Urban Classroom Variety Research Paper

Jonathan Kozol, author of the 1992 New York Times bestseller Savage Inequalities, was shocked after two years of visiting public schools from approximately 30 neighborhoods across the United States. After a visit to East St. Louis, discussed in Chapter 1, “Life on the Mississippi: East St. Louis, Illinois,” Kozol discovered that the community and the education system were in complete ruins; not only was the area a complete toxic wasteland, but the schools were cut off from the modern world. In his investigation of the area, Kozol learned that the schools in East St. Louis not only did not have enough supplies, but did not offer the same variety of classes to choose from as in wealthier schools. Kozol refers to the chairman of the state board of Illinois’s comment and says, “Sadly enough, no matter how it ratifies the stereotypes, this is the truth; and there is a poignant aspect to the fact that, even with class size soaring and one quarter of the system’s teachers being given their dismissal, the state board of education demonstrates its genuine but skewed compassion by attempting to leave sports and music untouched by the overall austerity” (Kozol 25). Kozol argues that students in urban schools limited by class choices are discouraged to excel in their education. Despite attempts by the state board to provide “avenues of success,” Kozol discovers that they merely reinforce the stereotypes of urban school students and ignore individual talents. Kozol exposes the flaws of the education system in East St. Louis, but does not directly address classroom variety and how it affects urban student’s success and motivation. In addressing the negative effects of school boards in urban school systems, we must further understand the dimensions of first, why these students only excel in certain areas but not others, second, how lack of class variety and choice undermine student’s abilities and chance for success, and third, what can be done to improve the variety of classes and provide other “avenues of success” for urban students.

In urban classrooms, the reason why these students only excel in certain areas is discussed by Andrea Guice in her article “Redesigning Urban Classrooms to Impact Student Achievement” in the International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. Guice discusses how traditional classroom models are unfair and unrealistic to urban students. She exposes the flaws of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), an act which targets the issues that American public schools face today, by stating her belief that there is no reform that can “cure” public school systems. From outside sources, Guice tells us that urban and suburban schools performance rates differ because of the classroom environments. Although the federal government is striving to improve education in all classrooms, Guice argues that education cannot be designed for one classroom when she says, “We now know that children have diverse learning styles, learn at different rates, have varying socio-economic backgrounds, and have diverse intellectual strengths yet our society provides urban, high-poverty, highly diverse student populations with the same model, expecting the same results as those of suburban and economically advantaged student populations” (Guice 2). Guice believes that there is no educational model that suits all individuals. She proposes her own model that targets the issues in urban classroom in three parts: organizational culture, learning environment, and instructional models. The instructional models used in classrooms should incorporate the learning styles (e.g. visual, auditory, and kinesthetic), to meet the needs of individual students. Guice believes that traditional education defined by the core subjects is important; however, urban students excel in classrooms that meet their individual learning needs, such as by learning styles.

In Paul Goodman’s 1964 book Compulsory Miseducation and the Community of Scholars, he addresses why urban students only excel in certain subjects by discussing the nature of “institutionalized” education in America today. Goodman has traveled across America, teaching, lecturing, and writing on today’s social issues in the school system. According to Goodman, schools are organized to meet national needs; however, the tools for succeeding at a national level are not provided to urban students. Goodman references Deweyan progressive education, a concept that combines modern qualities in the classroom (e.g. scientific thought) with humanistic qualities that encourage individual freedoms (Goodman 21). In part one: “Primary Grades,” Goodman lists a variety of situations that caused students to drop out. In a specific passage, he discusses how students in urban and suburban schools respond differently to the “inhumane” and “middle class” atmosphere of the classroom and says,“The young rightly resist animal constraint. But, at least in New York where I have been a school-board visitor, most teachers-and the principals who supervise their classes-operate as if progressive education had not proved the case for noise and freedom of bodily motion. (Dewey stresses the salutary alternation of boisterousness and tranquility.) The seats are no longer bolted to the floor, but they still face the front. Of course, the classes are too large to cope with or without ‘discipline.’ Then make them smaller, or don’t wonder if children escape out the cage; either into truancy or baffled daydream” (Goodman 14).
Goodman addresses how classroom activity and size influence why students excel in the classroom. In urban schools such as in New York, educators try to improve education and meet national standards by suppressing individuals’ classroom activity; however, Goodman believes that in urban schools where classroom size is too large, student’s individual learning needs and behavior are overlooked. Guice and Goodman conclude that school systems utilize the same “middle class” instructional models in the classroom; however, students have unique learning styles and behavioral and attention needs. Goodman addresses that behavior plays an important role in urban student’s success and why they excel in certain areas; however, he does not specifically outline the types of behaviors and how they impact student’s success.

