© 2011 Emily Joy Jones Mcgowan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
© 2011 Emily Joy Jones McGowan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A CASE STUDY OF DWIGHT MORROW HIGH SCHOOL AND THE ACADEMIES AT ENGLEWOOD: AN EXAMINATION OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION POLICY FROM A CRITICAL RACE PERSPECTIVE by EMILY JOY JONES MCGOWAN A dissertation submitted to The Graduate School−Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Joint Graduate Program in Urban Systems written under the direction of Professor Jamie Lew and approved by ______________________________ Professor Jamie Lew ______________________________ Professor Alan Sadovnik ______________________________ Professor Dula Pacquiao ______________________________ Professor Charley Flint Newark, New Jersey May, 2011 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION A CASE STUDY OF DWIGHT MORROW HIGH SCHOOL AND THE ACADEMIES AT ENGLEWOOD: AN EXAMINATION OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION POLICY FROM A CRITICAL RACE PERSPECTIVE By EMILY JOY JONES McGOWAN Dissertation Director: Jamie Lew, Ph.D. This study examines the impact of a voluntary school desegregation program—the Academies @ Englewood (A@E)—on the Dwight Morrow High School (DMHS) campus in the upper-middle- class city of Englewood, New Jersey. The author of this dissertation conducted observations in both academic and social settings, in-depth interviews, surveys, and focus groups. The data that were collected and analyzed provided stark counter-narratives to the dominant discourse that linked diminished expectations and low academic ability with Black and Latino students at DMHS, but, in contrast, related academic privilege and cultural elitism with the racially heterogeneous students attending the A@E. Critical Race Theory in Education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001) was utilized as the theoretical framework in the analysis of the litigation that eventually led to the development and implementation of the A@E, to the current cultures and organization of both academic programs, and to the academic and social experiences of the students in both programs. ii This research suggests the following: the A@E achieved its intended goal of attracting high- achieving White and Asian students to the DMHS campus and of providing a small number (50 students per class) of high-achieving Englewood students with an academically rigorous high school option. However, the A@E students were not effectively integrated into the DMHS culture, but were, instead, kept isolated in a separate facility, where the A@E functioned as an autonomous, academically selective, school-within-a-school. Students who attended the A@E benefited from this rigorous, enriched educational environment, but implementing the program fostered feelings of second-class citizenship in the DMHS students, who exhibited, and continue to exhibit, initiative in their ongoing attempts to maximize what they perceive to be limited academic opportunities. iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to three amazing people whom I love beyond words: My father, John Robert Douglas Jones, EdD (1924–1992) The successful completion of this project honors your life and your tireless commitment to our family, to education, and to those who continued to function, even in the fray. I would not have completed this task if you had not done so before me. Even in death, I heard your rallying cry: “Here comes the Boo!” This is for you, Daddy! My mother, Maggie Mae Funderburk Jones You continue to teach me amazing truths: 1) How to make the extremely difficult look extremely easy. 2) How to experience life fully, in sun and in rain. 3) That paying now rather than later is the only way to go. 4) That being an amazing friend is life-changing. Thank you for believing in me when I did not believe in myself. And, thank you for continuing to be my teacher. My husband, Preston LeRoi McGowan You have remained proud of me and supportive of my work. You have shared wholeheartedly (and uncomplainingly) in the challenges, the uncertainties, and the sacrifices associated with this task. I thought I had fallen in love with you fully in Bermuda in 2006. I was wrong. Love grew and grew, every time you pushed and pulled me through this task throughout our first years of marriage. Can we go for a walk now? iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I acknowledge the following amazing people who provided wise and patient guidance: My Committee, whose contributions pushed me to grow as a scholar and a person. John Degnan and Arnold Mytelka. Without your early contributions and contacts, the legal history of this work would have been lost. Richard Segall, former Superintendent of Schools, Englewood Public School District. You believed my work was important and necessary. Thank you for