As an educator, I always encourage my students to master mainstream English. I tell them that they need to master various languages and various forms of the English language. This mastery is necessary to navigate through this world, but along with this encouragement comes the encouragement to keep their home language, whatever it may be. I tell them to not look down on thier languages–it’s certain people that are out for themselves that perpetuate the idea that difference equates to deficient. Assimilating, in this case replacing ones home language with mainstream, often times leaves one ostrasized from their home community. The more people one can communicate with, the better. For example, if I can teach a class in a dialect that isn’t a hinderance to my students, if I can speak to and translate for the Latino fellow-worker at my job, and if I can relate through language to people hustling on a street corner, why wouldn’t I? The point is to never have language as a barrier. Of course there will always be circumstances where this barrier is there, but the fewer times the better.

          Segregated schools are one of many ways that allow the rich to continue getting richer, while the poor get poorer. Generally speaking, the rich is made up of Whites and the poor consists of People of Color. A frequent and seemingly logical argument that middle-class and affluent Whites often make is that it isn’t their responsibility to help pay for the education of low-income minorities. They claim that they and their families worked “hard” to get where they are in life and that those in poverty, subjected to an inferior education, should have to do the same thing. One major reality too often overlooked with this argument is the weight carried by being White in this White dominated society. Since People of Color in American society have generally always received an inferior education, it should be no wonder we see economic and educational disparities.

            People of Color have never had an equal chance at an equal education–the playing field has never been level. I pose the question to anyone who thinks that the playing field is level: point to an event that leveled this field and/or point out at least a specific period of time when this leveling happened? Whites started the game with a two touchdown lead as it were, yet we can’t seem to understand why the achievement gaps persist. This unlevel playing field came at the expense of People of Color at the beginning of this nation. Those benefits persist today in various forms, one of which is segregated schooling. This is why Whites are complicit in helping rectify many of the inequities in our society. Those that are ahead often are there not simply because of working harder–they had unmerited benefits that others haven’t and still don’t have. Because Whites still benefit from the injustice of the past, shouldn’t they participate in repairing the future?

My motivations for taking

Black Studies 410; Topics: White Studies CRN# 44516 Professor Pedro Ferbel-Azcarate

          My motivations for taking this class are manifold. At the forefront of my motivations are to further my study and explorations into race relations; I also have a desire to help facilitate the race relations education of those around me. Both of these motivations (and the process of accomplishing them) will be aids in my personal self-reflecting analysis and exploration into my own make-up as a racial being. Another core motivation for taking this course is to acquire the ability to articulate, in laymen terms, the systemic and structural component of dominance by the dominant culture in the United States. In the U.S. context, European-Americans (Whites) are the group that is the dominant culture.  

          As a future educator, to me, these motivations are paramount. I understand that culture, ethnicity, and what we call “race” are at the center of the inequities in educational practices and outcomes. In other words, educators are plagued by the challenge of overcoming or mastering race relations while students, white and students of color, suffer as a result. Teacher’s struggle to interpersonally relate to all their students so that they can best facilitate the student’s education; students suffer the lack of this relationship in the meantime. The abundance of students who suffer academically are students of color. These students make-up about half of the student population while teachers of color make-up only about 10-15%. White students suffer as well. When their teachers can not demonstrate adequate respect for and knowledge of “others”, these students pick up on this and internalize it. At best, these students leave school with little experience and knowledge about those around them. I anticipate this course aiding in my growth as an individual and as a future educator.

Tracking in Education: Separate-But (Not)-Equal

            The inequitable education opportunities between groups of people in America have been a long debated subject. Educators, scholars, and scientists have tried to both evaluate and make logical conclusions about this dilemma and how it evolved. At least since the 1920’s there have been attempts to explain these gaps on the basis of race, socioeconomic status, genetics, and social class to name a few (Ansalone & Biafora, 2001; Anyon, 1982; Lewis, 1978; Oakes, 1986, 1997, 1998; Steinberg, 2005; Lewis, 1978). Ability grouping, commonly equated with tracking, has been a component of the American educational system for the same length as these attempted explanations. Not until the 1980’s did tracking get significant attention for being a viable reason for explaining inequities in education.

          A working definition of tracking refers to educational systems that are “broad, difficult to reverse, programmatic divisions, which separate students in all subjects” (Lockwood, 1998). High school tracks generally divide students into academic, general/mainstream, and vocational programs, whereas elementary schools “track” pupils by dividing them into separate classes for the entire day (Lockwood, 1998). Ansalone & Biafora (2001) note that kindergarten reading groups are formed within the first few days of each term. It is the author’s stance that tracking results in inequitable education opportunities by lowering teachers and certain student’s expectations (Ansalone & Biafora, 2001; Randolph, 1994) and producing negative qualitative and quantitative instructional differences (Anyon, 1980, 1985; Gamoran, 1993; Oakes, 1998; Yogan, 2000). Despite intense resistance and hundreds of research teams (Steinberg, 2005, p. 215) that have condemned institutional tracking it remains prevalent throughout most American school districts (Entwisle & Alexander, 1993).

History of Tracking

           The notion of homogeneous[1] and thus separate education goes back as far as the early 1900’s. At the turn of the century, Americas leading educator’s like John Dewey, Ellwood Cubberley, David Snedden, James Earl Russell, and J. Stanley Brown were all in accordance with the notion of tracking, which was deemed “differentiated schooling” in that day (Nasaw, 1979). In an informative account of the history and affects of tracking, John Lockwood (1998) makes a pertinent connection:

 Just before World War I, Alfred Binet’s intelligence testing was embraced by American psychologists and the burgeoning armed forces in this country. When young men enlisted in droves in 1917, the military used standardized IQ tests to sort potential officers from enlisted men, according to perceived mental capabilities. Shortly thereafter, schools began to test and track students on the premise that the economy required workers with different knowledge and skills.

         At first glance, the notion of different knowledge and skill sets sound reasonable. After all, a country can not thrive with civilians who all have the same knowledge and skill sets; someone must operate grocery stores, someone must operate car dealerships, and someone must operate educational institutions. We can’t all do the same thing. A much more penetrating explanation of the insidious nature of the origins of tracking is demonstrated by David Nasaw in Schooled to Order: New Studies for New Students covering the same early 1900 period:

As Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard University, suggested, since it was already too late to differentiate students once they arrived at the high school, the elementary school teachers should be given the assignment, ‘to sort the pupils and sort them by their evident or probable destinies’….Immigrant children and Blacks who, it was assumed, would have to drop out before ever reaching high school were offered the least academic training. (1979, p.138)

There was a pointed effort to insure that certain students received a high-track education while others received a low-track education (Lewis, 1978). The notion that all students had the same potential was seen as ridiculous; educators and leader’s assumed the future for some and made key decisions to make these assumptions reality (Nasaw, 1979). The idea of democracy made a subtle switch. The new educational democracy became “offering every student the opportunity for an education equally adjusted to what school officials assumed would be his or her future vocation” (Nasaw, 1979). This was tracking.

          Today tracking is widespread, has taken a new facade, and yet is producing the same results. In 2001, three-quarters of the school districts in the United States used ability grouping or tracking (Ansalone & Biafora, 2001). Proponents of tracking sell it today by couching it in terms and phrases like individualized or self-paced instruction, excellence and equity, and a homogeneous education (Gamoran, 1993; Oakes, 1985; Wheelock, 1992). The focus of proponents is on the students who benefit from tracking-those who are already favored by race and class. Some educators favor tracking because it makes their job of preparing lessons and communicating information easier (Ansalone & Biafora, 2001). At the same time, these same educators acknowledged that tracking may improve the cognitive achievement of high ability groups, but only at the disadvantage of the average and slow groups (Ansalone & Biafora, 2001). One of the disadvantages the majority of students who are tracked receive is low expectations. Here, low expectations act as a two-edged sword where low expectations are held by both the teacher and the student.

Low Expectations

          Because low-track classes generally require more structure, greater discipline, are provided with assignments that focus on basic skills and repetition, and are given little time to independent and critical thought, both the teacher of these classes and their students acquire a sense of low expectations (Lockwood, 1998; Oakes, 1985; Yogan, 2000). Yogan (2000) affirms this by stating that “tracking sends a message to those in the lower tracks that they are not as good as other students. Teachers all too often support this message as they talk down to students or dumb down the course requirements”. Many school principals have written policies and guidelines endorsing high teacher expectations; sadly, many times these guidelines aren’t enforced (Chunn, 1990).

