Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gain a transformative and practical guide that will help you deepen your understanding of how systemic inequities impact you and your students.In this book, the authors serve as co-conspirators to help educators develop authentic, inclusive approaches.

John Ogbu has studied minority education from a comparative perspective for over 30 years. The study reported in this book--jointly sponsored by the community and the school district in Shaker Heights, Ohio--focuses on the academic performance of Black American students. Not only do these students perform less well than White students at every social class level, but also less well than immigrant minority students, including Black immigrant students. Furthermore, both middle-class Black students in suburban school districts, as well as poor Black students in inner-city schools are not doing well. Ogbu's analysis draws on data from observations, formal and informal interviews, and statistical and other data. He offers strong empirical evidence to support the cross-class existence of the problem. The book is organized in four parts: *Part I provides a description of the twin problems the study addresses--the gap between Black and White students in school performance and the low academic engagement of Black students; a review of conventional explanations; an alternative perspective; and the framework for the study. *Part II is an analysis of societal and school factors contributing to the problem, including race relations, Pygmalion or internalized White beliefs and expectations, levelling or tracking, the roles of teachers, counselors, and discipline. * Community factors --the focus of this study--are discussed in Part III. These include the educational impact of opportunity structure, collective identity, cultural and language or dialect frame of reference in schooling, peer pressures, and the role of the family. This research focus does not mean exonerating the system and blaming minorities, nor does it mean neglecting school and society factors. Rather, Ogbu argues, the role of community forces should be incorporated into the discussion of the academic achievement gap by researchers, theoreticians, policymakers, educators, and minorities themselves who genuinely want to improve the academic achievement of African American children and other minorities. *In Part IV, Ogbu presents a summary of the study's findings on community forces and offers recommendations--some of which are for the school system and some for the Black community. Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement is an important book for a wide range of researchers, professionals, and students, particularly in the areas of Black education, minority education, comparative and international education, sociology of education, educational anthropology, educational policy, teacher education, and applied anthropology.

This comprehensive book explores the importance of cultural diversity in the field of education. It delves into the significance of embracing diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and perspectives within the classroom. With a focus on creating inclusive learning environments, the book provides valuable insights into curriculum development and teaching strategies that promote cultural understanding and sensitivity. Through a variety of case studies and practical examples, readers gain a deeper understanding of how cultural diversity can enrich the educational experience for both students and educators. This book is an essential resource for anyone passionate about fostering inclusive education.

This article reviews research on the coevolution of educational expansion and educational inequality within China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in the post-World War II period. These societies are often lauded for their spectacular economic growth, widespread commitment to investing in education, and intense competition for academic success. This review first considers organizational sorting and horizontal stratification within the educational system, followed by returns to education in the labor market and then the inequality of educational opportunity, with special attention to the nominal versus positional approaches to measuring education. This combination of regional focus and substantive diversity offers the leverage of an approximately matched comparison. The findings demonstrate that there are significant heterogeneities in the coevolution of educational expansion and inequality among these societies with strong cultural and political ties. The findings also suggest complex causal and contingent relationships among educational expansion, educational stratification, returns to education, and inequality of opportunity.

This book focuses on myth, which, as a language, tells the stories of human experience, regardless of accuracy or impact, and to claim that myth is innocent, or worse yet, give no explicit attention to myth, is a dangerous proposition. However, just as myths can be used to confuse and convince, if remythified they also can be used to clarify and conjure up new understandings and new language around American education. Within this book, the myths about guns in schools, banned books, Native American school mascots, immigrant and transnational youth, who teachers are, Critical Race Theory, standard English, bilingualism and disability, chosen names and preferred pronouns, and vouchers for private school education are all critiqued, exposed for their mythical language, but also remythified, re-contextualizing the language and the discourse towards the means of supporting the most vulnerable of youth in U.S. schools. The first and foremost function of language is thought. Learning how to play within the power game of myth production and remythification is important for reorienting ideologies around American education mythologies.

Though sociologists have examined how mass incarceration affects stratification, remarkably little is known about how it shapes educational disparities. Analyzing the Fragile Families Study and its rich paternal incarceration data, I ask whether black and white children with fathers who have been incarcerated are less prepared for school both cognitively and non-cognitively as a result, and whether racial and gendered disparities in incarceration help explain the persistence of similar gaps in educational outcomes and trajectories. Using a variety of estimation strategies, I show that experiencing paternal incarceration by age five is associated with lower non-cognitive school readiness. While the main effect of incarceration does not vary by race, boys with incarcerated fathers have substantially worse non-cognitive skills at school entry, impacting the likelihood of special education placement at age nine. Mass incarceration facilitates the intergenerational transmission of male behavioral disadvantage, and because of the higher exposure of black children to incarceration, it also plays a role in explaining the persistently low achievement of black boys.

Offers a model for increasing equity in STEM education at the K–12 level in the United States.In STEM Education in Underserved Schools, editor Julia V. Clark addresses an urgent national problem: the need to provide all students with a quality STEM education. Clark brings together a prestigious group of scholars to uncover the factors that impede equity and access in STEM education teaching and learning and provides research-based strategies to address these inequities. This contributed volume demonstrates that students of color and those from lower socioeconomic communities have less access to qualified science and mathematics teachers, less access to strong STEM curriculum, less access to resources, and fewer classroom opportunities than their peers at other schools. Identifying the challenges and best practices related to producing more equitable and inclusive routes to access STEM education and professions, contributors explain how to positively impact the trajectory of individuals from underrepresented groups in K–12 and pre-college programs and lay out a bold reenvisioning of STEM education. These essays aim to build knowledge and theory for how schools can promote coherent guidance for culturally responsive instruction by exploring the policies and practices of four nations—Finland, Singapore, Korea, and Australia—that have made noteworthy strides toward more equitable achievement in science and mathematics. Clark offers a powerful framework in STEM to capture the benefits of international collaborations that would embed American scientists and students in vibrant, globally collaborative networks. Through a deep analysis of successful programs elsewhere in the world and a uniquely international framework, Clark and these contributors present an innovative road map to equalize access to STEM education in the United States.

This edited volume expands on the existent research on anti-racist educational leadership by identifying what type of capacity building is needed for school administrators to facilitate anti-racist change in their schools. Racial inequities in education persist in part because the solutions that districts and schools choose to employ largely ignore why and how institutional and structural racism is the root cause of inequities in education. Yet, racial inequities in schooling can be redressed if districts and schools have leaders who are deeply committed to combatting racism in their daily practice and structures of schooling. This book underscores why we need more educational leaders who adopt an anti-racist stance in how they lead and are prepared to face the political complexity and uncertainty that will undoubtedly occur when they try to advance racial equity in their school communities. Through diverse perspectives and voices, including scholars in the field of educational leadership, sociologists of education, school and district administrators, and grassroots community members and activist groups, this book addresses issues related to anti-racist educational leadership at various levels.

Policy Points US policymakers considering proposals to expand public health care (such as “Medicare for all”) as a means of reducing inequalities in health care access and use could learn from the experiences of nations where well‐funded universal health care systems are already in place. In England, which has a publicly funded universal health care system, the use of core inpatient services by adults 65 years and older is equal across groups defined by education level, after controlling for health status. However, variation among these groups in the use of outpatient and emergency department care developed between 2010 and 2015, a period of relative financial austerity. Based on England's experience, introducing universal health care in the United States seems likely to reduce, but not entirely eliminate, inequalities in health care use across different population groups. Context Expanding access to health care is once again high on the US political agenda, as is concern about those who are being “left behind.” But is universal health care that is largely free at the point of use sufficient to eliminate inequalities in health care use? To explore this question, we studied variation in the use of hospital care among education‐level‐defined groups of older adults in England, before and after controlling for differences in health status. In England, the National Health Service (NHS) provides health care free to all, but the growth rate for NHS funding has slowed markedly since 2010 during a widespread austerity program, potentially increasing inequalities in access and use. Methods Novel linkage of data from six waves (2004‐2015) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) with participants’ hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES]) produced longitudinal data for 7,713 older adults (65 years and older) and 25,864 observations. We divided the sample into three groups by education level: low (no formal qualifications), mid (completed compulsory education), and high (at least some higher education). Four outcomes were examined: annual outpatient appointments, elective inpatient admissions, emergency inpatient admissions, and emergency department (ED) visits. We estimated regressions for the periods 2004‐2005 to 2008‐2009 and 2010‐2011 to 2014‐2015 to examine whether potential education‐related inequalities in hospital use increased after the growth rate for NHS funding slowed in 2010. Findings For the study period, our sample of ELSA respondents in the low‐education group made 2.44 annual outpatient visits. In comparison, after controlling for health status, we found that participants in the high‐education group made an additional 0.29 outpatient visits annually (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11‐0.47). Additional outpatient health care use in the high‐education group was driven by follow‐up and routine appointments. This inequality widened after 2010. Between 2010 and 2015, individuals in the high‐education group made 0.48 (95% CI, 0.21‐0.74) more annual outpatient visits than those in the low‐education (16.9% [7.5% to 26.2%] of annual average 2.82 visits). In contrast, after 2010, the high‐education group made 0.04 (95% CI, −0.075 to 0.001) fewer annual ED visits than the low‐education group, which had a mean of 0.30 annual ED visits. No significant differences by education level were found for elective or emergency inpatient admissions in either period. Conclusions After controlling for demographics and health status, there was no evidence of inequality in elective and emergency inpatient admissions among the education groups in our sample. However, a period of financial budget tightening for the NHS after 2010 was associated with the emergence of education gradients in other forms of hospital care, with respondents in the high‐education group using more outpatient care and less ED care than peers in the low‐education group. These estimates point to rising inequalities in the use of hospital care that, if not reversed, could exacerbate existing health inequalities in England. Although the US and UK settings differ in many ways, our results also suggest that a universal health care system would likely reduce inequality in US health care use.