In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

School Closures 217 2. Desegregation school transition research. Researchers during the school desegregation era found that if the receiving schools (typically White) were not prepared for the bused-in students (typically of color), then the latter group tended to have academic and socioemotional problems. That is, if the receiving schools failed to implement a comprehensive integration plan, students of color were prone to receiving lower grades via “the normalization of instruction and grades” phenomenon,20 dropping out,21 and experiencing school stress and anxiety.22 3. School closure transition research. Based on the findings pursuant to the dispersion of Mexican American students in the Angeles school closure case and the subsequent adverse consequences that the students experienced (Valencia, 1980, 1984c), this line of school transition research proved useful to advance during the Castro hearing. In summary, the three previous sections on research related to normative , desegregation, and school closure transition laid the theoretical and empirical foundations for my hypotheses of potential negative effects on students of color in the Castro case. 4. The school climate at Central. In the Castro case, as in the Angeles case, I testified that an important variable of concern was related to the nature of the receiving school, particularly its preparation, attitudes, receptivity, and goals for the incoming students of color displaced by the closures. The district designated Central High School, one of the highest-achieving high schools in the district, as the receiving school. Prior to the planned dispersion of students from the targeted school closures, Central had an enrollment of 2,044 students (90% White). Over 1,000 dispersed students (predominantly Mexican American and African American) would enroll in Central, resulting in a new total student body of 3,200 students (a 57% increase). Notwithstanding this massive influx of students, the defendants testified that no major problems in school management were likely to occur. On the basis of district reports, depositions, and defendants’ trial testimony, my interpretation of Central’s school climate differed sharply from the defendants’ positive portrait. In my testimonial counterstory regarding school climate, I discussed five issues: (a) teacher attitudes; (b) academic excellence of Central’s students of color; (c) tracking (academic resegregation); (d) systemic flux; (e) distance from home to school. In the interest of space, one issue, teacher attitudes, is discussed here. Three concerns arose with regard to teacher attitudes at Central. First, Central teachers attended a half-day workshop, in which participants 218 School Closures voiced some collective concerns, expectations, and dispositions that did not bode well for incoming students of color. Examples of summary quotes were, “Fear was expressed related to physical violence expected as directed toward staff and students”; “Graffiti will be more evident”; “Ethnic miscommunications will create potentially disruptive situations.” Second, the district held a five-day in-service for Central teachers in the summer of 1982 (before the influx of students of color in the fall semester ). Phoenix Gang Squad officers facilitated one workshop devoted to “Phoenix Gangs.” I testified that this workshop likely implanted or reinforced among the teachers a stereotype that students of color were gang members. This seemed probable because an entire workshop day had been devoted to a problem that involved only a small number of students of color.23 Furthermore, because 90% of all Phoenix gang members were Mexican American, it is conceivable that a large number of Mexican American students would be entering Central stereotyped as gang members or potential gang members. Third, facilitators held a workshop for Central teachers entitled “Multiethnic Considerations in the Curriculum.” The group leaders asserted that African American and Mexican American students, in general, have different learning styles than do White students, and thus teachers should consider using different cognitive teaching styles. I testified that such pedagogical recommendations for different teaching styles for African American and Mexican American students actually stereotypes and unfairly pigeonholes them. Furthermore, empirical research fails to support the hypotheses that field dependence or field independence learning styles are good predictors of academic achievement and that they distinguish students of color from White students (e.g., Figueroa, 1980; Figueroa & Gallegos, 1978; Kagan & Buriel, 1977; Nelson, Knight, Kagan, & Gumbiner, 1980). In sum, the attitudes held by Central teachers and the workshop information that was imparted to them carried generally unfavorable and negatively stereotypic perceptions, with potentially stigmatizing consequences for students of color. Given that the climate of a school in a desegregated setting is a critical factor for successful integration (Hughes, Gordon, & Hillman, 1980), particularly in the area of teacher...

Share