          In a review of fifteen years of research, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that “teacher expectancy effects of some type occurred in two-thirds of the 345 studies reviewed”. Commonalities between teacher expectations in low-track classrooms were found. For example, such teachers:

• Wait less time for low-expectation students (Lows) to answer questions;
• Give “Lows” the answer or call on someone else rather than trying to improve the Low’s response through repeating the question, providing clues, or asking a new question;
• Fail to give feedback to the public responses of “Lows”;
• Pay less attention to “Lows” and interact with them less frequently;
• Demand less from “Lows”;
• Give briefer and less informative feedback to the questions of “Lows”;
• Differentially administer or grade tests or assignments in which “highs,” but not “Lows” are given the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases.

         Students’ low expectations are another major piece to the inequity that results from tracking. Schwartz (1981) succinctly states: “Placement itself, independent of teacher style or student background, influences a student’s willingness to perform. If a child is placed in the wrong track, that is, if ability is misinterpreted, she or he acquires the academic attitude of that track…performance improves in the higher tracks and deteriorates in the lower tracks”. She goes on to write, “If a student associates his or her classroom activities with academic stigmatization or ‘dumbness’, he or she is likely to react against and avoid involvement in them”. This leads to the intensely studied, highly documented phenomena of self-fulfilling prophecy[2]. The self-fulfilling prophecy begins as a postulated false definition of reality, which subsequently causes a new behavior that makes the originally false conception come true (Chunn, 1990). To compile the inequity students experience from low expectations, they also suffer tremendously from instructional differences.

Instructional Differences

            For mainstream students and especially those in lower tracks, instructional differences are negative and come in various forms (Steinberg, 2005, p. 214). In contrast to high ability classroom instruction that emphasizes creativity, individual thought and expressiveness, expansion and illustration of ideas, and a more rigorous and demanding curriculum (Anyon, 1981; Dornbusch, Glasgow, & Lin, 1996; Schwartz, 1981), lower track classroom instruction is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior (Chunn, 1990; Oakes, 1985; Yogan, 2000). Instruction in lower track classrooms is characterized by rote memorization (Steinberg, 2005, p. 214), low-level or remedial curriculum (Oakes & Wells, 1998; Schwartz, 1981), following rules (Anyon, 1981; Oakes, 1995), low expectations (Ansalone & Biafora, 2000; Dornbusch, Glasgow, & Lin, 1996; Gamoran, 1993, 2000), and discipline (Anyon, 1981; Oakes, 1986; Yogan, 2000; Yonezawa & Oakes, 1999).  The following contrasting examples are illustrative.

          In a high-track elementary classroom, researcher Jean Anyon (1981) describes her findings:

There was a series of assignments in which each child had to be a ‘student teacher’. The child had to plan a lesson in grammar, outlining, punctuation or another language arts topic and explain the concept to the class. Each child was to prepare a worksheet or game and a homework assignment as well. After each presentation, the teacher and other children gave a critical appraisal of the ‘student teacher’s’ performance. Their criteria were: whether the student spoke clearly; whether the lesson was interesting; whether the student made any mistakes; and whether he or she kept control of the class…when a child did not maintain control, the teacher said…you have authority and you have to use it. I’ll back you up.

There are plenty of examples like Anyon’s that describe the experience students in high-track classes have (e.g., Chunn, 1990; Nasaw, 1979; Oakes, 1985; Sternberg, 1998; Yogan, 2000). Students are taught, expected, and aloowed to think critically about the concepts that they are learning (Dornbusch, Glasgow, & Lin, 1996; Gamoran, 2001; Steinberg, 2005, pp. 214-216); unfortunately, the normative experience of middle and low ability groups is the polar opposite.

          In low-track classrooms Anyon observed teachers emphasizing mechanical, rote behavior, little decision making, with students making very few choices. Over the year and a half observation she noticed:

Once or twice a year there are science projects. The project is chosen and assigned by the teacher from a box of three-by-five-inch cards. On the card, the teacher has written the question to be answered, the books to use, and how much to write. Explaining the cards to the observer, the teacher said, ‘It tells them exactly what to do, or they couldn’t do it’.

Her findings were typical and consistent with an abundance of research (Ansalone & Biafora, 2000; Chunn, 1990; Lockwood & Cleveland, 1998; Oakes, 1985, 1986, 1995, 1998; Steinberg, 2005; Wheelock, 1992; Schwartz, 1981; Yogan, 2000; Yonezawa & Oakes, 1998). On another occasion she writes:

 One of the teachers led the children through a series of steps to make a one-inch grid on their paper without telling them that they were making a one-inch grid, or that it would be used to study scale. She said, ‘Take your ruler. Put it across the top. Make a mark at every number. Then move your ruler down the bottom. Now make a mark on top of every number. Now draw a line….’ At this point a girl said that she had a faster way to do it and the teacher said, ‘No, you don’t; you don’t even know what I’m making yet. Do it this way, or it’s wrong’.

