“Various agencies of the U.S. government, in an effort to impede the buildup of a cumulative gap between the nation’s most advantaged and disadvantaged children, have created targeted interventions that are designed and implemented with the goal of reducing disparities between these two groups. Interventions of this type aim to reduce group differences primarily by elevating the performance of the lowest group—whether the group is identified as poor, minority, low ability, or socially at-risk—toward the level of the higher group.” (Ceci& Papierno, 2005, 150)

“One motivation for targeted interventions is what theorists from multiple disciplines (e.g., economics, sociology, psychology) have described as the Matthew effect.” (Ceci, & Papierno, 2005, 149)

“For example, in the domain of early reading, Shaywitz et al. (1995) succinctly summarized it as “the notion of cumulative advantages leading to still further advantage or, conversely, initial disadvantage being accentuated over time” (p. 894)” (Ceci & Papierno, p.149).

“AP classes are an example of nontargeted interventions because they are made available to all eligible students who attain a given level of achievement, without regard to income or race. Unlike Sesame Street, however, AP offerings were never intended to narrow the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Because of the self selection process involved in deciding to take AP courses, this intervention was primarily utilized by the highest performing groups of achievers” (Ceci & Papierno, p.155).

“The basic idea of a cumulative, or “multiplier,” effect is not new; Stanovich (1986) discussed the concept in terms of the principle of “organism– environment correlation” to show that disparity increases when children with different genotypes or from different backgrounds are selectively exposed to different types of environments” ( Ceci & Papierno, p. 149)

“When students with disabilities were served, they were often educated in “ghetto like” isolated and “run-down” classrooms within buildings that housed students without disabilities or in separate facilities altogether” (Blanchett, p. 373).

“PARC v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) guaranteed special education services to children and youth with mental retardation (Smith, 2004). However, the decision in this case did not address educational provisions for children with disabilities other than mental retardation” (Blanchett, p.374).

“Although few would have predicted that the Brown v. the Board of Education case would have any implications for special education and students with disabilities, in particular, this decision laid the foundation for challenging the constitutionality of excluding children with disabilities from public schooling opportunities (Blanchett et al., 2005).” (Blanchett, 2009, 373)

“Racism, discrimination, and White privilege have been combined in current practice to form a deadly cocktail consisting of the Black/White achievement gap, accountability, high-stakes testing, inadequately prepared teachers, culturally unresponsive curriculum, and No Child Left Behind. In their attempt to go for broke, several scholars (Bell, Ladson-Billings, Haberman, Ayers) have been the lone voices crying in the wilderness to put a stop to these practices that, if not by design, have certainly resulted in even greater educational inequities for African American and other poor children in urban schools.”

“Before the Brown litigation and subsequent decision, African American students and students with disabilities had similar experiences in the American educational system. Both were treated as second-class citizens.” (Blanchett, 2009, 372)

“Black students with disabilities were more likely than students with disabilities from other racial/ethnic groups to be educated outside the regular classroom more than 60 percent of the day (28.1 percent). . . . They were also more likely to be educated in separate environments (5.2 percent). (p. 48)” (Blanchett, p. 379).

"In theory, special education was conceived to provide support and for students who were perceived as a challenge for the general education system, including African American students, students with disabilities, and African American students with disabilities. Students who were eligible received specialized services such as individualized instruction, tutoring, and other forms of intervention to assist them in reaching their potential." (Blanchett, 2009, 375)

“In conclusion, going for broke as an American society and educational system to address educational inequities is simply providing an equitable high-quality education to all children regardless of race, social class, disability, or the intersection of all of these circumstances. It means truly leaving absolutely no child behind in theory, policy, and practice.” (Blanchett 386)

“To fully understand parental engagement, one must look carefully at relation­ships as they are affected by family background, cultural capital, institutional reception, and desired outcomes, as well as the relationships between groups.” (McCoy 2014, pg. 69)

When I queried the room parents about its comprehensiveness, they informed me that most families were listed, but when I saw a copy of the list I noted that Ms. Martin and several other black families, with the notable exception of the Towleses, were not listed. When I mentioned this to one room parent, she replied that she would rectify the issue (Lewis-McCoy Pp. 78).

Parental engagement is often regarded as the educational Holy Grail-much desired but seldom acquired. The belief that engaged parents can help salve educational woes is, in part, supported by research findings that parental involvement and participation associated with positive educational outcomes (eg test scores, fewer absences) (Lewis-McCoy Pp.67).

