Future Schlock
Using Fabricated Data and
Politically Correct Platitudes in The Name of Education Reform
By Lawrence Baines
|
Future Schlock
|
Print version published in V. 78, No. 7, March 1997, page 492
FROM ALL regions of the country, one hears of the changes on the near horizon for public schools. In the exhortations for the reinvention of education, many reformers use politically correct platitudes or play fast and loose with statistics in order to present a more persuasive case for their particular agenda. If left unchallenged, such platitudes and fabrications could lead to actual changes in education policy that are based on erroneous assumptions, cooked data, and outright propaganda.
A Lesson from the Open Classroom
Before considering the hot items on today's reform agenda, let's look at an example from the not-too-distant past. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the concept of the "open classroom" was the education reform of the moment, though the evidence of its effectiveness was quite scant.
Lillian Stephens defined open education as an approach that is "open to change, to new ideas, to curriculum, to scheduling, to use of space, to honest expressions of feeling between teacher and pupil and between pupil and pupil, and open to children's participation in significant decision-making in the classroom.''1 On the surface, such a definition would seem to warrant little concern. However, in the same book, Stephens proclaimed, "Open education is now recognized as the major educational innovation of this decade. It has survived the attacks of its critics and the overzealousness of its friends, and emerged as a significant force."2
Around the same time, Joseph Hassett and Arline Weisberg asserted that open classrooms had "been tested and found to be educationally sound, appealing, and effective with young children of all backgrounds and in all the familiar education-al categories: high achiever, average, low achiever, disciplinary problem, turned off, truant, highly motivated, slow learner, exceptional."3
Roland Barth gave a more honest appraisal of the research base supporting the open classroom.
Although there is little hard evidence, in theory or in practice, that open education is good for children; although these ideas have been tested by few teachers with few children in few schools for few years; and although it is not clear that children who attend open classrooms develop . . . important qualities in ways which are superior to those who do not, nevertheless, I am convinced that open education both places priority on these qualities of human life and can provide the means most likely to result in their development.4
While Barth's assessment of the open classroom is to be commended for its truthfulness, his honesty would not convince most of us that a move to the open classroom would be educationally sound. Still, school districts and universities nationwide scurried to spend millions of dollars on the latest innovation in education -- the classroom without walls. Typically, a year or so after schools of the period were built in all their wall-less glory, construction crews returned to put up partitions.
The open classroom became a reality in no small measure through the enthusiastic, uncritical acceptance of the academic community. As the cries for education reform build to a frantic pitch in the remaining years of the 20th century, the millions of dollars spent for buildings that became obsolete the very day that they opened to students seem especially relevant. Today, in the areas of technology, inclusion, multiculturalism, and money, mythologizing data on behalf of education reform has become quite popular.
Technology
Fabrication 1. Technology is a moral imperative that will increase student achievement and make American students globally competitive. Raymond Callahan's astute observations concerning the industrial metaphor under which schools have operated since 1900 seem as valid today as ever.5 Although the moniker for the particular movement seems to change -- say, from the Committee on the Economy of Time (circa 1925) to Total Quality Management (circa 1995) -- the premise has not: "The students are the workers . . . the teachers are basically managers of the system."6 As in the business sector, the role of technology in schools is to create a better product at a lower cost. Most education reformers make little attempt to disguise the fact that the industrial model serves as the basis for their ideas of schooling. "Like Corporate America, schools will have to decentralize, learn to compete, and be held accountable."7 Because many reformers view technology as the vital link from the classroom to the workplace, technology serves as a cornerstone of virtually every reform package in America.
A rationale for the integration of technology into the curriculum has always been that electronic media such as computers will give students access to more and more information, a necessity in the new "Information Age." As yet, no one seems willing to question the need for access to more information. The school librarian at the secondary school where I used to teach would certainly argue that the information available in libraries before the advent of computers was rarely used by students anyway. Yet the perception has become popular that technological competence is necessary for the survival of the public schools, if not the human race.
Technology is the mortar that holds all the bricks together. Technology supports contextual, interdisciplinary instruction. It allows you to learn in the context of real-life skills.8
* * *
Educators . . . need to understand in a profound way that the 21st century in which our children will be lifelong learners and workers is one in which comfort with and command over technology is a prerequisite for survival.9
The message that the antidote to what ails schools has at last been uncovered has created a sense of urgency about technology. Although Richard Clark has repeatedly made the point that technological innovations do not perform miracles through the sheer power of their inventiveness,10 the claims for technology have grown unabated. Reformers claim that not only does technology make the student a more effective employee, but it can "encourage the learner to engage in activities that boost self-esteem, self-control, self-efficacy and achievement motivation.''11 The assertion that technology should serve as the agent of change in public education is not new. In assessing the role of technology in the classroom, modern reformers may want to keep in mind the proclamations made on behalf of some earlier technological triumphs.
