Dropping Out

Theoretical and Methodological Concerns

Agency and Structure Micro vs. Macro, Voluntarism vs. Determinism, Subjectivism vs. Objectivism Colemans Boat Foundations of Social Theory A set of roles that players take on, each role defining the interests or goals of the player Rules about the kinds of actions that are allowable for players in each role, as well as about the order of play Rules specifying the consequences that each players action has for other players in the game It is this structure which corresponds to the two transitions I have described: macro to micro and micro to macro. The first of these transitions is mirrored in the players interests, given by the goal established by the rules; the constraints on action, which are imposed by other rules; the initial conditions, which provide the context within which action is taken; and after the game is in play, the new context imposed by others actions. The second transition is mirrored by the consequences of the players action: how it combines with, interferes with, or in any other way interacts with the actions of other , thus creating a new context within which the next action takes place. There is no tangible macro level. The answer is that the macro level, the system behavior is an abstraction, nevertheless an important one. (11-12) In structural individualism, on the other hand, actors are occupants of positions, and they enter relations that depend upon these positions. The situations they face are interdependent, or functional related, prior to any interaction. the result is a structural effect, as distinguished from a mere interaction effect. In addition to natural persons, then, there are social positions and corporate actors made up of social positions. The behaviour of social systems is, at least in part, determined by the structure of those systems. (304) Source: http://understandingsocietyglobaledition.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/causalpathways-through-colemans-boat/

Type 4 connections macro to macro are ruled out (the macro level is an abstraction, nevertheless an important one; Coleman 12); so causal influence for macro factors can only work through disaggregated effects at the micro level. We might refer to Type 3 connections as aggregative, and Type 2 as formative; Type 3 represents the composition of the macro-level effect through the activities of individuals at the micro-level. And Type 2 represents the shaping or forming of individuals that occurs when a macro-level entity affects them schools, norms, institutions. Type 1 are connections within the individuals psychology and agency.

The question is about a transition from micro to macro levels. Colemans scheme of the micro-macro linkage, which is often called Colemans boat or Colemans bathtub because of its shape, is drawn as below. A fundamental task of sociology is to explain Macro Factor Y. It is explained by Macro Factor X (arrow A) in conventional macro sociology. However, according to Coleman, the explanation is not perfect. A full explanation should be done through a macro-to-micro and a micro-tomacro transition. That is, the following three questions should be answered: (1) How Macro Factor X creates constraints on actors (arrow B); (2) How actors choose actions under the constraints (arrow C); (3) How the actions accumulate to the macro level (arrow D). Coleman argues that the third question is most difficult to answer because it involves the emergence of institutions and social structure. The above-mentioned tools do not seem to have succeeded in answering the question. Source: http://www.isa-sociology.org/congress2010/rc/rc45.htm

Margaret Archer Archer bibliography http://cdh.epfl.ch/page-55775-en.html Review of archer In line with the main tenets of critical realism, she grants causal powers to agency, which cannot be deduced from, or reduced to, the causal powers of society or culture. In order to make sure that the actor is not swallowed up by society or engulfed by language, she develops a theory of human agency that foregrounds the non social aspects of humanity. Granting priority to practice over language and society, she develops a sequential account of nested identities in which selfhood emerges from consciousness, personal identity from selfhood, and social identity from personal identity. Countering Rom Harrs constructivist account of the discursive self, Archer argues with Jean Piaget and Maurice Merleau-Ponty that, even before the acquisition of language and independently of it, the differentiation of the self from the world occurs through the embodied engagement with the world. Once a continuous sense of the self is acquired in early childhood, the formation of personal identity sets in as a life long quest for authenticity. Following Charles Taylor and Harry Frankfurt, the realist theorist argues that we become who we are through reflexive deliberation about our ultimate concerns. What we care about most and what genuinely matters to us is what ultimately defines us qua person. Archer contends that we all necessarily have three concerns - physical well being, performative competence and self-worth -, and that it is through the internal conversations we have with ourselves that we actually order them, define our vision of the good life and thereby acquire an authentic personal identity that is uniquely ours. While self-identity is the alpha and personal identity the omega of human life, social identity intervenes in the middle as a subset of personal identity that expresses who we are as persons in society. It is at this point of the road of self-development that the linguistic turn is taken and the story of the morphogenesis of the individual agent into a social actor can be told (as a sub-story of the morphogenesis of structure). At first, the human being is a (Bourdieusian) agent who involuntarily occupies a social position that defines his or her life-chances. As she becomes aware of the interests she shares with other members of his or her class, the agent is transformed into a (Tourainean) corporate agent who transforms society in such a way that the agent, who by now became a social actor and a role-taker, can not only occupy and personify the social role she takes on, but also personalise it in accord with his or her ultimate concerns. Source: http://www.journaldumauss.net/spip.php?article362

Realism and the Problem of Mediation between Structure and Agency http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/iacr_conference_2001/marcher_r pmsa.pdf http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/index.php? sitesig=WSCR&page=WSCR_040_WSCR_Archive

Morphogenesis vs. Structuration

the problem of structure and agency is not one which imposes itself on academics along, but on every human being. There is an equivalent dilemma about how to transcend the divide between small-

scale accountancy procedures, often contextually bound, and the existence of macroscopic symbol systems, operating trans-situationally. two aspects of social life two many have concluded too quickly that the task ishow to look at both faces of the same medallion at once. the parts and the people are not co-existent through time thus for example, a particular marital structure pre-dates our contemporary constitution as married social subjects which is an entirely point from the perfectly compatible statements that previous actors through their prior social practices themselves constituted a given institution of marriage earlier in history interplay between them The underlying approach can be summarized quite succinctly. Generically it is how contradictory or complementary relations between parts of the Cultural System map onto orderly or conflictual relationships between people at the Social-Cultural level which determines whether the outcome is cultural stability or change. This means that we need to specify, first which Systemic relations impinge upon agency and how they do so; and, second, whisch social relations affect how agents respond to and react back on the Cultural System.

What is crucially different about the morphogenetic perspective is the core notion that culture and agency operate over different time periods. This core notion which is fundamental to the morphogenetic perspective is based on two simple propositions: that the Cultural System logically predates the Socio-Cultural action(s) which transform it; and that Cultural Elaboration logically post-dates such interaction.

http://books.google.com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=ljpbPeHdJL0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Margaret+Archer %27s+Realist+Social+Theory: +The+Morphogenetic+Approach&ots=B7v523P4nZ&sig=CYV_9DmtpK_2nN2nr8Kd4a mzCZY#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Archer%27s%20Realist%20Social%20Theory %3A%20The%20Morphogenetic%20Approach&f=false

Others

Historical Contours
Inequality vs. Inequity Inequality, Inequity and Children International Comparisons Whether in health, in education, or in material well-being, somechildren will always fall behind the average. The critical question is how far behind? Is there a point beyond which falling behind is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but unacceptable, not inequality but inequity? Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are leading the way in promoting equality in childrens well-being. Greece, Italy and the United States, on the other hand, are allowing children to fall furthest behind.

growing up in poverty incurs a substantially higher risk of lower standards of health, of reduced cognitive development, of underachievement at school, of lower skills and aspirations, and eventually of lower adult earnings, so helping to perpetuate disadvantage from one generation to the next. The difference between the best performing countries and the rest of the OECD nations can therefore be read as a minimum measure of the extent to which falling behind is policy-susceptible the extent to which it is not unavoidable but unjust. Child poverty is about more than poverty of income. It is also about poverty of opportunity and expectation, of cultural and educational resources, of housing and neighbourhoods, of parental care and time, of local services and community resources. But from the childs point of view, these different dimensions of poverty are rarely separate. Family circumstance, employment and income, health and education systems, and the local environment all play interacting roles in determining well-being.

Inequality in Access to Educational Resources

In the 2006 PISA survey (see page 30), a representative sample of 15-year-old students in OECD countries was asked which of the following were available in their own homes: a desk a quiet place to study a computer for school work educational software an internet connection

 a calculator a dictionary school textbooks.

Inequality in Living Space

Housing living space is defined as the number of rooms per person in households with children (not counting corridors, kitchens, and bathrooms). Inequality is measured by the gap between the score at the median (column 2) and the average score of all children below the median (column 3). Column 4 shows the difference between the two. The bar chart on the right shows the inequality gap (as a percentage of the median).

Inequality in Ed Outcomes

The pattern of bottom-end inequality in educational outcomes therefore reflects more than the lottery of birth and circumstance. It may reflect differences in national efforts to reduce socioeconomic disadvantage. Or it may reflect efforts to weaken the link between socio-economic disadvantage and school achievement (children whose mothers did not complete secondary school, for example, are at substantially greater risk of having low reading literacy scores, but that risk is two or three times greater in some countries than in others.)iv It is likely, also, that different degrees of inequality reflect different degrees of policy concern, over time, for those at risk of falling behind. Second, international comparisons of inequality in educational outcomes also inform the issue of whether a trade-off must be made between investing in low-achieving students and maximizing the potential of those in the higher reaches of the ability range. Figure 3f(i) suggests an answer to this question by showing that there is no relationship between greater inequality and better performance at the median. In fact the most unequal countries tend towards slightly lower scores at the 50th percentile. The two countries with the lowest bottom-end inequality in reading literacy, Finland and South Korea, are also the two countries with the highest median levels of educational achievement. A child born in either of these countries therefore has both a lower chance of falling a long way behind his or her peers and a higher chance of scoring above the average reading literacy mark for the OECD as a whole.

