Final Review Outline

 Final review outline 

Race, ethnicity, and immigration:

1. Test scores remain unchanged → still racialized gaps

   1. English learner ss struggle the most → reflects racial gaps in achievement

      1. Minority/ imm ss receive less college/ test prep

      2. B/L/ Nat Am ss earn half as many credits than W/A ss

      3. A ss performs the best, low push-out rates

2. Migration patterns, stereotypes

   1. Structural: am only allowed migration from certain countries

      1. Only highly edu/ wealthy migration from Eur/ A allowed → model minority

         1. Their ss academically performed better  

      2. Racial/ neighborhood segr → lack of resources + school/ community  instit

         1. Schools only desegr when $ was a stake

            1. Desegr decreased once court mandates expired 

         2. Segr decreased w/ in school district, not bw/ school districts

         3. School choice → private schools to avoid desegr

      3. Poverty + unemployment → disadvantages based on uneven allocation of resources 

         1. Poorer health outcomes, less course selection 

   2. Cultural: C of B/ L/ A/ imm can’t escape race → affected by discrimination

      1. Stereotype threat (-) impacts minority ss

         1. Lower teacher/ parent/ peer expectations 

      2. MC minority ss believe doing well in school will pay off

         1. LC minority ss believe lim opp for social mobility 

      3. Model minority give A ss academic leeway

         1. Almost always placed in high track, B/L are not

         2. Pushed to prioritize academics over physical/ mental health

3. Structural vs indv-level acts of discrimination

   1. Structural racism = practices/ policies of an institutionalized norm that benefit white people

      1. Hidden institutionalized (-,+) expectations based on race

         1. ex/ teacher pessimistic ab/ B ss ability make them perform poorly, high achieving B ss not likely placed in HT

      2. Repeat reflects the  interest of the dom group (whiteness)

      3. Reproduction of white supremacy → attempts to suppress differences

         1. Curriculum diminished storyline/ accomplishments of minorities → makes minorities invisible 

   2. Indv level = overt racism perpetuated by 1 entity (1 person/ group), overt harm

      1. More easily addressed, less socially acceptable, lasts momentarily 

4. CRT vs multiculturalism vs race relation 

   1. CRT = confronting systemic injustices, from legal theory 

      1. Advocated for meaningful/justice-oriented spaces

   2. Multiculturalism = all differences seen as analogous, equivalent → attempt to celebrate all differences

      1.  Operates w/in the status quo → erases diff instead of understanding their impact

   3. Race relations = racial dis as deliberate/ invidious act by identifiable indv

5. Racial segregation

   1. slow/ uneven implementation of Brown decision, largely ignored bc/ no set timeline

      1. Schools closed down, few efforts to integrate

      2. only desegr when $ was a stake

      3. School choice → private schools to avoid desegr

      4. White flight to avoid racally integrated schools

         1. Resegr neighborhoods 

      5. B fam supported integration at first, then focused on improving own schools when W were unwelcoming 

         1. B ss treated as second class

      6. Segr increased once court mandates expired 

         1. Re-segr after 80s

   2. Segr decreased w/in the school district, not bw/ school districts

      1. Districts not required to enroll ss outside district to achieve integration 

         1. Homogeneous neighborhoods had homogenous schools 

      2. Income segr increased in schools → distinct stratification 

         1. Work around to divis ss by class not race

         2. Low-income school associated w/ low scores/ lax safety → higher income fam avoid neighborhood school is in

      3. Minority ss attend schools w/ other minorities in concentrated areas of poverty 

      4. All ss suffer from unintegrated schools 

         1. B ss trained to absorb hostile culture 

6. Imm experience 

   1. Before 70s, imm were from mainly eur, easily become american by losing ethnic identity →  gained upward mobility (staigline/ class asim)

