualism” (McWhorter, 2000), and “oppositional culture to school” (Ogbu, 1987). The commonality in these deficit models is that they use White middle-class culture as the norm. In using this culture as the norm, they are negating the different, but valuable, skills the students from different cultures bring. It seems unfair to use norms that do not exist in many schools that African American students attend. For this chapter it is important to note that schools are re-segregating, which contributes to educational inequity (Kozol, 2005). By 2016 the percentage of African American students attending highly segregated schools had increased to 18.2% (Frankenburg et al., 1975, p. 22). The bulk of the research indicates that segregation has a negative effect on African American students (Anderson & Cross, 2013; Kozol, 1995; Mickelson, 2015; Orfield, Kuscera, & Siegel-Hawley, 2012). Anderson and Cross (2013) stated that “the segregation of students becomes significant from a material perspective as a result of the differential resources and outcomes associated with this isolation” (p. 291). This observation highlights the connection between segregation and resources. Americans are more comfortable addressing resources and economic causes than segregation, as many Americans are not comfortable discussing race. Ogbu (1994) noted that “the shift from [a]race to class explanation of the economic, educational, and social problems is attractive to both white Americans and middle-class black

Social Injustice in the United States Early Elementary Education System

17

Americans” (pp.  264–265). He disputed that the equality issue was resolved and attributed the disparity between Whites and African Americans to the persisting forces of racism in American society. The force of racism and its ongoing effect is a focus in the von Hippel et  al. (2018) study. This study, which used the same data set (ECLS:K-2011) that is used in this chapter, replicates a 2004 study (von Hippel et al., 2018) that used the ECLS cohort from 1998 to 2020. One of von Hippel et al.’s goals was to determine the cause of the achievement gap and if school was a contributing factor. The findings suggest that there is a gap upon kindergarten entry, but that the gap is static from kindergarten entry to second grade. They argue that since the gap remains static, other causal factors need analysis. In other words, given that students came in with different scores which were associated with SES and race and that the scores did not change during this period, von Hippel et al. argue that the root of the inequality is not attributable to school. He ends with suggesting that instead of focusing on how schools create inequality the focus should be on “why children are unequal in general” (p. 350). The prevalence of deficit theory to explain inequity is of great concern because the results impede social justice. In the next section, a strengths-based model is presented that does not rely on assimilation for success.

Theory A strengths-based approach is the term that will be applied to describe a focus on the skills and talents that students bring to school. It builds upon their strengths, rather than creating a laundry list of the cognitive skills students do not possess. This approach is embraced by asset-based pedagogy (ABP) and culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) to address the disparity in scores between Black students and their White peers on standardized tests. One of the five elements of CRP states: “Cultural diversity is a strength- a persistent, vitalizing force in our personal and civic lives…it is then a useful resource for improving education effectiveness for all students” (Gay, 2000, p. 14). When employing approaches that lean into students’ strengths they perform at a higher level because their cultural competencies are an asset, rather than a deficit. A strength-based approach is more difficult to implement because it means that the institution needs to adjust to the students, rather than the students adjusting to the institution. A vital component of CRT is to integrate a “critical stance” toward curriculum so that students can use their socio-political knowledge to critique injustice (Ladson-Billings & Tate IV, 1995). A strength-based model does not hold White middle-class culture as the norm to compare all students. CRP “is very explicit about respecting the culture and experiences…and it uses these as worthwhile resources for teaching and learning…it recognizes the existing strengths and accomplishments of these students and then enhances them further in the instructional process” (Gay, 2000, p. 33).

18

E. Fair

Methodology The data presented in this chapter come from the author’s previous research (Fair, 2018) using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study for Kindergarten Class of 2011 (ECLS-K:2011). Of the original 15,760 children who participated in the ECLS-K:2011, only public-school students who did not qualify for special education services were included for this study. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collected information via student assessment at the school site by a trained ECLS researcher, phone and in-person interviews with parents and caregivers, and questionnaires from each student’s teacher. Extensive review was undertaken to ensure validity and reliability. The study evaluates student knowledge in various subjects. The benefits of using this test include the facts that it: (1) has a large sample size, (2) tests across states. Using ECLS-K:2011 data, this research examines the relationships between race, poverty, and test scores between African American students and their peers during kindergarten through third grade. Students were divided into three income categories that were used to compare math and reading theta scores from kindergarten through third grade. The income categories were below the poverty threshold, at or above the poverty threshold, and at or above 200% of the poverty threshold. This data set was selected because the size allowed the researcher to control variables and still have a robust sample size for quantitative analysis of most variables. Another benefit of using a large longitudinal sample is that it allows for predictions to be made and patterns to be observed. While many large studies do not follow the same students, this data set offers the benefit of following the progress of individual students over a span of time. When examining students’ reading and math scores using ECLS, it is important to note that the tests that were administered utilized assessments that were given to the students in a one to one setting. As we are examining race as a factor, it is important to note that the race of the test administrator could have influenced test results. Additionally, there is a significant amount of research that standardized tests are biased against students who are not part of the dominant culture. The analysis conducted in the next section will examine the results of the reading and math assessments that were administered.

Analysis The results of the math and reading assessments indicate that the gap in scores increases over time. Figures 1 and 2 below show the scores in reading and math as students’ progress from kindergarten entry through the end of third grade. The first wave was when the students entered kindergarten followed by the next wave of assessments at the end of kindergarten. Students were tested in the fall and spring every year, except for third grade when they were only tested in the spring. When the poverty variable was introduced as a variable, it showed that African American students consistently scored statistically significantly lower than their

Social Injustice in the United States Early Elementary Education System

19

3.5

Theta Score

3 2.5 White, non Hispanic

2

African American

1.5 1

Total 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.5 Wave Number Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS–2011)

Fig. 1  Math theta scores by wave and race. (Source: U.S.  Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-2011))

3

Theta Score

2.5 White, non Hispanic

2

African American All Groups

0 -0.5

x1

x2

x3

x4

x5

Wave Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-2011 (ECLS-2011)

Fig. 2  Reading theta scores by wave and race. (Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-2011 (ECLS-2011))

White peers of the same income level. The math assessment scores in Table 1 show that when comparing math theta scores between African American students and their White, non-Hispanic peers at kindergarten entrance, there is a statistically significant difference between White, non-Hispanic students living below the poverty

White, non-­Hispanic African American

–4.64***

−0.70 −0.40

Race White, non-­Hispanic African American White, non-­Hispanic African American 540

1100

df 720

−0.36

2.86 2.88

−0.22

End of third grade Cohen’s Mean math theta d score t 0.04 2.86 3.51*** 2.64 0.04 3.12 4.76*** 2.88

***p