reseņas educativas (Spanish)
resenhas educativas (Portuguese)
This review has been accessed times since August 25, 2009
Eaton, Susan (2006) The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill Pp. xiii + 395 ISBN 978-1-56512-488-2
Reviewed by Kristina Hoffman
California State University, StanislausAugust 1, 2009
One area of Hartford you need to try to avoid is what is called the North End. If you need to travel through that area, or if you’re lost and end up there, just keep driving. It is not advisable to get out of your car, or to even roll your car window down to ask for directions. Keep the car doors locked as this is high crime area. You’re an easy target if you look lost or don’t take these precautions. (p. 31)The above statement raises many important questions that educators and the school system as a whole need to consider. Some of the questions include: Can children whose lives are completely different benefit equally from the same education and can very good schools overcome the effects of racial segregation, as well as the concentrated poverty and cultural isolation that characterize many American cities?
The author, Susan Eaton, started writing her book, The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial, focusing on a third grade student, his teacher, and the civil rights lawyers who tried to, “…open blocked corridors to opportunity,” (p. xiii). Eaton decided to write this story in a way that created two interwoven narratives, portraying true events from inside the courtrooms and classroom. The narratives were all set in the city of Hartford, Connecticut and the main focus was that of Eaton’s qualitative research of the schools, children, and lawyers living and operating in the city.
Eaton provided a variety of research methods including utilizing factual events, observations, interviews, and research from former studies. She gathered much needed information and research to represent the ongoing problems of Hartford, Connecticut. Eaton began her narrative by describing the city’s history. In 1950, Hartford, Connecticut was nearly an all white community. Since then, the shortfall of industrialized jobs, government funded loan programs that made it easy for homes in the suburbs to be bought by only white families, and other social changes, left the city with an 80 percent black and Hispanic population. This consequently created an economic problem of which half the city’s students were poor and more than one-third of the schools were failing. According to Eaton, “Thirty-one percent of Hartford’s residents were officially poor; 41 percent of its children were poor. Welcome to Hartford. The poorest city in the wealthiest state in the richest country on earth,” (2006, p. 6).
The main purpose of the book, Eaton outlines as the community members of Hartford, Connecticut, in 1989, including nineteen schoolchildren and their families, filed a suit against the state, arguing that the ethnic, racial, and class segregation that discriminated their schools, failed to deliver an equal educational opportunity promised by the state’s constitution to each student. District boundary lines created isolation and segregation between urban and suburban schools. The Connecticut River, being one of many boundary lines, emerged as a great gapping symbol between Hartford’s urban and suburban children. During the lawsuit, a Hartford schoolteacher, Gladys Hernandez, testified the she had taken her first grade students on a field trip and the children had given the river a standing ovation as it was the first time they have seen such a sight. Ms. Luddy’s students even, “…gasped and cheered…Noses pressed against bus windows,” as they too saw the river for the first time as they passed over the bridge (p. 257).
Eaton portrayed the hard work and long hours of the civil rights lawyers who constantly fought for poor and minority children and families who were being denied the opportunity for an equal education that nearly all white children received. Milo Sheff, a fourth grade student at Simpson-Waverly Elementary School became the lead plaintiff of the 18-year-long lawsuit entitled Sheff v. O'Neil. The argument in this case was that, “…such de facto segregation, born not from explicit laws but from a variety of causes, is devastating too,” (p. xiv).
By the time Eaton had begun her study in Hartford, Connecticut in 2000, the Sheff v. O’Neil case was already in its eleventh year. Segregation had become a norm that educators had to accept. Eaton gave a lot of insight to the perspectives of many administrators and teachers who believed that the only possible solution for inequality was to increase state test scores in their separated schools. Eaton stated that most educators interviewed during her research felt as if they had to work harder and they had expressed hope that “…separate really could become equal,” (p. xiv).
The problems and issues in Eaton’s work began unfolding when she described the rigors of the Connecticut Mastery Test that students had to take in grades 4, 6, and 8. Eaton then went on to discuss the problems of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The passage of NCLB in 2002, required testing every year and had forced Connecticut to administer the test in all grades 3 through 8. No Child Left Behind, Eaton states, also created, “curriculum packages” that were implemented in a way that forced all educators into a system of rote learning that therefore, lacked the encouragement of a child’s creativity and ingenuity (p. 14). “Ms. Luddy had to stick to an exacting, prescribed curriculum, patterned meticulously to mirror the state’s annual standardized exams,” (p. 13).
