Diversity and Curricular Distinctions

Diversity and Curricular Distinctions

If all students and families were the same, the common school concept would thrive. Because of the supposed diversity among students and the role that schools play in integrating youth into stratified economic positions, separated and differentiated schooling has become an integral part of American education. Although theoretically the U.S. Constitution and Amendments guarantee the same rights to all citizens, throughout history women/girls, African (Native, Latino) Americans, language minority, impoverished youth, and individuals with lesser achievement either have not been allowed into schools or have been relegated to the sidelines of schooling. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and various disability-related litigation and legislation opened school doors to all children. Yet, even as doors opened, classrooms remained separated and curriculum distinctive according to the supposed attributes of diverse learners (E. Brantlinger, 2004, 2006; Ferri & Connor, 2006; Oakes, 2005). A concern with widespread and persistent differentiation practices is they inevitably leave already-privileged students in advantaged schools and classrooms, while non-privileged students are relegated to lesser schools or to school margins. This means that access to high-quality education is not equal for all.

Researchers have built careers around theorizing about the need for educational distinctions for diverse groups and educators have made efforts to design curriculum and pedagogy to meet the needs of particular kinds of learners. Litigation sets precedent and legislation mandates that modifications be made so that education is appropriate for culturally and achievement-diverse learners. Such differentiation practices as streaming noncollege-bound students into vocational education (or general and remedial) tracks rather than advanced classes, providing special education services for those who struggle academically or behaviorally, and denying access to classes or activities according to gender have occurred for decades. Indeed, when public education was launched in the United States, exclusions were the norm. As girls, African Americans, and disabled students began to be included in public schooling, distinctive programming or settings were instituted to separate groups or tailor education to meet supposedly distinctive needs.

General rationale have been provided for school modifications for diverse students; for instance that working classes kids need specific training to enhance their work skills and employment opportunities, girls need different kinds of schooling from boys because they are physiologically unique or have different postschool career and family trajectories, cognitively limited students need specialized instruction at lower developmental levels, and behaviorally challenging children require pedagogy aimed at improving social skills or decreasing anger. As common knowledge, such reasons for distinctions go undisputed, although occasionally concerns about fairness, equivalent rights and opportunities, and equal access are raised. It might be noted that of the above rationale listed for differentiating curriculum, only gender-based distinctions has been substantially [Page II-115]challenged by educators, legislators (Title X), and the general public. Yet, as Hoke-Sinex illustrates, an abundance of persuasive messages communicate to girls that they should be different from boys, so they decline choices that would improve their chances of pursuing high-status and lucrative scientific careers. Similar findings exist related to the educational choices of low-income learners and students of color.

...