These are examples of an inferior education, both qualitatively and quantitatively. In our current educational system, high-track classrooms equate to high expectations, pro-active learning, analytic and critical thinking, and skills that will prepare students for college and beyond. On the contrary, low-track classes “provide different kinds of knowledge, which in turn may provide the opportunity for considerably different types of educational and employment opportunities” (Ansalone & Biafora, 2000). According to Evans (1995), “Tracking…reveals classrooms with significant differences in curricular content, instructional procedures, and elements of the student-teacher relationship”.   

Conclusion

            There are a number of areas that should be addressed by future research. A consensus of research shows that tracking has negative results especially for those in the mid to lower tracks, but there has been little longitudinal research exploring the economic fate of those that are prodded down different tracks. Another area of concern is whether the structure of low-track classrooms encourages the behavior issues that are so prevalent in these classes. Researchers often find correlations between low-track classrooms and disruptive behavior, but few have analyzed to find a potential causal effect. Possibly more pressing is what measures educators should take to implement de-tracking or alternative ability-grouping so that the maximum potential of all students can truly be reached. Clearly research encourages drastic educational reform in the structure of how students are grouped and taught.

         Tracking in the United States has a long history founded on inequitable principles and beliefs. Many well-intentioned policy-makers and educators are inadvertently going along with an educational system that reproduces unequal educational opportunities. What makes this so insidious is that these opportunities are those that are paramount to economic mobility in this country. Tracking lowers the expectations of both teachers and certain students, while simultaneously providing a qualitatively and quantitatively inferior education to students other than those in the higher tracks. The results of tracking generally mirror the economic and vocational disparities between upper, middle, and lower class citizens in American society; consequently, the “lower” group is overrepresented by people of color. In this sense, tracking is a legal mechanism that normalizes the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.

Bibliography

Ansalone, G., & Biafora, F. (2000). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions and attitudes to the educational structure of tracking. Education , 249-258.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education , 67-92.

Chunn, E. W. (1990). Sorting Black students for failure: the inequity of ability grouping and tracking. The Journal of Educational Research , 94-106.

Dornbusch, S. M., Glasgow, K. L., & Lin, I.-C. (1996). The social structure of schooling. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47 , pp. 401-429.

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1993). Entry into school: the beginning school transition and educational stratification in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 19 , 401-423.

Evans, C. (December 1995). Access, equity, and intelligence: another look at tracking. English Journal , 62-65.

Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: can we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal of Education , 1-22.

Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and educational inequity: a forcast for the 21st century. Sociology of Education, Vol. 74, No. 0, Extra Issue: Current of Thought: Sociology of Education , 135-153.

Lewis, M. (1978). Inequaity and equalitarianism: the individualization of success and failure. In M. Lewis, The Culture of Inequality (pp. 1-19). New York: New American Library.

Lockwood, J. H., & Cleveland, E. F. (1998). The challenge of detracking: finding the balance between excellence and equity. ERIC Document No. ED 422 436 , 1-17.

Nasaw, D. (1979). New studies for new students. In D. Nasaw, Schooled to Order (pp. 126-147). New York: Oxford University Press.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: how schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1986). Tracking, inequity, and the rhetoric of reform: why schools don’t change. Journal Of Education , 60-80.

Oakes, J. (1994). Tracking: why schools need to take another route. In R. Schools, Rethinking Our Classrooms (pp. 179-181). Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.

Oakes, J. (Summer 1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, Vol. 96 , 681-690.

Oakes, J., & Wells, A. S. (1998, March). Detracking for high student achievement. Educational Leadership , pp. 38-41.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Schwartz, F. (Summer 1981). Supporting or subverting learning: peer group gatterns in four tracked schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol.12, No.2. , pp. 99-121.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Ability testing, instruction, and assessment of achievement: breaking out of the vicious circle. New Haven: The Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: how untracking can save americas schools. New York: W. W. Norton.

Yogan, L. (2000). School tracking and student violence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 108-122.

Yonezawa, S., & Oakes, J. (April 1999). Making parents partners in the placement process. Educational Leadership , pp. 33-36.

