This ties to last week's reading on school indicators per ESSA and states' responsibility to select indicators that show a commitment to justice and equity.

See above re: Moses/Gutmann.

A power argument. Show those in power that they are actually disempowered and disadvantaged by the system. Hmm.

Refers back to Gutmann/Moses and the idea that a democratic government is responsible for ensuring nonrepressive and nondiscriminatory practices are occurring on a systemic level (rather than leaving that up to individuals).

Another symbol - and ambiguous. "Choice" implies "freedom." It also implies "ability to reinforce segregation." On one layer, choice just means "pick what you want"; on another layer, it is implied that what will be "wanted" is segregation and separation on the part of those in power. This concept is developed with that as an underlying assumption.

Has this argument been made? Why would this be the solution of critical race theorists (as someone who is not as in tune with the theoretical underpinnings of such a conclusion)?

I would assert that perhaps the problem with Brown is not the ruling itself but the mythology and symbolism around it, the assertion in schools and society that it is this landmark decision that "changed" things - because it didn't, not really. (Maybe that's what Ladson-Billings has been trying to say here all along.)

Supports my previous comment. The issue is not as much with the ruling as it is with the policy that unfolded after the ruling and the failure to uphold the ruling.

Yet this is not inherent to the decision itself and the principle on which it was founded ("Brown I") except for its premise of Black inferiority - per Ladson-Billings' own argument. It was the implementation ("Brown II") that failed - of course we cannot base our commitment to a policy on court cases alone because court cases are not policy. Legislation must be aligned with those court cases that upholds them reasonably. So, I am unsure exactly what Ladson-Billings means to posit here other than perhaps the idea that desegregation needs a stronger legislative backing behind it that ideologically works on a principle of equity based on education received (rather than solely who is doing the receiving)... instead of focusing on just the Supreme Court case. But I remain unclear.

Once again ties to Stone on equality/equity - same opportunity = expanding recipient group without expanding item to be delivered (education)

Oh, this never happens in educational policy. (A la NCLB, ESSA, etc.)

Desegregation - rhetoric symbolized as a benefit to Black students to receive an equal education, but practice continued to confer benefits on White students and families in a variety of ways.

Tied to school districting and funding policies.

Again, this action would be more symbolic than "real" -- balancing racial numbers could symbolize equity without providing it - or what definition of equity would that provide that could have been argued was more equitable? Broadening the recipient group for the distribution of education without broadening the definition of the item (in terms of need/value) means education was still inequitable in some areas because the focus was on the recipients (students) and not the item itself (education received). These are two different things -- as Ladson-Billings mentioned earlier, some Black students were receiving a higher quality of education, but the institution of segregation was still at issue. In this case, integration was an attempt to respond to the issue of segregation but did not manage the inequity in educational quality between schools and districts. (Lots of thoughts here.)

Falls into the "recipients" side of the dimensions of equality Stone outlines. Asserts that recipients of the distribution of desegregation policy could have been broadened - defined by race AND class rather than just race (more nuanced?). Also ties into concept of coalition-building, this would be a symbolic move.

Per my previous comments, may we be seeing something like this happening again? How does this play into the blame-the-victim narrative?

This sounds very familiar re: this year's election and the support working-class and poor Whites showed for Trump... The demographic conflict outlined here is still present.

I question this assertion ... It feels almost like a "blame the victim" mentality positing that the Brown decision was a cause of White resistance.

(These concepts are interesting because, while social justice actions of course serve to catalyze anti-social justice responses, the way we discuss it is critically important to not make civil rights activism a scapegoat for the rise of White supremacist and nationalist movements.)

Proposing a different narrative. Brown looked at Black disadvantage from segregation and left unquestioned that Whites may also experience disadvantage; as if Black students would be benefitted from being in the presence of White students, but not the other way around. Flipping the script (shifting the narrative) provides a different view of the question.

Not specifically related to class as much of private school is; some are more "affordable" than others (but still out of reach for families in poverty)

The importance of having role models with a similar background.

