Poor, black, non-college-bound students still fall into educational schism

By THE STUDENT ADVOCACY CENTER

Evaluations of the Ann Arbor schools, both those generated by the school district and those commissioned by the district, maintain an unchanging criticism: poor, black, non-college-bound students are not well educated in these schools.

In October, 1966, the Vinter-Sarri Report found:  ".. . teachers frequently commented that the primary source of difficulty was the lack of motivation among selected categories of pupils. This was considered an attribute the pupil brought to the school, and few indicated awareness of the ways in which educational practices or school experiences contribute to the situation.”

In January, 1971, the board adopted the Humaneness in Education Report recommendations: “That, as a matter of Board Policy, the ‘tracking’ system be abolished in our schools. ‘It is increasingly recognized that accumulation of academic failure is heightened, especially among lower income pupils, by heavy reliance on ability and achievement tests and on grouping and ‘tracking’ procedures.’ ”

In March 1977, the North Central Association said in an evaluation:

... of Huron High School: “The student body appears to be bi-modal in aptitude distribution on the curve, with the smallest group on the extreme low end and distinctive by its isolation, ” and

... of Pioneer High School: . . some members of minority groups feel that the school (and the community for that matter) is not ‘their place,’ and if they do not want an advanced education they are not valued. Resolving this problem should have top priority.”

In July 1977, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Racial Balance and Educational Opportunity said, “The problem, as we define it, is not race but racism ... the end result (of a desegregation plan) must be to increase educational opportunity.”

Then in 1984, additional information further dramatizing the failures of the district to meet the educational needs of this group of students was released. The children were not scoring well on standardized tests.

In June 1984, a report to the Ann Arbor school board from the Deputy Superintendent for Instructional Services said: “This data clearly indicates that black students as a group, scored significantly lower than Caucasian students in mathematics and reading at all grade levels. . . . The District needs to give a high priority this coming year to addressing ways to improve the academic performance of black students. We must make a commitment to reducing the existing gap between the academic ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ ”

These test scores documenting systematic, systemic failure are then used to sort the children in alarming disproportions into “low-ability” and “basic” programs.

In June 1984, the District Gender and Ethnic Equity Assessment, 1983-84 school year, stated: “The extremely low black student participation... in advanced/accelerated courses continues to be of concern. These inequities should be addressed and strategies developed at the senior and intermediate levels.” Now the board is presented with a proposal to revise the high school curriculum. The specific recommendations are:

-to increase the number of required courses;

-to increase the number of requirements;

-to erect competency test gates.

These steps will not effect the more than 70 percent of the students who are already fulfilling these requirements according to the district’s October 1984 Analysis of Transcripts.

The students not now being educated will be further jeopardized by add-on requirements, constant testing and the district’s dependency on remediation, all of this devoid of the programmatic restructuring so desparately needed if there are to be equal opportunities for success for all children. Relying on a yet-to-be-defined K-6 revision provides no insurance for the children who are at risk.

To quote from the High School Curriculum Task Force Report accepted by the board, March 1985, on proposed graduation requirements:

“Students at Risk: Revision of the K-8 program should reduce the number of students at risk coming to the high schools, but some such students will always be a part of the population.. . . Students who have not passed the competency test by a specified time would be placed in required remedial classes, for which they would be given credit toward graduation, and in which they would be required to remain until they pass the test or complete all the credit requirements for graduation. Such students may not achieve all of the common learnings set out, but at least they will have the most basic survival skills of reading, writing, and mathematics. Or, at least, an honest attempt would have been made to help them do so."

Good intentions without sound programming will not educate children.  Tests that document systemic failure and lead to sorting poor and black children into low ability-groups from kindergarten through 12th grade do nothing to relieve the problem. Yet the only acknowledgement in the proposal that the district has a crisis is the requirement for an eighth-grade competency test and the promise to remediate, remediate, remediate.

But Michigan’s Eliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits educational institutions from:

Sec. 402. (1)

(a) Discriminat(ing) against an individual in the full utilization of or benefit from the institution, or the services, activities, or programs provided by the institution because of religion, race, color, national origin, or sex.

(b) Announc(ing) or follow(ing) a policy of denial or limitation through a quota or otherwise of educational opportunities of a group or its members because of religion, race, color, national origin, or sex.

The curriculum proposal will not simply maintain a dreadful and illegal status quo; it will also clearly entrench and exacerbate the harm not suffered by ‘at-risk’ children. The proposal will reinforce the discriminatory, inequitable two-tier program now in existence, further worsening the present situation already acknowledged by the district as intolerable. No real remedies are provided. A phase-in plan, lacking substantive reform, cannot meet the standards required by Elliott-Larsen.

This article is condensed from a report presented earlier by the Student Advocacy Center to the Ann Arbor Board of Education. It was compiled by a group led by center director Ruth Zweifler. SAC is a non-profit organization which monitors school-related issues.