It Was Racist

by Guest Contributor M. Dot, originally published at Model Minority

I was reluctant about today’s class going in.

We read Mary Waters’ Ethnic Options and her book Black Identity. I reviewed Black Identity which focuses on the process of West Indian Americans coming to identify or avoiding identifying as Black.

The book contained lots of qualitative interviews with West Indian  folks talking about why they don’t like African Americans,  why they are Black, but not like Black Americans, that Black Americans  are lazy, expect handouts etc.

I had no idea how the class was going to react to this.

Fascinating stuff, though, right?

Especially when you look at the presence of African Americans vs. West  Indian Americans on four year college campuses and in graduate,  law and business school in the Northeast.

The book is awesome in how it gets at how first generation verses second  generation West Indian immigrants deal with assimilation, with proving  that they are not Black and also with identifying as Black. The most  fascinating part for me was learning that women who worked as teachers  and nurses in Jamaica, came to the Brooklyn, worked as teacher and  nurses yet, class wise their lives were not the same.  The material difference is the on their salary in Jamaica, they were middle class,  so they could afford nannies and house keepers, and their housing was more  spacious and safer. In the US, housing was more expensive, there was more  opportunity for jobs and education for their children but the housing dollar  didn’t go very far.

Which brings me to my classmate.

Jamaica’s system is based on the British system*, which means that children are tested and tracked at a very young age. They either go into vocational track or academic track.

Apparently Germany and much of Europe is the same way.

My Black classmate said, that he agrees with this.

I responded saying that standardized tests are measures of familial wealth, not student aptitude. And the aptitude of a four year old cannot be measured because they have only been on the earth 48 months. He responded saying  that the British system is better because it separates the students early  and that there are some who shouldn’t be in school and college.

I said that this was racist. We do not know what children are capable of at 4.

They responded saying that it wasn’t racist.

I said, it was both racist AND classist because of the disparate  impact that the same policy has on Black boys in the US. Ann Fergusons’ Bad Boys talks about this at length, if you want to read more about it. It’s an awesome study on a public elementary school in Berkeley, and it hones in on the ways in which school policy and teacher subjectivity  impact how Black boys are disproportionately disciplined and placed in special ed classes.

I asked him how he reconciled his approval of early testing and prediction with the fact that standardized tests measure familial wealth not student aptitude.

He responded saying “Yeah, tests are culturally biased but math isn’t.”

My eyes rolled. That did NOT refute nor address my argument.

Another classmate, a white woman who is in marketing asked, “Isn’t it better for us to assess the children at 4 rather than at 12 so that they don’t languish in the system?”

I responded no. The issue isn’t when they are assessed the issue is creating a system that serves their interests, not the interests of school administrators or corporations. We need to move out of binary modes of thinking and ask ourselves whose interests are served by that.

She said “Aren’t all children about the same at four?”

I said no, all children are not the same. Each child’s education attainment is related to how much money her parents  earn and how much social capital her parents have and lastly how much  intergenerational wealth a family has.
I only wish that I asked them, “What would you do if your child tests into the vocational track at 4?” I imagine, I hope the responses would have been more compassionate.  It isn’t lost on me that these people will be future professors,
bureaucrats, marketers, political advisers, researchers etc.

I see it as my job to say something.

I was proud of myself for calling a spade a spade, at least I was earlier, this evening. As the night has worn on I am tired. School is awesome,  but in some ways the more I learn the more it appears that racism is manifested on a civilizational level.  In some ways, this experience showed me the racism runs on a deep civilization level. I take this term from the paper “Coloring Epistemologies: Are Our Research Epistemologies Racially Biased?”

In the paper, James Sheurich and Michelle Young lay out three levels of racism.

I list them below:

The first is institutional racism, which exists when institutions or organizations have standard operating procedures, intended or unintended, hurt members of one or more races in relation to members of the dominant race.

The second is societal racism exist when prevailing societal or cultural assumptions or norms, concepts or habits favor on race over one or more other races. For example, the OJ trial revealed societal racism.

The third is epistemological racism comes from or emerges out of what we have labeled the civilizational level, the deepest, most primary level of a culture of people. The civilizational level is the the level that encompasses he deepest, most primary assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology)…

On one level these experiences remind me of just how privileged I am, and have been, on another it reminds me of how other children get screwed by bureaucrats on the regular.  It reminds me of how the teachers who stepped into my life when my city, Oakland, and my family were both submerged by the crack epidemic.  It reminds me of how these angels saved my academic life.

I hope I can be an angel for someone else.

The social costs of being a model minority, of being a Black women are taxing.

I hope I don’t go crazy trying to make sense of it all.

Pray for me.

* Editor’s Note: The idea of the “British system” was disputed in M.Dot’s comments section – ultimately, she was referring to an academic test based system. – LDP

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Weekend Link Love « The Feminist Texican on 20 Dec 2009 at 2:15 am

    [...] Racialicious: It Was Racist [...]

Comments

  1. snowbunny5 wrote:

    This article intrigues me because I, a ‘black’ American, married a ‘black’ Jamaican who was a product of this British education system. I cannot tell you the battles I must fight with his family who consistently makes racist comments about ‘black’ Americans, excusing our marriage by offering the old adage, “Well you’re not really like a ‘black’ American”. Not to mention the battles with him on how his country’s education system seems to me, to set up certain children, read poor children, for failure.

  2. Adrienne wrote:

    I really really wish she elaborated on this:

    “She said “Aren’t all children about the same at four?”

    I said no, all children are not the same. Each child’s education attainment is related to how much money her parents earn and how much social capital her parents have and lastly how much intergenerational wealth a family has.”