The author focuses her attention on Simpson-Waverly Elementary, an all black and Latino urban school in the north end of Hartford. Simpson-Waverly, despite state requirements, had been succeeding and their test scores had steadily increased over time, matching the scores of many suburban schools in the area. Eaton was attracted to Simpson-Waverly because it was one of the few inner-city, all minority schools that produced decent test scores and as a result, did not fit the urban school stereotype. The author dedicated four years of her study to Simpson-Waverly Elementary School. She described the school as being a decent educational setting. The school itself, had a library, had textbooks for their students, and had many experienced veteran teachers. Before beginning her research, Eaton, approached the school’s principal to inquire the question that helped start this narrative, “How might we transfer your successful model to other urban schools,” (p. xiv)?
The author then focused her study on the classroom of Lois Luddy, Hartford’s 2002 Teacher of the Year, and her third grade students. Eaton used Ms. Luddy as one the main characters in the book due to her patience, optimism, and openness for her student’s learning potentials. As a teacher, Ms. Lady, pushed her students to meet the standards set for student achievement under NCLB, knowing that the school did not have the resources necessary to help the children achieve. In 2003, Eaton reported, that Hartford spent approximately $4,000 more per student than a suburban school in the surrounding community. Simpson-Waverly however, could barely overcome the poverty and isolation of its students that therefore, became the significance of the problem.
In 2000, Eaton described her opportunity to meet one of Simpson-Waverly’s star students, Jeremy Otero. Jeremy, according to Eaton and his teacher Ms. Luddy, was a bright Puerto Rican, third grader that if provided with better circumstances, would be guaranteed a successful future. Eaton stated that he was able to read several grade levels ahead of his grade, scored very well on the state standardized tests, had a passion for science, and demonstrated much curiosity to new concepts. Unfortunately, the odds were all against him. Jeremy was of the poor and minority population. He lived in a neighborhood where violence, gangs, and drug dealing were common daily. When Jeremy left school, he went home each day to a depressed grandmother, an unpredictable aunt, and three other children, therefore receiving little to no support. “Children of Hartford’s Northeast neighborhood unflinchingly called the place exactly what it is: the ghetto. But it was their ghetto. Few of them had ever lived in any other sort of neighborhood, so the ghetto seemed a normal world,” (p. 43).
The children in room E4 observed drugs being sold openly, gang related violence and shootings, and were prevented by their parents and the school from playing outside. “Gangs…Out there…It’s really getting really bad…So there would be no more bike riding (p. 325). Many of the third graders in Ms. Luddy’s class were underexposed to the world beyond their neighborhood. Ms. Luddy believed that her students had no firsthand knowledge of “locales beyond their own,” (p. 8). Their world consisted of their apartment, their school, and the block between their home and their classroom.
The major assumptions made by the author were that children of Hartford could not succeed in education, in life, nor connect with the opportunities of a mainstream society because they lived in a city that was isolated. She also assumed that all children were equal and therefore needed an equal opportunity. Ms. Luddy put it best when she stated that, “We are all connected, doesn’t make it so…it doesn’t erase the advantages their kids have,” (p. 266). Eaton argued that people go down different paths in their lives and it is not because some people were smarter or worked harder. It was because people had very different opportunities in their lives. Eaton also provided a strong argument to test her hypothesis that segregation was not simply caused by an individual’s choices. The author believed that government policies and programs, including the drawing of school district boundaries, zoning laws, redlining, and banking regulations all enabled the segregation of many metropolitan areas in today’s society being cut off from mainstream America. Unfortunately, this lead to many children being a symbol of the harm done by segregation.
In 2003, Eaton explained that the Bush administration honored Simpson-Waverly Elementary School with the Blue Ribbon Award and named the school one of six national models for urban education. On the other side of town, however, in the courtroom, Sheff v. O’Neill had been argued, ruled upon, appealed, ruled upon again, reopened, ruled, reopened again, finally settled, and would still be reopened for the third time. At that point in the trial, Eaton stated a compelling fact that more than 90 percent of the students in Hartford were racial minorities. In other surrounding towns the percentages of students as racial minorities were as low as 5 percent. In 2005, however, Sheff v. O’Neill’s plaintiffs and lawyers intended to revisit the courtroom hoping to provide, “…access for more children to racially and economically diverse schools,” (p. xv).