An example of how desegregation implementation only focused on one element of practice rather than the institution of segregation (attempted to reduce segregation for Black students but exacerbated exclusionary policy against Black educators). A story of control - attempting to maintain control - if educators are primarily White even in integrated schools, then they are still seen as the group in power.

Interesting narrative - "too far, too fast." Would integration have been more successful had the attempt been more gradual? Perhaps, one may say, sneakier?

This does stand in some contrast to the earlier assertion that Brown did not fully stand in principle because the defense used the concept of black inferiority to bolster its argument.

What a strange outcome. This is an indicator of the way group-based distribution draws those "rough" lines around demographics in a way that attempts to be explicit about what racial lines really mean and the impact that has on different groups (per Stone ch. 2).

Connections to Donato and, again, history course: segregation of Mexican students, use of IQ tests to justify segregation

A la Audre Lorde, "the master's tools cannot dismantle the master's house."

Interesting use of the word "suggest" - not a strong verb a la "argue" or "assert."

This was mentioned in the History of School Episode 1 in the history course.

It is also interesting to consider the symbolic narrative associated with Brown and what it's been used to represent, and what we might get in removing what we can of the layers of symbol from the narrative.

Suggesting a change in the narrative rather than entirely dropping the system.

Interesting student measure because how much is this affected by community factors that confound the ability to truly measure in the school? This report does seem to account for that question though.

This was mentioned in Stone, but what definition of equity are they working under here?

Language indicating shift (rather than coexistence of multiple processes)

Ties to my previous comment.

What do these look like?

Suspension and expulsion data are also defined by school-level decisions as to strictness and how far punitive response goes for different student behaviors, so this is not based alone in student behavior.

Responsibility on administrators and district-level representatives.

Responsibility on government, administrators, and educators.

It seems that the assertion is that this undefined indicator can be used to push back against the inequities perpetuated by the other indicators -- showing value for students who are NOT inherently valued by a focus on achievement test scores.

Focusing on areas where there is still ability to choose/control circumstances outside of law that has already been passed.

This is a very explicit statement about how the indicators selected function as symbols for what's valued, which I appreciate.

Another instance of ambiguity.

Because of course, there have to be failing schools somewhere. (Raises the question of how measurement tools set up an expectation that someone MUST be failing and what that means for schools.)

Again - can be defined way differently depending on who's defining and the context. Any quantifiable measure of these things will inherently exclude definitions.

Ambiguous. "School quality" and "student success" mean different things to different people.

An example of ambiguity. Karp defined these schools as the "lowest performing" ones.

WAR METAPHOR

Once again the solution centers control in the hands of those who are facing the problem. By centering the government and its members as the villains who are (conspiratorially) promoting these harmful policies, Karp also indicates that they are not the ones who can be held responsible for major positive reforms. If they are explicitly choosing to take harmful actions, then those who must do the work of changing those actions have to be the ground-level "resistance" -- essentially, the narrative is working to inspire those at the bottom of the hierarchy to revolt/resist (very Star Wars).

Villain imagery.

What does this mean?

How do you make a counterfeit version of a test?

Karp does make a lot of assertions without giving sources.

Metaphor.

A story of rising and control ... Our heroes rise up and take control of the circumstances in order to push for reforms.

Posits Duncan as the villain of the story and uses a story of conspiracy to indicate that he justified his action in a "dubious" way.

Now critiquing the narrative told by NCLB. So Karp's assertion here (and part of his narrative) is that NCLB's narrative was a FALSE narrative that caused decline.

Karp sets up a story of decline here: the education system once did these good things, but NCLB brought policy that stymied progress.

This is why positive identity development is crucial to authenticity; we cannot just live the identities we "want" to have as there are some that cannot be chosen; so we must "want" to have the cultural identities we have not chosen .... crucial to authenticity and self-determination is a validation of our identities insofar as we are able to want to identify with them.

Unhampered choices = authentic self-determination = cannot occur without recognition of one's social, cultural, and historical context.

I think we've seen this in arguments that insist that people who discuss race, especially the inequities and oppression that occur on racial lines, are just trying to "divide people."