    I don’t understand it, because I knew many Black children, myself included, who did well academically with parents who did not earn alot of money.

    Does she mean social capital as in how much the parents expose their children to the world, and the social connections parents make with others in the world, such as belonging to churches, organizations that create a good quality of life for their family?

    If so, I totally agree on the social capital issues.

    I wish she explained more, as an assumption is made that the reader (and her class) should automatically know what she’s talking about in the quote above.

  3. Queen B wrote:

    I can’t speak to the West Indian immigrant experience but as the daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to this country in the early in 1980s it always clear to me that there was difference between “us” (immigrants) and Black Americans.

    I can say that alot of the negative stereotypes attributed to black americans such as “they are lazy and not interested in education” are beliefs some Nigerians hold to be true.

    I guess it comes down to that some black immigrants can say “we came to this country x years ago and have achieved a certain amount of success “and we compare ourselves to the rest of black america and wonder why have not they achieved the same amount of success.

    Black immigrants have a tendency to attend prestigious colleges and universities in higher numbers than black americans. For example, in one my law school class there were two Nigerians, one Jamaican and one Haitaian.

  4. queerhapa wrote:

    “Does she mean social capital as in how much the parents expose their children to the world, and the social connections parents make with others in the world, such as belonging to churches, organizations that create a good quality of life for their family?”

    Adrienne, “social capital” refers to the social connections and personal networks (like you say, churches, organizations, etc.). The first part of your question, about how much parents expose their children to the world, would be part of what sociologists call “cultural capital.”

  5. macon d wrote:

    That was a sad classroom discussion. To me it demonstrates how institutional racism gets perpetuated, by “educating” new workers into blithe, mostly unconscious acceptance of notions of black inferiority.

  6. Lola wrote:

    Comparing apples to oranges, most of these black immigrants are from middle class backgrounds, so of course they come here and their children have middle class achievements. Then they compare themselves to lower class black Americans, who because of their class status are less likely to have the same level of achievement.

    I grew up working class, so yeah if I compare my achievements to that of your typical black sharecropper, or Appalachian, or welfare recipient I’m going to look mighty good. Then I can judge them even though I had class and location advantages they didn’t.

  7. 世界遊牧民 wrote:

    Obviously, none of the people advocating the British testing system know that the first common characteristics of successful countries is investment in human capital. It’s dreadful to think about the amount of human capital that is lost in Jamaica and other countries the subscribe to the British testing system that could have increase the financial wealth of their countries. The system is literally cheating citizens out of a chance to improve their economies and gain wealth. Countries that do invest in the education of their citizens ultimately are richer than countries that don’t, but I guess if you want a system of perpetual inequality and stagnant economic growth, then by all means those countries should keep their system. Sorry for ranting, I just had a similar discussion with someone about why the U.S. needs to invest more in their education system or face the consequences of a rapidly declining economic growth.

  8. Eva wrote:

    I don’t think anyone can decide at age 4 what a child will be like FOREVER. Life is long. My question is, what about like bloomers? Many very intelligent people didn’t blossom until there were older than 4.

  9. becky wrote:

    I am currently a grad student in education and I completely agree with you that these kinds of assessments are racist, classist, miseducative, etc. My question is, where was the professor during this conversation??

  10. Solange wrote:

    No country’s education system is fool proof, there is always going to be a segment of the population that does not benefit. That said it is what works for that country. I do not see anything wrong with the british educational system. In Jamaica the educational expectations are higher than the US, children typically start school – not preschool by the age of 2. School is not for everyone and that is not a bad thing you can do something else. Why not learn a vocation?
    As far as the tribalism that exist between African Americans and West Indians – I understand it but I think that it is silly on both ends. I remember sitting in a precinct one day (awaiting an accident report) when a older black american lady and I started to talking. Everything went well until she referred to me as your people. I proceeded to correct her (very nicely) and she proceeded to inform me that she was in America when I was bare foor and climbing trees. A young fool often becomes an old one. I respect both cultures and see the beauty in and shared virtues in both.

  11. ElleDee wrote:

    I haven’t lived under a system that separates kids starting at 4, but in my school system you could get labeled Academically Gifted (AG)* and then you were entitled to a differentiated educational program that might include different classes, lesson plans or electives. The implementation varied a lot from school to school. They tested everyone for AG at several different ages, but I think a teacher could recommend that a student be tested in the in between years if they thought the student was misidentified. It was certainly better than tracking everyone at a very young age, but I won’t pretend that it was at all fair and not racist. Black students and other non-Asian minorities were underrepresented and I personally watched a few of my friends hosed or nearly hosed by the system.

    But many of those kids that did get properly identified, including me and regardless of race, would have died without our AG classes. I learned literally nothing in school outside of those classes and they were the only fun/interesting part of school and I could be a nerd without getting picked on. I know the last time ability grouping came up in a post here a lot of commenters said the same thing, so I know I’m not alone here.

    So, I guess my question is what is the alternative? Even though ability grouping is a racist system, not ability grouping doesn’t work for a lot of kids either. Can the systems that identify the smartest kids be made to be fair, or is that an inescapable element due to how we define achievement? If not, what do you do with the kids in class who are bored out of their minds, learning nothing, and not reaching their full potential?

    *This is the old term for it. I’m not sure if people are still using it now.

