Urban Education in the USA and Migrant Education in China

**Disclaimer #1: LONG post!**

**Disclaimer #2: All unclarity is my fault and I take responsibility--this is definitely unpolished**

During Independence Day, a topic relating to educational adequacy seems particularly germane. For what kind of independence does a country truly have when such an egregious number of students fail to receive an acceptable standard of education, much less equitable standard? According to the National Bureau for Educational Statistics, in 2005, national drop-out rate was 9%, but 22.5% of Latino/as dropped out of high school, compared to 2.9% for Asians 6 % for Caucasians, and 10.4 % for African Americans (by self-identified race... which , yes, is a social construct but a reality nonetheless). For if we--and here I speak as an American citizen, halfbreed that I am--merely celebrate independence from colonialization, I might argue that we have left parts of this country in intellectual slavery.

I argue that the Chinese story of providing education for migrants sharply parallels the American story of providing education to minorities--with the key difference that America is split along racial lines and China is split primarily along urban/rural lines. With less than one month remaining to my trip to Beijing, this theoretical claim has successively gained volume in my mind. I then propose that we shift our frame of reference when viewing educational inequities for migrants in light of the historical progress (or lack thereof) that the American urban education system has made.

By system, I refer to the holistic ecological framework of students, parents, teachers, communities, administrators, policies, cultural backdrop, and curricula encompassed by the word "school system." Furthermore, by "system," I acknowledge individual variations and focus primarily upon the patterns and trends rather than individual cases. If you're interested in my citations, feel free to send me an email... I'm too lazy to make this anything formal.

David Tyack, an educational historian, suggests that a theme dominating the history of American urban education is the "One Best System," as per his eponymous work. Administrators locked onto the idea of accountability and testing during a period of rapid industrialization by borrowing those ideas from factories. They proceeded to merge small village all-grades-sit-together schoolhouses to rationalized (in the Weberian sense of bureaucratization and specialization) schools complete with administrators and specialized teachers. Pluralism began to grow out of the conflict between religious traditions (esp. Judaism and Christianity), but never took root in other areas (esp. race). Schools underwent a period of rapid centralization, with political conflicts among local governments and unions to garner control for the schools. Most significantly, financing models for schools were turned to property taxes: smack dab at a time when GI Joes were returning from World War 2 and looking for homes. Any surprise that the white men were given homes that had higher property value, and black men living in white neighborhoods scared others from buying and lowered the property value?

As a backlash, phenomena like charter schools and private schools today challenge this high level of centralization (although bills like No Child Left Behind continue to push toward central levels of testing and control). Varying grants are given to urban education today, and remedial programs/vocational education is gaining traction for students unable to remain in the system.

Even so, minorities today face huge challenges. The first is segregation: even in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, schools today are far more segregated than ever before. Schools with names commemorating our fiercist civil rights leaders are among the most segregated--Martin Luther King parks and schools are renowned for their near 100% black and Latino student population. In addition to living in segregated communities with high poverty rates, some minority students face language barriers, discriminated for speaking in certain manners or low proficiency (i.e. ebonics and ESL learners). They lack proper cultural capital--ways of speaking, acting, or otherwise communicating--that jive with the dominant class of society.

Turning to China, one is suprised to note contemporary educational history follows similarly. Without the racial boundaries, a new urban/rural dichotomy was codified in law. Not unlike the emancipation movement, when rural residents were legally "given" their rights, they continued to shoulder the burden of over thirty years of prejudice and underdevelopment. Migrants moving to cities are discriminated for their rural accents and lack of "cultural capital."

In a hilarious twist, even though legally (parallel to Brown v Board of Ed) they are allowed to attend public schools, they are now mostly shunted to private or semi-private (a parallel to charter) schools that are almost 100% migrants as a result of geographic segregation and low income. Geographic segregation and low income are caused by two main elements: part of the issue is the lack of high level, white collars jobs for migrants (ring any bells?), and another side of the issue is migrants want to be somewhere where they feel accepted and in a community that shares similar needs (ring any bells?). The migrant schools have lower budgets (any surprise?) and hire lower quality teachers and have far lower quality facilities. In America, the higher class often attends private schools while minorities attend public schools in urban areas--ergo the irony.

Not surprisingly, schools are linked with their surrounding communities and properties. In Beijing, all migrant schools and migrants are localized outside of the 4th to 5th ring (a series of highways that circle the city). In another ironic twist, the impoverished localize in the suburbs while the affluent live in the urban city centre. But nonetheless, they embody the segregation and paucity of resources seen in the United States. Add to this a higher level of crime in these regions, high level of drop outs, family instability, and we really have a close parallel to the low-income communities of urban America.

Rationalization has worked its way through China as well. Mergers have consolidated schools in different villages, with the result that several families either cannot afford or have trouble bringing their children to the centralized school. In some cases, this fuels their desire to bring their children with them into the cities when they migrate. The rapid rationalization and bureaucratization of schools (remember that during the Mao period tests were abandoned and only during the industiralization of recent years have they returned--also borrowed from factories and industirial institutions!) has also led to close monitoring of these migrants for their academic performance, with HIGH stakes tests (the zhongkao and gaokao) that determine their future path.

Oh, this list could continue on and on... I feel like it's a paper in and of itself! But the upshot is that the two systems are closely aligned. As my professor Prudence Carter presented the following list of elements, I couldn't help but notice how the two systems share several of them:

Industrialization, Modernization, Immigration, Migration, Discrimination,

Segregation, Incorporation, Assimilation,Community Disorganization, Poverty Concentration, Social Isolation, Bureaucratization, Specialization, Politicization

Given these similarities, I propose that policymakers in China carefully weigh their choices, lest the trajectory of migrant education follows urban education (and I would LOVE to hear a compelling arguement that America's compulsory educational system is "successful," insofar it achieves goals it sets for itself).

For example, developing a strong vocational track may not sound good for most Chinese citizens, but vocational education has long been proven to be a "sink" trains and equips those who are unable to be adequately trained in the usual track. Not a perfect solution, but one that buys time and ensures the next generation of migrants can have a better chance (the son of a plumber probably has more money to go to school than the son of a menial factory worker).

Furthermore, I propose a particular emphasis on the provision of good terms for teachers in migrant schools. The lack of provision for good teachers in urban education has proven disasterous. Whether its a tenure system that awards longstaying but poor teachers, or low salary, or little flexibility, few teachers willingly decide to dedicate their entire career to urban education. While all levels of the system need to be changed, a targeted intervention on the part of teachers can allow for experimentation of best practices in curricula (here is yet again another side effect of "one best system centralization:" not all student learn the same way!).

To use a war analogy, if we were fighting in a war, the first thing to do is ensure the first line of defense is well equipped, healthy, and well-trained. To focus on building better forts (schools/facilities) or developing better technology (curricula/technology) is important, but not when migrant teachers have a turnover of 95% over 2 years (95% of teachers leave the school after at most 2 years). It's like having an army of such exceedingly low morale that nearly all your soldiers leave after at most two years of service.

These two provisions are clearly lacking in detail and have little chance of success without cash, political clout, and strong adminstration. All things are linked, as they say. But I do think they provide two focal points to challenge the status quo, and place the problem of migrant education in good focus.

Oh... and today will be the last day that I have the leisure and time to write out my thoughts, hopefully as a repository for future reference!

Now back to writing actual papers rather than flimsy blog posts >.<