Figure 3f(ii) shows that the point holds when we look at performance of the highest-achieving students. Again, the countries with better results at the 90th percentile of achievement tend to be the countries with the lowest levels of bottom-end inequality.

Source: The Children Left Behind http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc9_eng.pdf What can be done / is being done

Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment
End of compulsory education and decline in enrolment rates

An analysis of the participation rates by level of education and single year of age shows that there is no close relationship between the end of compulsory education and the decline in enrolment rates. In most OECD and partner countries, the sharpest decline in enrolment rates occurs not at the end of compulsory education but at the end of upper secondary education. After the age of 16, however, enrolment rates begin to decline in all OECD and partner countries. Enrolment rates in secondary education fall from 91% on average at age 16 to 82% at age 17, 52% at age 18 and 27% at age 19. In Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Sweden, and in the partner countries Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, 90% or more of all 17-year-olds are still enrolled at this level, even though compulsory education ends at less than 17 years of age in most of these countries (Table C2.3).

Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/46/41284038.pdf

Equity in Education
School Composition
In all OECD countries where studies have been conducted,x the average socio-economic level of students in a particular school has been found to have an effect on educational achievement that is over and above the effects associated with the socio-economic status of the individual student. This finding strongly suggests that pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds benefit from attending schools in which a wide range of home backgrounds are represented. Conversely, falling behind is significantly more likely when students from homes of low socio-economic status attend schools in which the average socio-economic status is also low.xi The reasons for this school composition effect are many. Schools with low socio-economic profiles may find themselves struggling against lower expectations on behalf of both staff and students; the ethos and disciplinary climate may be less conducive to learning; pupil-teacher relations may be

less positive; parental involvement and support may be weaker; and the task of attracting and retaining the most able teachers may be more difficult. All of these are formidable barriers to learning. Two obvious approaches may counter this effect. First, the attempt can be made to boost the performance of low socio-economic status schools (for example by increasing the resources available to them and allowing them to offer extra incentives to more able teachers). Second, admission policies can be designed to avoid the concentration of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in low socio-economic status schools. This might be achieved, for example, by admitting children in ability bands without regard to socio-economic background. Policies designed to monitor and balance the socioeconomic profile of pupil intake may also be important. As a 2006 report commissioned by UNESCO has pointed out: Countries with high levels of segregation along socio-economic lines tend to have lower overall performance and greater disparities in performance between students from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds In countries with high levels of socioeconomic segregation, policies that aimed to reduce socioeconomic segregation through compensatory reforms would likely bring considerable gains in raising and leveling the learning bar.xiii

Resistance to such policies is common and is often based, at least in part, on fears that overall educational outcomes might be adversely affected. But the international comparisons set out in Figs. 3f(i) and 3f(ii) suggest that lower bottom-end inequality need not imply any lowering of standards for highachieving students. As the report for UNESCO already cited concluded: Successful schools tend to be those that bolster the performance of those from less advantaged backgrounds. Similarly, countries that have the highest levels of performance tend to be those that are successful in not only raising the learning bar but also leveling it.xiv

The importance of income

Socio-economic status is therefore the indispensable framework for policy analysis of bottom-end inequality for children. For just as inequalities in heath reflect not only the effect of health services but also the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age, so inequalities in educational outcomes at age 15, for example, reveal not only what happens in schools but also the educational resources, stimulation and encouragement that surrounds a child from the earliest weeks and months of life. Policies designed to address specific inequalities in health or education are therefore likely to have limited impact if they confine themselves to the health and education sectors alone. The most potent fact about children who fall significantly behind their peers is that, by and large, they are the children of families at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale.

Absolute vs. Relative Poverty

More than 200 years ago the founding father of modern economics argued that poverty was a relative concept: By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt ... Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people.
Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chapter 2, 1776.

Reducing Bottom End Inequality

Reducing bottom-end inequality in incomes will not solve all other problems, but it will make their solution easier. Climbing the socio-economic ladder is more feasible if the rungs are closer together. Reviewing many studies that show a strong and consistent association between relative income poverty and falling behind, Susan Mayer makes the point unflinchingly: Parental income is positively correlated with virtually every dimension of child well-being that social scientists measure, and this is true in every country for which we have data. The children of rich parents are healthier, better behaved, happier and better educated during their childhood and wealthier when they have grown up than are children from poor families.xxiii

Mitigating markets

National action to prevent families from falling into poverty has a long history in the OECD countries. All governments, of whatever political complexion, use a range of tax and transfer policies including child benefit packages, unemployment pay, earned income tax credits, and national and local services to try to put a floor under poverty. Changing Economic Conditions Globalization and Technology Nonetheless, the chart reveals an important truth about the causes of child poverty and its possible solutions: differences in child poverty rates between developed countries are a product not only of differences in government benefits and social protection policies but of very significant differences in the distribution of earned incomes. This strongly indicates that policies aimed at limiting poverty in all its forms must also confront the changes in the wider world that are tending to bring about widening economic inequality in a large majority of OECD countries.xxvi

Forces of change

In brief, the increase in inequality over recent decades has been driven by three main forces. The first is long-term social and demographic change (for example the aging of populations or the rise in the number of single adult households). The second is the changing distribution of income and employment opportunities brought about by technological innovation, by the globalization of markets, by the migration of manufacturing to countries with rising skills and low labour costs, and the increasing premium on high-end abilities and qualifications (so pushing up incomes at the top of the distribution). The third force is the range of government policies and expenditures, including child benefit packages that are specifically designed to protect those at risk of disadvantage. These are the shifting tectonic plates beneath that underlie the landscape of child well-being; and it is the complex interplay between them that ultimately determines how many children fall behind and by how far. In this context, it becomes clear that the slow but steady rise of bottom-end inequality in most OECD countries over the last three decades has not been brought about by governments doing less or spending less. Most governments are today spending a larger proportion of GDP* on family benefits and social protection than they were two decades the 21 OECD countries for which comparable data are available). Xxvii This suggests that child poverty rates have risen, or failed to fall, because increasing government efforts have been rowing upstream against powerful currents in the wider economy.

Not by benefits alone

Government policies to restrain bottom-end inequality are therefore unlikely to be successful if they are limited to social protection expenditures alone. The only sustainable way to reduce inequality, says the OECD report Growing Unequal (2008), is to stop the underlying widening of wages and income from capital. In particular, we have to make sure that people are capable of being in employment and earning wages that keep them and their families out of poverty.xxix In particular, reducing bottom-end inequality in all its dimensions will depend on getting to grips with one of the most disturbing aspects of changed economic times the fact that full-time employment no longer guarantees a life lived above the poverty line. In sum, the message is that the OECD countries that are achieving the lowest child poverty rates, at around 5% to 6%, are the countries that start from a position of low market poverty and then cut this rate by approximately 50% through government intervention to protect those still at risk. Parental Time
Poverty of parental time may be particularly acute in the United States. According to a 2010 study,1 low income American parents work longer hours than their equivalents in six other OECD countries studied Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The study also shows that an American mother or father at the bottom of the income distribution scale will, on average, not only work longer hours but also have a lower relative standard of living than parents in the equivalent income position in the other six countries. This is especially true for households headed by single mothers. The amount of parental time available for child care therefore appears to be more limited in low-income American families. And the further one goes down the income scale, the more acute the problem becomes. The gap in parental time availability between United States on the one hand, and Canada and our European country studies, on the other, says the study, is particularly large in the case of children in the lower parts of the income distribution.2

In this way, lack of parental time adds to and interacts with the long list of disadvantages facing children in poor households and contributes to the complex process by which inequality begets inequality. If all families are included, rather than just low-income families, then American parents spend more time with their children than parents in most other countries for which data are available. The OECD report Doing Better for Children draws on data from 15 developed countries to show that across the board parents in the United States and Norway spend the most time with their children (and parents in France the least). Some data are also available to show how investment of time in parenting is divided between men and women. Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States have the most equal division of parenting time, Austria and France the least.3 Single-mother households are particularly vulnerable to the income-time crunch. But here too there are inequalities between countries. Single mothers in the United States and Canada, for example, are more short of time than single-mothers in Sweden or the United Kingdom.4
Source: Burton, P., and S. Phipps (2009), Families, Time and Money in Canada, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United

States, Luxembourg Income Study, Working Paper 523, Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg.