  12. HG wrote:

    Ming Zhou and Alejandro Portes wrote this piece some years back called “Should Immigrants Assimilate”. It touches on what Mary Waters writes about. I’ve wrote papers using all 3 authors mostly in relation to the Raza immigration/assimilation experience. In the article, it speaks about Haitian immigrants in Miami’s Liberty City. One of their argumens is that assimilation is “bad” if they assimilate into a segement of society with downward social mobility. While resisting assimilation of their immiediate society, if its conducive to downward social mobility, is good.
    In their article they noted that haitian immigrants (their children that is) who assimilated into Black US culture in Liberty City were on their way to downward social moblity. Although i do not agree completely, there are various situations where assimilation is not as easy to define nowadays, what is interesting to note is the internalized racism on the part of recently arrived and established immgrants towards other POC; however, no matter which way African immigrants decide to identify themselves as, the fact of the matter is that they will be treated like ALL Black americans just like nearly all Jewish, Irish, Italian, etc 2nd generation immigrants were treated like white people thus “becoming” white in mainstream US.

  13. DocDre wrote:

    you done good, m. dot.

    BTW i LOVE the Scheurich and Young article. it needs to be cited more for critical race research. i use it for my Internet and video game research and it just shakes folks to the bone; they never think about the ontological and aesthetic aspects of privilege/racism.

  14. dee wrote:

    “I only wish that I asked them, ‘What would you do if your child tests into the vocational track at 4?’ ”

    That’s a very classist statement. What’s wrong with the vocational track?

  15. HG wrote:

    I forgot to mention how socio-economic status plays a huge role in determining WHERE immigrants will live which in turn leads to their immidiate contact with different segements of society. An example is eddie murphy and arsenio hall’s “coming to america”. He’s a prince; moves to queens cuz he “upscale” eventhough he has the privelege of living anywhwere. In reality, a working class poor immigrant will more than likely move to a low-income hood in the states while someone with money has more options. It also depends if there are family or chain migration links which in most cases there are.
    Unfortunately, we in the sates are tracked at an early age. Urban education is the worst in terms of its negative effects it has on the youth, community, and city not to mention the nation and overall social interactions. Workers are made; not born. When youth of color are growing up in this state of urban education, many simply are turned off by school based on the dead end tracks they’ve been placed on. This is what its intentions are so they keep us divided when in fact we should be united against the 2% of the population that runs most of this shit. Divide and conquer folx; and conquest by consent IF we dont speak and act on shit.

  16. KD wrote:

    I usually ADORE reading Racialicious- great food for thought. But this made me angry! ARGH! I expect better from you guys!
    PLEASE publish how many children from which background in different states (preferable those mentioned- Jamaica, UK, US, Germany, then maybe a Scandinavian country and France) go on to university and then earn which income level afterwards. THEN we could debate the pro and cons of testing. Not like this. This is pitting one prejudice against another.

  17. KD wrote:

    For a comparison:
    “Although the United States occupies a middle ground in international comparisons of occupational mobility, its ranking in terms of income mobility is lower. Both the United States and Great Britain have significantly less economic mobility than Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and possibly Germany; and the United States may be a less economically mobile society than Great Britain. Much of the higher intergenerational elasticity in the United States is due to greater income immobility at the top and bottom of the earnings distribution; the mobility of middle earners looks more similar to that in the other countries.”
    Source:
    http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=35&articleid=85&sectionid=515

  18. jetessence wrote:

    @Lola

    Most black immigrants are middle-class? I have to wonder about the validity of this statement when we’re talking about black immigrants from the West Indies who came to North America in the 80s and 90s. I would argue that your statement does not hold true in this case. Most of those black immigrants came from incredibly impoverished settings. My Jamaican grandparents who immigrated to Canada and the USA didn’t even have high school educations–much less a college diploma. They worked their butts off though, and their adult children are now middle class.

    We’re not talking about West Indian young men and women who travel to the US for school as international students. Yes, they are ones with money.

  19. Lola wrote:

    @ jetessence

    point taken, I think I was focused on the articles reference to nurses and teachers. Regardless of income the ability and willingness to immigrant shows more motivation/agency than average, which is why immigrants from any country generally have higher levels of achievement

    but yes, international students generally = middle class

  20. Adrienne wrote:

    Okay cool, thank you Queerhapa. It explains alot.

  21. Skeng wrote:

    I am Jamaican and I just want to share my perspective.

    West Indians look down on Black Americans like White Americans look down on Black Americans, because the same stereotypes and prejudices which White Americans subscribe to and subsequently put in media are imported to us. You’d think that, with our colonial history, that we could see that we were being had, being told the same shit that the British used as the basis of colonising us, but in some Caribbean countries (definitely Jamaica), Black people are the racial majority, and so we don’t have to deal with it in the same way Black Americans do.

    I know that I, even though I have Black American relatives, used to think that Black Americans were lazy, stupid, had bad work ethic, etc. and I still struggle to kill that bit of racism. I know that, even now, I wouldn’t want to be ‘mistaken’ for a Black American based on those prejudices.

  22. m.dot wrote:

    Thank for posting this Latoya.

    The fact that Caribbean or West African immigrants have to CHOOSE whether or another they identify as Black American or African American is indicative of the Strength of the Hierarchical White Structure that privileges yet never marks whiteness.

    Whiteness is incredible. It names, yet remains unnamed. Marks yet remains unmarked. Orders, yet resists being decentered.

    In many ways Carribean folks and West African Folks can and do serve as buffer Blacks between White people and African Americans. Fascinating. Especially in the North East. There are only so many slots for Negros in elite schools and universities, so we compete. This serves the interests of the white, hierarchical, and ordered social system in which we live.

    It was eye opening to read how Jamaican momma’s came here and had to learn how to navigate what “being Black” means in this country. For me it shows how Blackness IS a social construction, like gender, sexuality etc.

    That class was hard but rewarding in its own special way because it forced me to learn how to interact with and challenge people who have VERY different organizing principals in their lives and scholarship.

    @Becky
    This happened on break, so the prof wasn’t there. Even if she was, I don’t resent the fact that the conversation happened. It forced me to learn how to be a scholar, who stood up for myself, AND listened to others.

    @Lola
    Regardless of income the ability and willingness to immigrant shows more motivation/agency than average
    =====
    Being middle class is relative.
    The United States DOES not let brown bodies or for that matter any BODY for the most part that does not have money.
    You either have money, a sponsor, or a job waiting for you, regardless of how awful the job is. (Its the American way).

    $35K/year in BK is different from 35K/year in US dollars in Jamaica.

    @DocDre
    Thank you. My homie put me on to that article like the first week of school, and I still am trying to get a handle on epistemology and ontology. Cuz, I was like, why the social scientist treat human beings like chemicals, YOU CAN’T do experiments on people like they are chemicals in a lab. He was like…uhhh you need to read this.

    I would like to read your work if you are willing to share. Ontology, race and vid game sounds AWE-SEME!

    @dee
    “I only wish that I asked them, ‘What would you do if your child tests into the vocational track at 4?’ ”

    That’s a very classist statement. What’s wrong with the vocational track?
    ==========
    How?

    The only away that this can be classist is if I assumed that there was something wrong with a vocation track which don’t. My entire post pivots on the unstated idea the human beings are Children of God, therefore, no one has the right to determine the future of a 4 year old.

    Thank you for all of your responses.
    You continually challenge me AND remind me that I am not alone.

  23. petitfour wrote:

    I have to agree that math is not culturally biased. You can easily assess a child’s spatial reasoning abilities at the age of 4 and predict their later aptitude for mathematics and numbers. I’m actually a fan of the European system of testings. My mother, aunts, and uncles came out of this schooling system (in Belize) and their educations were probably far beyond what they would have gotten in the US at the same time considering their class and race. One of my uncles (an Ixta Mayan from a tiny village-like all my family) tested incredibly highly in spatial reasoning and ended up, as an adult going to Duke and then Oxford. He has a doctorate in theoretical mathematics. I highly doubt in the US an incredibly poor little brown kids would have ever gotten the chance that his genius demanded. My mother showed an early skill for languages and ended up at Tulane University (on a full scholarship), speaks four languages, and has a Masters in English literature. I think early testing is vital to children’s later success and don’t understand your objections to it.

  24. Billy the Kidd wrote:

    The problem with testing and tracking is the lack of diversity in tests and the age in which they track students.
    The problem with standardized testing is the very fact that they are standardized and normed usually on a particular demographic and are thus going to marginalize certain populations(that is is their purpose and role. Its not benign)
    The problem is epistemology or the lack of one that is flexible and able to account for chaos, diversity, multiplicity, etc. I think children should be encouraged to adapt a more flexible way of thinking and be introduced to a multitude of epistemologies from a young age. Then as they grow, as they excel in certain areas, as they demonstrate motivation to excel certain areas, we can “track” them into particular modes of livelihood. Not everyone has to go to college and I think its elitist to suggest that the vocational track is somehow worse.
    For some, academia is not their thing(not just ability wise, but interest wise) and prefer working with their hands.

  25. Cuba Libre wrote:

    Well if the British/European system of tracking students is so racist, classist and evil, can we really say that the USA’s system is saving the poor and disadvantaged?

    If not, why not?

    To me it is another example of efficiency vs justice. Let’s be honest. The children with enough cultural capital at age 4 are more likely to be the same students with enough cultural capital at age 14 to take algebra and to go to university at age 18. So, if a society wants to maximize efficiency, they will prepare the children most likely to go to university with university prep.

    But, this system conflicts with many people’s sense of justice because not all children without cultural capital at age 4 should be dropped from the university track, and not all children with cultural capital at age 4 should be kept on the university track.

    What’s a government to do? (really, I don’t know)

    PS to clear up confusion, when i say “should go to university” I mean “will go to university and have a high chance of successfully completing it and recouping costs for loss of 4 years and tuition”. You can’t say that about all students, so all students shouldn’t go to university.

  26. Vodalus wrote:

    @ dee

    What’s wrong with the “vocational track” is that it relegates a child to a lower income bracket in the future. In a society that does not make any consistent effort to make Good Things affordable to the working/lower classes, relegating a child to a vocational future greatly limits their opportunities to choose their own happiness as an adult.

    Its one thing to provide all children with the same educational opportunities (ideal case) and then allow them to choose their financial priorities, but its entirely another to force their choices.

    What I’m trying to say is that there isn’t anything wrong with the people who are “vocational” but there is something wrong with the way our society penalizes being a vocational person. Given that pretty much all parents want their children to enjoy greater financial success, asking a bunch of grad students on how they would feel about their children being forced into a vocational track is a good way of illustrating the way that early differentiation profoundly limits future financial opportunities.

    Also, can you imagine the sibling rivalry that must arise when one child tests into a vocational school and the other tests into academic? Given the way society consistently tries to make vocational workers feel “less than”, I can only imagine the effect of visibly attending different schools based on test scores.

  27. ashlynn wrote:

    “She said “Aren’t all children about the same at four?”

    I said no, all children are not the same. Each child’s education attainment is related to how much money her parents earn and how much social capital her parents have and lastly how much intergenerational wealth a family has.”

    Excellent, excellent point. My mother was pretty poor at four, and had I been tested so early(!), I would have done fine according to those standards because my mother made a point from day one to stress that I was better than the projects I lived in, and education would prove that. So I grew up with a sense of ambition, or rather hope and pride, that enabled me to be a better student- that furthermore, enabled me to overcome being dyslexic, which, had I not had that support, could have crippled my education future from Jump Street.

    I can’t tell you how many people I know- mostly teachers, actually- who confess to not being a bright, smart, or interested student. It wasn’t until later on that the traits that put them in the careers today actually began to manifest themselves.

