Comments Regarding Symposium 3: Desegregation, Integration, Resegregation?

Each of us brings to this topic our personal perspective and this diversity of experiences enriches the conversation. Some of us might bring the perspective of a sociologist, others might bring the views of community members. Mine is the perspective of an educator concerned with the actions and attitudes in schools that support both mutuality of living and productive learning for a diversity of students. For many years I was an elementary classroom teacher and taught all subjects to all students in my classes. For another stretch of years, I taught music to everyone else’s students and saw many children flourish in the arts who foundered in their academic subjects. As a school administrator, I saw rather clearly that across learning environments, we’re not really very good at dealing with differences in our schools.

As I listened tonight to the comments made by Dr. Harris, I was struck by his emphasis on our need for the continuance of both desegregation and integration; I’m also reminded of Dr. Dixon’s words that guide this symposium—the need to find unity in diversity. I would like to operationalize these thoughts by suggesting that in schools we need to do three things: (1) to desegregate; (2) to integrate; and (3) to diversify how we respond to students’ needs at the same time.

These tasks require that we take a look at what diversification means within American education. As I listened to Elaine Carter’s presentation about Christiansburg Institute, I was struck with the importance of preserving an institution’s heritage in such a way that anchors the present in the past. For me, Ms Carter’s remarks also brought up the following thoughts: What are the characteristics of a good school—those elements that speak to the quality and character of an education—for which students and under what circumstances? Elaine’s remarks also made me think of the contributions possible when individuals choose to congregate, joining together in a common community as many have done to preserve Christiansburg Institute, raising a chorus of sound so that others of us unfamiliar with it can benefit from the tune.

Perhaps one way of approaching issues posed by diversity in schools is to break down what we mean when we talk about differences. I’d like to suggest that it might be useful to consider several different orders of difference. For instance, first order differences might be those that place us in categories that are considered to be stereotypical such as race, gender, age, etc.—that makes me a white middle-aged woman. Second order differences might be those that begin to describe characteristics about us that differentiate us from the typical. For example, I would then be described as a white middle-aged female who loves to sing and play the piano, and who is not very adept at sports. There might even be a third order of differences when it comes to describing our various disabilities that require an extraordinary response. Sometimes, it is at the level of second order differences that people inappropriately connect our idiosyncrasies back to the stereotypes of the first order, failing to see that second order differences are manifestations of who we are, not of the groups to which we belong. This happens in schools as in society. As educators, we need to increase our capacity-- right here at the level of second order differences--to respond to a diversity of learners, differentiating among them as required for their learning, and individualizing, perhaps at the third level, when we need to intensively respond to prevent school failure.

I would also like to respond to the issues raised by Wayne Harris about the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. This is a very important topic nationwide. We know that disproportionality occurs, but how to respond effectively to this problem is less clear. Here’s the issue: If we miss-identify students for special education and serve them in overly restrictive placements—away from students without disabilities or from the general curriculum--based on first or second order differences, we are not being equitable. However, it we fail to identify students with actual disabilities and serve them in placements that do not offer appropriate support, we are not being equitable. The crux of the matter is that special education was never intended for general education’s curriculum failures, or for students who are different, not truly disabled. Special education is for students with disabilities, of any color or heritage, whose learning is exceptional and requires an extraordinary response.

In closing my responses, I would like to suggest that differences are inevitable—they just exist--and that they are also comparable with one another. Let’s not compare them to a majority standard, but rather attempt to reduce reactions that stress blame or hopelessness. Alfredo Artilles, who writes about issues of diversity within education, suggests that we must craft a discourse of possibility—that’s a nice phrase. He suggests that we each examine our own perspective and that we bring to the topic of diversity a plurality of perspectives. These perspectives would not just reflect historical actors past and present, but also different philosophical frames that allow us to look at the issues from the perspectives of social justice, instructional improvement, and democratic citizenship. From this rich mix can come better possibilities for engendering in our schools and for our students mutuality of living and productive learning.

Back to the Main Page

Posted: October 18, 1999
By The Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu