John U. Ogbu Research Question: How do African Americans interpret and respond to cultural and language differences based on the nature of their collectivity or group experience? –Examining educational beliefs and behaviors of different minority groups and why they believe and behave as they do Cultural-ecological theory: focus on the historical, economic, social, cultural, and language situations of minority groups (adaptations to US society and minority status) –The system –Interpretation and response School adjustment and academic performance

The System and Community The System: the overall treatment of minorities by U.S. society including instrumental discrimination, relational discrimination, symbolic discrimination –Education policies such as school segregation, unequal funding and staffing of schools –Treatment of minorities in schools such as tracking and low teacher expectations –Unequal rewards for educational accomplishments The Community: the way a groups perceives and responds to education as a result of their histories in US

Explanations for the Achievement Gap 1.Viewing education as a formula for preparation for contemporary society vs. viewing education as a process of assimilation and hegemony 2.Presence in society as a product of choice vs. force 3.Immigrant status (voluntary) vs. non-immigrant status (involuntary) 4.People’s understandings of the social reality that guides their thoughts and actions 5.These understandings support their behaviors and performances in school

Adaptations and Education Voluntary Minorities Positive dual frame of reference Folk theory: hard work, following the rules, and getting a good education result in employment and success Trusting relationships with whites and white-controlled institutions Different collective identity Children held responsible for achievement Involuntary Minorities Negative dual frame of reference Folk theory: discrimination is institutionalized and cannot be overcome through hard work and a good education Distrusting relationships with whites and white-controlled institutions Oppositional collective identity Schools and teachers held responsible for achievement

Conclusions Involuntary minorities are doing less well in school than voluntary minorities –The system is responsible for some of these results –Community forces and perceptions of education (involuntary minorities) are responsible for some of these results Some Recommendations: –Black community must help their children develop better academic orientation and effort (trust and edu programs) –Schools develop academic identities for black students through clubs that recognize achievement –Schools emphasize learning the curriculum for future jobs rather than as a threat to one’s identity –Schools need to address low teacher expectations

Ima- Testing the American Dream Model-Minority Myth: Asian students’ academic achievements surpass other students of color and many times white students due to family support and cultural beliefs that emphasize education –Implications Poor schooling outcomes are a result of dysfunctional family practices The source and therefore the remedy of the problem is not the schools themselves

Behind the Model-Minority Myth Significant groups of Asian immigrants are at risk of school failure (Specifically Southeast Asian Refugees) –Southeast Asian refugees as high achievers but many fail to graduate and attain English fluency –Cambodian Refugee and Latino drop-out rates are similar –2/3 of Southeast Asian students are limited English Proficiency and therefore in lower tracks –Southeast Asian refugees are more likely to enter postsecondary school but less likely to be employed or in school 3 years after graduation –Surge in Asian gang activity in SD

Asian Immigrants and Education in San Diego Asian students make up 19% of enrollment in SDCS (2/3 foreign born) –Lack of adequate responses to newcomers in schools Lack of bilingual programs, bilingual personnel, primary language materials resulting in unsuccessful English submersion programs Lack of proper pedagogic techniques that address students’ cultures Lack of capacity to address the unique concerns of refugees Lack of funding to make the proper adjustements

History of Women’s Education in US Girls not granted any form of access to education until 1767 (Providence Rhode Island) Women’s education focused on transforming girls into strong, intellectually able mothers (professionalizing motherhood) 1820’s High Schools for girls Coeducation as a result of financial necessity 1850’s Miner Normal School for Colored Girls Feminization of Teaching

Women and Higher Education 1833 Oberlin admits white men and women as well as men and women of color –Ladies Courses –Duties of female students on campus: Wash men’s clothes, care for their rooms, serve men at the tables, listening to orations, general silence Elite Universities still opposed admittance of women –Harassment and ridicule –Maculinities and Femininities –Devaluing of the system of higher education 1901 Johns Hopkins Medical School opened to women –Increased opposition: craniology, impacts of study and competition on reproduction

Social Change? Until the 1970’s women were funneled into 4 occupation areas: secretarial, nursing, teaching, mothering 1972 Title IX – sex discrimination is schools as illegal 1978 Federal funding for sex equity research 1980’s Backlash Women in education today? –Women in math and the “hard sciences” –Women as tenured faculty? –Commensurate pay between men and women with the same degrees?