    Speaking of teachers, regarding that bit about school policy and teacher subjectivity affecting Black boys- Oh goodness, I recently just spoke with a teacher who, though fairly new, already had the “Let’s talk about the poor Black kid right in front of him in hushed tones” routine down-pat. It upset me in that, she being Asian and me being Black, she felt as if I, by nature of “not being like them”, would be okay with her showing her prejudiced tail to me like it was no big deal. Young educators, particularly White and Asian(being of the “model minority” stripe)” teachers often come into predominantly Black and Hispanic classrooms, fresh out of college thinking they know everything when they know nothing, feeling obligated to their students not out of a teacher wanting to help, but out of feeling pity for the disadvantaged minorities, already undermining their right to an identity and in turn, their right to learn without prejudice so as to better that identity. That pity, coupled with racist standardized testing, leaves some deep scars.

    And if I didn’t make it clear, ohmygodOHMYGODWHYARETHEYTESTINGCHILDRENATFOURTHEREARESOMANYTHINGSINHERENTLYAWFULINTHATIDEKWHERETOBEGIN IWILLJUST SITHEREFORNOWANDWAIL/GAPEATMYSCREEN.

  28. NancyP wrote:

    I am against very early vocational tracking. If a child decides at age 12 or 14 or 16 that they just love tinkering with cars (probably because they have a family member or other mentor who is a mechanic), and just hate sitting in front of a computer all day, well, vocational ed seems like a fine idea, and if that former student gets sick of being a mechanic, there’s always adult education. Community college courses, night classes or weekend classes for business or law degrees, traditional full-time college (practical only for those with flexible work schedules/ freelance work or spouses who support them), and the new kid on the block, distance learning.

    I think that traditional college is oversold* as “the only” possible job preparation, and that many employers view college as a proxy for ability to finish long-term goals rather than a guarantee that employees will have certain skills. Some employers might find that candidates who have a mixture of educational experiences – traditional classwork, co-op experience, distance learning – and a portfolio may be better choices than candidates who have had only traditional classwork. Right now, many employers are over-reliant on college as seal of approval. Of course, current teens and young adults are going to want the “seal of approval”, preferably from a college with maximum social cachet. I am suggesting that education itself, and its relation to most employment, may change dramatically over the next decade or two.

    *Note: My highly successful father, who came of age in WWII (radar technician, then infantry), had a variety of experiences including a year of college, a lot of practical engineering picked up in the Army COE before switching to infantry for the excitement (landing on Normandy), and some engineering classes -but no degree. He started in process engineering, then technical sales, then started and grew a successful small business. Sadly, he would have had a hard time getting started if he were in the current generation with that type of mixed resume.

  29. Wendi Muse wrote:

    i totally want to read this book. thanks for bringing it our attention in this post. though i feel like i might spit nails at the end…sigh

  30. NancyP wrote:

    I am pretty sure that a number of highly skilled “vocational ed” jobs can pay well, not as well as the job of senior associate or partner at a blue chip law firm, but probably as well as a public defender job or social worker job or low or middle management job. Not all college degreed people make big bucks. A highly skilled auto mechanic or commercial HVAC mechanic with some business sense can create his/her own business. Besides, some people who are “book smart” just like working with their hands. If you consider vocational ed. to include associate degree programs, there are a host of highly specialized health care jobs out there, some of which require a college degree only at the managerial level.

    Re: early testing. It has to be done properly, without bias, and it has to be repeated as the child matures. If I had been tested at age four, I would have been dreadful, I simply wasn’t very verbal or outgoing, and wouldn’t have been interested. Two years later, the examiner would have seen a chatty, engaged child. Testing can identify aptitudes only if the child is willing and able to cooperate.

  31. karak wrote:

    When I was tested to go into Kindergarten in the American school system, my mother was quietly informed of several things:

    Due to my late August birthday, I was the youngest child in the district.

    My hand/eye coordination and fine/gross motor skills were below my level. About 6 months behind, in fact.

    I had issues speaking intelligibly and logically, could not seem to follow directions or sit still.

    My mother took my home, and got me speech therapy for my lisp, behavioral therapy and medication for my previously undiagnosed ADD, and enrolled me in sports.

    I ended up going to a private liberal college on an excellent scholarship. I enjoy public speaking, video games, and softball. I spent most of elementary school, junior high, and high school in advanced learning or “gifted” programs.

    If I had been tracked when I was FIVE, I wouldn’t have any of that. People change, children change, and I was lucky enough to have a mother that saw past stupid tests and had the ability and the knowledge to work with me on my problems.

    My family background is middle/working class Midwestern white American with college-educated parents. Do YOU think that had anything to do with my accomplishments and “overcoming” my childhood issues?

  32. m.dot wrote:

    @ Wendi,

    Her work is awesome. Soooo good to see the narratives of Carribean mommas and teens as they discuss “deciding” to self identify as Black or African American.

    You won’t spit nails. I hope. I came away from it with a better understanding of how Whiteness marks, is unnamed and moves around humans like chess pieces to serve its interests.

  33. Ergo wrote:

    Feel free to ignore me if I’m derailing or going too far off the topic of this post, but that Sheurich and Young paper was a confusing, vague pile of buzzwords and relativistic jargon. I understand and find useful the concepts of societal and institutional racism, but they never actually stated what they meant by epistemological racism.

    So, my question is: what exactly are these white, European ways of knowing things and doing research that are so inaccessible to other people? How can things like epistemology be racist?

    The clear answer to me is that if research methodologies result in racist and clearly biased conclusions, somebody isn’t being a good researcher. It’s the same way with science–if someone in the 1800s publishes a racist study about race and cranial size, we don’t conclude that OMG science is racist and white supremacist, we conclude that they were doing science wrong, because by definition natural science is cultureless.

    IMO we should just make sure POC have access to these social science research communities so they can call people out on whatever bullshit occurs (but not just to act as teachers to white people, obviously). Talking about “alternate modes of knowing” just makes it sound like POC are incapable of using empirical reasoning, logic, etc–and that strikes me as racist.

  34. Rog in Miami wrote:

    I am a GAY, Jamaican-born man of 32 years, who became a naturalized citizen in 2003. I identify as African-American even though my African-American brothers and sisters sometimes insist that I’m Jamaican and laugh off my “preference” as being silly. However, I don’t worry about it because my Jamaican brothers and sisters do it too. I cosider myself African-American because 1) I am a naturalized citizen of the US and I am of African descent and 2) even if I weren’t a naturalized citizen, I sill am living in the ‘Americas’, and am of African descent and am therefore African-American. 3) When I first came out, it was mostly my African-American sisters and, of course, my gay African-American brothers who accepted me. That final note basically sealed how I would prefer to be identified.

    With that said, the education system in Jamaica is not necessarily better than the education system in the United States, particularly beyond high school. America is certainly more efficient and effective, in my view, in fostering post-secondary education than most of the rest of the world. For example, I am continually astounded by the high-quality vocational programs that exist in some American schools. Some high school graduates leave their vocational programs, in some cases, with a higher level of knowledge than college graduates. It’s amazing!

  35. m.dot wrote:

    @ Ergo

    Feel free to ignore me if I’m derailing or going too far off the topic of this post, but that Sheurich and Young paper was a confusing, vague pile of buzzwords and relativistic jargon. I understand and find useful the concepts of societal and institutional racism, but they never actually stated what they meant by epistemological racism.
    ========
    You are right, it is crazy jargoney.

    So, my question is: what exactly are these white, European ways of knowing things and doing research that are so inaccessible to other people? How can things like epistemology be racist?
    =====
    I asked my friend, who recc’d it b/c he understands theory WAY better than I do.

    His response.

    “things are naturally interdependent
    everything right?”
    “and nothing is really 100% guaranteed b/c when something happens in one place in impacts shit in another.
    European positivist epistemology ignores interdependence and this then allows Europeans to ignore that their development required the interdependet, underdevelopment of all others
    and justify their ’superiority’”

    Was this responsive?

    I actually learned something about Epist, in reading his response.

    Awesome.

  36. Ergo wrote:

    @m.dot

    I can see what your friend means about European *culture* ignoring interdependence, but I don’t see what that has to do with positivism or epistemology.

    I appreciate your response to my question, though!

  37. Clark Antonio wrote:

    It is so unfortunate that nearly every other group of people in the World are unified and can stand together on certain things. I notice how even when europe has it’s differences, they usually are willing to band together and fight for a common cause. Asia the same, Hispanics the same, etc.

    Why are we as blacks of the world so unrelenting in building these false differences between us. The only thing that makes us different is circumstance. We are all the same, even as human beings we are ultimately the same. I’m disgusted at the way we have been fragmented as people. Hotel Rwanda anyone? Tutsi vs Hutu, Jamaican vs American, Haitian vs Dominican! We are all the same people!

    Im an African with american citizenship, born here raised here but african in the same way that my wife who is asian was born here raised here and still calls herself asian like any other person of eastern decent. Tracing my geneology I found that I’m decendant of Nigeria, and through the slave trade Ive been generations removed from what some may consider some sort of superior upbringing.

    Are we lazy in america? or have we been conditioned to a level of reduced confidence in the possibilities. Was Malcolm X lazy? How about Martin luther King or the countless others who have stood in defiance of the racist system that we reside.

    The only way we can improve our lives is to unify, yes many blacks in America live less than favorable lives, but if I recall you find the same level of low and high no matter where you go. Ive seen murderers, rapists, robbers, and dead beats in every tone of the color wheel.

    Unity people, Unity!!

  38. moose wrote:

    I am from a little village in a small West African country called The Gambia. I use to walk 8 miles to and fro everyday to school. At the age of four I was doing these long treks. In third grade, I was called a “stick in the head” by my teacher. Three years later (primary six), I graduated with the highest score in both mathematics and science in our GCE. In 1986, I graduated high school with a division two. I was denied access for A level because I was not a division one. Four years later, I enrolled in an American university and mathematics became an easy task for me. I graduated college with two bachelors and a masters degree. Currently, I teach math and science the public school system. Could this have been possible if the teacher that called me stick in the head had suggested a vocational track for me at the age of 4?

  39. pilot wrote:

    about unbiased testing at age four-

    I don’t know a lot about childhood development, but I did take a couple classes in university and remember reading that spatial tests at a young age can indicate how well the child will do in math later in life…

    However, I remember a professor of mine was doing research on childhood toys (boy’s toys vs. girl’s toys) and how they affected children’s spatial abilities. He said that a lot of researchers thought that the differences in toys that girls played with and boys played with (dolls vs. building blocks) played a role in their ability once they started school. If this is true, doesn’t it mean that social capital does play a huge role in how children test, even at the early age of four?

    Again, I don’t know much about development, but if anyone out there has any more information on this I’d be interested to hear it.

  40. Cacy wrote:

    I haven’t read all the comments so I may have skipped an experience that mirrored my own.

    I attended school in Guyana up until the age of 9. As Guyana was a British colony, it retained the British system of learning after independence.

    Before I returned to New York, where I was born, I was to enter Standard 3 or 4, which is 3rd or 4th grade in Guyana.

