There have always been students who do not meet the educational expectations of their time—students outside the mainstream mold who do not fit dominant notions of success. The differences between schools and these students can be thought of as a “mismatch” between the structure of schools and the social, cultural, or economic backgrounds of students identified as problems. In this essay we examine the history of these students who have not been able to do what educators wanted them to do. We look at how educators have labeled poor school performers in different periods and how these labels reflected both attitudes and institutional conditions. We then summarize four major historical explanations for why children fail in school—individual deficits or incompetence, families, inefficiency in schools, and cultural difference. Finally, we explore what implications this history has for students in the current standards-based reform movement, including implications for social promotion and the age-graded school. To avoid a mismatch in the standards movement, we argue that educators should focus on adapting the school better to the child, addressing social inequalities that extend beyond the classroom, and undertaking comprehensive changes that take no features of current schools for granted.

The field of youth services has undergone many changes in the past few decades, and advocacy organizations play a pivotal role in reconceptualizing this field by promoting better and more coordinated services to youth in need. This article examines how advocacy organizations bring about new conceptions of youth, influence the organization of the field, and ultimately change the way public policy addresses youth’s needs. The authors first describe the field of youth services, a highly fragmented field that has historically focused on youth as problems and targets for intervention. Next, they describe the current reform movement that instead promotes positive youth development. Focusing on the concept of restructuration, they then highlight some of the ways in which three advocacy organizations in San Francisco and Oakland, California, influence the field, and they propose early indicators that suggest how this field is being reorganized.

There have always been students who do not meet the educational expectations of their time—students outside the mainstream mold who do not fit dominant notions of success. The differences between schools and these students can be thought of as a “mismatch” between the structure of schools and the social, cultural, or economic backgrounds of students identified as problems. In this essay we examine the history of these students who have not been able to do what educators wanted them to do. We look at how educators have labeled poor school performers in different periods and how these labels reflected both attitudes and institutional conditions. We then summarize four major historical explanations for why children fail in school—individual deficits or incompetence, families, inefficiency in schools, and cultural difference. Finally, we explore what implications this history has for students in the current standards-based reform movement, including implications for social promotion and the age-graded school. To avoid a mismatch in the standards movement, we argue that educators should focus on adapting the school better to the child, addressing social inequalities that extend beyond the classroom, and undertaking comprehensive changes that take no features of current schools for granted.

The federal government can ensure that all children, especially economically and otherwise disadvantaged ones, have opportunities for after-school learning, summer learning, and family support that improve their chances for school success.

No abstract