      1. After 65, imm open to Lat Am + A → diff circumstances bc/ of racial background, could have downward asim (segmented) 

         1. Selective acculturation = imm + their C learn as/ am culture but maintain ties to ethnic culture

            1. C have more self esteem → do better in school

   2. Diff context effects C of imm

      1. Imm leave fam networks + downshift status → C redeem parent sacrificed by doing well in school

         1. Parents w/ better cap more easily facilitate C’s adaption 

         2. Imm parents less likely to put C in preschool, no early learning increase racial inequality 

            1. Ss struggle if are english learners

      2. Neighborhood schools as integral for socialization 

         1. Lack community int that benefit C, no extracurricular activities → lower academic performance → higher push out rates

         2. Fam benefits more in suburban areas

         3. Imm receive support from own community, info + recipes to members 

            1. Group solidarity might lead to (-) social cap

   3. Undoc ss face biggest challenges → lowered edu expectations → early exciters

      1. Diminishing returns for HS degree → denied social mobility

7. Stereotype promise gives boost in performance → A ss percieved as smart/ deserving/ high achieveing → placed in HT more often 

   1. A ss subject to higher academic expectations → ss put more effort to meet expectations + given extra support 

      1. ss/ parents pushed themselves too much on academics → (-) affect physical/ mental health

         1. Not well-rounded enough 

   2. Below/avg ss feel like failure + racial outliers bc/ don’t meet narrow def of success, esp when compared to others 

Disability and inequality:

1. Identification as result of ss/ parents/ teachers/ staff

   1. Race → B/L ss under-identified

   2. Gender → boys disproportionately identified 

   3. Class → LC ss disproportionately identified

   4. Type of identification/ type of intervention → mild benefits for ss w/ severe disability 

2. Disability as socially constructed → Dis as how innate ss characteristics interact w/ instit actor expectations  

   1. Diff in SE services across racial subgroups

      1. One teacher w/ co-ethnic background boost ss likelihood of being gifted 

   2. Cultural discontinuity perspective = whiteness viewed as normal, penalized POC ss 

      1. Any differences compared to peers → higher change of dis 

         1. Diff as conspicuous + stigmatized  

3. Gen (+) outcome, effectiveness varies by race

   1. SE may permanently improve ss outcomes, modest (+) effect

   2.  Some ss benefit more from individualized study vs

      1. SE ss receive less instruction

   3. Improvements persisted after declassification

   4. Early intervention has better results 

Gender inequalities:

1. Gender diff bw/ G/ B academic performance

   1. G score better grades than boys across all subjects, variability in B scores 

      1. G are socialized to follow rules, please adults, be less competitive 

      2. Higher rates of HS/ higher edu completion 

   2. Dom gender norms + stereotypes → shape teacher/ peer gendered expectations 

      1. Diff in courses follow gender socialization 

         1. B overrepresented in STEM

   3. Boy has more (-) consequences for socially disruptive behavior → more suspension/ expulsion + disability diagnosis 

2. Schooling and sexual socialization

   1. Hostile environment for sexual/ gender minority ss

   2. Affirm heterosexuality + normative fem/ mas through in/formal curricula → becomes naturalized 

      1. Define mac/ fem as opposite, complementary, unequal

         1. Reproduction of patriarchy 

      2. Lesson plans to teach material lean on normative gender roles

   3. Most sex edu is abstinence-only, rarely get comprehensive sex edu 

   4. Disciplinary codes regulating sexuality fall more heavily on POC ss

3. Gender inequalities in/ after college 

   1. High-achieving women are penalized bc/ seen as less likable/ competent/ committed 

      1. Moderate achieving women seen as more likable → more call backs

      2. Esp penalized in STEM fields where women are expected to underperform

         1. Penalized for not fitting gendered expectations 

   2. (+) correlation bw/ men’s achievement + call back rates

      1. Perceptions of competence/ commitment give men an advantage 

         1. Excused made for men’s poor grades 

   3. Degree acts as a marker of elite group membership, not ab/ skills

      1. Gendered selections of majors → gender complicated signal of academic performance

Higher education:

1. Trends in unequal access to/ completion of postsecondary education

   1. Econ benefits of higher edu is very pop → returns vary by race/ gender/ field of study 

   2. Comparative advantage = those to have more human cap can accrue more

   3. Cultural reproduction says social culture cap is “neural” academic standards → reproduce social class

      1. Prestige may affect career graduates are expected to move → higher edu over job-relevant skills

   4. Community college primarily provide vocational edu + diverting ss from elite colleges

      1. Rare to transfer from CC to 4-year

   5. Elite college associated w/a variety of (+) market outcomes

      1. LC ss may have the best income gains 

   6. For-profit colleges expanding, mainly serve women/ racial minorities/ older

      1. Ss less likely to be employed 

   7. Matching ss to colleges 

      1. Overmatched = ss whose scores are far below mean → minorities who underperform are harmed

         1. Bases for abolishing race-based affirmative action

      2. Undermathced = ss whose academic qualifications exceed the mean → worse outcomes

2. Sources + consequences of inequalities facing 1-gen college ss

   1. 1gen mostly lower-income + minorities from imm fam → compounding disadvantages in edu

      1. Likely to have attended modest/poor-performing schools → less exposure to college-level content 

         1. Have lower GPAs + take longer to get a degree

         2. Got to trade school/ for-profit colleges

      2. Fam determines who stays in college → 1gen mostly work

         1. Less time for classes, constant stress

      3. POC ss exhausted from navigating poli tensions + school

         1. Feel tricked when discover odds are against them

   2. 1gen often C of imm → motivation/ duty to success vs home responsibility

      1. Stress/ uncertainty when dealing fam in legal system

      2. Pushed out bc/ life responsibilities

   3. Social reproduction = adults remain in the same SES they grew up in

      1. MC fam resources/ safety nets keep their C in MC

      2. 1gen don’t have parents for college advice/ guides → strategies of indp, self/ peer reliance 

         1. MC ss use strategies of interaction → counselor/ parent reliance 

3. Am opinion ab/ value/ affordability of college, who pays for tuition 

   1. Moderates = recognize college value, not needed to success

      1. Believe college gives ppl advantages over those w/out degrees

         1. Can achieve success, just less likely 

      2. Indv should pay

   2. Deniers = college/ cost isn’t worth it

      1. Indv should pay

   3. Believers = college/ cost is worth it

      1. Degree necessary to for career opp → best pay/ benefits → greater chance/ easier to succeed + personal development 

         1. Indv benefits to social benefits 

      2. Gov/ indv should pay

   4. Defeatists = college worth it, cost is not

      1. College worth it for certain degrees associated w/ financial value → ambivalence for worthiness

         1. Salaries not enough to pay for ss loans

      2. Gov/ indv should pay + make it more affordable

   5. Most ss recognize value of college, necessary training for a white-collar workforce → not attending college as risker

      1. Looked at benefits of college beyond econ value

School reform:

