What are the major influences that shape schools, those in urban centers in particular?

Schools are shaped by numerous external factors. Quite simply without these factors schools would be nothing more than identical four walls and a roof in which identical teachers throw ideas at identical classrooms of students. It goes without saying that this is not the case. Whether a school is urban, suburban, or rural certain aspects come together to form a unique environment.

Both Fruchter (2006) as well as Anderson and Summerfield (2004) view history as an important factor. Of course, “history” is something of a large umbrella under which a lot of ideas can fall. Anderson and Summerfield look at a deeper history of education in the United States and critique the myth of rural schools as superior to the later urban and suburban models. It is easy to understand how an idea that urban schools are in some way inferior to other historical models can impact upon the way these schools are shaped.

Fruchter’s discussion of the history of desegregation (and its ultimate failure) reveals what I feel is a greater historical impact upon what makes urban schools the way they are. I read once (and I wish I could remember the source) that while many countries (be it Britain, Canada, France etc.) are “societies with racism”, the United States is a “racist society.” Now, I don’t necessarily agree with that statement (after all, Britain has yet to elect a non-white Prime Minister – the U.S. is ahead of us in that respect), but the racism inherent within the society has played a major role in the way urban schools have come to be: That fear that “they” were coming into the neighborhood, forcing white Americans into the suburbs and businesses out of urban centers, was something that was easily exploited by state and local governments. In doing so, they create schools that were lacking in the diversity that existed when these urban communities consisted of African American, as well as Jewish, Irish and Latino families. A barrier between communities is built that impacts upon the education in urban areas.

Of course, the history goes far deeper than that. In the Randall Robinson quote that Fruchter uses, “You drive [a people of their history] for 246 years and follow that with 100 years of de jure discrimination,” you are going to create a psychically damaged culture. Indeed, culture is one of the most important factors in shaping schools. It defines the community in which it exists. Fruchter is quick to acknowledge that there is a distinct culture within African American communities, a result of a shared history. Students and teachers from these communities come together in the school environment to create something very different to that which may exist in rural and suburban schools.

Indeed, what can be more important in the shaping of a school than the students themselves? The lives the lead outside can either be brought into the school to inform its development, or be forcibly left outside. Schools need to reflect (and respect) the culture of its students and perhaps it is those that don’t that have created the problems that are seen as existing in urban schools. Fruchter discusses the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and the fact that a dominant culture will use schools to impose its cultural mores on other communities that exist within its sphere of influence. This struck a chord with me. For years in British schools, Welsh history, language and culture was ignored in favor of English history in an attempt to undermine and anglicize those living in Wales. It is only since the 1980s that a school curriculum that incorporates both has come into Welsh schools. It has given Welsh students that have come of age in that time an opportunity to embrace their background and culture – an opportunity their parents and grandparents may not have had. The Welsh language that was beginning to die out throughout the 20th century has suddenly begun to reemerge. These schools came to appreciate the culture of its students – something that perhaps needs to be done in urban American schools.

As with the Welsh examples, for the longest time in American schools it seems as though white American history that has been given primary importance in the curriculum. Thus, students of color living in urban areas have had their culture ignored in their educations. How can this not shape schools in these areas? It can’t help but create in these students a sense that schools and their culture are mutually exclusive, that they just don’t mesh in any real way. A move to make the curriculum reflect the communities and cultures of urban areas could, in turn, reshape these schools.

Of course, the curriculum is defined from on high by the government. As much as history and community, government actions on the local, state and federal level play a large role (for better or worse) in shaping schools in urban areas. Often, government seems to have very little understanding of urban schools and their needs.

After all, it is the government that decides on what kind of funding goes to schools in urban, suburban and rural areas and that decides the curriculum and standards that students must achieve. It was government action, as Fruchter notes, that both pushed through desegregation of schools while giving mortgages to white families in order to move out of urban areas. Every decision, large or small, on the national or local level, that affects schools will ultimately shape them.

Thus, the school environment in shaped by a clash between history, culture, community and government. And it is a clash. The story of Robby Wideman’s (Wideman, 1984; Fruchter pp30-35) rebellion against the school board and its ultimately disastrous aftermath indicates the conflict between the cultural and educational needs of urban communities and white society’s idea of what education in these communities should be. I can’t help but feel that bringing these disparate ideas into line will somehow create a schooling system that works for both the communities, the students, the teachers and the country as a whole.