My judgment is that the radio can do its part; that it is a perfectly legitimate and satisfactory way for distribution; that it would carry more genius to the common child than he has ever had or ever possibly could have; that it is the greatest system for training teachers that we know; and all together I think it is justified even in a technical sense as a medium for instruction in public education.12
* * *
Motion pictures have all the vital ability to influence and improve education that the printing press had five hundred years ago.13
* * *
Education at last has a method by which different approaches and attitudes towards various subjects can be subjected to detailed scientific scrutiny. . . . Programed learning . . . could very well aid in the amelioration of some of the deplorable conditions in our educational system, to say nothing of feeding the hunger for learning in emergent nations.14
* * *
There is no limit on imagination. Thus there is no limitation on how you can use transparencies and overhead projection to communicate effectively with your class. Just as science is opening new vistas for mankind, overhead projection is opening new doors for teaching.15
* * *
The first major social impact of the HL [hyperlearning] revolution is to make schooling obsolete. . . . In the new economy, where mindcraft replaces handicraft as the main form of work, HL makes obsolete the teaching, testing, and failure on which academic credentialism rests.16
An indicator of the quality of the educational experience has suddenly become the average number of students per computer in a school. In 1984 about 78% of American public schools had microcomputers, and there were about 63 students per computer. By 1992, 97% of all public schools had computers, and there were about 12 students per computer.17 I suspect that there is not a school district in America that does not prominently display a photo of a student working at a microcomputer on the cover of its brochure. The message is clear: computers represent technology, and technology is good.
Education reformers who demand that schools become technologically up-to-date offer contradictory messages:
1. Technology makes learning almost effortless.
2. Students must use and become immersed in a technologically sophisticated environment in order to be intellectually challenged.
Indeed, most teachers are advised to find ways to infuse technology into their lessons, as if the mere proximity of electronic media were enough to bolster a student's intellectual capacity. One wonders what superior mental processes are invoked when a student sits at a computer keyboarding through databases, charts, and graphs that are not called forth when she rifles through books and journals, jotting notes on index cards with a pencil.
The frenetic race to acquire and use technology in the schools is often attributed to the increasingly complex workplace and to the demands of corporate leaders who want competent workers. However, when the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies were surveyed about the ideal education for children of the 21st century, they responded by emphasizing the need for "analytical, logical, higher-order, conceptual, and problem-solving skills," along with proficiencies in writing, reading, and interpersonal communication.18
Despite the conundrums over funding for education and the state and local initiatives against raising taxes, expenditures for technology have soared.19 Over the course of five years in the school district in which I lived and taught, the number of students per classroom ballooned, budgets for textbooks and supplies were slashed, and plans were shelved for capital improvements to deteriorating buildings and for the construction of a new school. Yet new computers were purchased for every classroom in every school in the district, along with a number of videodisc players. Shortly after their purchase, several of the videodisc players became disabled and were moved into storage, where they have since remained, gathering dust. Meanwhile, several classrooms were left with 20-year-old textbooks or no textbooks at all.
Reality: Technology can make learning more fun, easier, and cleaner. But no data support the conclusion that technology causes gains in student achievement.
Inclusion
Fabrication 2. All students are willing and able to learn. The actual phrase in vogue is "All children can learn." This statement has appeared in descriptions of federal initiatives, on school district letterheads, and in innumerable memos from principals to teachers. What does it mean? Taken literally, I suppose it means that, given enough time, energy, and expense, any child can achieve some level of competence at learning a task. Given the spirit of the statement "All children can learn," the behaviorist John Watson might respond, "All mice -- not to mention cats, dogs, and monkeys -- can learn, as well."
In practice, "All children can learn" has been interpreted by many reformers to mean that all students, no matter how normal, psychotic, disabled, or oppositional they might be, should have the opportunity to sit in class alongside the hard-working, respectful, nondisabled student. Reformers favoring inclusion usually use the following kind of sugary, platitudinous appeal:
Inclusive education is a fundamental belief which considers each person an important, accepted member of the school and community. Inclusive educators work to create a sense of oneness and belonging within the group; they celebrate diversity. The focus is on the positive, including respect and integrity for all people.20
Anyone who has ever taught in the public schools knows that a certain number of students sitting in a class fall somewhat short of the model for the high-achieving scholar. Indeed, if the statistics on mental health for the U.S. population at large are accurate, then somewhere between 2% and 18% of students suffer from some form of personality disorder.21 Yet the recent response to a special needs student's very individual needs has all too often been to place the child in a regular classroom with 35 other children and a teacher who has no experience or training in special education.