This is tied to the way some white people don't see themselves as having a culture; view themselves as "cultureless" because white cultural identity is rarely discussed or made evident.

Return to Kumashiro: who made the game/who made the rules?

How does one define when someone else's identity is distorted? What kind of criteria do we use to decide this?

This is an indicator that authentic identity must be reinforced and nurtured as a foundation to self-determination; there is no self-determination without a positive and authentic identity.

What are the universalizable principles autonomy revolves around that are not relevant to authenticity? I am sure they have been mentioned, but I am having some trouble finding where.

Re: the previous quote; this is what we see when students' cultural backgrounds are not reflected in their education.

I know this will be answered, but the question posited here irks me. Societal inequity along lines of race, class, gender etc. can't be categorized as just "luck" and that anyone would do so is frustrating.

Education about options is critical. Ex. someone may not believe they have the opportunity to go to college when in reality there are grants and other scholarship opportunities available; but their choices are limited by what they know and are aware of even if their options are actually broader.

Again ties back to Gutmann: how critical democratic education is to democracy on a whole; or how critical education policies that foster development of autonomy are to developing a self-determining people.

I do find this idea of "appropriate mental abilities" problematic. It seems that the author means mental abilities such as critical thinking, self-awareness, ability to weigh multiple options etc. However, what does this mean for people with disabilities that affect their mental abilities? In terms of autonomy, do we view them as unable to lead an autonomous life? This is an interesting line of questioning.

It is critical therefore that we improve the social context for individuals for whom it is less favorable.

Basically this is saying, autonomy is valuable because it forces us to consider augmenting and providing these options for everyone? Would that be a reasonable conclusion to make based on this sentence?

I wish I knew the difference between these for contextual purposes.

I wonder why this is the term/label associated with this theoretical stance.

In practice, communitarianism reinforces oppressive systems and practices.

This is a key part of what Gutmann does in the previous reading.

Gutmann discusses "the good life" as well. I wonder who coined this term and what it meant in its original iteration.

It would be nice to also be provided a PDF copy of chapter 5 since affirmative action is frequently discussed still today.

This type of education also applies to a system that takes a "collective self" view of the state, which Gutmann warns against ... it limits students' ability to think critically and from various perspectives and is thus repressive.

There are so many ways I have seen this play out in my school context and not been sure how to handle it on an individual level as an educator. The recognition of it in this text is almost reassuring insofar as it does acknowledge the limitations placed on choices in an unfavorable social context.

Gutmann's work rejects this criticism nicely.

Self-determination does not exist in a vacuum.

What does this mean? What would be an example of a "rich language of expression"?

What does this mean? What is the difference between a real and a nominal choice?

Tie to Gutmann - democratic education must be nondiscriminatory

Gutmann used "liberal" as the descriptor for the theory favoring individual freedom. Is this the framework Moses will use as well?

Another tie to Gutmann: promoting autonomy of all, but in a way that reinforces equity and justice (civic virtue).

This makes me think of some of the language I've heard about students' families in Pueblo, where I work: teachers (and others) often say, "Well, they just don't value education here. Oh, they don't care about education." And perhaps there are elements of this that are true, but it goes back to this cultural argument, that the people of this city -- in particular the families whose children struggle the most -- just don't "care" about their students' educational success and that this is a key problem with education in Pueblo. Yet every parent I've met and spoken to is invested in and cares about their child's education. Many of them are just not sure what to do.

Ties back to ANAR - it is unreasonable to place all responsibility on schools and educators to resolve educational inequity when policy is actually key to dealing with inequitable educational practices.

Do we feel that we are doing this in our society? What is done well, where are we failing? What can we as educators do to ensure this kind of education?

This is a key point as to why ensuring a sense of individual choice is critical in this framework.

The idea that democracy can only properly work with a conscious and critical population that has been educated toward such... Without that education, democratization is risky.

Collective self-determination assumes a "collective self," that the state can somehow represent the self of all its highly varied, individual citizens. Conscious social reproduction instead looks upon the individual citizens to be aware, think critically, and act in ways that reproduce society more democratically/equitably.