1. Charter schools + other school choice

   1. Designed to put fam/ local edu control of schooling → less state intervention, freedom in curricula 

      1. Intended to decrease segregation → cream best/ brightening from neighborhood schools

         1. Primarily served forces of segregation → mainly serve POC ss in poorer areas

      2. Market theory = school competition to inspire innovation → innovations to change PS

         1. Institutional theory = CS will look like PS

      3. Avoid degradation 

   2. Inconsistent effects on edu outcomes

      1. Function outside of PS → autonomy, innovation, accountability 

         1. Expect CS to better implement effective/ experimental practices

            1. Looser coupled orgs

      2. EMOs for-profit, CMOs non-profit 

         1. CS culture may be too corp/ focused on academics → detriment to civic/ citizens edu

         2. High closure rates due to funds mismanagement + low enrollment 

      3. Inconsistent T sophistication

         1. High teacher/ principal turnover → T leave the profession 

            1. Less professional development 

         2. More T collaboration 

      4. Higher levels of parental/ community engagement

      5. Development of soc-poli consciousness in school curriculum 

         1. More college prep

      6. SE ss less likely go to CS → more likely to lose SE/ ESL status

   3. Implement in/formalize instructional regimes, can be culturally sensitive + involve tracking

      1. No excuse for poverty 

         1. Online CS (-) effects bc/ no accountability

      2. Dynamic interplay bw/ ss/ teachers → reassesses ss skill → tailors instruction

      3. Spend less on per-pupil spending than PS → better monitor/ focus expenses on identified needs

2. Authority and control in the US schooling

   1. Trump wants to eliminate DOE/ Head Start/ protections for LGBT ss against discrimination/ DEI/ Parent PLUS loan

      1. Increase privatization 

         1. Prioritize at home care + trad gender roles

         2. Extend educational savings accounts

         3. Extend vouchers for private schools

      2. Fam structure as most important determinant of ss achievement

         1. No teaching of racism/ race to avoid bias against Ws

      3. Less regulation for schools

         1. Cutting funding from school meals/ SE to block grants/ Title 1

   2. Closing DOE → eliminate PS, smaller gov

      1. More discrimination against women/ LGBT ss

      2. No plans to replace DOE → poor edu outcomes

      3. More power to states → less core curriculum   

         1. Taxpayer $ spent on religious edu

      4. Less early childhood edu/ support/ research 

      5. Undo lots of TItle IX protections 

Education reform w/out school reform:

1. Berliner’s perspective on edu reform

   1. Focuses on poverty/ SES inequalities, not in-school reform

      1. Tinkering edu asks little of high-status ppl → don’t have to sacrifice their resources/ opp

      2. Systems not designed to intervene w/ fam + little political will to change the way we distribute resources

   2. Outside of school environments decreased achievement, school compensates for that

      1. Race determined exposure to poverty → all determinants of life effected

      2. Correlation bc/ SES + test score are (+) and high → wealth is the determinant of success

   3. Society should be held accountable for opp/ environments of ss

2. Steps US take to reduce C poverty 

   1. Giving fam $ increases ss achievement 

3. Reducing C poverty 50% cost taxpayers more/ less

   1. Using multiple programs simultaneously 

   2. Expanding c-related tax credits/ adding C allowance + support/ increasing min wage/ increase welfare benefits + decreasing restrictionscan create a more integrated approach to alleviating poverty, ultimately leading to a more sustainable economic environment for families.

i. Patterns in White-Nonwhite Academic Achievement and Attainment Inequality Since the 1970s

Ho and Kao (2018) explain that while academic achievement gaps between white and nonwhite students have narrowed since the 1970s, especially for Black and Hispanic students, significant disparities remain. These gaps are smaller in early grades but grow as students progress through school, and racial differences in college attainment persist.

ii. Family Background Factors Accounting for Race Gaps in Achievement

1. Structural Factors

   • Income and Wealth: Nonwhite families often have lower income and wealth, limiting access to high-quality schools and resources like tutoring or extracurricular activities.

   • Neighborhoods: Many nonwhite families live in areas with underfunded schools and fewer educational opportunities due to systemic segregation.

2. Cultural Factors

   • Parenting Practices: Cultural differences in parenting styles, such as expectations for independence or academic focus, may influence achievement.

   • Social Capital: White families often have more networks and connections that provide information about educational opportunities.

Both structural and cultural factors interact to contribute to ongoing disparities in educational outcomes.

What is "structural racism," and how does it differ from individual-level acts of discrimination?

Eschmann and Payne explain that structural racism refers to the ways institutions, systems, and policies create and maintain racial inequalities, often without intentional racist actions by individuals. Unlike individual acts of discrimination, which involve direct prejudice or bias by a person, structural racism is embedded in the practices of society, such as housing policies or school funding, that disproportionately disadvantage people of color.

ii. Distinctive Elements of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and How It Differs from Multicultural or Race Relations Approaches

CRT focuses on understanding and challenging the systemic nature of racism. Key elements include:

• Racism as a normal part of society, not an anomaly.

• Intersectionality, or how race intersects with other identities like gender or class.

• Giving voice to marginalized groups’ experiences.

Unlike multicultural or race relations approaches, which emphasize celebrating diversity or promoting tolerance, CRT critically examines how power and privilege operate in society to sustain inequality.

History of Segregation, Desegregation, and Re-Segregation in the U.S.

• Segregation: Hochschild (2002) explains that racial segregation in schools was formalized through laws like "separate but equal" under Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which enforced inferior education for Black students.