At the end of the story, the author states that nearly 16 years had passed. Milo Sheff, the lead plaintiff, had dropped out of high school, earned his GED, and had a child of his own. The once third grade student, Jeremy, had become an eighth grader and attended a private school after receiving a scholarship. Eaton asked Jeremy what he wanted to be when he grew up. Jeremy responded by stating:
I know I used to say scientist…. But I changed my mind, I guess…this is because of Ms. Luddy.... Ms. Luddy does a lot of good stuff every day for kids, and I could follow that kind of example. So I guess that's why I say teacher. To set an example (p. 341).Eaton reviewed other explanations to Hartford’s problems. She argued that the solution to segregation and isolation cannot be found in compounding funds. Eaton’s explanation as to why this solution was inadequate to answer the specific problems was that the state wanted to throw more funds into building magnet schools drawing from diverse neighborhoods, forcing desegregation, developing more engaged teaching methods, and testing less which, in return would unlikely lead to the transformation of desegregation.
The recommendations the author made in effort to desegregate the system was to redraw the district boundary lines that were once defined by socioeconomic redlining and dishonest real estate practices intended to keep black and Hispanics away from their white counterparts. As long as there is racial segregation, Eaton expressed that schools would not improve and students would continue to be denied the opportunity to learn at the same rate of the more privileged students in the suburbs, therefore, hindering the students’ chances to enhance their lives and their futures.
Eaton’s recommendations, I feel are realistic, important, and valid for educational leadership. She criticizes that the unyielding focus in Hartford is the increasing students’ academic skills by using highly structured curriculum. She states that such curriculum demoralizes educators’ creativity and discourages students from following their interest in learning. Eaton fears that any effort to raise academic achievement in urban schools can be very damaging only because the pressure undercuts the ethical and legal argument for integration. Her recommendations as related to my educational setting are that district boundary lines need to be evaluated to make sure that they are not denying any student an equal education, diversity issues need to be addressed at the school and district level, cultural awareness needs to be incorporated into classroom, and adequate resources need to be provided to schools and students in need in order to improve achievement. Our schools need to offer our children with a curriculum that provides them with a rich education, “…full of science, music, art, expression through drama and literature…” (p. 297).
The shortcomings of Eaton’s research and story were that she lacked objectivity and narrated the story to express her opinion. Eaton at many times in her story was deeply involved in the research and therefore never detached herself from her work to take on an outsider’s perspective looking in. The lack of a clear conclusion to the case also was a shortcoming of her story and unfortunately the most unsatisfying part of the book. As a reader, one assumes that as the story continues to unfold and reveal real life tragedies that there will be some sort of solution to the problems in the end. The ending was at times frustrating as the reader hopes for a resolution to segregation especially after such a long court battle. Eaton’s conclusion discussed that after 18 years of courtroom battles to desegregate Hartford schools, they were unfortunately more isolated than before. The state of Connecticut had continued to fail to meet its mandated goals. This book plays an important role, as it constantly reminds the reader how far our society is from attaining education equality. Ms. Luddy expressed that students should not be able to identify a school by the ethnicity of the children that attend. “That child just asked me…Is this a white school…Did you hear what she asked me…Maybe I should have said, ‘Yes, it is a white school, honey. And you go to a black school,” (p. 258).
References
Education Next.(2009). The children in room e4: American education on trial. Retrieved on March 30, 2009, from http://www.articlearchives.com/education-training/education-systems-institutions/968083-1.html
Hartford Advocate. (2009). The children in room e4: If you think the segregation problem is history, read this book. Retrieved on March 31, 2009, from http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/Education/htfd_advocate_030107.aspMendez, T. (2007). Amid educational frustration, ‘the children in room e4’ shine. Retrieved on March 30, 2009, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0320/p16s01-bogn.html
About the Reviewer
Kristina Hoffman is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at California State University, Stanislaus with specialization in Preschool through Twelfth Grade. She an elementary school educator in Manteca, CA and holds a B.A. in Liberal Studies and an M.A. in Education, Curriculum and Instruction, Elementary Emphasis California State University, Stanislaus.
Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.
Editors: Gene V Glass, Gustavo Fischman, Melissa Cast-Brede
~ ER home | Reseņas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~
~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements | search ~