“Consumer and beneficiary roles resulted from interactions over time between families and school staff and institutional norms. Parents may have started out with similar ideas about the desirability of customizing their children’s educational trajectories, but their successes and failures along the way signaled to them whether actually they had the ability that ability. In their repeated interactions with the schools, they learned which role they were expected to occupy and maintained that role in their everyday negotiations with school staff and other families” (Lewis-McCoy, 2014, pg. 74).

“It was common for white parents to assume the role of consumer. Consumer parents viewed schools as a customizable resource, and they fash­ioned schools to fit their children’s educational and social developmental needs.” (McCoy 2014, pg. 89)

“When I first met Ms. Martin she was serving out a suspension from her fast-food job because of two confrontations with her bosses. In the first incident she was told she could not read the Bible on her break. Ms. Martin recounted that the restaurant manager told her, “This is not the place to read this.” Martin responded, “[If you read this] you wouldn’t have so much pity and so much evil and weakness in your life. Read Psalms and they should tell you, read the book of Romans, read the book of Joshua and you would really understand, you wouldn’t have to feel the way you feel.” Her manager did not appreciate these suggestions” (Lewis-McCoy, 2014, pg. 81).

“In education research, parental engagement is often viewed as desirable and is associated with positive school experiences and schooling outcomes. However, parental engagement is multidimensional, and beyond the positive image that is promoted there are negative dimensions as well, which affect the access of all families to a high-quality education” (Lewis-McCoy, 2014, pg. 66).

In particular, Principal Bell consistently dealt with a core group of affluent white parents who demanded educational customization for their children (classroom placement, priority in extracurricular opportunities, and others) and threatened to leave if their requests were not fulfilled: and she was among the district staff who feared these affluent families’ exit (Lewis-McCoy Pp.66).

In this chapter, I argue that the current literature on parental engagement has under theorized the role of race by overemphasizing social class and that current models lack sufficient consideration of the inter-familial influences of parental engagement-particularly concerted cultivation (Lewis-McCoy Pp.67).

I follow by introducing a relational model of parental engagement that captures the role of race and intergroup relations and introduces the roles of consumer and beneficiary parents (Lewis-McCoy Pp.67).

While educational customization may appear to be an individual or family-level endeavor, in the aggregate the choices made by individual parents have collateral effects on other families in the same school. Sometimes the collateral consequences of customization result from casual oversight; at other times they are the result of families hoarding resources and opportunities (Lewis-McCoy Pp.73).

“A common goal of parents who engage schools is educational customization: the tailoring of their child’s education to match their own ambitions and values.” (McCoy 2014, pg. 87)

fruitfulnss- this quote just has some much potential and i really talks about how families really care for their childern but just because they might be different they dont ant them to learn together. but some do so it just makes it very interesting to me “As good education” was the outcome that nearly all families desired for their children, but the cultures of the schools in Rolling Acres made this accessible only to a segment of the population.

Social networks were key for parental engagement and advocacy, but the composition of those networks and the strategies they used had collateral influence on other families. In contrast to previous research on social networks suggesting that the black middle class and white middle class possess similarly rich networks, I found that white middle-class and affluent residents were able to utilize dass and race-exclusive networks to leverage their influence on local schools (Lewis-McCoy Pp. 94).

The data and analysis presented in this chapter make it clear that parental engagement is not equally accessible to all families. Previous research demonstrated the importance of parental engagement.

Instead, families regarded their own children as their private concern, rather than expecting any communal responsibility for their caring and care. This is not to suggest that mutual aid was not an important feature of Beaver, but it was more discrete in nature, such as the shuttling of children and their friends between extracurricular activities and home (Lewis-McCoy Pp. 89).

Ms. Stone's information about Ms. Baker's classroom absences was based on reports she had received from other teachers at Ms. Baker's former schools. As a substitute teacher, Ms. Stone held both insider and outsider roles in the school. Early in our interview she acknowledged that her dual role created some tension and suggested that as an employee of the district she was not free to divulge her insider knowledge to other parents in the school (Lewis-McCoy Pp. 88).

Informal social networks tended to be organized around clusters of friends or other affinity groups, such as racially similar parents who discover common cultural interests or political leanings. They use these more organic networks to share information about negotiating academic hurdles and increasing educational customization. A large amount of information about school-related activities were sent to students' homes by mail or with students in their backpacks (Lewis-McCoy Pp.71).

Semi-formal parent networks that began in organizations often extended beyond their original purpose; semi-formal networks made parents aware of extracurricular experiences and bridged geographic divisions through emails to parents about upcoming volunteer opportunities (Lewis-McCoy Pp.71).