In a study done by Marshall S. Swift and George Spivak, presented in their 1973 “Academic Success and Classroom Behavior in Secondary Schools”, the classroom behavior in eight different junior-senior high school level urban ghetto schools was analyzed, providing behavioral reasons for why urban students excel in different subjects of the classroom. Using the Hahnemann High School Behavior Rating Scale (HHSB), the researchers were able to identify specific behaviors in the classroom, such as reasoning ability, verbal productivity, original and independent thinking, anxiety, rapport, obstreperousness, negativism, withdrawal, and expression of inability to cope with achievement demands. In two different analyses of norms and achievement and classroom behavior, achieving and underachieving student’s behavior was examined. The teachers in the classrooms were asked to assess the behavior of their students based on grades received in traditional subjects (English, mathematics, social studies, and science) using the HHSB scale. In the discussion of their research, Swift and Spivak say, “Finally, it is quite clear that some under-achieving students display their frustration, anger, and disappointment openly and directly, while others draw away, become anxious, and feel impotent in all school settings. With this in mind, the results of this project provide the teacher with a means to gain a better understanding of the specific nature of the student’s behavioral difficulty and a measure of the degree to which a particular problem interferes with learning” (Swift, Spivak 398).Swift and Spivak conclude that behavior in the classroom is related to success in academics. The variety of student’s behaviors leads them to be successful in certain subjects; however, Goodman believes that in urban schools where achievement is measured by success in traditional subjects, there is no room for individual behavior. The researchers propose that the feelings of underachieving students in urban schools can be improved by the teachers ability measure their behavior in relation to academic success; the proposed method is the HHSB scale. When Goodman describes the New York classroom, students are expected to behave in manner that the educators want them to; however, this study suggests that students can only succeed in academics when teachers address the unique behaviors of students. Whether behavior is directly related to the learning styles discussed by Guice is unknown; however, this study tells us that success or failure of students in traditional subjects is related to how they behave. Although this study proposes a solution to improving student’s academic achievement, it fails to address whether or not teachers are willing to or have the right tools to help urban students achieve in academics.

Paulo Freire’s “The Banking Concept of Education,” chapter two in his larger work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, outlines the traditional practices used in school systems and why its ideologies cause students to be successful in certain areas. Freire coins the phrase the “banking concept,” a method by which authoritative teachers “deposit” information into their submissive students. Freire’s inspiration derived in his home country, where the poor Brazilian farmers basic literacy needs could not be met. He argues that traditional information, emphasizing facts and concepts, possess no meaning for students who cannot relate their personal realities to universal standards. Freire says about students subjected to the banking concept, “It is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from praxis, individuals cannot truly be human” (Freire 63). Freire believes that students cannot learn in a classroom where individual interests are ignored, but only when they are encouraged by communication that allows students to question information rather than to merely accept it. Although Freire does not address specific behaviors, he does believe that students can only excel when traditional information is transformed by the teachers to meet each students needs. Swift and Spivak identified specific behaviors in the classroom using the HHSB scale, proposing that teachers should identify which behavioral difficulties interfere with learning; however, Goodman believes that in urban classrooms, size and discipline discourage students from succeeding. Goodman, Swift and Spivak, Freire, and Guice further expose why urban students only excel in certain subjects by explaining the relationship between traditional classrooms and urban students. It is the traditional aspects of American education that discourage individual learning abilities in urban classrooms, causing these students to fall behind the rest of their suburban and rural counterparts; however, the writers have yet to discuss what is the driving force behind these students failures.

