Sara Berger
Professor Galen Cisell
SOC: 101
14 March 2015
The Fault in Our Education System: Perspective Trends in Savage Inequalities
It is undeniable that in the within the United States exists an education system riddled with inequality. Jonathan Kozol (1991) examines the education system in his book Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, particularly in regard to inner-city schools and their, often suburban, counterparts. In some instances the inner-city schools are physically crumbling and lack any diversity. Simultaneously, they have little success keeping students in school, let alone sending them to college (Kozol 1991). In nearly all respects, many poor inner-city schools are failing, especially in comparison to nearby schools in rich districts. However, when determining who is at fault for the failure of these poorer schools, there is a strong divergence in opinion amongst the public. In Savage Inequalities, people interviewed by Kozol generally fall into two distinct schools of thought and express either a person-blaming or system-blaming perspective. Individually, each opinion expressed is unique and distinctly personal. Although, in a more broad sense, general commonalities between who adopts a system-blaming or a person blaming perspective can be observed on the bases of race, class, and position in regard to education.
In Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol interviews and quotes a wide range of people, from teachers to legislators, students to parents, and people of varying races. Despite that, certain trends can be observed in regards to who most commonly exhibited a system-blame perspective. As a whole, teachers and other administrators who work with schools in an on-campus capacity generally adopt system-blaming. This could be seen as a result of their proximity to, and involvement with, the students who were failing, from their point of view, as a result of systematic injustice. Corla Hawkins, an exuberant black teacher of primary school in Chicago, welcomes parents into her classroom as aides versus blaming them for the failures of their children (Kozol 1991:59). Mrs. Hawkins also vehemently tries to involve both her students and their parents in the academic world and even tutors parents as they attempt to receive their GEDs (Kozol 1991:60). As a teacher, Corla Hawkins goes above and beyond the call of duty, and reaches out to parents who have been failed by the education system, just as much as their children. Her active nature is a response to the failures of the system, not the students she teaches.
Another school official from a different city, Bob Shannon, a black football coach for East St. Louis High School, expresses a system-blaming perspective as well. Shannon, who grew up during the civil rights movement, states that, “it’s harder now because… no one could persuade you that you were to blame…now the choices are left to you and if you make the wrong choice, you are made to understand you are to blame” (Kozol 1991:32). The key phrase that distinguishes this statement from person-blame is, “you are made to understand you are to blame.” By this, Shannon means that the system generally places the blame on people unable to thrive within it, causing them to believe they are at fault. This suggests that the blame in his statement really rests upon the system. Bob Shannon, like Corla Hawkins, is exemplary of how educators, who work directly with students, tend to not adopt a person-blame perspective.
Inner-city students, like those taught and coached by Hawkins and Shannon, also exhibit a system-blaming perspective. After Kozol notes to one East St. Louis High School student that a nicer district in question is in a different city and state than her abysmal school, she asks him, “Are we citizens of East St. Louis or America?” (1991:37). Her question shows that she views a decent education as a federal right; therefore, she finds the system, not the people of East St. Louis, at fault for the conditions of her school. However, even younger students who are only in junior high school also recognize the faults of the system. A young black girl named Shalika rhetorically raises the question of whether or not “[the media] shows the crimes committed by the government that puts black people here” (Kozol 1991:44). Shalika recognizes that the government plays a role in structuring society, as well as the education system specifically, and clearly blames the system like the aforementioned high school staff and faculty.
Shalika, the female student from East St. Louis, Corla Hawkins, and Bob Shannon all share certain characteristics beyond having system-blame perspectives. All four of these people are black and active in the education system on an in-school level in poorer districts. This represents the general trend that can be observed amongst the people who adopt system-blame in Savage Inequalities, who are predominately people of color, reside in the poorest districts, and are closely tied to specific underachieving schools. One reason that people who fit into these categories may adopt a system blame perspective is their proximity to inequality. Students like Shalika are unlikely to blame themselves for having to attend sub-standard schools, because they do not choose where to be born; they have no agency in the matter. Nor are teachers likely to be seen as the root of the problem, for excellent teachers like Mrs. Hawkins do reside in the poorer districts, but they merely do not have the means to teach to their fullest capacity (Kozol 1991). Just as trends can be perceived in people who agree with the system-blame perspective, similar traits can be found between people who assume the person-blame perspective.
Contrarily to those who work in or attend inner-city schools and adopt a system-blame perspective, people who are removed from this environment generally take on a person-blame perspective. Legislators, governors, and superintendents, in other words, people who are in positions of power in the education system but not directly involved in inner-city schools, generally seem to person-blame. The white New York superintendent of District 10, Fred Goldberg, believes that “demographics” are the cause of differences between richer and poorer schools (Kozol 1991:103). Likewise, James Thompson, the former governor of Illinois who is also white, makes a similar claim to that of Goldberg. Thompson claims that the problems in East St. Louis regarding poor infrastructure and issues like insufficient garbage collection that affect schools in the area are the fault of the mayor of East St. Louis and his administrators (Kozol 1991:11). Like Goldberg, Thompson ignores the fact that these problems may be the result of faults committed in higher levels of government and instead directly person-blames members of the East St. Louis community.
Like Goldberg, Thompson, and other people in power like them, students in rich districts are also distinctly separated from witnessing what happens in poorer districts, and they too typically adopt a person-blame perspective. Responses from students Jonathan Kozol interviewed at a rich high school in Rye, New York, show just how deeply engrained person-blaming is in many upper-class white children. One student named Max thinks that home issues are the root of educational injustice in poor districts, because if “[a student’s] father’s in the streets [and] his[or her] mother is using crack” money will make no difference (Kozol 1991:157). In essence, Max is person-blaming because he sees school failure as the fault of parents, not the system of taxation used in the United States which underfunds inner-city schools (Kozol 1991). Another student named Jennifer backs up Max’s assertion and says that “someone else can’t want a good life for you. You have got to want it for yourself” (Kozol 1991:155). Jennifer also takes a person-blame perspective and suggests that people must want things and therefore achieve success by themselves. However, clearly many inner-city students, like Shalika, want better lives for themselves, but students like Jennifer who are removed from their environment fail to see that.
In general, commonalities amongst system-blamers and person-blamers do exist. People who exhibit a person-blame perspective are often white, wealthy, and in positions of power that require no direct contact with poorer schools. On the other hand, those who system blame tend to be people of color, involved in poorer schools, and live in districts that house those schools. Although there are definite commonalities, it should be noted that there are exceptions to the trends of both of these groups. One person who very distinctly counters the trend of people who typically adopts a system-blaming trend is David, a peer of Jennifer and Max from Rye, New York. David says that “I don’t think you’d do it, pay more taxes or whatever, out of obligation. You would do it just because… it is unfair the way it is” (Kozol 1991:156). Unlike his peers, David identifies the unfairness of the way the educational system is set up. Despite being a white, wealthy student, who has no real first-hand experience with poorer schools, he still adopts a system-blame perspective.
In Savage Inequalities, Kozol (1991) tries to promote a system-blame perspective. However, there is a clear separation between person-blamers and system-blamers, and not everyone buys into the perspective Jonathan Kozol is attempting to promote. The key to having people adopt a system-blaming perspective will be to have students like David, who break the typical dichotomy and have the potential to influence the elite, promote their ideas. Without people who transgress the commonalities that people who express either a person-blame or system-blame perspective possess, there will be little change that occurs for urban students in poor districts.
Reference
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Crown Publishing Group.