To fully understand parental engagement one must look carefully at relationships as they are affected by family background, cultural capital, institutional reception, and desired outcomes, as well as the relationships between groups (Lewis-McCoy Pp.69).

Differences between families in education and family structure deeply
child how they used their time. Lower-income families had less time to read, process, and respond to materials sent home. This is not to suggest that the occupations of middle- and upper-income families were not time demanding. Quite to the contrary, middle-income and affluent families lives were very busy and heavily scheduled; however, these families relied on multiple social supports that gave them more time to engage their children and their activities (Lewis-McCoy Pp.71-72).

“The second element is a commitment to principled action to achieve social justice. Anti-oppression educators work to create classrooms where their students can think about where they stand on social issues and what they might do to ameliorate suffering and inequities among groups of people with whom they are familiar as well as those with whom they have had little or no contact (Greene, 1998)." Pg. 203-204

“The third element is the understanding that teaching and learning are social practices mediated by language and shifting social and historical contexts. Allied to this is a view of people’s identities as culturally produced within relations of power. The identities of children and youth, for example, have been historically constructed in dominant culture as opposite to that of adults (irrational, emotional, ignorant, carefree, etc.), and this construction has then been used to legitimate curtailing their self-determination (e.g., power over what and how they learn in school)." Pg. 204

“The first element involves teachers in a critical analysis of social and institutional inequities and oppression based on gender, race, culture, sexuality, social class, ability, age, and so on. Anti-oppressive educators must assess who benefits and who loses in prevailing economic, political, and social arrangements. They must take into account the power of dominant institutions to perpetuate the status quo and shape what gets taken up as “common sense” and attempt to counter or interrupt oppressive power relations. " Pg. 203

“Many teachers said that protecting childhood innocence would not influence their choice of topic but, rather, their approach to it. They emphasized tailoring their approach based on their knowledge of, and time with, the children. ‘I would rather that I deprive them of a little bit of their innocence in an educated and prudent way,’ explained Amanda, ‘rather than have it be drastically ripped off of them by some other person who does something to them, or you know tells them something in a way that they can’t handle because it’s too much all at once.’ Several teachers said they would link a topic to children’s sense of fairness and prompt them to think about how people might attempt to redress a social problem or inequity.” Kelly & Brooks, 2009, Pg. 208

“Alicia, Madeline, and Nita (all teaching kindergarten or grade 1) felt that younger children are incapable of forming their own opinion, independent of teachers and parents. Others (Blanca, Tiffany, Amanda) said that younger children might be more easily fooled by rhetoric, by trust in an authority figure, or both. Still others (Jesse, Kelly, Ruth, Rachel, Jordan, but also Blanca and Tiffany) made the point that younger children had the cognitive potential, but—perhaps due to unfairly limiting societal assumptions—they had not been given the chance to practice. Younger children, they argued, needed more information, context, tools, and opportunities to discuss issues and to develop reasons for their opinions.” Kelly & Brooks, 2009, Pg. 209

“These assumptions about children helped to shape how the participants interpreted their role as teachers. The more they expressed concerns about “tainting” students with their opinions, the more likely they were to espouse a position of teacher neutrality (an impossible and undesirable fiction, for reasons we outlined earlier) and to steer away from social justice teaching. The participants who espoused an anti-oppression approach, by contrast, saw that their pedagogical decisions (and non-decisions) either supported or challenged the inequitable status quo. They did not want to feign neutrality; instead, they desired to model inquiry and engagement while ensuring that their viewpoints were open to student critique.” Kelly & Brooks, 2009, Pg. 209-210

“When teachers are sensitive to countering oppression, many such ‘teachable moments’ as Kelly described will arise in and around the classroom. But as Kelly’s anecdote also illustrates, equity-minded teachers do not need to wait for teachable moments, either, but can introduce social justice topics, even with younger children, by reading a story or exploring artwork that allow the class to explore emotional investments and build their conceptual knowledge.” Kelly & Brooks, 2009, Pg. 211

“Those open to teaching a unit on electoral politics in grade 1, however, shared some of the same concerns as those who thought the idea unworkable. Madeline, Blanca, and also Kelly felt younger children would only “parrot” their parents’ views, and Blanca and Rachel wondered if parents might be uninterested or concerned. Trisha guessed that the parents of her students were too busy to watch the news with their children, while Kelly found that his students said they could not watch the news. Madeline, Blanca, and Ruth felt that students might not have enough background knowledge to discuss and form opinions on complex issues.” Kelly & Brooks, 2009, Pg. 212