When approaching class variety and how it affects urban student’s abilities and chances for success, professors Marcia Gentry, Mary G. Rizza, and Robert K. Gable provide motivational reasons when they compare rural, urban, and suburban student’s attitudes in elementary and middle school towards classroom activities using My Class Activities, a guide which measures interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment. In their study presented in a 2001 Gifted Child Quarterly article “Gifted Students’ Perception of Their Classroom Activities: Differences Among Rural, Urban, and Suburban Student Activities,” the researchers draw from outside sources examples of how these factors influence learning and motivation in the classroom. When discussing choice, the researchers use background information to state that offering student’s classroom choice increases their motivation and their interest in taking responsibility for their academic achievement. The researchers believe that students who are gifted should be extended a variety of programs to meet their needs; however, they do recognize limitations to their study when they say in their discussion, “In addition, findings at the middle school level must be interpreted with the reminder that there were so few urban students identified as gifted that they were not included in the statistical analyses. One is left to wonder how the urban gifted students might have compared with the rural and suburban gifted students” (Gentry et. al126). The researchers conclude that choice and variety of activities that enhance individual interests are important because they improve achievement, motivation, and interest in students. If choice is an important factor in success, then urban students should be extended the same programs, classroom sizes, and interaction with teachers as their suburban and rural counterparts. The researchers attempt to compare rural, suburban, and urban gifted student’s attitudes towards classroom activities fail to address urban student’s insights. The underlying reason for why urban students were not identified as gifted in this study must be further explored. For instance, is it that the educational standards of schools do not match the needs of urban students?

Richard J. Stiggins, president of Assessment Training Institute Inc., questions the validity of standardized testing to improve the effectiveness of schools. In his 1999 article, “Assessment, Student Confidence, and School Success” in the Phi Delta Kappan magazine, Stiggins discusses how standardized testing undermines all students abilities and therefore chance to succeed in a traditional classroom. He argues that standardized testing is ineffective because there is no clear definition of “standard” for students and teachers. Students become intimidated by state assessments because they may fail to meet unclear standards. Stiggins discusses the link between students who fail and motivation and says, “What if some learners fail to learn early in their school years and so lack the prerequisites for that which follows, thus becoming chronic failures and losing confidence? Learners who come to believe that failure is inevitable develop a sense of futility and hoplessness—a belief that success is beyond their reach. Slowly, over time, they stop trying” (Stiggins 195). Stiggins reasons that standardized testing diminishes student’s confidence, which determines their level of engagement in the classroom. He does not condone standardized testing altogether; however, believes that students who fail to achieve on standardized tests should be provided motivational tools by educators. Stiggins argues that when students are able to assess their achievements in school, then they are compelled to take responsibility for their education. He does not address how standardized testing affects urban students; however, he does open up avenues of discussion by other writers on the impacts of standardized testing on urban student’s ability to succeed.

In a YouTube video presented by City Club, Jonathan Kozol discusses similar problems found in his book The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid in America, addressing how standardized testing undermines urban students ability and chances for success. Kozol focuses on public education and how students living in the most segregated cities are deprived of a proper education. The many issues he addresses include: zoning, stereotypes, per-student expenditure, religion, civil rights, classroom sizing, student abilities, and testing. In one part of the video, Kozol discusses the impact testing has in urban schools when he says, “Poor children need to be well armed to survive the competition, but I’m tell you there’s something pathological about the dimensions that this testing mania assumed over the past couple of years in America. There’s almost this delusion in the White House and Congress that making life as miserable as possible for little kids by testing them to death is actual legitimate substitute for equal opportunity, and it aint (YouTube 2005).” Kozol expresses his belief on standardized testing and its impact on urban students. Although the government claims that standardized testing is utilized by teachers to assess where their students education stands, Kozol argues that the “function is really to humiliate,” because scores are not received by teachers until the end of the year. Kozol and Stiggins agree that standardized testing causes students to lose confidence in themselves and then give up. Kozol then confirms the connection between urban students and standardized testing, a factor that legitimizes the separation between modern and urban schools. Although the writers address how confidence is diminished, they do not discuss other ways in which society eliminates urban student’s chances for success.

Goodman furthers his opinions on public education by discussing the economics of the American democracy and how it’s influence on classrooms impact urban student’s ability to succeed in the classroom and later in life. In part one: “Primary Grades”, he explores the history of education and its role in American society; he believes that the system of education has not changed, but its meaning has. For example, he references industrialism and urbanism in the early 20th century and how many people could still be successful with a limited education. He argues that society today is based off middle class values, which limits the success of the lower class, and says,
“There is plenty of social mobility, opportunity to rise—except precisely for the ethnic minorities who are main concern as drop-outs—but the statuses and channels are increasingly stratified, rigidified, cut and dried. Most enterprise is parceled out by feudal corporations, or by the State; and these determine the requirements. Ambition with average talents meets these rules or fails; those without relevant talent, or with unfortunate backgrounds, cannot even survive in decent poverty. The requirements of survival are importantly academic, attainable only in schools and universities; but such schooling is ceasing to have an initiating or moral meaning” (Goodman 10).Goodman believes that as the structure of American society has changed, the opportunity for success has become limited by economic demand which requires individuals to further their education. In the nation’s educational systems based on middle class values, urban student’s ability become successful in the modern world is limited. Although urban students may have the desire to further their education, Goodman argues that they may not meet national standards, and therefore are left behind in a growing economically competitive world. Goodman, Kozol, and Stiggins address the connection between motivation and the national standards which initiate the separation between affluent and urban schools. Goodman believes that the main cause of why urban student’s chances for success are undermined is the immoral structure of American society. Further, Kozol offers a more concrete example of immoral actions in urban education systems.

