Introduction
Discrimination and racial disparities in public education settings are the leading causes of poor performance among black and Hispanic learners. Discrimination begins at the student level as early as elementary school where in-group favoritism, peer rejection, out-group prejudice, friendliness, and rejection are witnessed (Juvonen et al., 2019). These disparities are observed throughout school life until graduating from college, with black and Hispanic college completers graduating more from for-profit institutions than public ones (Libassi, 2018). In addition, minority groups experience higher rates of suspension and expulsion than their white counterparts in disciplinary practices, leaving most of them feeling like they are treated as criminals (Schiff, 2018). Such discriminative and racially disparate practices have contributed to high drop-out rates, the ‘school-to-prison’ pipeline, and poor academic achievement among Hispanic and black learners.
Policies to eliminate such practices face organizational barriers in implementation. Nevertheless, efforts must begin at the very basic level, from student to student, to the teacher, institutions, and government agencies, to successfully eliminate or reduce existing disparities and discrimination. While organizational barriers and social exclusion continue to increase the racial disparity in schools, social inclusion, federal interventions, and restorative justice practices are proven solutions to emanating the problem from public education settings.
Juvonen et al. (2019): Social Inclusion in Educational Settings
The first article is a 2019 paper by Juvonen et al. titled “Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and Opportunities.” These authors’ perspectives are based on practices that build social inclusion to be implemented in schools to reduce racial disparities. According to Juvonen et al. (2019), peer victimization, friendliness, negative teacher behavior, rejection, and organizational barriers create social exclusion of minority students in a school. For example, teachers who encourage “individualistic and competitive goal orientations” encourage exclusion because one student’s success is a detraction from others (Juvonen et al., 2019, p. 259). The solution to exclusion is to build social inclusion in the classroom and within the school by encouraging peer acceptance, cross-group friendships, and built-in prevention (Juvonen et al., 2019). The authors believe that an environment where students feel accepted to have friends and experience intergroup harmony is conducive to successful learning.
The authors found that four recommendations implemented at the school level were effective in improving the social inclusion of racially minority students. Firstly, school administrators must increase ethnic diversity by reviewing their requirements for course enrollment and school admissions. A High diverse environment allows every learner to find a group where they ‘fit in’ making them feel safer and less lonely (Juvonen et al., 2019). Cooperative classroom practices like jigsaw improve support, acceptance, caring interactions, and liking among students. Successful cooperative practices depend on the teacher’s awareness of the class group dynamics and knowledge of the students (Juvonen et al., 2019). Another solution is to utilize extracurricular activities such as performing arts and sports to create shared goals away from the classroom. Shared interests in such exercises will create friendships and group formations not based on race. Finally, the authors found that multicultural education is effective in reducing prejudice against minority ethnic groups among learners and encouraging acceptance (Juvonen et al., 2019). Such education must be coupled with an emphasis on diversity appreciation and tolerance to prevent the spreading of more prejudice and stereotypes.
This article supports my topic by analyzing all the factors contributing to the social exclusion of minority groups in schools and suggesting proven remedies to eliminate them. The key points in line with my research question and thesis statement include greater ethnic diversity in schools, cooperative learning practices in classrooms, equal access to extracurricular activities, and multicultural education. The article suggests school-level policies that could eliminate racial disparity and discrimination from all early learning education centers and beyond.
Libassi (2018): College Race Gap
The second article was published in 2018, written by Libassi, and titled “The neglected college race gap: Racial disparities among college completers.” The author’s perspective focuses on racial disparity in students graduating from college. The major trends he identified are related to the kind of schools the majority of black and Hispanic students graduate from compared to their white counterparts. Firstly, Libassi (2018) found that most minority group graduates are from for-profit colleges rather than public ones. According to the author, these schools are known to offer an education that is not as highly rated as the public ones.
Secondly, there is a 15-20% difference between these schools and the public colleges in the amount of spending per student per year. Whites were found to graduate from colleges that spend as much as $16,000 annually while blacks and Hispanics graduated from colleges that spend $13,000 (Libassi, 2018). Thirdly, black and Hispanic students graduated from colleges with lower Selectivity and Resource Index (SRI) than those where whites graduated. The SRI is a measure of the academic performance of fellow students, faculty demand levels, dropout rate, and student-faculty ratio (Labissi, 2018). Overall, Labissi’s research shows that white students study and graduate from better universities and colleges than their peers in minority groups. Such a racial disparity would reflect in the job market and income levels throughout their lifetimes.