Do we see this happening in our schools? If so, how? If not, why not? What could be done better?

Something we're facing in current administration today.

Interesting specification here. I wonder what led the author to include this?

Civic virtues to be taught argumentatively; with persuasion to one's ability to choose rationally that this would be the best choice.

Claims that individualism and civic virtue actually co-create each other rather than standing directly at odds to one another. (The values of individualism inherently are also civic virtues; the civic virtues necessary for democracy are those that encourage individual freedom.)

Is this true in our classrooms and schools today?

What an interesting graph. The bulk of countries are on the left side of the graph. If we removed the United States and Israel (outliers in terms of the poverty rate), what would the Line of Best Fit then be? Is there really a very strong correlation between these two measures based on this graph? Would be interesting to play with more data/follow up on this info.

Richard J. Coley is Executive Director of the ETS Center for Research on Human Capital and Education. His recent work has focused on the achievement gap and on the factors that are associated with the gap, as well as on tracking and analyzing national trends in student performance and educational attainment. He has been involved in studies of federal, state and local education policy issues, including studies of school finance and governance, teacher education and certification, educational standards, education indicators and education reform. Recent publications include: State Pre-K Assessment Policies: Issues and Status; The Mission of the High School: A New Consensus of the Purposes of Public Education?; The Black-White Achievement Gap: When Progress Stopped; Parsing the Achievement Gap; and The Family: America's Smallest School.

From https://www.ets.org/s/research/19386/authors/

My primary areas of research are education finance and the economics of education, including studies of teacher and administrator labor markets and preparation pipelines, as well as recent work on evolving legal issues in teacher and principal evaluation systems. I have written extensively on issues concern educational equity and adequacy and have testified as an expert witness on issues surrounding school funding equity in state and federal courts in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and currently engaged in Connecticut and New York. My current interest in research is in making research accessible to policy makers.

I teach courses in data analysis at the doctoral level, in school finance at the masters and doctoral level and education law at the masters level. I believe in engaging students through project based group work, actively analyzing and presenting data and writing policy briefs, as well as engaging in mock trials & case presentations in the school law course.

From https://gse.rutgers.edu/bruce_baker

Return to the economic argument - the most compelling one for many members of a capitalist system.

34 + 14 = 48. What about the other two?

The word "only" here indicates a critical stance on this - perhaps a critique that these criteria are not nuanced enough.

Why is this?

Important to ensure teachers are doing quality work; however, this does tie back to ANAR and the growing emphasis on teacher quality in recent years.

Is this tied to the individualistic "bootstraps" ideology prevalent in this country/the idea that one can and should be fully responsible for their own "success"? (Because the plight of the elderly and those who are disabled is visible, they become the focus of assistance programs?)

And many schools in these areas don't have the resources to provide that additional staff and additional time, as the area property tax provides the majority of funding for those schools.

This is interesting because it really elucidates one area where local policymakers face limitations. If you are a district representative or policymaker at the district level, there is only so much you can do if there is no integration within your school district.

This is a bit tangential, but this raises an interesting connection, to me, to other public systems, for example public transit. In some cities, higher-income people will not use public transit because it makes them "nervous" due to the people who tend to use it; which further segregates that group of people and perpetuates the reasons people refuse to use public transit. It's an example of the same cyclical process as we see with private versus public schools.

I wonder what kind of factors contribute to this state-by-state variance.

I wonder what the statistics look like now, six years later.

This gets discussed a lot as a factor affecting students in Pueblo, where I live and teach.

Interesting specification here.

How is "livable" being defined here? What makes an income livable as opposed to not livable, in scientific/quantifiable terms?

As in, double the poverty threshold?

See, this qualifier would have been nice in the section of the executive summary where they discussed this - the purpose of the paragraph would have been less confusing had they done so.

This is vague.

Important for what reasons? Does this tie back to the economic imperatives of schooling, and if so, are these things really as critical as is assumed here when we consider the saturation of the labor market per Falk?