In Kozol’s YouTube video presented by City Club, he provides a concrete example of how class variety impacts urban student’s ability and success when he visits a Los Angeles 10th grade History class. In an after school discussion, Kozol, the teacher, and her students discuss the limitations of urban schooling. Kozol describes his interaction with a Latino girl named Mariah who wanted to go to college. Instead of being able to take an AP (Advanced Placement) course in English, Mariah explains that she was forced to take a course in hair dressing. Kozol expresses his anger about Mariah’s opportunities when he says, “There is something rotten about taking a young person who wants to go to college and giving essentially her terminal job programs. If you tried to do that in Concord or Lexington Massachusetts, beautiful suburbs that are a part of history, or Winnetka Illinois or any of the other lovely suburbs in America, parents would have the school superintendant fired over night” (YouTube 2005). Kozol compares the availability of classrooms to urban students and the actions of the school board to their suburban and rural counterparts. Although urban students may have the desire to succeed in the education, as seen by Mariah’s interaction with Kozol, their choices in the classroom diminish their ability to improve their place in society. In the study by Gable, Gentry, and Rizza, gifted students may not have been identified because they may not have met the same standards that define suburban and urban schools. As suggested by Stiggins and Kozol, national standards determine the success of students in schools. Goodman further believes that America’s middle class educational system is immoral because it provides advantages to suburban students, while urban students are simply left behind. Whether or not the American educational system is designed to secure the divisions between middle and lower class is unknown; however, as the issues surrounding urban schools surface, ways to improve these students’ disadvantages are being acted upon.

In Gentry, Gable, and Rizza’s study comparing gifted students attitudes towards school in rural, urban, and suburban schools, they address the first solution to what can be done to improve class variety and urban student’s success. For instance, how urban schools are affected by funding is discussed using outside sources. According to James Borland and Lisa Wright in their 1994 Gifted Child Quarterly article “Identifying Young, Potentially Gifted, Economically Disadvantaged Students,” urban schools differ from their rural counterparts because of funding. In response to Gentry, Gable, and Rizza’s study which found that not very many urban students were identified as gifted, Wright and Borland say, “Equal access to funds and programs, as well as quality of educational programs, are among the problems faced by urban students. Urban gifted students are at risk of not being identified and served due to the issues of culture or poverty” (Gentry, Gable, Rizza 117). Wright and Borland believe that funding is the reason why urban students are not equally able to succeed like their rural and suburban counterparts. Whether or not funding is directly related to why gifted students in urban schools are not identified is unknown. For instance, could it be that in these urban schools, the teachers and principals have lost confidence in their students? The dimensions of funding and adding classes, as well as the teacher’s role to help urban students succeed must be further discussed.

Kozol makes us question the solution of funding to improve class variety and impact student success. In Savage Inequalities, he discusses the impacts of school budget cuts in East St. Louis. When he visits Martin Luther King Junior High School, Kozol describes his interaction with the advanced students in Mr. Solomon’s history class. After a recent budget cut authorized by the Illinois Board of Education, the lack of supplies and choice of classes have an effect on the students. In a group conversation, Kozol includes the comments the students make about the impact budget cuts have had on their academics. For instance, a student and Mr. Solomon say, “I wanted to study Latin, says another student. We lost our only Latin teacher, Soloman says (Kozol 30).” Kozol describes these advanced urban students desire to take different classes; however, due to budget cuts that dismiss many teachers, they are not able to. Kozol, Wright and Borland connect funding to students ability to succeed; however, in this case we do not know whether budget cuts were the direct cause of the teacher’s dismissal. Whether or not teachers are willing to improve these urban schools is another issue that could impact class variety available to urban students.