References
OECD (2008) Growing Unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries, OECD, Paris. ii Wilkinson, R. and K. Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level, Allen Lane, Penguin Books, London, p. 33. iii OECD (2009) Doing Better for Children, OECD, Paris. iv UNICEF (2002) A League Table of Educational Disadvantage in Rich Nations, Innocenti Report Card No. 4, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. v Currie, C. et al.. (2008) Inequalities in Young Peoples Health, Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children, International Report from the 2005/2006 Survey, Health Policy for Children and Adolescents, No. 5, WHO Europe and Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit, Edinburg, p. 59. vi Currie, C., D. Currie, L. Menchini, D. Richardson and C. Roberts (2010) Comparing Inequality in the Well-Being of Children in Economically Advanced Countries: a methodology, Innocenti Working Paper, 2010-19, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. vii Currie, C., D. Currie, L. Menchini, D. Richardson and C. Roberts (2010) op. cit. viii World Health Organization (2010), Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health, WHO, Geneva, p. 7. ix Currie, C. et al. (2008) op. cit., p.106-107. x Douglas Willms, J. (2006), Learning Divides: Ten policy questions about the performance and equity of schools and schooling systems, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal, p. 68. xi Hutmacher, W., D. Cochrane and N. Bottani (eds.) (2001) In Pursuit of Equity in Education: Using international indicators to compare equity policies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht, p. 135. xii Douglas Willms, J. (2006) op. cit., p. 68. xiii Douglas Willms, J. (2006) op. cit., p. 68. xiv Douglas Willms, J., (2006) op. cit., p. 67. xv World Health Organization (2008), Closing the Gap in One Generation, WHO, Geneva. xvi Marmot, M. (chair) (2010), Fair Societies, Healthy Lives, Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post 2010, The Marmot Review, Executive Summary, p. 10. xvii Siegrist J., and M. Marmot (eds.) (2006)
i

Social Inequalities in Health: New evidence and policy implications, Oxford University Press, Oxford. xviii Currie, C. et al (2008), op. cit., p. 4, 65, 91. xix Larson, C., (2007), Poverty during Pregnancy: Its effects on child health outcomes, Paediatric Child Health, Vol. 12, No. 8. xx Cohen, S., D. Janicki-Deverts, E. Chen and K. Matthews (2010), Childhood Socioeconomic Status and Adult Health, The Biology of Disadvantage, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186 (2010), New York Academy of Sciences, New York, p. 37. xxi Mackenbach, J. (2006) Health Inequalities: Europe in profile, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam. xxii Mathews, M.S. and M. F. Macdorman (2010) Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2006 Period Linked Birth/Infant Data Set, in National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol 58, No. 17, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. xxiii Mayer, S. (2002) Parental Income and Childrens Outcomes, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington, NZ. Cited in J. Micklewright (2003) Child Poverty in English-Speaking Countries, Innocenti Working Paper, No. 94, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. xxiv Smythe, S. (2007) Child and Youth Development and Income Inequality: A review of selected literature, First Call, British Columbia Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition (funded by the Government of Canada Social Development Partnerships Program), Vancouver. xxv Scott, K. (principal author) (2008) Growing Up in North America: The economic well-being of children in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, Children in North America project (Canadian Council on Social Development, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Red por los Derechos de la Infancia en Mexico, United States Population Reference Bureau), The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, p. 15. xxvi OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 27. xxvii OECD, Social Expenditure Database, www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure (consulted September 2010). xxviii Scott, K. (2008) op. cit. p. 15. xxix OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 16. xxx Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, State of Queensland Australia (2006), Document on Minimum Wage and Child Poverty Submitted to the Australian Fair Pay Commission on the Federal Minimum Wage, July 2006, mimeo. (The Australian Fair Pay Commission is now named Fair Work Australia). xxxi Shirahase, S. (2007) Cross National Comparison of Economic Inequality among Households with Children, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper No. 461, Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg. xxxii Hills, J., (chair) (2010) An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK, Report of the National Equality Panel, Government Equalities Office and Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion of the London School of

Economics and Political Science, London, p. 34, 35.

R EFE R E N C E S
3 4 I nnocenti R eport C ard 9 xxxiii Shonkoff, J. P. and D.

A. Phillips (eds.) (2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development, Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Washington, D. C., p. 396. xxxiv OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 16. xxxv OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 27. xxxvi Evans, G. and M. A. Schamberg (2009) Childhood Poverty, Chronic Stress, and Adult Working Memory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, Vol. 106, No. 16. xxxvii Hills, J., (chair) (2010) op. cit. xxxvii Mackenbach, J. P., W. J. Meerding and A. E. Kunst (2007) Economic Implications of Socio-economic Inequalities in Health in the European Union, European Commission, Luxembourg. xxxix Laurie, N. (2008) The Cost of Poverty: An analysis of the economic cost of poverty in Ontario, Ontario Association of Food Banks, Ontario. xl Blanden, J., and S. Gibbons (2006) The Persistence of Poverty across Generations: A review from two British cohorts, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Policy Press, Bristol. xli Feinstein, L. (2003) Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort, Economica, Vol. 70, No. 1. xlii Duncan, G., K. Telle, K. Ziol-Guest and A. Kalil (2009), Long-run Impacts of Early Childhood Poverty: Comparative evidence from Norwegian registry data and the U.S. PSID, paper prepared for conference The long-run impact of early life events, National Poverty Center, University of Michigan, March 12-13 2009, Michigan. xliii Johnson, R., and R. Schoeni (2007) The Influence of Early-Life Events on Human Capital, Health Status, and Labor Market Outcomes over the Life Course, Working Paper Series, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UC Berkeley. xliv Heckman, J. J. (2006) Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children, Science, Vol. 312, No. 5782. xlv UNICEF (2008) The Child Care Transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries, Innocenti Report Card No. 8, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. xlvi Cleveland, G. and M. Krashinsky (2003) Financing ECEC Services in OECD Countries, ECEC Thematic Workshops and Documents, OECD, Paris

ago (up by about a third, on average, inThe Great Compression

Source:The United States of Inequality, Slate Magazine http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/t he_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html The History of High School

NBER bibliography Goldin http://www.nber.org/authors_papers/claudia_goldin

The U.S. wage structure evolved across the last century: narrowing from 1910 to 1950, fairly stable in the 1950s and 1960s, widening rapidly during the 1980s, and polarizing since the late 1980s. We document the spectacular rise of U.S. wage inequality after 1980 and place recent changes into a century-long historical perspective to understand the sources of change. The majority of the increase

in wage inequality since 1980 can be accounted for by rising educational wage differentials, just as a substantial part of the decrease in wage inequality in the earlier era can be accounted for by decreasing educational wage differentials. Although skill-biased technological change has generated rapid growth in the relative demand for more-educated workers for at least the past century, increases in the supply of skills, from rising educational attainment of the U.S. work force, more than kept pace for most of the twentieth century. Since 1980, however, a sharp decline in skill supply growth driven by a slowdown in the rise of educational attainment of successive U.S. born cohorts has been a major factor in the surge in educational wage differentials. Polarization set in during the late 1980s with employment shifts into high- and low-wage jobs at the expense of the middle leading to rapidly rising upper tail wage inequality but modestly falling lower tail wage inequality. Source: Long run changes in the US Wage Structure
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13568.pdf?new_window=1

U.S. educational and occupational wage differentials were exceptionally high at the dawn of the twentieth century and then decreased in several stages over the next eight decades. But starting in the early 1980s the labor market premium to skill rose sharply and by 2005 the college wage premium was back at its 1915 level. The twentieth century contains two inequality tales: one declining and one rising. We use a supply-demand-institutions framework to understand the factors that produced these changes from 1890 to 2005. We find that strong secular growth in the relative demand for more educated workers combined with fluctuations in the growth of relative skill supplies go far to explain the long-run evolution of U.S. educational wage differentials. An increase in the rate of growth of the relative supply of skills associated with the high school movement starting around 1910 played a key role in narrowing educational wage differentials from 1915 to 1980. The slowdown in the growth of the relative supply of college workers starting around 1980 was a major reason for the surge in the college wage premium from 1980 to 2005. Institutional factors were important at various junctures, especially during the 1940s and the late 1970s. Source: The Race Between Technology and Education http://www.nber.org/papers/w12984.pdf?new_window=1