    In my primary school in my village, all students were tested regardless of race or class. The tests were administered for advancement to higher Standards or Forms, (Grades) so if you did well during normal school time but you failed exams intending you to move forward, you were left behind or had to repeat the grade. Students were ranked from 1 to 10 or higher, 1 being the brightest; and it was really competitive. I remember being ranked 3rd for several years despite being terrified of some subjects.

    Everyone went to school, regardless of station or race. Everyone wore uniforms and teachers disciplined students with canes or belts. Getting a wrong answer in class got you whipped. Fighting got you whipped. Talking back to teachers got you whipped. And when you got home, you got whipped for misbehaving.

    Stuff I learned in school in Guyana would not be taught for years in the NYC school system in the 1980s..mainly maths and penmanship and language arts. I knew how to write in cursive at age 7 or 8 but American kids weren’t learning this until fourth or fifth grade if at all… I won’t even go into learning the metric system.

    When I began school here in NYC, I was tested and my parents were informed that I was slow because of my faculties.. I wasn’t slow. The stuff they tested me on were alien to me culturally. Case in point I didn’t watch tv until I came to NYC. I didn’t even know what basketball was. We played cricket and football in Guyana. Rounders… Further, there wasn’t any competition within the classes or the grades.

    Anyway, I saw firsthand what its like to attend school in the West Indies (Guyana is considered part of the WI for cultural rather than geographical reasons) and here; and the difference is amazing. I can totally understand why West Indians have the attitudes they have towards American blacks as I’ve been on the receiving end of several years of abuse by peers and teachers. Not saying that those attitudes are not warranted but there is a total disconnect it comes to education and African Americans. As a teacher I see the other side of the equation even more and its totally insane how SOME African Americans deal with education and their children if at all. I BLAME HIP HOP.

    I don’t understand why kids are not tested to discover HOW they learn vs WHAT they learn. If we knew the different ways kids learn then we may have an understanding of certain aptitudes or skills they may have. I mean, human beings are different in lots of ways, so learning does not have to be a uniform process. It would also help if AA kids didn’t view learning or being smart as acting white.

    If acting white=smart, then what does black represent? OBVs I can go on…

  41. unusualmusic wrote:

    Dear Model Minority. Please edit your post so as to get rid of that BS argument about Jamaicans testing their children and deciding school tracks for their kids at four years old. They have enough stupid stereotypes to contend with, without that piece of epic nonsense. No, an edit really isnt going to cut it. Please fix the body of the post as soon as possible, please. Because clearly a lot of your commenters are being misled.

  42. unusualmusic wrote:

    And this is especially egregious since 1. She admits in the coments of her blog that she arbitrarily picked a no. and 2. a simple googling of “jamaican education system” would have given her the info she needed.

  43. jordan wrote:

    Some of the key issues within discourses about education, especially public education, surround whether schools are institutions created to reproduce social structure or if they should be places that actively work to level the playing field. I think these are important issues to get out on the table. It seems as though it was the elephant in the room during the classroom discussion mentioned and it continues to be in the comment section here. This has nothing to do with whether or not intellectual ability can be determined at age 4.
    Ultimately, it is an important distinction and a commitment to one way of doing things or another that matters in day-to-day life in schools. If we believe that a child with poor math skills at age 4 can be taught more, we run one kind of school. If we believe their skills are set, we run a different kind of school. If we believe that some children have low spatial skills because of social disadvantage that can be overcome, we run yet a different kind of school. As human beings, we have that kind of will over the world. It’s rad.
    Many have suggested that American public schools are characterized by a mix of these philosophies and approaches. In some ways, we are fundamentally opposed to the British and other European schooling systems that maintain generational privilege and wealth. After all, we are a country founded on self-made men, boot strappers, and the like. In other ways, we’re scared shitless to imagine a schooling system that might shift power out of the hands of those who have traditionally held it.
    So if we put it that way and if it sounds racist to you that an educational system would actively work to reproduce social hierarchy, then you might want to take a closer and more critical look at things like tracking and standardized testing. These are the instruments of such a system.

  44. Martha wrote:

    It’s not just about race and priviledge.

    The system is so bad, even your birthday can put you at a disadvantage.

    9-12 months can mean huge differences in the cognitive capacities of a child.

    Whats more, ability streaming compounds and reinforces whatever disadvantages were already there.

    If you persist in calling a kid stupid, eventually they will believe you..

    There is so much wrong with the educational system on a whole.

    Anyone with an interest on this subject I’d suggest they look up Ken Robinson’s address at the 2006 Ted conference, or read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers – The Story of Success”.

    Success is not achieved as much from individual merit as much as it is preparedness and opportunity.

    In other words, privilege..

    That, and varying degrees of hard work.

  45. pm wrote:

    This isn’t “the British system”, its what _used to be_ the British system. I guess its like a lot of things that Britain exported to (imposed upon) the Empire, Britain itself changed but the post-empire countries haven’t.

    Though the system I remember (that was abolished the year I went to school) involved selection at 11 rather than 4.

    I don’t want to tell Caribbean countries what to do (they’ve had plenty of that already) but I have to say that in the UK it was shown that the biggest single factor determining how well you did at 11 was parental income.

    Yes, a small number of academically able working class children benefited from the system, which is something those who wish to bring back the old system never stop pointing out (especially if they themselves were one of that fortunate minority), but what they don’t mention is that a far larger group were assigned to the ‘vocational’ (low-status) track for life, when many were capable of other things.

    Also, not only was there the issue of ’streaming’ people so early in life, it also had the problem that it meant those destined to be the middle-classes would not have to socially mix in their childhoods with the working class people they’d spend their working lives bossing about. It was a kind of apartheid, reinforcing a class system.