Guice proposes her own solution to improving urban class variety and student success in her article “Redesigning Urban Classrooms to Impact Student Achievement.” Her “framework for change” is divided into three parts: organizational culture, learning environment, and instructional models. In the organizational culture of urban classrooms, communication for change and motivational factors that inspire both teachers and students to improve academics should be implemented. Additionally, instructional models based on meeting the needs of students with diverse learning styles, including technology based curriculum such as “I Support Learning” and “Video Game Development Curriculum” should be available. Guice expresses the thoughts on her educational model in summary when she says,
“The effective transformation of the classroom begins with communicating the need for change and gaining commitment from all involved. The classroom culture can be can be altered by targeting issues that are under the students and teachers control. Creating an environment that is conductive to learning entails mutual respect, achievable expectations, a means of measuring results and an exciting and engaging curriculum that integrates all learning styles. These efforts are huge moral enhancers. Finally, federal resources are available for underperforming schools to implement research-based strategies. However if allocations are not sufficient for initiating change, other grant funding is obtainable” (Guice 9).Guice believes that there are a variety of factors that need to be considered when targeting the issues that face urban classrooms. Her simplified model discusses the importance of motivating teachers and students, as well as broadening curriculum to meet diverse learning styles through federal funding. Guice, Kozol, Wright, and Borland believe that funding will improve urban student’s chances for success; however, Guice addresses that teachers must be motivated to improving their students’ academic success. If teachers need to be motivated to improve their urban student’s academic success, examples of how urban teachers may not be fulfilling their role as educators must be explored. Furthermore, example of ways in which federal resources may or may not impact student’s ability to succeed need to be provided.

Michael Holzman, a leading researcher for the Schott Foundation for Public Education, believes that the solution to class variety and student success does not derive from funding. In his 2007 article “Talking About Elephants” from The School Administrator, he provides examples of positive urban school settings. At Frederick Douglas Academy and Elemont Memorial, schools located in the poorest districts of New York City, most students go to college like their suburban counterparts. Although the ethnic makeup is nearly all African American and the per-student expenditure is much lower, Holzman argues that these schools are successful because of their quality and dedication to their students. He believes that one way urban schools can follow these examples is by providing teachers who are qualified and passionate about helping their students to succeed. Holzman writes on the details of how the schools prepare students for college, but provides an example from an outside source how other schools fail to challenge their students when he says,
“At schools like Frederick Douglas and Elmont, all children experience challenging, college preparatory curricula. All their students take Algebra by 8th grade and Advanced Placement courses in high school. On the other hand, John Ogbu’s research underlying his widely cited work, “Black American Students in Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement,” showed that when some teachers in otherwise fine schools found themselves having difficulty in their work with African-American students, they tended to move those students out of college track into courses the students found lacking in challenge and interest. Those students became bored. They dropped out. The students were blamed for the failure of their schools to fulfill their missions” (Holzman 25).Holzman provides details behind the schools success, such as offering the students the same curriculum as their suburban counterparts, but also provides from an outside source an example of how the teacher’s role in suburban schools is an important aspect on whether these students succeed. Holzman uses the phrase “elephant in the schoolhouse” to explain the reason why urban schools, primarily made up of ethnic minorities, are failing to meet their students’ academic needs. He argues that funding is not necessarily the primary reason for urban schools failure, but rather the quality and dedication of the administration; the examples provided are the schools Frederick Douglas and Elemont. Guice also believes that the teachers dedication to their students play an important role in their success; however, whether or not the teachers are able to help their students succeed because of funding needs to be further explored.

