Matthew Ross
Robert De Anda
CH/LA 450U Exam 1
Question 1: Valenzuela argues that subtractive schooling undermines the achievement of U.S.-Mexican students. What is subtractive schooling? How does it affect U.S.-born Mexican students and immigrant students? Please define terms and provide examples from the book.
Subtractive schooling refers to the type of schooling that divests youth, in this case Mexican youth, of important social and cultural resources, leaving them progressively vulnerable to academic failure. This type of schooling also dismisses the Mexicanidad definition of education which is grounded in Mexican culture; in addition, subtractive schooling is structurally designed to deprive Mexican students of their culture and language. A key consequence of these subtractive measures is the constant erosion of students’ social capital that is evident in the network of relationships among immigrant and U.S.-born youth. Other results of subtractive schooling include but aren’t limited to: disaffection towards schooling (not education), psychic withdrawal, resistance, social ties, and academic aspirations.
Both U.S.-born and immigrant Mexican students eventually have adverse reactions to subtractive schooling, but they are initially affected in different ways. Generally speaking first and second generation Mexican students outperform their third and fourth generation counterparts. U.S.-born minority youth are seen by schools and society as lacking the linguistic, cultural, moral, and intellectual traits the assimilationist curriculum demands. The alleged “deficiencies” of regular-track, U.S.-born Mexican youth from a low-income community, are themselves symptomatic of the consequences of subtractive schooling; moreover, the so-called generational decline in academic achievement is better explained as a result of the subtractive schooling that is structured in many U.S. educational institutions.
It is necessary to note that both subtractive schooling and social capital overlap. Mexican students’ lack of social capital—the social capital that is rewarded in North American institutions—can be seen as a product of subtractive schooling. Many examples from the results of subtractive schooling are also examples of the social capital that these student’s lack, this is what is meant by there being an overlap. A few examples of these overlaps are students’ lack of social ties, connectedness with other students and adults, a bilingual/bicultural network of friends and family, and peer group associations with schooling. These and other examples can and may be used to explain both subtractive schooling and social capital.
Though U.S.-born students get the worst end of the deal, the text is replete with examples of how subtractive schooling affects both U.S.-born and immigrant Mexican students. A vivid marker of an effect on some U.S.-born students is captured in the beginning of chapter four. The author asks a student, Adriana, about another student who happens to be a recent immigrant. Both students are of Mexican descent yet Adriana responds, “she’s one of them…they talk to each other in Spanish and all…they think they’re better than us Chicanos…she’s from Mexico! Mexico sucks! I’d rather be American than Mexican any day”. Subtractive schooling produced this division in such a way that this frame of mind eventually appeared customary.
The division between Mexican students has far reaching consequences. Because the students come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences, they are provided with rich experiences that they can share with and learn from each other. This separation has made this sharing (of social capital) non-existent. The author notes examples of these consequences such as U.S.-born students having limited access to both English and Spanish dominant peers and elders, little or no connection to a homeland culture, and no pride in Mexican heritage.
An example of how subtractive schooling affects both U.S.-born and immigrant students is illustrated by statements made by Mr. Johnson, the self-proclaimed student advocate. While talking to Valenzuela loud enough for a number of his ninth-grade students to hear, Johnson speaking about his student’s states, “they are immature and they challenge authority. Look at them, they’re not going anywhere. I can tell you right now, a full quarter of these students will drop out of school come may”. Johnson suffers from an extremely popular view that many of the teachers at his school hold. Valenzuela summed it up:
“The schools obvious systemic problems, most evident in its astronomical dropout rate, are brushed aside and the burden of responsibility and the struggle for change is understood as rightfully residing first with the students, their families, and the community…Mr. Johnson articulated th[e] belief that students’ academic performance is primarily a matter of individual initiative and motivation…” (65)
It’s clear (from many Seguin teachers’ point of view) that educators have a passive role in the shaping of students’ academic success. This attitude leads to neglect of complicity and legitimizes low expectations. Johnson’s preconceived notion that a quarter of his students will dropout by May is picturesque of his faith in his own ability as an educator and what he thinks of his students. This more subtle form of subtractive schooling affects both study groups in insidious ways by normalizing failure.
