Black Citymakers
Black Citymakers
复制标题
黑人城市缔造者
DOI：
10.1177/2332649215597206
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Kasim Ortiz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kasim Ortiz
资源、机会囤积、家长参与、家校关系和社交网络是我们关注的关键。在第一章中，刘易斯-麦考伊解释了他的决定，专注于郊区教育种族不平等，通过阐述上述论点。为了说明这一点，他讨论了“星期六科学俱乐部”，这是郊区学校向家长提供的一个“机会”，可以提高学生的科学成绩，其中黑人学生很少参加，与富裕的白色学生形成鲜明对比。本章的下一部分批判了现有的基于阶级的论点（安妮特·拉鲁的“协调培养”）和基于种族的理论解释（约翰·奥格布的生态模型），这些理论解释声称可以解释学生的学业不良和教育种族不平等。拉罗坚持认为，让孩子参加正式组织的课外活动（协调培养）而不是让他们随时玩耍（自然成长）的父母通过夸大班级的作用而忽视了种族的作用。刘易斯-麦考伊认为，拉罗的研究是基于一个有偏见的样本，并在背景下的白色英国的利益和文化。然后他解释说，Ogbu的概念，种族忠诚和团结，破坏了种族的作用，因为它们是基于这样的假设，即黑人学生对自己的成绩不佳负责，因为他们过度意识到他们的父母经历的种族歧视。本章最后提供了一个替代的理论框架，旨在填补差距在以前的理论解释：关系资源分析，它借鉴了查尔斯迪利的绝对不平等框架。第2章至第8章讨论了与第1章中拒绝和提出的理论框架有关的发现。第二章首先简要讨论了以下研究目标：郊区如何决定哪些政策有助于促进平等，种族意识形态如何影响政策建设，以及家庭在制定正式学校政策中所扮演的角色。它通过分析四项政策干预措施来做到这一点：1985年和1997年的重新划分选区计划以及1997年和2004年的成就差距倡议。这导致了对郊区白色居民有偏见的教育机会的更丰富的理解。使用参与者的案例研究，第三章讨论了家庭的作用，学生居住的地理位置，以及父母的社交网络，以研究黑人和白色生活之间的社会距离如何导致不同的“机会”，因为黑人和白色学生的社交网络和兴趣很少匹配。这影响了谁在郊区教育系统中被忽视，谁没有。第四章继续这场辩论。它认为，长期以来，通过夸大父母的社会阶层的作用，现有的关于“父母与学校的接触”的文献低估了种族（和族裔）的作用和影响。两个案例研究，以显示如何和谁的机会和资源变得可用和限制。第五章探讨了黑人和白色家长如何将学生社会化到种族和民族，以及这如何影响学生的互动和学生在郊区学校所接触到的机会和资源的类型。第六章展示了教师如何利用种族和阶级来建立关于谁值得获得哪种类型的资源和机会的假设。它显示了教师的背景如何告知他们与哪些家长保持良好的关系。第7章通过解释为什么一些黑人父母将他们的孩子从郊区教育中移除而其他人没有完成对调查结果的讨论。对两组黑人父母的初步调查结果表明，他们的“社会世界”（文化和兴趣）很少发生冲突，即使考虑到阶级和家庭收入。第8章讨论了黑人父母对基于种族的社会资本的使用，刘易斯-麦考伊将其描述为“黑人社会资本”，并重申了关系资源分析的有效性。尽管这本书有明显的优点，但有三个批评：没有充分参考以前的经验研究（特别是英国的经验研究），特别是那些使用作者拒绝的理论框架的经验研究。报告简要指出了访问的困难，但没有对此作出解释，因为对100多名参与者进行了深入访谈。
resources, opportunity hoarding, parental engagement, home-school relations, and social networks are critical in our focus. In the first chapter, Lewis-McCoy explains his decision to focus exclusively on suburban educational race inequality, by elaborating on the above arguments. To illustrate, he discusses the “Saturday Science Club,” an “opportunity” that suburban district schools offered to parents to improve pupils’ science grades, in which exceptionally few Black pupils enrolled, in sharp contrast to affluent White pupils. The next part of this chapter critiques existing class-based arguments (Annette Lareau’s “concerted cultivation”) and race-based theoretical explanations (John Ogbu’s ecological model) that claim to explain pupils’ underattainment and educational racial inequality. Lareau maintains that parents who enroll their children in formally organized extracurricular activities (concerted cultivation) instead of letting them play as and when (natural growth), neglects the role of race by exaggerating the role of class. Lewis-McCoy argues that Lareau’s research is based on a biased sample and is contextualized within White British interests and culture. He then explains that Ogbu’s concepts, racial allegiance and solidarity, undermine the role of race because they are based on the assumption that Black pupils are responsible for their own underattainment, as a result of being overly conscious of the racial discrimination their parents experienced. The chapter closes by offering an alternative theoretical framework aimed at filling the gap identified in previous theoretical explanations: relational resource analysis, which draws on Charles Dilly’s categorical inequality framework. Chapters 2 to 8 discuss the findings in relation to the theoretical frameworks rejected and proposed in chapter 1. The second chapter begins with a brief discussion of the following research aims: working out how suburban districts decide what policies will help promote equality, how racial ideologies influence policy construction, and the roles families play in setting formal school policies. It does this by analyzing four policy interventions: redistricting plans in 1985 and 1997 and achievement gap initiatives in 1997 and 2004. This results in a richer understanding of biased educational opportunities favoring White residents in the suburban district. Using participants’ case studies, the third chapter discusses the role of family, the geographic locations where pupils live, and parents’ social networks to examine how the social distances between Black and White lives lead to different “opportunities” because Black and White pupils’ social networks and interests rarely match. This influences who is advantaged in the suburban education system and who is not. The fourth chapter continues this debate. It maintains that for far too long, and by exaggerating the role of parents’ social class, existing literature on “parental engagement with schools” has undertheorized the role and impact of race (and ethnicity). Two case studies are presented to show how and to whom opportunities and resources become available and constrained. The fifth chapter explores how Black and White parents socialize pupils into race and ethnicity and how this influences pupils’ interaction and the types of opportunities and resources to which pupils are exposed in suburban schooling. Chapter 6 shows how race and class are used by teachers to build assumptions about who is worthy of which types of resources and opportunities. It shows how teachers’ backgrounds inform which parents they hold favorable relationships with. Chapter 7 finishes the discussion of the findings by explaining why some Black parents removed their children from suburban education and others did not. The primary findings of the two groups of Black parents show that their “social worlds” (culture and interests) rarely clashed, even when class and household income was taken into account. Chapter 8 discusses the Black parents’ use of racebased social capital, which Lewis-McCoy describes as “Black social capital,” and reiterates the effectiveness of relational resource analysis. Despite its obvious strengths, there are three critiques of this book: insufficient reference is made to previous empirical studies (especially those in the United Kingdom), particularly those that have used theoretical frameworks the author rejects. A brief point about the difficulty of access is made, but this is not explained, given that in-depth interviews were conducted with more 100 participants.