Stiggins questions whether or not the solution to improving urban student success is school funding, or the teacher’s access to tools that would be available through funding. In his article on standardized testing, “Assessment, Student Confidence, and School Success,” he discusses the ways to improve student motivation in relation to their academics. Stiggins believes that standardized testing diminishes student’s confidence, causing them to disengage from their school work. In his plan to improve student’s motivation, Stiggins believes that teachers should be provided programs at a national, state, and local level that would expand the teaching strategies used in a variety of classrooms. Stiggins questions the notion that schools underperformance on standardized testing is because of the teacher’s actions when he says, “What if low student achievement has its origins not in lack of effort on the part of the teachers, but in the fact that the teachers are not being given access to the expertise, time, and other resources needed to raise student achievement and test scores? And further, what if one result of this lack of support is day-to-day learning experiences and classroom assessments that fail to focus effectively on the desired achievement standards” (Stiggins 192)?Stiggins believes that teachers are not being provided the right resources to aid in their student’s success on standardized testing. In his action plan, those resources would include learning teams that experiment with teaching strategies, licensing standards and hiring criteria based on the teacher’s ability to assess the classrooms progress, and quality learning materials; Stiggins recognizes that all are possible through funding. Although Stiggins does not address how urban schools are affected by standardized testing, he does discuss the role of the teacher in the classroom. Guice and Holzman also believe that teachers play an important role in improving the motivation of their students. Holzman believes that urban schools success is not because of funding, but because of the administrations role in challenging and motivating their students; however, Stiggins questions whether or not teachers are being provided the right tools to help their students succeed. If funding plays an important role in the teachers’ ability to improve their children’s chances for success, then a more concrete example of what is being done to improve the dimensions of a classroom must be given.

Rachel Anderson also discusses what is being done to improve urban classrooms in her report “Uses of State Chapter 1 Funds in the Chicago Public School Districts 6 and 8.” She analyzes how Chapter 1 funds were spent in Chicago Illinois from 1994 to 1995 in some of the poorest school districts. Based on an interview with the principals of 19 schools, Anderson outlines the school descriptions, use of funds, and case study of educational improvement. In each school, the funds were spent differently; however, Anderson believes that Chapter one funds provided “hope and involvement” in these school districts (Anderson 4). In one analysis of Fiske Elementary School, where the ethnicity of the student population was 100 percent African American, Chapter one funds of $366, 643 were spent to add 13 new positions, a variety of programs, activities, and materials; one of the classes added was an art program and an after-school advanced art program. In Anderson’s case study analysis she says, “State Chapter 1 funds have provided a “hook” that brings children into the school and keeps them. For example, a child may not believe he is good in academics; however, he may have a great interest in art and is, therefore, drawn into the school. There his academic skills improve along with his artistic ability (Anderson 17).”Anderson believes that the available funds which provided a variety of new class choices improved the student’s interest in their academic achievement. Although art may not be necessarily considered a core academic class, Anderson emphasizes that providing students with the chance to explore their interests and strengths will improve their overall academic success. Additionally, the availability of funds increased the amount of staff able to teach a variety of programs. Stiggins analyzes how teachers may not be able to improve their student’s motivation in relation to standardized testing; however, Anderson believes that providing students with more than just traditional subjects will improve their academic success. Holzman concludes that the teacher’s willingness to improve their academic success is more influential than funding; Guice agrees that teachers need to be motivated and rewarded by their efforts. These writers’ opinions on whether or not administrations in urban schools are willing to improve their students’ abilities and if funding is related to this aspect contradict. As suggested by Holzman, perhaps it is the effort by the administration that is most influential in improving urban student’s academic achievement; however, many also believe that funding improves urban student’s chances for success.

As the American society moves towards improving education in the growing economically competitive world, the standards by which we measure traditional success must match the efforts that schools put forth to help all students succeed. Based on these findings, urban students must be not deprived of the same funding and dedication by administrations, which their suburban and rural counterparts are able to experience with broader curriculums. A student’s success is defined by more than just class choice, but also whether or not they are motivated to succeed by the right resources. Those resources must be purely humanitarian if we want to see urban students who have the desire succeed in this world to achieve their goals. In Stiggins article discussing solutions to standardized testing, he says,
“Society now wants more than merely a dependable rank ordering at the end of high school. It now wants all students to meet high academic standards—to become competent readers, writers, and mathematical problem solvers. That change in mission leaves educators facing the challenge of finding ways to motivate all students, not just the traditional winners. And if we educators do not succeed in motivating all students, we will fail to complete our assigned mission. Thus we will be reforming our assessment environments productively when we use classroom assessment not merely as a sorting mechanism, but as a means of expanding the range of students who want to succeed and who feel capable of doing so” (Stiggins 195).

The traditional aspects of the classroom may not change; however, if we do not approach the classroom by identifying urban students as first, unique individuals, and secondly, those who deserve the most attention and resources, then as Stiggins suggests, education ceases to have no meaning for students trained to be what society told them they were. Whether or not educational systems are specifically designed to advantage the middle class is unclear because urban schools across America are different; however, Kozol tells us through his experiences in the urban schools he visited that these students are being left behind by the availability of quality educational programs that target their interests and needs.