Here is where they indicate that they will provide guidance or steps forward.

Two aims are outlined here but I am not yet sure if there will be a move to action or suggested policy actions. What is the intended result of this report?

Having some difficulty parsing out the intent behind this paragraph. The first part seems to indicate that there should be more focus on eliminating poverty. But, then, "hundreds of billions of dollars" are already being provided to help the poor. And, is this an area that should be a focus of education policy, or not? It seems that the answer to this question is yes, but it doesn't get followed up so I am still lacking clarity.

"The story we tell the losers to get them to keep playing the game"

In some ways this call to action seems to again place a lot of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of educators for fulfilling a very broad ideal. I think educators can do the work to fulfill these kinds of broad ideals but viewing the school as the center of where this type of "resuscitation" takes place is a challenge.

For some reason, I find myself questioning this.

Would the ability to pursue higher ed. such as a master's degree be considered this type of "leisure"? Or is that defined by intent (pursuing higher ed in order to make more $$ vs. pursuing higher ed in order to learn more and grow the knowledge base and contribute to dialogue)? If the latter purpose is fulfilled even if the original purpose was the original intent, is that still fulfilling the purpose of leisure as outlined here?

Thoughts on this? On my gut reaction, it seems somewhat elitist - the idea that one who is focused on work (working class, proletariat) does not possibly have the time or energy to be a good democratic citizen (but if democracy is intended to be the voice for all the people, then inherently these "bad democratic citizens" deserve to have their voices heard). But I also know firsthand how hard it is to engage with the nuances of thoughtful citizenship while one is consumed by their work. Not sure. Would love to hear more thoughts.

Development of a leisure class still indicates very strong class divisions. Even if unemployment is "no disease," and it were treated as such, would there not then be a division class-wise between those who still needed to work and those who didn't? What would it look like to have a society that met the demand for labor rather than oversaturating the labor market?

Ties to Donato reading in History course - the way corporations used debt to basically shackle workers to that company (ex. Great Western Sugar Company) can be paralleled with playing out in similar ways today, with universities and higher ed.

How then do we as teachers who are also aware of and engaged in critical pedagogy respond to cheating in the classroom? (Many questions about the tie between the theory and the praxis, which I know we will eventually address.)

This is so tied to Kumashiro's questions that it even uses the same analogy, of the "game." What questions do we ask to keep the game alive?

Visible in science fiction view of a doomed future wherein robots control everything etc. - social consciousness of what happens when there is a labor surplus in a society that places a human being's value on their ability to perform labor in the capitalist system

Evident today in the "I should be doing something instead of sitting around" mentality common to most Americans.

This started earlier than WWII with the Protestant work ethic during the colonial era.

Like... how many? What proportion? There were still so many who were confined to the poorer classes and those were so often people of color. It seems like an oversight not to mention this.

Normalizing hierarchy within the working class according to how students are divided up in school

This is so creepy and dystopian.

Have lots of mixed thoughts/feelings on this.

Interesting questions as to how this plays out today. Movements of the working class today focus so heavily around bringing jobs (wage work) into areas where it is difficult to find work. At this point wage work is overwhelmingly valued in populist dialogue ???

Evidence of the conflict between economic and democratic ideals of education.

Common schools met the "standardization" purpose of industrialization. Schools were already viewed as working to create a "normalized" sort of worker for a very normalized labor force (the faceless proletariat)

Industrial revolution = shift to proletariat = standardization, industrialization, capitalism and consumerism acting as limits to freedom

Curious what the source is for this information. There seems to be a real slant to this description - very positive view of early U.S.

Important distinction/specification.

Interesting use of language in this paragraph. "Harbored few illusions" ... "failed to appreciate" ... especially interesting because the first implies that seeking improvement through education at this time was an "illusion" while the second indicates that there is something to "appreciate" about formal schooling. It is difficult to parse the author's perspective here in terms of word choice.

Is this the role held today by social media? Twitter as the modern-day printing press

Tension between two forms of opportunity: one based on consumerism and another based on equality