[1] Homogeneous meaning composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind; in this case, classrooms composed only of students with similar abilities.

[2] In this context, the self-fulfilling prophecy describes situations in which teacher expectations influence student behavior. This occurs when teachers consistently treat particular students as different from what they actually are or can potentially become. This consistent pressure eventually causes the student to become more like what he or she is expected to be (Chunn, 1990).

Defining the Role of Culture in Classroom Learning

“The context is the one which results when the culture of the students-all the students-interacts with the teacher’s culture…it is neither assimilation nor acculturation but accommodation…a common ground is created”. O.D. Harris

          How has your cultural background affected your educational experience? Has the effect been for your benefit, your detriment, or both? Students educated in America regardless of their ethnic or cultural backgrounds have been subject to learning through the lens of dominant cultural traditions[1] and theories of learning (Delpit, 1995, 2002; Hilliard, 1978; Lewis, 1978; Nasaw, 1979). Though there have been exceptions, the majority of students from non-dominant backgrounds have consistently been unsuccessful in keeping pace with their dominant culture peers (National Assessment of Educational Progress (N.A.E.P.), 1999). For the past few decades, researchers have been struggling to determine how culture affects learning. This is due in part because of the constant increase of students from diverse backgrounds in American classrooms[2]. This essay defines the role culture plays in the process of learning. Culture facilitates learning by doing three general things: Building confidence, building on previous knowledge, and creating harmony between the culture of the school and the culture(s) of its students.

          Before defining the role that culture plays in the process of learning, we shall determine and define what we mean by culture. This is necessary because of the ambiguity surrounding its definition. Malloy[3] (1997) states that “culture is the shared meaning-but not necessarily consensus-the taken for granted values and beliefs that are seen in what people do, what they know, and the tools they use”. Also included in the definition of culture is a shared or similar experience and shared interpretations of those experiences so that there is a commonality of thought and practice. Therefore, everyone has culture and culture is inherent in every curriculum world-wide regardless of whether it was put there intentionally or not.

          When students’ cultures are reflected in the curriculum, culture facilitates the process of learning by building confidence. There is an immediate connection when a student experiences their culture in the classroom (Ernst-Slavit & Slavit, 2007; Pransky, 2003). Students who have this identification are given the opportunity to feel as though the curriculum relates to them on a personal level. Many students at this point see this connection as reinforcement that the subject at hand is applicable to them (Anderson, 1990). For instance, African-American students who were taught mathematics curriculum that included facts and language[4] that represented their culture in a positive light were seen to have “felt good about going to math class” and saw math as “something they can do” (Malloy, 1998). This was a complete switch from their previous attitudes where they were quoted as “hating math” (Malloy, 1998). If curriculum doesn’t highlight the students being taught, the students may deduce “that only other people invent mathematics” (Barta & Schelling, 1998) or any other subject for that matter. Reflection of ones culture in curricula builds confidence which enhances the opportunity for learning; to put it another way, culture facilitates the learning process by building a students’ sense of confidence in specific subject areas. This is opposed to traditional American curriculums which are often culturally biased (Delpit, 2002; Freire, 1970; Gutstein & Peterson, 2006; Hilliard, 1978).

          Here’s a great example from Malloy (1997) of a culturally biased test question (part of a traditional curriculum) that didn’t build confidence: “It costs $1.50 each way to ride the bus between home and work. A weekly bus pass is $16. Which is the better deal, paying the daily fare or buying the weekly pass?” From their previous cultural experience, many students of color saw buying the weekly pass as the better deal but the teacher marked them all wrong. Students of color saw that in some families three or four people may use a bus pass during different times of the day or on weekends or that one person may happen to have more than one job. The test designer assumed that only one person would be using the bus pass, they had only one job, and they had weekends off. Differences of culture pose obstacles that many students fail to overcome (Gutstein & Peterson, 2006). Why do students have to overcome these obstacles? What’s really being measured here? Teachers need to understand the role of culture in order to assess students’ conceptual understanding versus their level of assimilation. Curriculum architects who think or claim they are equitable need to aid in the process to meet students where they are.

         Culture also facilitates the learning process by building on previous knowledge. Students learn and grow by building on the knowledge they have acquired from the past. For example, Michael Jordan didn’t all in one day realize that he was a great basketball player; rather, he practiced and learned how to play the game and grew by building on the knowledge that he’d previously acquired. Great politicians, writers, doctors, educators and so on, evolve into being polished at their discipline through toiling and building on previous knowledge. Students who have a personal connection[5] (their culture) to their classroom curriculum are thus provided with the building blocks to grow in whatever field they’re studying (Moses, 2001; Steinberg, 2005; Sternberg, 1998). Culture facilitates the learning process by building confidence, but it also produces something that’s static, a platform or launching pad to expand into whatever one may want to become.

          Students who lack a cultural connection to school curriculum are then subject to seeing school as boring, non-engaging, not for them, pointless, and non-rewarding (Anderson, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Malloy, 1997; Wheelock, 1992). This sense of meaninglessness leads to the perpetuation of the achievement gaps that persist in the educational system on all levels. Incorporating students’ culture in the classroom isn’t a panacea for all educational inequalities or the achievement gaps, but it is a means of achieving equity and will quell much of the disproportionate representation of students of color as underachievers.  Solid, culturally responsive curriculums are predicated on the teacher’s interpreting, understanding, and recognizing students’ culture(s) and integrating them into the learning process (Malloy, 1997). Many students from diverse backgrounds are often times disinterested in school because their culture is seldom, if ever, displayed in a positive manner (Anderson, 1990).

         Another positive benefit of culture facilitating the learning process by building on previous knowledge is that it lends itself to different learning styles. Culture doesn’t produce learning styles (Hilliard, 1978). If cultures produced learning styles we would find that entire groups, such as European-Americans, all have the same learning style, such as kinesthetic[6]. Clearly not all European-Americans are kinesthetic learners. However, incorporating various cultures does enhance the opportunity for different learning styles to thrive. Case in point, though it isn’t uniform, in Native American culture, people traditionally learn through a variety of oratory narration (Lambe, 2003). Including their culture in curriculums would not only do them a fair service, it would also assist the learners who have that style preference from other cultures.

         The popular myth has been that students of color are either lazy or unable to cognitively keep up with their white peers (Freire, 1970; Moses, 2001; Schwartz, 1981). The fact stands that European-American students are at an advantage in that the curriculum is typically written for and by people who are from their culture (Anderson, 1990; Delpit, 1995, 2002; Hilliard, 1978; Ernst-Slavit & Slavit, 2007). Students of color are expected to make an assimilation[7] or acculturation[8] adjustment upon arriving at school which necessitates leaving their culture at the door. Up to this point, schools and teachers have made few efforts to meet these students where they are in order to accommodate a harmonious cultural relationship (Delpit, 1995; Hilliard, 1978). This leads to the last example of how culture facilitates learning.

         Infusing all students’ culture in the curriculum facilitates the learning process by creating harmony between the culture of the school and the culture(s) of its students. Students should not have the full burden of assimilating or acculturating. The students and the school should meet half way. Not only does this meeting show the students that their heritage is respected by the school, it also encourages the student to feel at ease and participate in the friendly environment that they’ve been shown. Most, if not all of the students that comprise the American educational system, come from cultures that have contributed to many of the subjects that Americans study (Barta & Schelling, 1998). Why aren’t these contributions ingrained in curriculums throughout the U.S.? This isn’t a reference to a month or week of studying customs and it isn’t a reference to a few boxed paragraphs at the end of a chapter of a text-book. This is a reference to substantial contributions like the Babylonians who actually were using the “Pythagorean Theorem” years before Pythagoras was born but never received their due credit (Anderson, 1990).

          In conclusion, having culture in classrooms is nothing new-there has always been culture in classrooms; however, the question is who’s culture is in American classrooms, who’s culture isn’t, and why? An ending thought from Gisela Ernst-Slavit,

The incorporation of language and culture into teaching is a complex process, requiring among other things, a self-examination of pedagogical beliefs, a desire to utilize students’ backgrounds in instructional planning and process, and insight into a variety of knowledge sets and dispositions related to specific aspects of language and culture (Ernst-Slavit & Slavit, 2007).

No special pedagogy needs to be developed for students of color. Culture exists in the classroom and curriculum but it is selective and exclusive-curriculum needs to be designed to include all students’ culture. Teachers of all students need to be culturally responsive teachers who contextualize teaching by giving attention to the immediate needs and cultural experiences of their students. We’ve demonstrated the role that culture plays in the learning process as the facilitator. Culture facilitates learning by building confidence, building on previous knowledge, and making the culture of the school and that of its students’ harmonious. The unfair, unequal, educational experience students of color receive can only be rectified when the role that culture plays in the process of learning is realized and amalgamated into classrooms.