The periodization of the three transformations dates the completion of each schooling

level by the majority of youth. The completion of each of the transformations can be thought of as the moment when an education level was available and taken up by the masses or, put another way, when mass education reached that level. The first transformation brought the bulk of youth through common or elementary school (eighth grade) and occurred during the nineteenth century. The second transformation brought the majority of youth through secondary or high school and occurred in the first half of the twentieth century. The third transformation, still on-going, is bringing the majority of young adults through four-year higher education. Source: A Brief History of Education in the United States ( Goldin )
http://www.nber.org/papers/h0119.pdf?new_window=1 We find, in all of the data we have unearthed, that the wage structure and the returns to education and skill all moved in the direction of greater equality considerably before the better known Great Compression of the 1940s. The wage structure narrowed, skill differentials were reduced, and the return to education decreased sometime between 1890 and 1940. Rather than narrowing suddenly in the 1940s, the wage structure underwent several periods of narrowing prior to its celebrated compression in the 1940s. The entire compression of the wage structure across the 20th century, therefore, was larger in magnitude, more drawn out in time, and more complicated in its reasons than has previously been thought. Similarly, the widening of the wage structure and the increase in the returns to education in the post-1970s period, when we have considerably better data, have been shown to be abundantly complex. Source: The Returns to Skill in the United States Across the Twentieth Century The full twentieth century story of the returns to a year of schooling is that they were rather high at the start of the century. With increased educational access, markedly reduced returns were apparent by the 1950s when, despite enhanced access to college, returns increased, although not to the levels achieved before or more recently. As in the findings on the wage structure, the return to schooling around the turn of the 20th century was as high, or higher, than it is today. The return to a year of secondary schooling was higher than today and that to college was higher or about the same. The high levels of returns to skill achieved in 1940 were not anomalous; in fact, they were lower than were those twenty-five years before. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7126.pdf?new_window=1

Source: Human Capital and Social Capital, The Rise of Secondary Schooling in America, 1910 to 1940 http://www.nber.org/papers/w6439.pdf?new_window=1

state expenditures on public colleges and universities created a powerful incentive for youths to graduate from high school. Source: Why the United States Led in Education http://www.nber.org/papers/w6144.pdf?new_window=1

The openness and forgiveness of the U.S. educational system is another example. These features enabled youths to make up for deficits in their backgrounds and to evade severe penalties for the misdeeds of their past. But

these features are often viewed today as an excuse for schools to lower academic standards and for teachers to avoid having to deal with problem students. If an open and forgiving system gave disadvantaged and errant youths a second chance, then the insistence on standards and accountability of many European systems reinforced a caste system. Perhaps the most important difference around 1900 was that U.S. schooling was not an elite system in which only a small number of bright young men could attain an upper secondary school education and thus continue their studies in a college or university. Schools were, by and large, open to all and were highly forgiving to those who did poorly in the lower grades. All the virtues mentioned that existed in 1900public provision and funding, secular control, gender neutrality, an open and forgiving system, and an academic curriculumwere distinguishing features of U.S. elementary and secondary education long before the start of the twentieth century. Open and forgiving (Virtue 6) The U.S. educational system has been open and forgiving in comparison with other educational systems. By open we mean that almost all children could attend school. By forgiving we mean that one could often advance to higher grades and institutions even if one failed to perform adequately in a lower grade. Source: The Virtues of the Past: Education in the First Hundred Years of the Republic http://www.nber.org/papers/w9958.pdf

How the United States organizes its education -- what we teach, to whom, when, and especially how -- approximately matches how the country has organized economic activity for decades Evidence of these changing skill requirements can be seen in the following changes in relative wages and shifting occupational patterns. In 1979, full-time 25- to 34-year-old male workers with college degrees earned 13 percent more than similar high school graduates. By 1987, male college graduates in this age group were earning 38 per cent more than high school graduates. For women in the same age group, the premium earned by college graduates rose from 23 percent in 1979 to 45 percent in 1987.

The employment of full-time 25- to 34-year-old college graduates rose by 10 percent between 1979 and 1987, while their earnings rose by 33 percent. In contrast, the employment of high school graduates (in manufacturing) in the same age group rose by only 6 percent, while their earnings fell by 11 percent.

Since the mid-1970s, higher-level occupations (executive, administrative, managerial, sales, and marketing) have grown almost two-and-one-half times the rate of lower-skilled occupations. More than one-half of all net employment growth between 1975 and 1990 took place within the higher-skilled occupations, even though higher-level occupations accounted for only 40 percent of total employment even in 1990. Jobs that are currently filled by workers with higher educational levels are expected to grow faster than those filled by workers with lower levels of educational attainment. Thirty percent of all new jobs expected to be created between 1990 and the year 2005 will go to college graduates. Today, 22 percent of current jobs are filled by college graduates. Source: The Double Helix of Education and the Economy http://www.tc.columbia.edu/iee/BOOKS/Dhelexe.htm#education%20and%20economy

Secondary schooling in the United States started as an essentially elite pursuit, with a mere 2 percent of the population acquiring the equivalent of a high school education in 1870, the earliest year for which data are available. It was not until several decades into the 20th century that Americans witnessed a quantum leap in engagement with high school, a transformation propelled by the ever-more-rapid industrialization of the U.S. economy and a continuing shift away from the nations agrarian past. The share of the population with a secondary education increased threefold from 1920 to 1940, when, for the first time, a slim majority of American youths graduated from high school. Finishing high school became more firmly established as a social and educational norm in postwar America, as the graduation rate rose steadily through the 1950s and 1960s. Completion rates peaked in 1969, with 77 percent of that high school class earning diplomas. The next three decades were marked by a retreat from those historical highs; the graduation rate eroded incrementally at certain times and fell significantly at others, including a sharp drop during the first half of the 1990s. Although the nation regained some ground between the late 1990s and 2005, the graduation rate now stands at about the same level as it did in the early 1960s. A snapshot of contemporary results for the high school class of 2007 reveals a striking pattern of disparities that have long characterized high school completion. Reminiscent of the inequities in other fundamental outcomes such as test scores, we find stark divides in graduation along the lines of race, gender, and regional geography, as well as school and community environment.

Source: EdWeed, US Graduation Rates Continue to Decline http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html

Source: The Traditional High School Historical Debates Over Its Nature and Function, by Jeffrey Mirel, http://educationnext.org/the-traditional-high-school/ http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20061_14.pdf

Source: 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait (NCES) http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

Source: 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait (NCES) http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

Source: The Value of Education, Pt. 1, Changing Returns to Education ( Canada ) http://martinprosperity.org/insights/insight/changing-returns-to-education

The returns to education may also differ across the wage distribution. Evidence based on quantile regression methods suggests that the returns are higher for those in the top decile of the income distribution compared to those in the bottom decile. Moreover this inequality may have increased in recent years. One explanation for this phenomenon is a complementarity between ability and education if higher ability persons earn more this might explain the higher returns in the upper deciles of the wage distribution. This finding has important implications for both education and tax and social security policy: the low return to investing in low ability individuals and the high return to investing in high ability individuals implies that educational investment should be skewed towards the high ability individuals. The resulting inequality may then be dealt with through redistributive tax and social security policy.

Given the increase in the supply of educated workers in most OECD countries there is a concern that the skills workers bring to their job will exceed the skills required for the job. This will manifest itself in a lower return to schooling for the years of schooling in excess of those required for the employer. One of the main problems with this literature is the often poor definition of overeducation in available datasets, typically based on subjective measures given by the individual respondent. Where a more comprehensive definition is used based on job satisfaction the apparent

negative effect of overeducation is eliminated when ability controls are included, but when overeducation appears to be genuine the penalty may be much larger than was first thought. This has important implications for the variance in the quality of graduates produced by the higher education system. Firstly, a degree is not sufficient to ensure a graduate job other complementary skills are expected by graduate employers. Secondly, since genuine overeducation can emerge it is clear that the labour market does not adjust fast enough.

Source: Returns to Education http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/CEEDP05.pdf

Source: Returns to Education: Microeconomics http://faculty.smu.edu/Millimet/classes/eco7321/papers/harmon%20et%20al %202003.pdf

Education is remunerated much more than experience : on average by between 9% and 9.5% per extra year in the mid-1960s, by between 6% and 6.5% today In France, the returns to education, measured in salaries, declined over twenty years (1965-1985) and have been stable for the past fifteen years.

Source: Returns to Education and Experience: Trends in France Over the Last 35 Years http://www.cairn.info/revue-population-english-2004-1-page-9.htm

Comparing those who drop out of high school with those who complete high school, the average high school dropout is associated with costs to the economy of approximately $240,000 over his or her lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher reliance on Medicaid and Medicare, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher reliance on welfare (Levin and Belfield 2007).
4

Source: Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972 2008 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011012.pdf

The GED The GED is accepted by most colleges and universities that require a high school diploma for admission, and most companies that have positions requiring a high school diploma accept the GED as an alternative credential (American Council on Education 2009). While GEDs provide an important opportunity for those who do not earn a regular high school diploma to obtain a high school credential, GED recipients tend to fare significantly worse than those holding regular diplomas across a range of measures. For example, while GED recipients and

regular diploma recipients who complete postsecondary programs experience the same economic benefits from the programs, GED recipients attend and complete postsecondary programs at much lower rates than regular diploma holders. Also, while high school dropouts with relatively low cognitive skills experience improved incomes if they earn a GED, dropouts with relatively high cognitive skills do not experience increased earnings after earning a GED (see Boesel, Alsalam, and Smith 1998, and Tyler 2003 for overviews of GED research). National estimates of 18- through 24-year-olds with a GED in 2008: There were approximately 1,500,000 persons ages 18 through 24 in 2008 who had passed the GED exam in 2008 or in prior years (data not shown in tables). This represents 5.5 percent of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of 18through 24-year-olds who were not in high school in 2008. Subtracting out those who passed the GED exam, the status completion rate in 2008 for regular high school diploma holders and those holding alternative credentials other than a GED was 84.4 percent (data not shown in tables).
24

