This form of early tracking, or dividing children into labeled groups based on the teacher's designation of their skill level, seems innocent. What we know, however, based on mounds of research-most notably among them Rist's (1970/2000) study of same-raced children of various social classes-is that teacher and peer expectations for academic achievement (and their subsequent treatment of students) are based largely on low and negative perceptions of the poor, regardless of their actual ability. We know that disproportionate numbers of poor children are far more likely to be identified as less academically adept or even as having special needs. The early tracking and labeling of children reared in poverty is cumulative and devastating. It not only hampers students' self-esteem and cripples their own expectations of themselves but also, as Rist (1970/2000) discovered, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for what too often becomes a trajectory of underachievement.

The neighbor's point was an excellent one. Access to quality child care, early learning, preschool, and even kindergarten (which is not mandatory in all states) is key. Investments in quality early childhood education not only has one of the highest yields-for every $1 spent on early education and care, $8 is saved on crime, public assistance, supplemental schooling, and so on-but is also one of the most important stages at which a child's educational trajectory is shaped (Nisbett, 2009). The question we must ask of children reared in poverty is, When they set foot in kindergarten, how many years "behind" are they in learning opportunities, literacy and numeracy development, reading and writ-ing "behaviors," and the many benefits of quality early care? Although the nosy neighbor in our favorite film highlighted the disgustingly expensive extremes to which the wealthy will go to start their children's educational careers off right, the n~tion ~f needing to start every child's education with the highest quality expenences is spot on.

Historically and contemporarily, U.S. public schools illustrate th · 1. · f . . . . . . e s1mp 1c1ty o reproduction-that 1s, the mdehble relat1onship between curre t d 1 . n an eventua class membership-by way of replicating class status in the superior ed t. I · · f h · h uca 10na opportumt1es o t ose wit more money If you can b f · h · ·

Why are people poor?"

The exciting aspect of creating a classroom community where there is respect for individual voices is that there is infinitely more feedback because students do feel free to talk-and talk back

Multiculturalism compels educators to recognize the nar-row boundaries that have shaped the way knowledge is shared in the classroom. It forces us all to recognize our complicity in accepting and perpetuating biases of any kind

I teach about shifting paradigms and talk about the discomfort it can cause. White students learning to think more critically about ques-tions o f race and racism may go home for the holidays and sud-denly see their parents in a different light. They may recognize nonprogressive thinking, racism, and so on, and it may hurt them that new ways of knowing may crea te estrangement where there was none

we must acknowledge that our styles of teaching may need to change. Let's face it: most of us were taught in classrooms where styles of teachings reflected the hotion of a single norm of thought and experience, which we were encouraged to believe was universal. This has been just as true for nonwhite teachers as for white teachers. Most of us learned to teach emulating this model.

Public schools are essential to make the American dream work, but schools are also the arena in which many Americans first fail. Failure there almost cer-tainly guarantees failure from then on. In the dream, failure results from lack of individual merit and effort; in reality, failure in school too closely tracks structures of racial and class inequality. Schools too often reinforce rather than contend against the intergenerational paradox at the heart of the American dream. That is understandable but not acceptable.

Most Americans believe that everyone has the right to pursue success but that only some deserve to win, based on their tal-ent, effort, or ambition. The American dream is egalitarian at the starting point in the "race of life," but not at the end. That is not the paradox; it is simply an ideological choice.