Bibliography

Anderson, B. (1990). Minorities and Mathematics: The new frontier and a challenge of the nineties. The Journal of Negro Education , 260-271.

Barta, J., & Schelling, D. (1998). Games We Play: Connecting mathematics and culture in the classroom. Teaching Children Mathematics , 388-393.

Chunn, E. W. (1990). Sorting Black Students for Failure: The Inequity of Ability Grouping and Tracking. The Journal of Educational Research , 94-106.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.

Delpit, L., & Dowdy, J. K. (2002). The Skin That We Speak: Thoughts On Language and Culture in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.

Ernst-Slavit, G., & Slavit, D. (Summer 2007). Educational Reform, Mathematics, & Diverse Learners: Meeting the Needs of All Students. Multicultural Education , 20-27.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (2006). Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.

Hilliard III, A. G. (1978, Summer). Equal Educational Opportunity and Quality Education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2, New Perspectives on Black Education , 110-126.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But That’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Theory into Practice, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 159-165.

Lambe, J. (2003). Indigenous Education, Mainstream Education, and Native Studies. American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 27, Nos., 1 & 2, pp. 308-326.

Malloy, C. E. (1997). Including African-Americans in the Mathematics Community. Yearbook (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) , pp. 23-33.

Malloy, C. E. (1998). Issues of Culture in Mathematics Teaching and Learning. The Urban Review , pp. 245-257.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2000). Intercultural Communication in Contexts 2nd Edition. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Moses, R., & Cobb Jr., C. (2001). radical equations. Boston: Beacon Press.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (1999). Trends in Academic Achievement Among Student Subgroups. National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Pransky, K. (December 2002/January 2003). To meet your students where they are, first you have to find them: Working with culturally and linguistically diverse at-risk students. The Reading Teacher , 370-383.

Schwartz, F. (1981, Summer). Supporting or Subverting Learning: Peer Group Patterns in Four Tracked Schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol.12, No.2. , pp. 99-121.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Ability Testing, Instruction, and Assessment of Achievement: Breaking Out of the Vicious Circle. New Haven: The Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing The Tracks: How Untracking Can Save Americas Schools. New York: W. W. Norton.

[1] Dominant Culture: Whereas traditional societies can be characterized by a high consistency of cultural traits and customs, modern societies are often a conglomeration of different, often competing, cultures and subcultures. In such a situation of diversity, a dominant culture is one that is able, through economic or political power, to impose its values, language, and ways of behaving on a subordinate culture or cultures. This may be achieved through legal or political suppression of other sets of values and patterns of behavior, or by monopolizing the media communication. A few American dominant cultural traditions are: democracy, heterosexism, racism, “standard” English, capitalism, white privilege, individualism, classism, and patriarchy.

[2] In 2005 the percentage of non-white students in the U.S was 38%; it’s predicted in the year 2020 the number will increase to 44%; and by the year 2050 non-white students are expected to exceed 54% (C.f. N.E.A.P).

[3] Carol E. Malloy, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is also a Board of Directors member of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). She was a member of the NCTM Standards 2000 writing team. She taught mathematics for 20 years in public schools across the U.S.

[4] Additional examples can be seen in Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers; they include exercises Historical, Cultural, and Social Implications of Mathematics, “Home Buying While Brown or Black”, Sweatshop Accounting, and Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood.

[5] Ken Pransky (ESL elementary school teacher), in the article, To meet your students where they are, first you have to find them: Working with culturally and linguistically diverse at-risk students, found for his Cambodian and Latino ESL students that incorporating students home culture into the classroom curriculum boosted their confidence, participation, and test scores dramatically. Also see Robert Moses’ the Algebra Project in the book, Radical Equations. Moses documents his success with African-American students after reframing mathematics around the culture that these students are familiar with. Moses has been so successful that the Federal Government has funded his project to be implemented in over 15 cities across the U.S.

[6] Kinesthetic learning occurs through doing, touching, and interacting. Other popular learning styles are visual and auditory.

[7] Assimilation is a type of cultural adaptation in which an individual gives up his or her cultural heritage and adopts the dominant cultural identity.

[8] Acculturation is the cultural modification of an individual or group by adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture; a merging of cultures as a result of prolonged contact. Acculturation typically happens as minority groups adopt habits and language patterns of a dominant group.