Source: Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972 2008 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011012.pdf

Dropping Out is Counterfactual and Counterhistorical

In an attempt to explain why students drop out, contemporary social science proceeds through a series of counterhistorical narratives. Imagining for instance that a middle class teenage girl's mother was a successful prostitute thereby removing from the girl's life the compounding effects of drugs, violence and her pimp's captive allure. Would this hypothetical student be as likely to drop out as her real life counterpart? And from that analysis could we eliminate prostitution as causal rather than merely correlative to dropping out? Of course while finding a large enough sample of middle class teenage girls born to successful prostitutes might be a challenge, we could as an alternative proceed with a fairly straight forward set of counterfactual arguments. What percentage of actual girls born to prostitutes drop out and how does that compare to the percentage of girls not born to prostitutes? No doubt the effect size of such a treatment variable would be substantial, but what if we controlled for income? or drug use? guerilla pimps vs suave pimps, race, ethnicity and of course academic ability if not intelligence? Coud we effectively isolate prostitution from the collateral damage with which it is in real life associated? And if so, could we begin to identify the causes of

dropping out and thereby work to prevent it perhaps through an anticounterhistorical turn, making prostitution illegal? And since it is in most places already illegal, perhaps we can compare girls born to prostitutes in Nevada where it is legal if regulated to those born in Iowa where it is both illegal and frowned upon? From there of course we would proceed through the same course of counterfactual regressions in an attempt to isolate illegal prostitution and even socially acceptable prostitution from the more commonly occurring form. This of course would have the benefit of eliminating the counterhistorical aspects of the narrative. Las Vegas does exist after all, even though its status in reality depends on a liberal and counterfactual imagination. Dropping out ultimately is counterfactual because it runs completely counter to the narrative of educational opportunity that dominates modern culture. How can you possibly drop out when doing so dramatically raises the odds against you? Don't you want to get a job, get a ahead, have a family, be happy, live long and multiply? How could you? What were you thinking of? But dropping out is often a rational response to the circumstances and choices faced by more than 1 out of 3 high school students. Drop outs know that if they graduated, went to college and graduated again, got a good job before getting married and having kids then they would be better off. But they are much more acutely aware of the economic facts of life. The fastest growing job categories are the most underpaid. If they are unfortunate enough to be AfricanAmerican and male, then from a statistical point of view, there is a 1in 3 chance they will spend time in prison. Most of them, most dropout that is, do get some sort of diploma but they know that college is financially and socially not gonna happen. Unfortunately, what some of them also know is that they can make more money in the here and now by dealing or turning tricks. Dropouts are costly, both in terms of themselves and the community. The likelihood of their winding up on welfare, in prison or in hospital is accompanied by the loss in wages, property, sales, and income taxes. Source: Are Dropouts and Discipline Connected http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2010/06/are_discipline_ and_dropouts_connected.html Dropping out of high school has consequences for both the individualand society. Students who

drop out of school are more likely to be unemployed, to earnless than those who graduate, to be on public assistance, and to end up in prison (Cataldi& KewalRamani, 2009; Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007; Gottlob, 2007). Due to lost revenue from taxes, increased Medicaid costs, and increased incarceration costs, it is estimated that over a 50 year period, North Carolina will spend 8.5 billion dollars on one years class of drop outs (Gottlob, 2007).

Source: ETHINICITY, GENDER, AND HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: A CASE STUDY, Marquessa LaBrett Chappell, May, 2011

Coping Ugly
Slow Disengagement
As complex as these individual circumstances may be, what is clear is that dropping out of high school is not a sudden act, but a slow process of disengagement, often both academically and socially, and is often influenced by a students perception of the high schools expectations of him or her and his or her early school experiences. 26 Dropping out is not a decision that is made on a single morning. The survey probed students experiences before dropping out of high school and found that there are clear warning signs for at least one to three years before they drop out that these students are losing interest in school. National studies show that such warning signs appear and can be predictive of dropping out as early as elementary school.27 Students described a pattern of refusing to wake up, missing school, skipping class, and taking three hour lunches and each absence made them less willing to go back. These students had long periods of absences and were sometimes referred to the truant officer, only to be brought back to the same environment that led them to become disengaged. In our survey, 59 to 65 percent of respondents missed class often the year they dropped out and 33 to 45 percent missed class often the year before they dropped out. Consistent with national data, absenteeism is the most common indicator of overall student engagement and a significant predictor of dropping out.28 Respondents report that they started to lose interest in school well before dropping out, with 71 percent saying they lost interest in school in the 9th and 10th grades. Fifty-eight percent of our survey respondents indicated that they dropped out in the 11th and 12th grades. Nationally, much of the dropping out of school has shifted from the last two years of high school (typical three decades ago) to between 9th and 10th grades today.29 Still, a plurality of students drop out with less than two years to go in their high school education.30 In our focus groups, participants talked again and again about waking up late for school, skipping classes, hanging out in the hallways with no consequences, and the lack of order and rules for them. For a young man in Baltimore, school became an afterthought and the school let it be so, Like in the middle of the year, I just started going out with my friends, and I never went to school. Its like I forgot about it.

Source: The Silent Epidemic Perspectives of High School Dropouts, March 2006 http://www.ignitelearning.com/pdf/TheSilentEpidemic3-06FINAL.pdf

Desperately Seeking Schooling

Counter to the image of dropouts as lacking the necessary motivation to attend school, the record of my students is much more like a desperate search for schooling that works. In what can only be described as progression of serial relationships my students attend one school and then try on another and then another. By the time they graduate ( if they graduate, which most of them will not ) they will attend on average more than five credit granting programs ( including evening and summer school ).
In hindsight, young people who dropped out of school almost universally expressed great remorse for having left school and expressed strong interest in re-entering school with students their age.

Source: The Silent Epidemic Perspectives of High School Dropouts, March 2006 http://www.ignitelearning.com/pdf/TheSilentEpidemic3-06FINAL.pdf

The Spectrum of Inequality The School Discipline System Career Education

School to Prison Pipeline startling growth has occurred in what is often described as the School-to-Prison Pipeline1 the use of educational policies and practices that have the effect of pushing students, especially students of color and students with disabilities, out of schools and toward the juvenile and criminal justice systems. . The harsh punishments, especially expulsion under zero tolerance and referrals to law enforcement, show that students of color and students with disabilities are increasingly being pushed out of schools, oftentimes into the criminal justice system. Race and School Discipline Greater Suspension Rates Are Not Clearly Linked to More Frequent or More Serious Misbehavior.

Research on student behavior, race, and discipline has found no evidence that African American over-representation in school suspension is due to higher rates of misbehavior.33 A 2010 study by Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Katherine Bradshaw, based on 21 schools, found that even when controlling for teacher ratings of student

misbehavior, Black students were more likely to be sent to the office for disciplinary reasons.34 Other studies suggest that racial disparities in discipline are larger in the offense categories that are subjective or vague, and vice versa. Specifically, Dr. Russ Skiba and his colleagues reviewed racial and gender disparities in school punishments in an urban setting and found that White students were referred to the office significantly more frequently for offenses that are relatively easy to document objectively (e.g., smoking, vandalism, leaving without permission, and using obscene language).35 African American students, however, were referred more often for behaviors that seem to require more subjective judgment on the part of the person making the referral (e.g., disrespect, excessive noise, threatening behavior, and loitering).36 In short, the researchers concluded that there is no evidence that racial disparities in school discipline can be explained by more serious patterns of rule-breaking among African American students. 37 It appears that White students are engaging more often in those behavioral transgressions that can be documented and counted without much subjectivity or discretion coming into play. However, for those offenses that require a judgment call by teachers, administrators and others, Black students are disproportionately called out. This suggests two possibilities: perhaps Black students focus their misbehavior on those types of activities that call for a subjective judgment of such misbehavior, or perhaps Black students are being unfairly singled out when it comes to prosecuting such misbehavior.