An eight-month study of mainstreaming at a middle school in the South found that, while some mainstreamed students fit in well academically and socially, many others required continuous care, meticulously planned and executed academic interactions, and extensive monitoring from teachers who served 150 to 180 "other" students a day.22 A survey given to teachers at the end of the school year revealed that 100% of them believed that mainstreaming was not appropriate for every student. Similarly, in a national survey of elementary school principals, 72% disagreed that schools should assign all children, regardless of disability, to the regular classroom.23 While an outstanding school here and there across the country may ride on a generous wave of per-pupil expenditures from state and local authorities and snatch up millions of dollars in federal grants to carry out the philosophy of mainstreaming as it should be carried out, most schools do not have the funds, facilities, or personnel to do so.
In addition to the usurpation of their time and energies in the service of a small contingent of special needs students, many teachers must also deal with a volatile and dangerous student body. The threat of violence in many schools is quite real. In 1991 four out of 10 students in 10th grade reported that they had been threatened or injured at school during the previous year, while one out of every 10 public school teachers reported having been threatened with or actually having experienced a physical attack.24 Most reformers, however, write their recommendations as if a child would never get off task, would never consider performing an evil deed, and would never wish to do harm to fellow students.
Four developments have forced many dangerous students to remain in school.
· Federal and state initiatives have encouraged the mainstreaming of all students.
· The mandatory attendance age for students has been raised to 18 in almost all states.
· State and federal dollars usually flow to schools on the basis of the number of students enrolled. It is financially rewarding for schools to keep as many students as possible in the classroom (at least until after the date of the official attendance count).
· The legal obstacles to suspension, expulsion, and the setting of rules of conduct for students have forced schools to adopt policies that allow disruptive students to stay in school.
A few years ago, when I was a supervisor of student teachers, I became acquainted with a first-year female teacher who had come straight from the University of Texas at Austin to teach in a small city. Part of her assignment was to teach English and reading to a class of only 12 students for an hour a day, a seemingly enviable task. Two months and a great deal of trouble later, she found out that two males in her class had prior felony convictions and that another was awaiting trial for armed robbery. The student awaiting trial for armed robbery was brought to and from class every day in handcuffs and latched to the teacher's desk by a sheriff's deputy. During the course of the year, two other students in the class died (one was shot while attempting to rob a convenience store; the other was murdered). In a study that attempted to identify traits that could help forecast the occurrence of violent behavior in adolescent males, it was found that "the best predictor" was serious delinquency.25 Yet most of the money and effort in dropout prevention programs is spent trying to keep the seriously delinquent in class with everyone else.
Despite such real threats to life and learning, many reformers seem to want to deal with student violence by encouraging teachers to quit having low expectations for troublesome students, as if the encouragement of saying "Good job!" now and then would automatically raise a young convicted felon's self-esteem so much that he would become an honor student overnight (and enter medical school upon graduation). A veteran teacher who worked at a middle school down the street from where I live told a student, "That's a nice shirt." In response, the student flew into a rage and hit and kicked the teacher until she collapsed bleeding and unconscious on the floor in the corridor. The boy (who, unbeknownst to the teacher, had two previous felony convictions) was finally restrained by two male teachers who were alerted to the incident by students.
Of course, many potentially violent students do turn around with the help of determined, caring teachers and administrators. However, reformers who advocate saving potentially dangerous students not by punishing them but by forcing them to remain in the classroom rarely admit to the negative possibilities of such a practice. Apparently, they believe that more class time will miraculously change what 10 to 13 previous years of public schooling could not. Apparently, they believe that the great majority of the student body will remain unaffected by the specters of fear and bedlam brought about by perpetrators of violence. Apparently, they perceive the consideration of violence in schools as an affront to the spirit of "oneness and belonging" that they espouse so fervently. In short, because violence does not fit their agenda, they choose to ignore it.
Although there has been some movement in states and localities to adopt a "zero-tolerance" stance toward violence in schools, the "zero-suspension" and "zero-expulsion" philosophy promulgated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Honig v. Doe, and recent court decisions favoring the dismantling of codes of conduct in schools make enforcement of "zero tolerance" a daunting task at best.
Reality: Because public schools serve a cross section of the American public, some students will be well adjusted and enthusiastic about learning. Some students will have special needs that require individualized care, which can be quite demanding of teachers who must serve 125 to 185 students a day. Some students will have criminal tendencies, will display openly oppositional behaviors, and will provide a clear and present danger to all.
Multiculturalism
Fabrication 3. Soon, America will have a population that is mostly nonwhite. These days, it is foolish (and considered a bit blasphemous) to argue for a curriculum that considers only a single perspective. Even such traditionalists as E. D. Hirsch, Arthur Schlesinger, and Harold Bloom advocate to some degree the consideration of divergent perspectives in the study of literature and history.26 Yet, in the drive to make the case for multiculturalism, many scholars have gone to extraordinary lengths to show that the demographics of America are rapidly changing. James Banks has written that, "between 1980 and 2000, about 83 percent of new entrants to the labor force will be women, people of color, or immigrants; native white males will make up only 15 percent."27 Similarly, one school district's curriculum guide said this about the U.S. school population: "By the year 2000, two out of every three school-age children will be an ethnic minority."28
First, if one concedes that almost half of the new entrants to the labor force will be women (which seems a huge concession to make, but okay), then Banks means that about one-third of the males who enter the labor force will be white, while two-thirds will be nonwhite. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce figures, just the reverse is true. The number of white males between the ages of 20 and 24 was almost 212 times the number of nonwhite males in 1990. The figures for the 20-24 age group for 1990 are these: non-Hispanic white -- 13,522,000; nonwhite -- 5,688,000 (black, 2,528,000; Hispanic, 2,320,000; Asian, 661,000; American Indian/Aleut/Eskimo, 179,000). The proportions for ages 15-19 and 25-29 are similar to the proportions for the 20-24 age group.29
If the white birthrate stays at its relatively low level and black, Hispanic, and Asian birthrates continue at their relatively higher levels, then by 2050 (when most of us reading this article will be gone), there will be about 95 million more whites than blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians combined (285,591,000 whites and 190,165,000 nonwhites).
Another misconception that involves race is the purported relationship between race and poverty. At a recent conference I attended, the keynote speaker lectured on the disparity between the number of computers available for students in white suburban areas and the number of computers available for students in poor black areas. Throughout her address, the speaker mentioned only "rich whites" and "poor blacks." Such gross generalizations have become such standard fare as to seem beyond question these days, but they are wrong. While it is accurate to say that the poverty rates for minorities are higher than those for whites, the truth is that four million more whites lived below the poverty line than the total of all blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians below the poverty line in 1993.30
An inherent difficulty with using statistics about race to promote a given agenda is that certain ethnic and cultural groups must be lumped together in a single category. One wonders at what individuals from Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Puerto Rico have in common to link them together under the rubric Hispanic.31 (By the way, are individuals from Spain, Brazil, and Uruguay Hispanic or white?) Diversity issues get even more complex when the relative boom in multiracial babies is examined. The incidence of Asian/white and Hispanic/white marriages has become so high that it makes little sense to track them anymore, while the number of black/white interracial marriages has increased 78% since 1980.32
Invariably, the most intriguing questions concerning demographic predictions about race go unanswered. In determining what constitutes a multicultural perspective, should we rely on the racial categories formulated by the government in "Statistical Directive 15" (American Indian, black, white, Asian, and Hispanic)? Should the curriculum change according to the number of students in a classroom who identify themselves as belonging to one race and not another?
Reality: America's demographics are undeniably changing, and the country will remain diverse, though predominantly white, well into the next century. A boom in interracial marriages and interracial babies promises to challenge current conceptions of multiculturalism and race.
Money
Fabrication 4. Americans will spend whatever money is necessary in order to have the best education system in the world. The crux of the funding dilemma in public education becomes clear when one reviews the manner in which most public schools come to be built (or not built) in this country. Once a school board decides that an increase in the school-age population has created the need for a new school, it will usually attempt to convince its constituency that a tax increase or a new bond issue is justified. If the tax increase or bond is approved by the citizens (not all that likely in the current political climate), then negotiation begins for the actual construction of the new school. Bids are solicited from various architectural and construction firms, usually with some advantage given to Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs). Finally, the bids are opened, and the firm with the lowest bid (after consideration of the points given out for being a HUB) is awarded the job. To reiterate, the contract is awarded not to the company that offered the best possible facility for learning or the most innovative design, but to the company that offered the lowest bid. It is precisely this low-bid mentality that forms the foundation for the commitment of most Americans toward education.