Labissi suggests recommendations that can only be implemented by government agencies. The first recommendation is to create federal accountability structures for monitoring how colleges serve black and Hispanic learners and reporting on a racial equity indicator or measure (Labissi, 2018). Robust scrutiny by the federal government would force colleges to improve their diversity levels by relaxing admission requirements and other measures. The second recommendation is to create a federal and state-level system for tracking minority students’ outcomes through college. Such a data collection and reporting system would capture information, analyze it, and report it to highlight racial gaps and trends that require intervention. The government would also set targets directed by such data to help more black and Hispanic learners graduate.
Libassi’s article contributes to my overall thesis by discussing government interventions that would monitor and eliminate the racial gap in college graduates. Unlike Juvonen et al. whose perspective focused on classroom and school-level policies, Libassi presents ideas for federal and state-level solutions. Therefore, all the recommendations by Juvonen et al. and Libassi can be implemented together because they do not conflict but supplement each other.
Schiff (2018): Restorative Justice
The third article, by Schiff, was published in 2018 and is titled “Can restorative justice disrupt the ‘school-to-prison pipeline?’.” The main perspective of the article is the implementation of restorative justice practices in schools to reduce racial disparities. Racial disparities are evident in suspension and expulsion rates among students, which creates cultural and personal trauma for those affected (Schiff, 2018). Harsh and zero-tolerance disciplinary practices are not scientifically linked to safer schools, higher academic achievement, or overall student success. In addition, when they are used, students of color receive harsher disciplinary actions than their white counterparts.
There is growing support for restorative justice programs (RJP) with programs created by the Department of Education (DOE), Department of Justice (DOJ), and private partnerships. RJP views crime as a violation of relationships, individuals, or communities and focuses on reestablishing the broken relations to repair the harm done to offenders, victims, and the community rather than focusing on punishment. According to Schiff (2018), RJP lowers expulsion and suspension rates of minority students, reduces disciplinary referrals, and improves academic performance, alongside other positive outcomes. So far, the DOE has a program named “Rethinking Discipline Initiative” and another one in partnership with the DOJ and private partners named “School-Justice Partnership Project”, which utilizes RJP principles (Schiff, 2018). Higher RJP implementers have achieved positive results in eliminating racial disparities in disciplinary actions.
Since a student’s racial background and the school’s racial composition are key risk factors for suspension and expulsion, RJP focusing on these practices will help retain minority students in school. Restorative justice is recommended in protecting black and Hispanic learners from out-of-school suspensions by improving a school’s overall climate and discipline without discriminating on color, national origin, or race (Schiff, 2018). For example, higher RJP implementers report more positive student-teacher relationships, respectful teachers, and lower disciplinary referrals of Hispanic and black students.
This article aligns with my topic because it discusses one evidence-supported policy for eliminating racial disparities in schools. Although it only focuses on the disciplinary practices of a school, it presents a policy that has been effectively used in reducing racial disparity for years and has proven to be useful. According to Schiff (2018), states are implementing RJP after successful pilot studies in selected schools. Therefore, the article presents one proven method for reducing disparity and discrimination when disciplining students of color.
Conclusion
All the selected articles recommend different solutions to eliminate or reduce racial discrimination and disparities in public education settings. All the suggested policies, programs, and practices can be implemented at various school levels. Juvonen et al. (2019) presented basic classroom practices that would eradicate racial discrimination among students at the classroom level, and upwards. Therefore, the author addresses the primary source of discrimination that causes the exclusion of minority students from an early age. Similar to these classroom-level practices are the recommendations by Schiff (2018) who proposes the use of restorative justice to correct minority students. Social inclusion and restorative justice practices in the classroom are the basic and most fundamental solutions to racial disparities and discrimination in public schools.
In addition to classroom practices, Juvonen et al. have recommended inclusion solutions for school administrators. The suggestion involves enrolling students in courses and admitting new learners with the aim of increasing diversity across the school. This presents a level higher solution to dealing with discrimination and racial disparities in public education. Finally, Libassi (2018) introduces the highest level of policy intervention, which involves monitoring by the government. He suggests both federal and local governments create structures and systems that would monitor how schools are closing their racial gaps and improving inclusion. Overall, the three articles provide three levels of policies that would eliminate discrimination if implemented properly. The practices involve every stakeholder in the public education setting, starting with students, teachers, administrators, and the government.
References
Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., & Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and opportunities.Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 250-270. Web.
Libassi, C. J. (2018). The neglected college race gap: Racial disparities among college completers. Web.
Schiff, M. (2018). Can restorative justice disrupt the ‘school-to-prison pipeline?’. Contemporary Justice Review, 21(2), 121-139. Web.