Source: Discipline Policies, Successful Schools and Racial Justice http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/disciplinepolicies-successful-schools-and-racial-justice/NEPC-SchoolDiscipline-Losen-1PB_FINAL.pdf Zero Tolerance
What is Zero Tolerance? Zero Tolerance first received national attention as the title of a program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez in San Diego, impounding seagoing vessels carrying any amount of drugs. U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese highlighted the program as a national model in 1988, and ordered customs officials to seize the vehicles and property of anyone crossing the border with even trace amounts of drugs, and charge those individuals in federal court. Beginning in 1989, school districts in California, New York, and Kentucky picked up on the term zero tolerance and mandated expulsion for drugs, fighting, and gang-related activity. By 1993, zero tolerance policies had been adopted across the country, often broadened to include not only drugs and weapons, but also smoking and school disruption. This tide swept zero tolerance into national policy when the Clinton Administration signed the Gun- Free Schools Act of 1994 into law. The law mandates a one-year calendar expulsion for possession of a firearm, referral of lawviolating students to the criminal or juvenile justice systems, and the provision that state law must authorize the chief administrative officer of each local school district to modify such expulsions on a case-by-case basis. State legislatures and local school districts have broadened the mandate of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandates of weapons, to drugs and alcohol, fighting, threats, or swearing.2 Many school boards continue to toughen their disciplinary policies; some have begun to experiment with permanent expulsion from the system for certain offenses. Others have begun to apply school suspensions, expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur outside of school. (From Skiba & Knesting, 2001) - 6 Skiba, R.J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.7 Wu, S. http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V2N1_Zero_Tolerance.pdf

Juvenile Justice and School Discipline Trends

The debate about how schools should respond to student misconduct is not new, but school discipline and juvenile justice policies have changed over time. Commensurate with the trend to be tough on crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s to increase public safety in the community (including a focus on perceived hardened juveniles), was a change that took hold to make schools safer as well. During that period, state legislatures overhauled their juvenile justice laws to ease accessibility to juvenile justice records, increase opportunities for prosecutors to try juveniles as adults for serious crimes, enable local governments to enact curfews, and expand definitions of what constituted gang involvement and other youth related crimes.5 In the years that followed, anxiety about and perceptions of out-of-control youth were fueled in part by frequent news stories of teachers and students being shot or killed in high school classrooms, hallways, and cafeterias. The shootings took place in towns previously unknown to most Americans: Moses Lake, Washington; Bethel, Alaska; Pearl, Mississippi; Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Springfield, Oregon; and Littleton, Colorado.6 In response, Congress took direct action to address crime in local schools. For example, President Clinton in 1994 signed into law the Gun-Free Schools Act. Under this legislation, local schools could seek funding if they could demonstrate that when a student brought a weapon to campus, he or she would be expelled for at least one year and referred to appropriate authorities in the justice system.7 Officials in many jurisdictions went beyond these minimum standards, mandating, for example, the suspension and/or expulsion from school of any student who brought any weapon onto campus. 8 Policymakers and practitioners alike, taking a page from the shift toward more stringent adult crime policy, urged stricter enforcement of disruptive or dangerous actions in schools.9 Calls for swift and sure punishment for students who misbehaved resulted in the adoption of zero tolerance disciplinary policy in districts across the nation.10 By 1997, at least 79 percent of schools nationwide had adopted zero tolerance policies toward alcohol, drugs, and violence.11 In many places, these policies were expanded to include a wide range of misbehavior.12 The specifics of strict discipline policies, often loosely packaged under the rubric of zero tolerance, vary from state to state and even school to school.13 Policies also differ in terms of how expelled or suspended students are directed, following a removal. For example, 26 states, including Texas, require alternative educational assignments for expelled or suspended students; in others, a suspension or expulsion results simply in the student serving out the punishment at home.14 In sum, although school responses to student misconduct typically are distinct to the individual jurisdiction, and even the individual school campus, the past two decades have witnessed a widespread reliance on suspension and expulsion as swift sanctions to disruptive classroom behavior. While this emphasis on exclusionary school discipline policies has occurred, the rate of crimes against students has also declined, by 67 percent.15 Despite these coinciding trends, research to date does not support the conclusion that zero tolerance and other efforts emphasizing suspension and expulsion are responsible for the reduction in crimes committed in schools.16

What is evident is that strict enforcement of schools rules has resulted in significant overall increases in the national number of suspensions: from about 1.7 million (3.7 percent of all students) in 1974 to more than 3.3 million (6.8 percent of all students) in 2006. 17 Although perspectives differ on whether students today misbehave more than they did two decades ago,18 on this point everyone agrees: Suspensions, and to a lesser degree expulsions, are common in todays school systems. Nationwide, the large number of suspensions and expulsions has prompted state and local policymakers, people working on the front lines of schools and juvenile justice systems, parents, students, and community leaders to ask for data explaining the impact this practice is having on students. Increasingly, observers are also asking about the consequences of suspending or expelling large numbers of students, such as whether these policies contribute to high drop-out rates or to students involvement in the juvenile justice system particularly students of color or those who have special needs. 19
Source: Breaking School Rules

12. In this respect, the policy looked to broken windows criminal justice theory, which recommended vigorously pursuing and prosecuting lower-level violations as a method of deterring offenders from going on to commit more serious crimes. See James Q. Wilson & George L. Kelling, Broken Windows, Atlantic Monthly, March 1982; see also National Institute of Justice, The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools, p. 21, 1999, (stating that[i]f a school is perceived as unsafe (i.e., it appears that no adult authority prevails on a campus), then undesirables will come in, and the school will actually become unsafe. This is an embodiment of the broken windows theorySeemingly small incidents or issues such as litter on a school campus can provide the groundwork fora problem school). 13. Civil Rights Project, & Advancement Project, Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and School Discipline Policies (paper presented at the National Summit on Zero Tolerance, Washington, DC, June 15 16, 2000). 14. Id. 15. In 1992, the rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students between the ages of 12 and 18 years old was 144 per 1,000 students. By 2008, the rate had fallen to 47 per 1,000 students. Simone Robers, Jijun Zhang, Jennifer Truman, and Thomas D. Snyder, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010, NCES 2011 2012/NCJ 230812 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). 16. Some studies have shown that target-hardening strategies, such as the presence of guards and metal detectors, and strict disciplinary policies, are ineffective at reducing school crime and disorder, and may even do more harm than good. Russell Skiba, Cecil R. Reynolds, Sandra Graham, Peter Sheras, Jane Close Conoley, and Enedina Garcia-Vazquez, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, American Psychologist 63 (2008): 852 862; Christopher J. Schreck, J. Mitchell Miller, and Chris L. Gibson, Trouble in the School Yard: a Study of the Risk Factors of Victimization at School, Crime & Delinquency 29 (2003): 460 484. 17. Hanno Petras, Katherine Masyn, Jacquelyn A. Buckley, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Sheppard Kellam, Who is Most at Risk for School Removal? A Multilevel Discrete-Time Survival Analysis of Individual-and-Context-Level Influences, Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2011): 223 237; Kim Brooks, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, School House Hype: Two Years Later, NCJ 182894 (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, Childrens Law Center, 2000); 2006 National and State Projections, U.S. Department of Education, accessed May 31, 2011, http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Projections_2006.aspx. Readers will note that these numbers appear relatively small in comparison with the Texas data because the Department of Education included in the national numbers only out-ofschool suspensions, while the Texas data also included the large number of in-school suspensions. 18. During this same time period, filings in juvenile court have declined, which, taken by itself, could indicate that the commission of delinquent acts by juveniles has declined. Michael P. Krezmien, Peter E. Leone, Mark S. Zablocki, and Craig S. Wells, Juvenile Court Referrals and the Public Schools: Nature and Extent of the Practice in Five States, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26 (2010): 273 293; Discipline Data Products: Annual State Summary, Texas Education Agency, last updated November 5, 2010, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Download_State_Summaries.html. 19. Legislative leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly have expressed concern about high rates of suspension and expulsion in that state and are considering legislation to address this situation. [N.C. lawmakers revisit school zero-tolerance rules, HamptonRoads.com, May 11, 2011, accessed May 31, 2011, http://hamptonroads.com/2011/05/nc-lawmakers-revisit-school-zerotolerance-rules.]. See also, Colorado Senate Bill 133: http://coloradosenate.org/home/press/governor-hickenlooper-in-arvada-today-signing-bill-by-senator-hudak-toreform-discipline-in-public-schools. For more on the disparate impact on students of color and those with special needs, see Tona M. Boyd, Confronting Racial Disparity: Legislative Responses to the School-to-Prison Pipeline, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44 (2009), 571 580; M. Karega Rausch and Russell Skiba, Discipline, Disability, and Race: Disproportionality in Indiana Schools, Education Policy Brief (Bloomington, IN:

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, 2006); Michael P. Krezmien, Peter E. Leone, and Georgianna M. Achilles, Suspension, Race, and Disability: Analysis of Statewide Practices and Reporting, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 14 (2006): 217 26; Sid Cooley, Suspension/expulsion of regular and special education students in Kansas: A report to the Kansas State Board of Education (Topeka: Kansas State Board of Education, 1995); and Dalun Zhang, Antonis Katsiyannis, and Maria Herbst, Disciplinary Exclusions in Special Education: A 4Year Analysis, Behavioral Disorders 29 (2004): 337 47. Source: Patricia Torbet and Linda Szymanski, State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile Crime: 1996 97 Update (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998).