clearing hurdles that otherwise would have rendered this research “a thought lost in translation.” Study participants, who graciously shared their memories, thoughts, and feelings. My gratitude goes out to the dedicated teachers and administrators at DMHS and the A@E. Your work is so important and so challenging. Your dedication and skills are not acknowledged often enough. I acknowledge both. Students of DMHS and the A@E, who were courageous enough to be brutally honest. What you told me always made me think and sometimes made me smile. You and all of your peers deserve much more from your schools and from those who teach in them and administer them. You are the reason for my having done this work. I will never forget you. Three the Hard Way—Lamarr Thomas, Amod Field, and Ray Dandridge. You make the responsibility of being passionate school administrators, scholars, fathers, and friends look easy. Your students are better because of your commitment and dedication. And so am I. You continue to be wise counsel. Charley Flint and the other “Women Warriors” who traversed this PhD path before me, shedding their personal light on my journey. My undying gratitude goes to Flora Taylor, Mariah Britton, Betty Holmes-Anthony, Katherine Knight Wilcox, and Yvonne Martinez-Thorne. I stand on your strong shoulders. Celeste Miller, “New York City Teaching Fellow Lady for Life.” Thank you for standing on a New York City subway platform and telling me: “Of course you can do your PhD!” And so it was. Aunt Betty Holmes Anthony and Mildred Jones. It was in your offices at The City University of New York that this PhD concept was hatched! Both of you have cheerfully served as my academic and professional godmothers. For all of your support I am eternally grateful. Kaili Baucum. I pass the torch to you. You have borne witness, up-close and personal, and persist in your desire to make this happen for you. We share “a special kind of crazy,” and now, my friend, it is your turn. Hurry up—with your brilliant self! We have Black children to save! v Joelle Tutella. Thank you for all the critical and encouraging pushback, for the referral to Barbara Schloss (she is awesome!), and for the endless laughter. My niece Rachel Dionna and my nephew Aaron Christopher. You were only twelve and nine years of age, respectively, when I began this journey, and now we are discussing college visits and high schools! I hope that, somehow, your understanding of my sacrifices will help you make wise choices in the future. My big sister Michelle. Who else can understand what it was like to grow up at 474, with John, his aviators, and Blimpies and Maggie’s special cord on our television set? I thank God for how well you know me and for your special way of helping me through my toughest times. Finally, to the beloved spirit of my Grams, Gessie Blackmon Funderburk (1909–1996), whose gentle, loving presence always eased my anxiety. I still see you peeling my peaches, even after Mom told me that I had to eat the skin. In two generations, we have pushed the family from an eighth-grade education to a PhD. I got this one Grams! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Dedication iv Acknowledgements v List of Tables xi List of Figures xii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Origins of Critical Race Theory 4 Critical Race Theory and The Court Case 8 A Critical Race Perspective on Englewood 18 Educational Research and Critical Race Theory 21 Social Construction of Whiteness—Whiteness as Property 28 Theoretical Relevance and Criticism 32 Conclusion 37 CHAPTER III REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH The City of Englewood 40 vii Change in Demographics—Change in Status Quo 41 Englewood School Policy—1930–1960 42 Intersection of School Desegregation Policy and Student Outcomes 50 New Concerns in Englewood—Identifying the Problems 57 Judicial History—1954: Rethinking Brown v. Board of Education 61 Pivotal School Desegregation Law and Policy—Post Brown 63 What Happened Next?—Voluntary School Desegregation and School Choice 72 Programs and Tracking in Englewood 78 Conclusion 83 CHAPTER IV METHOD Purpose 84 Case Study Design 86 Study Framework and Data Collection in Englewood—The Efficacy of Example 90 Data Collection and Analysis 92 Study Participants 96 Study Rationale 99 Study Significance 101 Study Limitations 103 viii CHAPTER V FINDINGS Introduction 109 Law Makers, Englewood Advocates, and Policy Makers 112 Race 115 Divergence 122 New Jersey Department of Education Officials 130 Authority 132 Equity 134 Current District and School Based Administrators 139 Culture 141 Change 145 Identity 150 Teachers 154 Academic Program Structure 157 Resistance 162 Students 166 Tracking 168 Privilege (Academic) 173 Peers 190 Privilege (Social) 201 Opportunity 205 ix CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION 209 CHAPTER VII POLICY IMPLICATION