• Desegregation: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared segregation unconstitutional, leading to efforts to integrate schools, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. However, progress was slow and met with resistance, including "white flight" to suburban areas.

• Re-Segregation: Owens notes that starting in the 1990s, court decisions ended many desegregation orders, allowing schools to re-segregate. Economic and residential segregation further entrenched racial divisions in schools, resulting in many schools today being as segregated as they were decades ago.

ii. Consequences of Segregation and Re-Segregation

• Educational Inequality: Owens and Eschmann & Payne highlight how segregated schools often have fewer resources, less funding, and lower-quality education for minority and low-income students.

• Racial Inequities: Hannah-Jones emphasizes that segregation perpetuates unequal opportunities, leaving many students of color with fewer chances to succeed academically and economically.

• Social Isolation: Eschmann & Payne note that segregation limits cross-racial understanding and reinforces stereotypes, perpetuating structural racism.

• Economic and Long-Term Impacts: Students in segregated, underfunded schools often face worse outcomes in employment and health, continuing cycles of poverty and inequality.

Together, these texts show that segregation and re-segregation have deep and lasting negative effects on individuals and society as a whole.

Contemporary vs. Historical Immigration Trends in the U.S.

Lee, Drake, and Zhou explain that historical immigration to the U.S. largely came from Europe, often driven by economic or religious motives, and many immigrants faced discrimination. In contrast, contemporary immigration involves more people from Asia and Latin America, often shaped by U.S. immigration policies prioritizing high-skilled labor or family reunification. These shifts have led to greater diversity in immigrant experiences and outcomes.

ii. How Differing Contexts Affect Immigrant Children’s Educational Opportunities and Assimilation Benefits

1. Family Contexts

   • Immigrant families often value education highly and make sacrifices to support their children’s schooling, such as pooling resources for tutoring or enrolling them in advanced programs. However, socioeconomic status and parental education levels vary widely, influencing the opportunities children have.

2. Neighborhood Contexts

   • Living in affluent neighborhoods with well-funded schools can enhance educational opportunities, while economically disadvantaged neighborhoods often limit access to quality education. Peer networks and local resources also shape students’ aspirations and success.

iii. How Legal Status Affects Undocumented Youths’ Educational Trajectories

Undocumented youth face unique barriers, such as ineligibility for federal financial aid and fears of deportation, which can limit their access to higher education. Despite resilience and high aspirations, their legal status often restricts opportunities for upward mobility, creating significant challenges in achieving their academic and career goals.

iv. How “Positive” Stereotypes Shape Asian Students’ Educational Experiences in the U.S.

The "model minority" stereotype portrays Asian students as naturally high-achieving, but Lee et al. highlight its negative consequences:

• It pressures students to meet unrealistic expectations, like avoiding anything below an "Asian F" (a B grade).

• It obscures challenges faced by diverse Asian groups, particularly those from lower-income or less-educated backgrounds.

• It can create tension with peers from other racial groups, perpetuating racial hierarchies and limiting solidarity.

While these stereotypes may seem positive, they contribute to stress and unequal treatment in educational settings.

Key Types of Inequality in Special Education Identification

Hibel explains that inequalities in special education often manifest in two key ways:

1. Overrepresentation: Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are disproportionately identified as needing special education, particularly for subjective categories like emotional disturbance.

2. Underrepresentation: Conversely, these same groups may be underidentified for services related to conditions like autism or gifted programs, especially when they lack access to healthcare or advocacy resources.

b. Main Theoretical and Empirical Explanations for Patterns of Disproportionality in Special Education

1. Theoretical Explanations:

   • Cultural Mismatch: Teachers and school staff may misinterpret behaviors of students from different cultural backgrounds as needing special education due to biases or lack of cultural understanding.

   • Structural Inequalities: Systemic factors, like poverty or segregated schools, contribute to higher stress levels and limited access to early interventions, increasing identification rates.

2. Empirical Findings:

   • Hibel notes that schools with fewer resources tend to rely on special education as a way to manage larger class sizes or behavioral challenges, disproportionately affecting marginalized students.

   • Research also shows that wealthier families often advocate for more accurate diagnoses and accommodations, leading to disparities in how disabilities are identified and supported.

c. What Recent Research Tells Us About Special Education’s Effectiveness

O’Hagan and Stiefel’s systematic review finds mixed evidence on special education’s effectiveness:

• Positive Outcomes: Special education can improve academic and social outcomes when services are high-quality and tailored to students' needs.

• Challenges: Many students in special education programs still experience achievement gaps compared to peers, especially in underfunded schools.

• Variation by Disability: Effectiveness varies significantly depending on the type of disability, with stronger benefits observed for conditions like speech impairments than for behavioral or emotional disorders.

Overall, special education can work, but its success depends on equitable identification, resource allocation, and individualized support.

a. Differences Between Boys’ and Girls’ Academic Performance (Riegle-Crumb)

Girls tend to outperform boys academically in most subjects during K-12 education, earning higher grades and being more likely to graduate from high school. However, boys often perform slightly better on standardized tests in math and science. Despite these trends, gendered expectations and stereotypes about boys being "naturally" better at math and girls excelling in reading influence both performance and participation in these areas, reinforcing disparities in subject choices.

b. Schooling and Sexual Socialization (Pascoe & Silva)

Pascoe and Silva explain that schools are key sites for sexual socialization, where students learn and navigate expectations around gender and sexuality.

• Heteronormativity: Schools often reinforce heterosexual norms, marginalizing LGBTQ+ students and creating a hostile environment through bullying or exclusion.

• Masculinity Policing: Boys may face pressure to conform to dominant masculine ideals, often through homophobic teasing or gendered discipline practices.

• Sexual Double Standards: Girls are often judged more harshly for their sexual behavior, reinforcing unequal standards of acceptability for boys and girls.

These processes shape students' identities and experiences, contributing to broader social inequalities tied to gender and sexuality.

c. How Gender Inequalities in and After College Take Shape (Quadlin)

Quadlin’s study shows that gender inequality persists beyond college, particularly in hiring practices.

• Academic Performance: While high-achieving women with strong GPAs are less likely to be hired than men with similar records, moderate-achieving women are often preferred, likely due to biases against women perceived as overly ambitious or "too smart."

• Occupational Preferences: Employers often associate women with "soft skills" and steer them toward lower-paying, people-oriented jobs, while men are funneled into higher-paying technical or leadership roles.

These inequalities highlight how gender stereotypes and biases continue to shape opportunities even for highly qualified women, perpetuating gender disparities in the workforce.

a. Recent Trends in Unequal Access to and Completion of Postsecondary Education (Grodsky & Posselt)

Grodsky and Posselt highlight that while access to higher education has expanded in recent decades, inequalities persist:

• Access: Students from higher-income families and those with educated parents are far more likely to attend selective colleges than their low-income or first-generation peers.

• Completion: Completion rates show even starker disparities, with low-income and minority students less likely to graduate due to financial barriers, lower levels of preparation, and fewer support systems.

• Economic Stratification: Rising tuition costs and reliance on student loans have widened gaps in who can afford college and who benefits most from attending.

b. Sources and Consequences of Inequalities Facing First-Generation College Students (Nunn)

Nunn identifies several challenges faced by first-generation college students:

• Sources of Inequality:

  • Cultural Capital: First-gen students often lack access to insider knowledge about navigating college life, such as choosing classes or interacting with professors.

  • Financial Strain: They are more likely to come from low-income families, increasing stress and limiting access to extracurricular opportunities.

  • Social Isolation: Many feel disconnected from peers who come from more privileged backgrounds.

• Consequences: These challenges contribute to lower retention and graduation rates, limiting first-gen students' opportunities for upward mobility and perpetuating cycles of inequality.

c. Americans’ Opinions About the Value and Affordability of College, and Who Should Pay (Quadlin & Powell)

Quadlin and Powell explain that Americans are divided on the value and affordability of college:

• Value of College: While many see a degree as essential for economic success, skepticism about whether college is "worth it" has grown due to rising tuition costs and student debt.

• Affordability: A majority believe college is too expensive, with concerns about unequal access for lower-income families.