Discipline and Dropouts

Findings of this brief strongly suggest a need for reform. A review of the evidence suggests that subgroups experiencing disproportionate suspension miss important instructional time and are at greater risk of disengagement and diminished educational opportunities. Moreover, despite the fact that suspension is a predictor of students risk for dropping out, school personnel are not required to report or evaluate the impact of disciplinary decisions. Overall, the evidence shows the following: there is no research base to support frequent suspension or expulsion in response to non-violent and mundane forms of adolescent misbehavior; large disparities by race, gender and disability status are evident in the use of these punishments; frequent suspension and expulsion are associated with negative outcomes; and better alternatives are available. Source: Discipline Policies, Successful Schools and Racial Justice

http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/discipline-policiessuccessful-schools-and-racial-justice/NEPC-SchoolDiscipline-Losen-1-PB_FINAL.pdf Schools have put themselves in this position to a large extent by adopting zero-tolerance policies to avoid the violence and disruption of the 1990s. Rigid rules have replaced professional judgment applied on a case-by-case basis. Every time schools suspend students, they unwittingly increase the possibility that those students will eventually drop out. On the other hand, if schools don't suspend students for violating policies, they are sending a clear message that unacceptable behavior has no consequences. It's a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Schools have put themselves in this position to a large extent by adopting zero-tolerance policies to avoid the violence and disruption of the 1990s. Rigid rules have replaced professional judgment applied on a case-by-case basis. Source: Are Dropouts and Discipline Connected? http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2010/06/are_discipline_and_dropout s_connected.html The Council of State Governments studied school records of nearly one million Texas students and found nearly 6 in 10 were suspended or expelled between 7th and 12th grade. Of those suspended, 10 percent dropped out. One in seven had contact with the juvenile justice system. Source: Zero Tolerance Discipline Leading to Higher Dropout Rate http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/07/20/study-zero-tollerance-discipline-leading-to-higher-dropoutrate/

Repeated suspensions and expulsions predicted poor academic outcomes. Only 40 percent of students disciplined 11 times or more graduated from high school during the study period, and 31 percent of students disciplined one or more times repeated their grade at least once. Source: Breaking Schools Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement http://justicecenter.csg.org/resources/juveniles Breaking Schools Rules Key findings in the report include the following: 1. Nearly six in ten public school students studied were suspended or expelled at least once between their seventh- and twelfth-grade school years. About 54 percent of students experienced in-school suspension, which could be as brief as one period or as long as several consecutive days. Thirtyone percent of students experienced out-of-school suspension,which averaged two days per incident. Of the nearly 1 million students studied, about 15 percent were assigned at least once to disciplinary alternative education programs (27 days, on average) between seventh and twelfth grade; about 8 percent were placed at least once in juvenile justice alternative education programs (73 days on average). Only 3 percent of the disciplinary actions were for conduct for which state law mandates suspensions and expulsions; the remainder of disciplinary actions was made at the discretion of school officials, primarily in response to violations of local schools conduct codes. Students who were involved in the school disciplinary system averaged eight suspensions and/or expulsions during their middle or high school years; among this group, the median number of suspensions and expulsions was four. Fifteen percent of students studied were disciplined 11 or more separate times. Multivariate analyses, which enabled researchers to control for 83 different variables in isolating the effect of race alone on disciplinary actions, found that African-American students had a 31 percent higher likelihood of a school discretionary action, compared to otherwise identical white and Hispanic students. Students who were suspended and/or expelled, particularly those who were repeatedly disciplined, were more likely to be held back a grade or to drop out than were students not involved in the disciplinary system. Of all students who were suspended or expelled 31 percent repeated their grade at least once. In contrast, only 5 percent of students with no disciplinary involvement were held back. About 10 percent of students suspended or expelled between seventh and twelfth grade dropped out. About 59 percent of those students disciplined 11 times or more did not graduate from high school during the study period.1 A student who was suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation was twice as likely to repeat his or her grade compared to a student with the same characteristics, attending a similar school, who had not been suspended or expelled.1. When a student was suspended or expelled, his or her likelihood of being involved in the juvenile justice system the subsequent year increased significantly.

 More than one in seven students was in contact with the juvenile justice system (i.e., contact with a countys juvenile probation department) at least once between seventh and twelfth grade.2 Nearly half of those students who were disciplined 11 or more times were in contact with the juvenile justice system. In contrast, 2 percent of the students who had no school disciplinary actions were in contact with the juvenile justice system. When controlling for campus and individual student characteristics, the data revealed that a student who was suspended or expelled for a discretionary violation was nearly three times as likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system the following year. Thirty-one percent of those students with one or more suspensions or expulsions repeated their grade level at least once. In contrast, about 5 percent of students (5.2%) with no disciplinary actions were held back. (See Figure 12.)
Nearly 10 percent of those students with at least one disciplinary contact dropped out of school, compared to just 2 percent of students with no disciplinary action. (See Figure 12.) Whereas just 5.3 percent of students who had no discretionary actions repeated a grade, 55.6 percent of students who had experienced 11 or more discretionary suspensions and/or expulsions were held back at least once during the study period. (See Figure 13.) Fifteen percent of students with 11 or more suspensions or expulsions dropped out of school prior to graduation, compared to a 2 percent drop-out rate among students with no disciplinary actions.

Source: Breaking Schools Rules http://justicecenter.csg.org/resources/juveniles.

Rising Suspension Rates Differential Impacts

School suspensions have risen steadily since the early 1970s, and racial disparities have grown considerably as well

Source: Losen, D.L. & Skiba, R.J. (2010, September). Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/suspended-education-urbanmiddle-schools-in-crisis/Suspended-Education_FINAL-2.pdf

Risk Factors, Delinquency, Drug Use, Gang Related

Introduction

Dropouts themselves report a variety of reasons for leaving school, including schoolrelated reasons, family-related reasons, and work-related reasons (Bridgeland, DiIulio Jr., & Morison, 2006; Rotermund, 2007). The most cited reasons reported by 2002 tenth-graders who dropped out were missed too many school days (44 percent); thought it would be easier to get a GED (41 percent); getting poor grades/failing school (38 percent); did not like school (37 percent); and could not keep up with schoolwork (32 percent) (Rotermund, 2007). But these reasons do not reveal the underlying causes of why students quit school, particularly those factors in elementary or middle school that may have contributed to students attitudes, behaviors, and performance immediately preceding their decision to leave school. Moreover, if many factors contribute to this phenomenon over a long period of time, it is virtually impossible

to demonstrate a causal connection between any single factor and the decision to quit school. Research suggests that, of all the factors contributing to the decision to drop out of high school, personal characteristics of the individual student have the strongest effect (Lan & Lanthier, 2003). Commonly cited reasons for dropping out include poor academic achievement and grade retention (Allensworth, 2005), student engagement and motivation (Princiotta & Reyna, 2009), and behavioral problems (Christle et al., 2007; Owen, Rosch, Muschkin, Alexander, & Wyant, 2008). Students who are experiencing difficulty in school, becoming disengaged, exhibiting behavioral problems, and performing poorly, are at an increased risk for dropping out of school (Roderick, 1993). Frequently students face more than one risk factor and, as the factors amass, the potential risk for dropping out increases. Therefore, the decision to drop out of high school does not happen abruptly, but instead is the end result of a long term process of disengagementfrom school (Christle et al., 2007; Princiotta & Reyna, 2009; Roderick, 1993). Source: Why Students Drop Out of School:A Review of 25 Years of Research California

Dropout Research Project Report #15October 2008 By Russell W. Rumberger and Sun Ah Lim University of California, Santa Barbara
http://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/download.php?file=researchreport15.pdf

Source: ETHINICITY, GENDER, AND HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: A CASE STUDY, Marquessa LaBrett Chappell, May, 2011 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink? did=2421804361&Fmt=14&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=13316 52922&clientId=79356 Academics - On Track In a longitudinal study for the Consortium on Chicago School Research, data was collected on the effects of academic achievement (failure in core courses and number of credits completed during freshman year) on future dropout. The on track indicator (combination of both predictors), was shown to be a strong factor in high school graduation. According to the study, on track students were 3.5 times more likely to graduate from high school on time than were off track students. A strong correlation between course failure Source: ETHINICITY, GENDER, AND HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: A CASE STUDY, Marquessa LaBrett Chappell, May, 2011 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink? did=2421804361&Fmt=14&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=13316 52922&clientId=79356 Grade Retention Roderick (1993) found that even after statistically controlling for both background as well as school performance, those students who had repeated grades were substantially more likely to drop out than were those students who had never been retained. Students who experience retention are likely to be overage for grade. Being overage for grade both stigmatizes students and may allow them the eligibility to leave school (at the age of 16 years) while they are still in middle school or during the already difficult transition to high school (Roderick, 1993). Even when controlling for both grades and attendance, being overage for grade level has been shown to significantly increase the probability of dropping out of school (Roderick, 1993). Research suggests that retention rates are much higher for members of minority groups than for the White majority (Hauser et al., 2000).