To adjust to rising enrollments, almost every school campus in the country now includes several portable or temporary buildings, and many areas are instituting year-round schools. In Dade County, Florida, many schools are operating at 191% to 243% of their capacities.33 In San Diego County's Escondido Union School District, 30% of all school buildings consist of portable facilities -- "doublewide trailers with leaky roofs and holes in the floors."34
Despite the less-than-optimal condition of schools, Americans have increasingly opted not to pay to improve them. On 7 March 1995, voters rejected a $52.5 million bond issue for the Escondido schools. The complete shutdown of a school district in Michigan before the school year was over became necessary when voters rejected referendum after referendum to fund it. Laws designed to reduce and limit taxes were first approved by voters on the West Coast and moved rapidly throughout the country. These days, many states literally "roll the dice" when it comes to education, as more and more legislatures approve bills to legalize lotteries and other forms of gambling in order to help pay for schools.
While most legislative branches of state governments have frozen or cut the proportion of (nongambling) funds for education, federal and state courts have heaped more responsibilities and restrictions on schools and teachers. In particular, the courts' interpretation of "the least restrictive environment" has translated into piles of paperwork to be completed for every child qualifying for special education. In addition, the courts have broadened the scope of special education to include students with all types of disabilities and language deficiencies.
Typical of the judicial involvement in schools is the 1990 Florida consent decree that requires all teachers with one or more students who have limited proficiency in English to enroll in at least 300 hours of inservice training. Granted, such a program would benefit students and teachers alike. But it is difficult to ascertain exactly how a poor rural district in Florida will manage to pay for all that training, conducted at a university hundreds of miles away, while it also carries through court-ordered modifications to the physical structure of its already old and tired school buildings for students with physical disabilities, provides each special education student with the required services, and continues to run free transportation and extracurricular activities for all students who desire them.
It is no small wonder that many principals have interpreted "inclusion" as the practice of firing all special education teachers and dumping their students into regular classrooms with 25 to 50 other students, headed by solitary teachers with no training in special education. The fiscal constraints under which they must work have given them no other choice.
While the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand reports that about 52% of all dollars earmarked for education actually wind up in the classroom, certainly a large portion of that sum must go toward meeting the costly needs of special education students.35 The other 48% of the education pie is reportedly distributed to the central administration (16%), school administrators (6.6%), operations -- heating, maintenance, transportation -- (18.3%), and instructional support -- libraries and counselors -- (7.1%).
Because the central administration, school administration, and operations sectors exist to respond to legislative and judicial mandates (such as student assessment, desegregation, and accountability for teachers), the first casualties during budget-cutting time are usually in the area of instructional support. Thus school libraries do not order new books, counselors and aides are laid off, and sports and clubs are discontinued or become pay-for-play activities.
Few could dispute Eric Hanushek's point that school districts could spend money more effectively.36 But to deny the pitiful state of America's numerous crumbling school buildings is absurd. The General Accounting Office places the price tag for upgrading the physical facilities of American public schools at a hefty $112 billion.
Although publications such as Business Week are quick to document the "surge in teacher pay,"37 most teachers still earn between $10 and $15 for each hour that they work, receive 20 to 25 minutes for lunch, and must carefully schedule bathroom breaks and phone calls to coincide with the five minutes between classes. In contrast, over the past two months I have paid a plumber $50 an hour, an auto mechanic $35 an hour, and an electrician $45 an hour. The plumber, auto mechanic, and electrician all had the luxury of having a real lunch hour and did not have to supervise hundreds of noisy adolescents in a school cafeteria while they ate. America has always gotten better teachers than it deserves, but there is no guarantee that the trend will continue.
Reality: The low-bid mentality of Americans toward education has created a country teeming with low-bid school environments and high-sounding, habitually underfunded democratic ideals.
The public school system in the United States is far from perfect. On this, there is universal agreement. However, many reformers have resorted to using politically correct platitudes and statistics of questionable validity to further a particular cause. As in academic disciplines, the winds of change in education continually alter the intellectual landscape. The evidence in support of education reforms must be scrutinized to ascertain the degree to which those reforms will really benefit students. Lurking beneath an impassioned plea and a fabricated set of data may be this year's open classroom.
1. Lillian Stephens, The Teacher's Guide to
Open Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974), p. 27.