    I believe the testing system was developed largely based on the ideas of the IQ theorist (and allegedly fraudulent researcher) Cyril Burt. Interesting to me is that early IQ “science” in Britain was largely about “showing” the “natural inferiority” of the working classes, while in the US the emphasis was more on trying to “prove” the “inferiority” of black people and ethnic minority whites.

  46. Anna wrote:

    I think you’re right Jordan. A society has to ask itself how it wants to raise its children. Regardless of abilities, the question we should ask ourselves is how can we offer children a maximum of opportunities.
    Testing might be interesting to help children overcome their difficulties, like one of you said it had helped her mother help her. But using it for classification is wrong, for so many reasons. There are soooo many studies on social reproduction, we should just know by now how it affects children. I have a lot of children around in my family, and work with some too, and I teach young adults. Even without propper statistical tools I can see how parents and environment affect children. And yes, children are different even at a very early age. They can have very different ways of talking, using more or less complex words for exemple, depending on how they are talked to etc. (just a striking example)
    That being said, we should focus on helping all children achieve their potential. This means, finding ways to teach children differently if needed for example.
    Of course, early testing can help a lot of children, giving them access to better classes. Which is great! France just started doing this in Paris’ banlieues for example, sending some students to better schools.
    But this cannot be a longtime solution for society, because it still leaves so many children to their “fate” in a classist and racist system.
    (Education is a big topic to debate though, as is childhood development, …)

    Just one last thing I want to say. What we should try to think of is this: how can society, and we as “social capital” for the children around us, counterbalance this classist and racist system?

    better schools, smaller classes, free activities for children, care for the children around us, helping them read, access to books, all kinds of toys, and so on. Children should never be left alone with their outlined future, in any way. Sometimes parents can’t help their children, which is very sad. But school and people around should counterbalance that, or else those children are “lost”. (scholarships are a way too to help if the problem is a financial one.)

    And I do not think it is bad not to study for example, but children should be able to try anything and learn what they want and chose (which means they should have developed individuality too). And they should be helped to overcome difficulties so they can have a maximum of chances, regardless of their origins or initial abilites. IMO…

  47. Sealinewuman wrote:

    I went to school both in the Jamaica and in the states, and lets be completely honest, the caliber of education that I received in the Caribbean was leaps and bounds ahead of the one I received here. When I came here the things that they were doing in 9th grade, I hadalready done 2 grade levels before, I even wound up in a French class with all Hatian students because I tested out of the regular French classes, that was kinda cool because I learned some Kreole. I thank god that I started out in Jamaica though rather than NY because I think I might have gotten lost and for a bit I did, but had some great teachers (who ironically with the exception of 3 were West Indian) who saved me from being bored to death.

    The system we use back home makes more sense to me, yes I may be biased but hear me out. We have two types of schools back home, private schools known as Prep Schools, where if your parents have enough money they can pay for your to go to one. We also have public schools know as primary/all age schools, for people who can’t afford to send their children to prep schools. The same tests are used at both types of schools to determine the childrens aptitudes, yes we start testing earlier but we als0 start school earlier, and not preschool finger painting like they do here, but actually learning subjects, I was learning to sing, count and words for common items in Spanish in kindergarten, 3 years old.
    Children are also routinely retested at different ages, so they don’t actually get pigeon-holed anywhere.

    But to me one of the biggest and best reasons that I favour this system is because of a test we have know as the common entrance. It’s a test administered between the ages 0f 10-12 to determine which high school a student will attend (we start high school between those agaes), it’s like an SAT, with sections in math, english comprehension and composition. All students across the island take this test, it’s a rehash of everything you’ve learned from grade 3 to 5 roughly. The high school you go to, usually depends on the marks you get in a section of the test or a combination of the sections, I forgot to mention, you choose 2 schools that you would like to attend and if your marks are high enough for these schools you’ll go to either your first or second choice, if not, they put you the next best place based on test scores. To me this is better than a system where you go to a school based on where you live.

    IMO, there is nothing wrong with a vocational education, one of my uncles is a carpenter, not like a carpenter is in America, I mean someone who creates furniture, beautifully I might add. He makes more that both of his brothers, one who is a doctor and the other who is an engineer.

    And, sorry no, but most of the people from the West Indies that you see here are not people from middle class backgrounds unless they came for grad school or uni, why the hell would I leave my warm island to come live in a country that’s a refrigerator for most of the year if I didn’t have to? Most are from impoverished backgrounds and they come here to seek a better life for themselves and their families.

    This is probably one of the biggest issues West Indians have with AA, a lot of them don’t understand how they can come to this country and achieve a measure of success for themselves and their families often in a generation and AA who have been here for generations, can’t seem to do the same and continuously grouse about “the man” or spout some other conspiracy theory (not that there aren’t a lot of shiftless West Indians out there, trust me there are quite a few). When I was younger I tried to explain to my elders that unlike West Indians who have a longer history of governing themselves and seeing people that look like them represented in popular culture and media, to AA this is a fairly new phenomenon, however, as I’ve gotten older I’ve started to lose some sympathy, I’m sorry but at some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions and destiny, like my mother says if you walk around expecting a confrontation, sooner or later you gonna get one.

    Furthermore, why should I who am not AA, be forced to adopt AA culture and politics? I’m West Indian, I have my own culture and politics, yes some of the issues do overlap, but don’t try and force me to adopt your issues as my own, your history is different than mine and as a consequence I will probably view the world differently than an AA would, and my interactions with people whomever they are will be coloured by that history.

    But, back on point, it’s just not fair to ascribe American racial politics/history to something that is not American in nature, foundation or conception, that’s just short-sighted and belittles something that has worked within that culture for generations.