Immigrant students fair much better academically than their counterparts, yet they are also subject to be in classes with teachers who generally look at their students like Mr. Johnson. Low expectations abound at Seguin. Even the immigrant students who mirror what many educators see as model behavior and the social capital that is rewarded (quiet, respectful, obedient, and goal oriented) fall prey to being in an environment that doesn’t academically challenge them to the degree that it should.
Question 3: Valenzuela argues that social capital is central to the U.S.-Mexican students’ academic success. What is social capital? Is social capital evenly distributed between immigrants and U.S.-born students? How does the distribution of social capital affect academic achievement? Discuss examples of the utilization of social capital in the book. Provide examples from the book.
Social capital refers to the supportive social ties and resources (in this case) important to academic success; it refers to supportive relationships between children and adults that encourage the sharing of norms and values, ways of doing things, and ways of thinking about things; it refers to networks of resources and interactions by which other forms of capital are often transferred. In other words, human, physical and cultural capital is often transferred through social capital relationships. Social capital resides in the interactive web of social relationships.
In educational institutions, exchanges of information promote the development of mutual norms among participating individuals; these exchanges result in mutually beneficial outcomes. In more intimate relations, such as in a family, adults often present an educational advantage through the transmission of their human capital. This is in addition to the skills and knowledge community type social capital provides. In these interactions, students can be given relational skills that provide the means of attaining more sophisticated and often uniquely hidden social capital. The social capital U.S.-born students received from Michelle’s family are examples of this sophisticated advantage.
Michelle’s family’s interaction with students is an example of how social capital affects student’s achievement. Michelle’s group of friends is made up of U.S.-born students who are among those who typically receive the least amount of rewarded social capital, yet they were able to attain what they needed to be academically successful. There are a number of examples that were provided by Valenzuela. Among them are these two: Michelle’s family interactions with the group and the group interactions themselves.
Jason was a member of this group whose father disappeared out of his life. This caused trauma for Jason and his grades began showing the results of this. Michelle’s family took him in literally for a few months and her family, along with members of their group consoled and motivated him back into a stable, productive frame of mind. Without Michelle’s family, this opportunity would not have been afforded Jason. Jason asserts, “Michelle’s family’s great. There’s so many tios and tias [uncles and aunts] and a lot of them are like teachers and counselors—you know, people with good jobs and nice families. I’m their adopted son now”.
Michelle’s family also includes encouragement and sound advice, specifically from her mother and two aunts. Her mother is a former bilingual educator and her aunts are graduates from the University of Texas. These individuals all encourage Michelle and her friends to remain fluent in both English and Spanish, while attending a college, preferably Texas, which is rigorous. Though it wasn’t made explicit from the text, it follows that Michelle’s family also provided the social capital to successfully navigate through educational institutions. So the relationships that this group was afforded through Michelle’s family provided norms and values, ways of doing things, ways of thinking about things, and group cohesiveness.
The group itself also provided these students with social capital. When explaining how they came together to help Jason persevere emotionally and academically, one student maintained that they “all look out for each other”. This looking out for each other involved bicultural/bilingual networks, helping each other with homework, sharing resources, motivating each other to do well in school, and group values like speaking Spanish as much as possible. When the author asked the students why they wanted each other to speak Spanish so often, a student responded, “We just don’t want to lose our Spanish”. This small group of students who all met in the Spanish Club eventually bonded and through interactions orchestrated group norms and values in the form of social capital. This improved and successfully galvanized the group’s academic achievement. A more forward student in the bunch spoke up and summed it up perfectly, “if someone’s got a problem, we help them solve it”.