“Nita felt that grade 1 students did not ‘have that knowledge bank yet to really be able to form their own opinions.’ Thus, as their teacher, she would be ‘nervous’ about overly influencing them; they ‘don’t have that critical thinking’ capacity yet. Jordan and Rachel said they would not avoid all mention of the topic but agreed that most primary-age children would not, as Jordan put it, have ‘full knowledge of the subject.’ Rachel saw her role as more ‘to help them see what are the reasons’ from the teacher’s perspective, as a balance to parents who might be complaining that the strike was ‘a waste of money and a waste of time and they’re ruining my kid’s year.’” Kelly & Brooks, 2009, Pg. 212

“They identified three categories where they shared commitments but had differing beliefs about what those commitments actually meant. For example, they all agreed that ‘fairness is the sine qua non of a socially just society’ (p. 5) but defined fairness in divergent ways, from meaning sameness or equal distribution to meaning equitable, though potentially different, treatment. They also agreed that change was necessary, but varied in their ideas about the locus of that change, holding positions on a continuum from looking at individual responsibility to focusing on institutional responsibility.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 10

“The social democratic perspective, largely drawn from Marx, considers justice in relationship to the needs of various individuals, emphasizing a more collectivist or cooperative vision of society.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11

“Almost diametrically opposed to Rawls, the market individualist view of justice emphasizes that people are entitled in relationship to their efforts. Rizvicites Nozick’s (1976)work to support this perspective on social justice which advocates that justice is measured by fair starting conditions. Rizvi (1998) writes that in this perspective, it is ‘the justice of the competition—that is, the way competition was carried out and not its outcome—that counts’ (p. 49).” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11

“First, each person is entitled to as much freedom as possible as long as others share the same freedom. Second, social goods should be distributed as equally as possible, with inequities being allocated in a way that benefits the least privileged members of society.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11

“Also speaking about competencies necessary for educators committed to social justice concerns, Hackman (2005) says there are five essential knowledge base components of social justice education. She argues that to educate for social justice, teachers need mastery of content in their discipline (including knowing factual information, having the ability to historically contextualize that information and being able to consider it in both micro and macro ways), tools for critical thinking and analysis, tools for social change and activism, tools for personal reflection (especially about one’s own power and privilege), and awareness of multicultural group dynamics (p. 104-108).” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 13

“Grant and Gillette (2006) also claim that there are a number of knowledge bases necessary for effective, socially just teaching that supports the learning of all children. They suggest that teachers need to be culturally responsive in the classroom, to know themselves and be open to change, to hold a well-developed philosophy of education, to have substantial pedagogical content knowledge, to maintain an educational psychology that is multicultural, and to connect teacher education to the world outside of school. There are also skills that effective educators need such as the ability to be reflective, to analyze and act on teacher-generated research data, to communicate and collaborate, to build relationships, to arrange learning environments and to use technology as a teaching-learning tool.” Pg. 13

“Marshall and Gerstl-Pepin (2005) suggest five leadership perspectives help to support social justice advocacy in schools. They claim that leaders must be critically pluralist and democratic, transformative, moral and ethical, feminist/caring, and spiritually/culturally responsive (pp. 268-271).” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 13

“Cultural studies advocates want to not only better understand how certain cultural practices get valued above others, and concurrently how power and privilege are inequitably distributed, but also to transform such inequitable relationships in the interest of social justice. In fact, Handel Wright (2003) claims that cultural studies is itself a ‘form of social justice praxis…an intervention in institutional, sociopolitical and cultural arrangements, events and directions’ (p. 806).” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 18

“Educators coming to social justice from this perspective situate their thinking about justice in connection to considering the fundamental purposes of education in a democratic society. They claim that among its primary purposes, education should help to promote the knowledge and skills needed for thoughtful citizenship. Describing “public education’s most fundamental purpose,” Wood (1992) writes that it is “the development in our children of the habits of heart and mind that make democratic life possible” (p. xvi). These habits include a sense of responsibility toward others and to creating a world in which all people can achieve their potential.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 19

“Personally responsible citizens have good moral character and assume a sense of responsibility to others in their community. They obey laws, donate time and money when asked, and treat others with respect. Participatory citizens take this sense of responsibility one step further in that they are active in the community and local government and engage in collective efforts at social change. Justice oriented citizens also value responsibility and participation, yet at the same time they see the importance of concurrent structural and social critique and “argue that effective democratic citizens need opportunities to analyze and understand the interplay of social, economic, and political forces” (p. 242). Justice oriented citizens look for the root causes of social problems and aim to disrupt privileging systems, rather than celebrating charity and volunteerism as the primary means to social change.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 19-20