2. Ibid., p. v.
3. Joseph Hassett and Arline Weisberg, Open Education (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 3.
4. Roland Barth, Open Education and the American School (New York:
Agathon Press, 1972), p. 3.
5. Raymond Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1962).
6. Eugene Hertzke and Warren Olson, Total Quality Education: Technology
and Teaching (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1994), p. 2.
7. Richard Melcher and Michele Galen, "Milwaukee's Lesson Plan,"
Business Week, 17 April 1995, p. 71.
8. Dennis Bybee, quoted in Therese Mageau and Linda Chion-Kennedy, "Facing
the Future," Electronic Learning, October 1994, p. 39.
9. Peter Kelman, quoted in Mageau and Chion-Kennedy, p. 37.
10. Richard Clark, "Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media,"
Review of Educational Research, vol. 53, 1983, pp. 445-59; idem,
"Media and Method," Educational Technology Research &
Development, vol. 42, 1994, pp. 7-10; idem, "Media Will Never
Influence Learning," Educational Technology Research & Development,
vol. 42, 1994, pp. 21-29; and idem, "When Researchers Swim Upstream:
Reflections on an Unpopular Argument About Learning from Media," Educational
Technology, vol. 31, 1991, pp. 34-40.
11. Alexander Laszlo and Kathia Castro, "Technology and Values: Interactive
Learning Environments for Future Generations," Educational Technology,
vol. 35, 1995, p. 11.
12. Joe Robinson, "Broadcasting to the Schools of a City," in
Levering Tyson, ed., Radio and Education (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1931), pp. 91-92.
13. Charles Hoban, Focus on Learning: Motion Pictures in the School
(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1942), p. 4.
14. Charles Foltz, The World of Teaching Machines (Washington,
D.C.: Electronic Teaching Laboratories, 1961), p. 66.
15. Morton Schultz, The Teacher and the Overhead Projector (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 31.
16. Lewis Perelman, "School's Out," Wired, vol. 1, 1993,
p. 72.
17. Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994), p. 169.
18. John Nidds and James McGerald, "Corporate America Looks at Public
Education," Principal, March 1995, pp. 22-23.
19. Technology in the Public Schools 1992-1993 (Denver: Quality
Education Data, 1994).
20. Peter Negroni, "The Transformation of America's Public Schools,"
Equity and Excellence in Education, vol. 7, 1994, p. 25.
21. Patricia Casey, "The Epidemiology of Personality Disorder,"
in Peter Tyrer, ed., Personality Disorders (Boston: Wright, 1988),
pp. 74-81.
22. Lawrence Baines and Coleen Baines with Karen Masterson, "Mainstreaming:
One School's Reality," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1994, pp.
39-40, 57-64.
23. Laura Miller, "Elementary Principals' Survey Finds Slim Support
for Standards, Inclusion," Education Week, 19 April 1995,
p. 7.
24. National Education Goals Panel, Building a Nation of Learners
1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994), pp. 49-56.
25. Connie Salts et al., "Predictive Variables of Violent Behavior
in Adolescent Males," Youth & Society, vol. 26, 1995,
pp. 377-99.
26. E. D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987); Arthur
Schlesinger, The Disuniting of America (New York: Norton, 1992);
and Harold Bloom, The Western Canon (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1994).
27. James Banks, "Multicultural Literacy and Curriculum Reform,"
Educational Horizons, vol. 69, 1991, pp. 135-40.
28. "Multicultural Education in an Effective School," in Curriculum
Guide (Jackson, Miss.: Jackson Public Schools, 1992), p. 5.
29. Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994), Table 21.
30. Ibid., Tables 49, 50, 53.
31. Morton Winsberg, "Specific Hispanics," American Demographics,
February 1994, pp. 44-53.
32. Gabrielle Sandor, "The Other Americans," American Demographics,
June 1994, pp. 36-42.
33. Lonnie Harp, "Builders, District at Odds in School-Starved Dade,"
Education Week, 25 January 1995, p. 5.
34. Michael Mandel et al., "Will Schools Ever Get Better?," Business
Week, 17 April 1995, p. 66.
35. Ibid., pp. 65-68.
36. Eric Hanushek, "Money Might Matter Somewhere," Educational
Researcher, April 1994, pp. 5-8.
37. Specifically, the 17 April 1995 issue documents the "surge in teacher
pay." See Mandel et al., p. 68.
LAWRENCE BAINES is an assistant
professor in the Department of English Education at Florida State University,
Tallahassee.