In an analysis of social promotion and grade retention it was found, that by age 9, the odds of grade retardation among African American Source: ETHINICITY, GENDER, AND HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: A CASE STUDY, Marquessa LaBrett Chappell, May, 2011 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink? did=2421804361&Fmt=14&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=13316 52922&clientId=79356
Being Male

Unlike ethnic differences in graduation rates, there is controversy as to whether or not gender differences exist. Some studies cite gender differences, suggesting that males are more likely than females to both drop out of high school before receiving adiploma, as well as report completing eight or fewer years of schooling (Sum & Harrington, 2003). However, other researchers suggest that this pattern, as observed over the past 30 years, is diminishing (Cataldi & KewalRamani, 2009). When examining changes over time, it is important to recognize differences in the definitions of dropout terms. The status dropout rate is a measure of the percentage of all individuals who are not currently enrolled in high school or who do not hold an equivalent degree. Event dropout rates describe the proportion of students who drop out in a single year (Cataldi & KewalRamani, 2009). Event dropout rates in 2007 reported by the National Center for Education Statistics showed no measureable difference between males and females (Cataldi & KewalRamani, 2009). However when analyzing status dropout rates as well as completion rates, which take into account all drop outs in a particular age range, the Center for Education Statistics reported a measureable difference between males andfemales with males being more likely to drop out of school (Cataldi & KewalRamani,2009). Source: ETHINICITY, GENDER, AND HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS: A CASE STUDY, Marquessa LaBrett Chappell, May, 2011
Attendance]

Source: The Silent Epidemic Perspectives of High School Dropouts, March 2006 http://www.ignitelearning.com/pdf/TheSilentEpidemic3-06FINAL.pdf Drug and Alcohol Use School dropouts were less likely to have used alcohol during the past month than non-dropouts (Figure 2). Findings were similar for males and females. This pattern was also observed among whites (54 vs. 67 percent) and Hispanics (42 vs. 53 percent). However, among blacks, the rate of past month alcohol use was similar among school dropouts (50 percent) and non-dropouts (47 percent). Rates of binge alcohol use were similar among school dropouts (41 percent) and nondropouts (39 percent). Among males, the binge drinking rate for school dropouts was the same as the rate for non-dropouts. However, among females, the rate of binge alcohol use was lower for school dropouts (24 percent) than non-dropouts (33 percent). Among blacks, school dropouts (39 percent) were more likely than nondropouts (24 percent) to be binge alcohol users; however, among whites (45 vs. 47 percent) and Hispanics (33 vs. 36 percent), the rates of binge alcohol use were similar for school dropouts and non-dropouts. There was no difference in binge drinking among dropouts (35 percent) and non-dropouts (37 percent) aged 18 to 20. However, among those aged 21 to 24, dropouts were less likely to be binge alcohol users (41 percent) than non-dropouts (46 percent).

Overall, the rate of heavy alcohol use was lower among school dropouts compared with non-dropouts. Findings were similar for males and females. Among whites, school dropouts (16 percent) were less likely than non-dropouts (20 percent) to be heavy alcohol users, but there was no difference between school dropouts and nondropouts among blacks. Among Hispanics, the rate of heavy alcohol use was 7 percent among school dropouts and 10 percent among non-dropouts, but this difference was not statistically significant. Although rates of heavy alcohol use were similar for school dropouts (12 percent) and non-dropouts (14 percent) aged 18 to 20, school dropouts aged 21 to 24 (12 percent) were less likely to be heavy alcohol users than same aged non-dropouts (18 percent). Among persons aged 18 to 24, the prevalence of past month illicit drug use was similar among school dropouts (22 percent) and non-dropouts (21 percent). For whites and blacks, school dropouts were more likely to have used illicit drugs than non-dropouts, but there was no difference between school dropouts and non-dropouts among Hispanics (Figure 3). Among persons aged 18 to 20, the rate of illicit drug use was higher among school dropouts (27 percent) than it was among non-dropouts (22 percent), but the rates were similar among those aged 21 to 24 (19 percent for school dropouts and 20 percent for non-dropouts). Among both males and females, the rates of illicit drug use were similar for school dropouts and non-dropouts.

Source: Substance Abuse among School Dropouts http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k3/dropouts/dropouts.htm English as a second language

Why Do Hispanic Students Drop Out? A factor contributing to a higher dropout rate for immigrant Hispanics (whether or not they were educated in American schools) is a lack of English language proficiency. Unlike most white and African American dropouts, many Hispanic dropouts are not proficient English speakers. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, among 16 to 19 year olds in 2000 [see Figure II]:

An estimated 59 percent of Hispanics who did not speak English well were dropouts. Only 16 percent of Hispanic youths who spoke English well were dropouts. But among Hispanics in homes where English was the only language spoken, only 13 percent were dropouts in 2000.

Source: School Choice and Hispanic Dropouts http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba602

Prospect Theory Lifes Chances and Risk Taking

Daniel Kahneman [Nobel 2002] and Amos Tversky found that most people are risk averse when considering potential gains, but risk loving (loss averse) when faced with a prospect of losses. People may avoid losses because losses of hierarchical class, status, and power are especially hard to take psychologically. People tend to experience greater regret after making errors of commission than after experiencing errors of omission. This helps explain why the value function consistent with prospect theory, as shown in the top graph, generates the tendency for loss aversion shown in the bottom graph.

Source: Prospect Theory http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/Figures/Prospect.htm

What would help

Dropouts Perspectives on What Would Help
Students who are at risk of dropping out can and must be reached, and in order to effectively reach at risk students, we first need to listen to the views, experiences, concerns, life circumstances and ideas for reform of these young people so we can help others in the future. The following recommendations are based on what dropouts themselves told us in focus groups and the survey.

Source: The Silent Epidemic Perspectives of High School Dropouts, March 2006

http://www.ignitelearning.com/pdf/TheSilentEpidemic3-06FINAL.pdf

Source:

Interacting Distances - M and N

M I first met M when I was his Social Studies teacher. M and I began with a conversation about the then current deep recession and M immediately connected our conversation to what he learned in a previous class, Economics with Mr. B. Yeah, Mr. C, its like the Depression. We learned about that in Mr. B.'s class. M. is paying attention all the time. Later, in class, we were engaged in a discussion about something kids at school, gangs, something that led logically to M, unconsciously echoing West Side story, to say, Mr. C, we're just misunderstood. Gee Officer Krupke Even later that day, I took M into my office and googled Officer Kupke and there it was lyrics and of course Youtube.

M. spent the remainder of the period listening to that and other West Side story songs and lyrics upon the conclusion of which M remarked, Mr. C that was one of the few times I really learned something I wanted to know in school. N My first encounter with N, like that with M. occurred in class. N. was a new student, arriving more that half way through the quarter. She liked to talk. On her second or third appearance in class, she asked me a question Mr. C do you come from one of those regular white families? Gee, I don't know N, whadya mean? You know ( I don't think she actually said 'like on TV ) but she did elaborate, you know When you come home does your wife ask you how your day was? And when you tell her it was fine, does she fix dinner. Do y'all sit down to the table and say please pass the potatoes and thank you, yes, may I have a little more? In my house its just, ya know, grab a chicken wing and sit down on the couch and watch some tv. M and N both have access to a set of narratives the same narratives shaped by mass culture that we all access. Neither of them ever sees themselves on tv, but they do see a caricature of my life in the sorts of white ( and black ) middle class families, passing the potatoes, saying please and thank you. My guess is that neigher M nor N has ever really had a chance to interact with one of us. They've been to school, but none too successfully and there is a good chance that their interactions with teachers have been limited to a different set of scripts. I also don't fall into what looks like a teacher these days. I am 62. I wear a tie every day and am both confident and apparently successful. Just like in TV. The next time I interacted memorably with N occurred a week or so later. She was sitting in the cafeteria and asked if she could talk to me,

Sources
Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, and Racial Justice http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/disciplinepolicies-successful-schools-and-racial-justice

Prospect Theory http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/Publications/prospect_theory.pdf Prospect Theory http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/Figures/Prospect.htm Act Out, Get Out? http://renniecenter.issuelab.org/research/listing/executive_summary_act_out_get_out_ considering_the_impact_of_school_discipline_practices_in_massachusets
Texas Education Agency (2010). Counts of Students and Discipline Action Groupings. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/ broker? _service=marykay&_program=adhoc.download_static_DAG_summary.sas&district=&agg_level=STATE&referrer=D ownload_State_DAG_ Summaries.html&test_flag=&_debug=0&school_yr=10&report=01&report_type=html&Download_State_Summary= Submit; California Department of Education (2011). California StateExpulsion, Suspension, and Truancy Information for 2009 10. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/ dataquest/Expulsion/ExpReports/StateExp.aspx?cYear=2009-10&cChoice=ExpData1&Pageno=1; Florida Department of Education (2010). Trends in Discipline and the Decline in the Use of Corporal Punishment, 2008-09. Data Report 2010-16d. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/ eiaspubs/word/discipline0809.doc; The University of The State of New York (2011). The New York State Report Card: Accountability and Overview Report 2009-10. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-external/2010statewideAOR.pdf.