This article is abridged from a draft chapter
on equity in the forthcoming Regional
Alliance Systemic Reform Handbook.

Why have programs in math and science
that have turned so-called low achievers
into high achievers failed to catch on, despite
their well-documented success? Why is coopera-
tive learning practiced in only a small number
of classrooms even though it has more research
documenting its effectiveness for all learners
than any other instructional strategy? Why does
tracking prevail, when there is overwhelming
evidence that it does not serve all learners?

The answer may lie in our beliefs that are
incompatible with "success for all." This section
examines four sets of beliefs that are pervasive
in our society and our schools. They are so per-
vasive that we may not even be aware of them.
They are not the beliefs we espouse or put in
our mission statements. They may make us
squirm or embarrass us. But, intentional or not,
they shape the way we treat children. They
include beliefs about the nature of intelligence,
the abilities of poor, minority, and female stu-
dents, the purpose of schools, and the nature
of mathematics and science.

Four Common Beliefs

There are only so many smarts to
go around

1) There is a distribution of intelligence in the
population ranging from "very smart,""sorta smart,"
and "kinda dumb."

2) How much intelligence you have determines
what you can learn and what you can be in life.

3) And, all this can be sorted out from standardized
testing and teacher observation (Howard, 1991, p. 1).

Even before kindergarten, children are subjected
to testing that is specifically designed to shake
out differences, identify deficiencies, and compare
one child to another. Minor differences in per
formance, representing only a few months
difference in cognitive development, can deter
mine what label a child may get tagged with
for his or her entire school career (Howard, 1991).

If all this sorting helped so-called "slow" learners
catch up, that would be one thing. But the
opposite is more often the case. Once a child
is labeled as slow, teachers, counselors, and
administrators start expecting less. Low expecta
tions undermine confidence; lack of confidence
undercuts performance; and the downward
spiral of self-fulfilling prophecy begins. Any
small gap in performance that may have existed
initially tends to grow over the years, despite
special services students may receive.

All kids can learn except...

The "innate ability paradigm" has had a par-
ticularly harmful effect on poor and minority
students, who, because of prejudice, are often
expected to be less intelligent. In disproportionate
numbers, they are placed in low tracks, special
education, and remedial programs and out of
advanced courses and gifted programs. Teachers
and other school staff often have white, middle
class behaviors and goals in mind when they
think of their ideal student. They may assume,
for example, that children who have not yet
mastered English cannot learn mathematics or
science. This paradigm also negatively affects
girls, who are often viewed as being less capable
than boys in math and science.

Schools are for sorting

Where did it all begin? Jeanne Oakes (1985)
traces the sorting of students by social class
back to the early 1900's. With the influx of
immigrants industry developed a need for a
socially stratified workplace. The American vision
of education as a way to increase opportunity
for everyone gave way to the view of schools
as the "place where students would be sorted
and prepared to meet the socio-economic expec
tations of society" (Barquet, 1992). Unfortunately,
that view, anachronistic as it is, persists, and
bumps right up against the rhetoric of high
standards for all.

Math and science are the special
realm of the very smart

A fourth set of beliefs about which students will
do well in math and science is based on our
views about the natures of the disciplines them
selves. Science is seen as a set of authoritative
facts that are accessible only to experts. Those
who do well in science tend to be students who
can talk like the science books do (Lemke, 1990).
A similar view of mathematics is that it too is
a static body of knowledge. If mathematics is
memorizing formulas and giving quick responses
to lots of questions that have right answers,
then students who do that well are considered
to be good at math (J. Weisglass, personal
communication, 1997). These views contrast
sharply with those of the national standards
and frameworks. These documents advocate
for science and mathematics as dynamic pur-
suits, in which students ask questions that may
never be answered, make meaning, solve
problems, discuss ideas with colleagues, and
use common sense. This view is potentially
more inclusive of diverse students (if other
barriers to equity are addressed).

Collecting data: How do we know if beliefs
are an obstacle to equity in our school?

Beliefs are difficult to measure. They are invisible,
but manifest in what we do and say. One way
to know if these beliefs prevail in your school
is to take another look at the data on student
outcomes, participation, and access. If disparities
exist between class, racial, cultural, or gender
groups, that indicates inequitable practices,
which are grounded in the beliefs described
above. A variety of tools are available to collect
information about these beliefs, including sur-
veys, interviews, and focus groups. Samples are
included in the Data Tools Section of this chapter.

References

Howard, J. (1991). Getting smart: The social construction of
intelligence. Lexington, MA: The Efficacy Institute.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and
values. New York: Ablex.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure
inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nancy Love is the developer of the Regional
Alliance Systemic Reform Handbook.

Nancy_Love@TERC.edu