Achieving homogeneity in American education--often under the guise of “equity”--has taken either of two forms: segregation or dichotomization. Segregation arises out of oppression, either as an attempt to subjugate the “inferior” groups by relegating them to inferior school systems, or as an attempt by the oppressed to overcome educational disparity by freeing students from prejudicial instruction. Dichotomization is related to segregation as a means of oppression; it evolves from the need to maintain the dominant power structure within an educational institution. This week’s readings in Spring’s The American School and Pagano and Miller’s essays in Thirteen Questions demonstrate how each of these has occurred in the American experience.

Joel Spring (2001) documents the rise of segregated school systems in the 1830s and 1840s, providing several concrete examples of the various motives for the establishment of separate schooling for Catholics, African Americans, and Native Americans.

In New York in the early nineteenth century, the immigration of scores of Irish Catholics caused massive social upheaval, especially in the educational system. In order to ensure equal education for Catholic students, Governor William Seward was willing to use public funds to support separate parochial schools. When this notion failed in the face of anti-Catholic violence, Catholics ended up founding their own school systems in order to preserve religious instruction free of Protestant anti-“Popery” bigotry (Spring 2001).

Prejudice against African Americans also affected the educational process. One of the earliest examples of racially segregated schools occurred in Boston, beginning in 1806 when the Boston School Committee established an optional school for blacks--at the behest of African American citizens, who wanted to “protect their children from the prejudice of white children” (Spring 2001 p. 95). In time, however, it became obvious that segregated schools resulted in inferior educational opportunities. Since the Boston School Committee controlled the system, however, integration would not occur until the governor of Massachusetts outlawed denial of school admission based on race (Spring 2001).

At this same time, separate schools for Native Americans originated in different circumstances. After the seizure of Native American lands in the East, and the forced resettlement of the Cherokee and Choctaw tribes, Native Americans were compelled to start reservation schools. In this instance, however, the result was more successful--at least in a practical sense--as by the mid-nineteenth century Native American schools rivaled or surpassed their white counterparts (Spring 2001). Most of the educative process was controlled by white missionaries, who viewed education as a way to “to elevate the moral, as well as the mental standard of these neglected people” (Dunlap 1897).

Spring’s examples highlight the effects of oppression outside the existing educational system--at that juncture in history, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant system. Jo Anne Pagano and Janet Miller, however, document the struggle for equity (in their case, gender-based) within the system in more recent times. Their experiences parallel each other considerably.

Pagano stresses the difficulty of accommodating different learning styles. This means recognizing that the different gendered epistemologies-- “thinking” (masculine) versus “feeling” (feminine)--are generalizations and only valid to the degree that they stimulate pedagogical improvement. “[M]any women can think more like a man than some men... The point is that we ought acquire both orientations, whether we are men or women, and that our educations ought to encourage our development in both domains” (Pagano 1995 p. 144). For Pagano, much work toward this end is still needed.

Miller, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of the instructor and the schooling process, especially as it plays out between “public” (official, masculine) knowledge and “personal” (subversive, feminine) knowledge. Her experience in the public school system serves as evidence of the dichotomy. Her elementary school’s lone male teacher, Mr. Brucker, “ ...was the leader of Sickman School, whether he wanted to be or not” ( Miller 1995 p. 152). Furthermore, “...[t]he only women we had read about in our history books were Clara Barton, Florence Nightingale, and Jane Addams [sic], and then we only knew of them through descriptions of their extensions of socially-sanctioned women’s work”(p. 154). In contrast, Mr. Brucker tried through class discussions and activities to subvert the traditional gender roles, encouraging girls toward careers or (on a lighter, but not less important note) to play kickball with the boys. Ultimately, however, the official, sanctioned, patriarchal education won out.

These historical and personal perspectives on the role of separation and dichotomization in the educational experience hold great relevance in today’s pedagogical climate. Here stands the paradox of contemporary education: on the one hand, inclusivist practices--incorporation of various races and ethnic groups, inclusion of learning-disabled youth, tolerance for varying religions, sexual orientations, classes and cliques--seem to hold sway. On the other hand, strong currents for segregating practices, whether through charter schools or vouchers, capture the public imagination. That both can exist under the banner of equity is a tribute to the complexity and chaos of America’s ideological and educational muddle.

Dunlap, D. (1897). Letter to M. Donald Furman. at http://www.duke.edu/ ~ehs1/education/catawba.html

Miller, J. (1995). Women and education. in J. L. Kincheloe and S. R. Steinberg (Eds.) Thirteen Questions (pp. 149-156). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Pagano, J. (1995). Women and education. in J. L. Kincheloe and S. R. Steinberg (Eds.) Thirteen Questions (pp. 141-148). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Spring, J. (2001). The American school. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.