• Who Should Pay: Opinions vary, but there is growing support for policies like free community college, increased federal funding, or tuition subsidies to shift the financial burden away from students and families. However, debates persist about the fairness and feasibility of these approaches.

These opinions reflect broader concerns about fairness, opportunity, and the role of higher education in addressing inequality.

a. Charter Schools and Other Forms of School Choice

i. Rationale for Offering School Choice

Renzulli and Paino, along with Dallavis and Berends, explain that school choice, including charter schools, aims to:

• Increase competition among schools to improve quality.

• Provide families, particularly those in underperforming districts, with alternatives to their assigned public schools.

• Foster innovation in education by allowing schools to operate outside traditional regulations.

ii. Promises and Pitfalls of Charter Schooling

• Promises:

  • Flexibility in curriculum design and teaching methods.

  • Improved student outcomes in some cases, especially for disadvantaged populations.

  • Greater parental satisfaction with educational options.

• Pitfalls:

  • Mixed results in academic performance compared to traditional public schools.

  • Concerns about equity, as some charter schools may not adequately serve students with disabilities or English language learners.

  • Issues with accountability and transparency in how funds are used.

iii. Organizational Characteristics Distinguishing Charter Schools

Charter schools differ from traditional public schools in several ways:

• They have more autonomy in decision-making, including staffing, curriculum, and budget use.

• They are governed by independent boards rather than local school districts.

• They often adopt unique educational models, such as specialized curricula or extended school days, which can attract specific student populations.

b. Authority and Control in U.S. Schooling

i. Reforms Planned by the Incoming Trump Administration

The Trump administration prioritized expanding school choice through:

• Increasing federal funding for charter schools and voucher programs.

• Encouraging the privatization of education through public-private partnerships.

• Reducing federal oversight of education in favor of state and local control.

ii. Anticipated Consequences of These Reforms

• Positive Outcomes: Advocates argued these reforms could increase access to better educational options for underserved students and spark innovation.

• Negative Consequences: Critics warned they might exacerbate inequalities by diverting funds from traditional public schools, leaving them with fewer resources to serve high-need populations.

• Long-Term Effects: Increased privatization could lead to less accountability and greater variation in educational quality, particularly in low-income communities.

These policies sparked debates about the balance between equity, choice, and accountability in U.S. education.

a. Berliner’s Perspective on How Education Must Be Reformed to Increase Equality

Berliner (2005) argues that educational reforms alone cannot address deep-rooted inequalities because schools are heavily influenced by broader social and economic factors. He advocates for:

• Addressing Poverty: Recognizing that poverty negatively impacts students' academic performance and prioritizing policies to reduce its prevalence.

• Equitable Funding: Ensuring schools serving low-income communities receive sufficient resources to provide quality education.

• Holistic Interventions: Expanding access to health care, early childhood education, and after-school programs to support children’s overall well-being and readiness to learn.

Berliner emphasizes that without addressing the external factors influencing education, reforms will have limited success in promoting equality.

b. Steps the U.S. Could Take to Reduce Child Poverty (Duncan, 2021)

Duncan outlines several evidence-based strategies to reduce child poverty, including:

1. Expanding Tax Credits: Increasing the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit to provide financial support to low-income families.

2. Raising the Minimum Wage: Ensuring parents earn enough to lift their families out of poverty.

3. Affordable Childcare and Housing: Subsidizing childcare and providing affordable housing to reduce financial burdens on families.

4. Investing in Education and Job Training: Enhancing access to quality education and workforce development to increase opportunities for parents and children.

c. Would Reducing Child Poverty by 50% Cost Taxpayers More Money Than It Saves?

Duncan (2021) explains that reducing child poverty would initially require significant investment in social programs, but the long-term savings would outweigh these costs. Lower poverty levels lead to:

• Reduced Spending: Decreased expenditures on healthcare, criminal justice, and social services.

• Economic Gains: Increased productivity and earnings among individuals who grow up with better opportunities.

Duncan concludes that reducing child poverty is not only morally right but also economically beneficial for taxpayers over time.