School desegregation efforts begun in the 1960s through to the 1980s persist into the 21st century. School leadership for desegregation began in the late 20th century. School leadership efforts began in the early 1960s with compliance-based responses focused on court-ordered and government directives in pursuit of equality with an eye to societal integration. Leadership for desegregation is a legal response to de jure and de facto segregation as practiced in social, political, and economic systems throughout U.S. history. Efforts at more equal opportunities for historically marginalized students have, over time, evolved into an equity focus that holds a value for educating children and youth whether in integrated settings or not. By the turn of the 21st century, leadership efforts for equity began to recognize the need to provide access and opportunity to all students in all settings. Four distinct chronological periods of school desegregation have evolved: desegregation leadership experiences, 1950s–1970s—mandated, minimum compliance; school desegregation leadership experiences, 1970s–1990s—supported by Emergency School Aid Act; school desegregation leadership experiences, 1990s–2015—Emergency School Aid Act and resegregation; and school desegregation experiences, 2015 to the present and predictable future.
Randall B. Lindsey, Delores B. Lindsey, and Raymond D. Terrell
Urban charter schools are public schools located in major metropolitan areas with high population densities. The majority of urban charter school students identify as Black or Latinx and often live in under-resourced communities. Urban charter schools are touted as high-quality educational options in the school choice market, yet debates about the merits of charter schools versus traditional public schools yield mixed results that substantiate arguments on both sides of the political aisle. However, even high-performing urban charter schools have a bad reputation as mechanisms of school segregation and cogs in the school-to-prison pipeline. Higher than average test scores and graduation and college enrollment rates do little to mollify those who complain about severe discipline, racial segregation, unqualified teachers, teacher attrition, rigid scheduling, and a narrow curriculum. Urban charter schools’ emphasis on standardized testing and college preparation may overlook the culturally relevant educational experiences that low-income, racially diverse students need to compete with their wealthier, White peers. As such, education reformers have offered a myriad of suggestions to improve urban charter schools. Most prominently is the need to racially and economically desegregate urban charter schools to enhance the social and material resources that supplement students’ learning. This includes increasing teacher diversity, which research demonstrates minimizes the frequency of suspensions and expulsions of racial minority students. Urban charter school teachers should also be knowledgeable about the sociocultural landscape of the community in which their school exists so that they understand how students’ out of school lives affect their learning processes. Finally, curricular revisions are necessary to support students’ post-high school goals beyond college enrollment. Enacting such reforms would facilitate equitable, rather than equal, learning opportunities that may help narrow racial and economic achievement gaps in the United States.
In a context of globalization and increased mobility, migration has brought new societal challenges to nation-states, raising questions about how countries can promote inclusion within contexts of increased diversity. Education occupies a central yet paradoxical place in this process. On the one hand, schools’ failure to be fully inclusive of new forms of diversity is decried as a cause of violence and fragmentation in society. On the other hand, schools are invested with the role of including and socializing individuals from diverse backgrounds for future participation in society. There is little agreement on how this can best be achieved. Central to these questions are the ways in which educational systems can engage with increasing diversity, be it new movements of people, new forms of communication, and networks, or more complex forms of identity. These present new challenges in terms of educational policy and practice, locally, nationally, and globally. Young migrants face multiple barriers to inclusion, such as underachievement, discrimination, and segregation. In order to fully engage with these challenges, global and national policies need to be considered alongside institutional structures, the role of key stakeholders (teachers, support staff, parents, local community members), and the experience of young immigrants.
Education as a right has been integral to a more than a century-long struggle by women for liberation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The region is vast and diverse in its history, culture, politics, language, and religion. Therefore, in the study of women and education in the MENA region, it is imperative to consider particularities of each nation’s different historical and political formation in tandem with universal forces, conditions, and structures that shape the success or failure of women’s access to and participation in education. Historically, the greatest leap forward in women’s education began from the mid-20th century onward. The political, social, and economic ebb and flow of the first two decades of the 21st century is reflected on women’s education. Thus, the analysis of the current conditions should be situated in the context of the past and the provision for the future. It is crucial to make references to earlier periods, especially where relevant, to anticolonial and national liberation struggles as well as modern nation-building and the women’s rights movements. The empirical evidence aptly demonstrates that in most of the countries in the region, women’s participation in secondary and higher education is surpassing that of men. However, neither their status nor their social mobility have been positively affected. Women’s demand for “bread, work, democracy, and justice” is tied to education in several ways. First, education is a site of social and political struggle. Second, it is an institution integral to the formation and expansion of capitalist imperialism in the MENA region. Last, education is constituted through, not separated from, economic and political relations. The absence of some themes in the study of women and education reflects this structural predicament. Topics less studied are women as teachers and educators; women and teachers’ union; women and religious education and seminaries; women and the missionary schools; women in vocational education; women and the study abroad programs; girls in early childhood education; women and mother tongue education; women and the education of minorities; women and continuing education; women and academic freedom; and women and securitization of education. To study these themes also requires a range of critical methodological approaches. Some examples are ethnographical studies of classrooms, institutional ethnographies of teachers’ unions, analysis of memoirs of teachers and students, and critical ethnography of students’ movements. The proposed theoretical and methodological renewal is to contest the tendency in the study of education in the MENA region that renders patriarchal state and capitalism invisible.
Christopher Boyle and Joanna Anderson
Since 1994 the Salamanca Statement has been pivotal in encouraging nations to move toward inclusive education. Much progress has been made, yet the question must be asked if inclusive education has now plateaued. Inclusive education can be compared to a bicycle, where momentum powers it forward and it must continually move in order to stay upright. Along with movement, there also needs to be a clear direction of travel. Movement for the sake of movement will not bode well. If full inclusion is to succeed as a universal reality, not just an admirable goal, then it must become clear how to push the majority of countries forward, thus achieving full inclusion for most rather than a few. In many countries the reality of the principles of inclusive education are not reflected in everyday schooling. There have been many successes in inclusive education over many years in many countries, and these should be celebrated. Many consider full inclusion to be an over-reach by inclusivists, with most countries not achieving full inclusion; however, others argue that it is still attainable. From this point, where can the inclusion movement go? Has it, in effect, reached the end of its journey—like a bicycle with no rider, which eventually will fall over?
Eva Hjörne and Roger Säljö
In the early 21st century, school leaders play an important role—mediating between political ambitions and policies on the one hand and local conditions in schools and classrooms on the other. Mediating between general policies and local needs and constraints becomes increasingly challenging in diverse and complex societies. One interesting element of this dilemma is how to handle the balance between inclusion and segregation of children who have difficulties following mainstream teaching. In such cases, educational policies have to be interpreted in the context of the needs and prospects of specific individuals; that is, school leaders have to close the gap between the general (policy) and the specific (students and their capacities). When engaging in such decisions, school leaders as mediators rely on categories that characterize students and their abilities. In recent decades, neuropsychiatric categories, especially attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attention deficit disorder (ADD), have played an increasingly prominent role when such decisions are made, and this is an international phenomenon. An interesting set of problems that has not been the focus of much research is how school leaders perceive such dilemmas of deciding on the educational futures of children. In addition, we know little about what happens when children, after being diagnosed with ADHD, are placed in special educational groups. Important issues at this level concern what the teaching and learning situation they encounter is like, and what the likelihood is that participation in such special educational groups will improve their opportunities for the future. In other words, what are the gains and losses of such placements for students, and does the placement in a special educational group contribute to a successful educational career? Swedish school leaders emphasize the dilemmas they perceive in such high-stakes situations when the diagnosis ADHD is invoked as the main explanation for learning difficulties, since the most frequent outcome is segregation and placement in a special teaching group. In addition, research shows that the instructional strategies dominating these segregated settings are highly individualized forms of teaching, where often one teacher is instructing one student. Despite this arrangement, it is found that the students do not actively contribute to the instructional activities and dialogues; rather, it is the teacher who dominates the instruction. The question raised is whether exposure to such special educational practices will prepare children for a return to their regular classroom. If this is not the case, the dilemma is that the educational solution offered risks being counterproductive in the sense that the student will be even further away from reintegration into mainstream classrooms.
The landscape of history of education has become transformed by approaches that up-end traditional assumptions of the vertical unidirectionality of power, policy, and discourse. These have been displaced by notions of relational comparison and crisscrossing entanglements that draw on Lefebvrian ideas of space and time. These ideas help to provide a sense of how the landscape of education can be understood as both a material and symbolic space, as apprehended, perceived, and lived space, in which social relations are constituted and constitutive of everyday realities. The history of South African education, and specifically its teacher education colleges, exemplifies how landscape can be defined and understood as such spaces. Its history can first be apprehended through different conceptual and historiographical approaches, taken over time, for understanding it. Second, the emergence of specific types of institutions, within colonial political, economic, and social frameworks that defined their physical location and unequal structure in terms of racially segregated and often gender-differentiated spaces, assists in an understanding of these as colonial remnants. The historical landscape of education remains as restructured and reconfigured spaces, in which institutions live on as much in social relations as in memory and in actual, but highly altered physical conditions. As lived spaces, third, historical landscapes of education also embodied learning spatial imaginaries, deeply ambivalent memories of formal and hidden curricula, of formative and shaping years, and as such become landscapes of memory and identity.