Mismatch: Historical Perspectives on Schools and Students who Don't Fit Them

Abstract

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.

“Our Teaching Transcends a Subject Matter”: Learning From Black Women Educators’ Beliefs about Literacy Instruction During Extraordinary Times

“…Cultural deficit models legitimize apolitical conceptualizations of literacy instruction, thereby locating underachievement within students and their families rather than in school or society (Foster & Onafowora, 2003; Macedo & Freire, 1987). Similarly, deficit ideologies dampen teachers’ beliefs about students’ learning potential: Matthew effect (Stanovich, 1986), word-gap research (Hart & Risley, 1995), and standardized test performance render pernicious labels, such as “struggling” or “reluctant” reader, that may be nearly impossible for students to shake (Deschenes et al, 2001; Learned, 2016). Unsurprisingly, then, deficit beliefs justify how schools sort students—be it in “honors” or “remediated” classes—to socialize them toward our current social order, ultimately harming marginalized students most acutely (Anyon, 1980; Marsh & Walker, 2022; Oakes, 2005).…”

(Re)Framing the Discourse of Parent Involvement: Calling on the Knowledge of Latinx Mothers

“…One example of an early family advocacy group that emerged was the Children's Benevolent League of Washington, founded in 1939 (Schwartzenberg, 2005), that was organized by families to provide political and financial support to the institutions where their children resided. At the same time, these professionals would portray families as sources of resistance, framing it as necessary to overcome each family's opposition to giving up their child to the control of the experts (Deschenes et al, 2001).…”

Miseducating Teachers about the Poor: A Critical Analysis of Ruby Payne's Claims about Poverty

“…They claimed that poor children are members of a legitimate category and that those children share features that are related to their experience in school. The making of the category children of poverty and the positioning of the people within that category as problems for the education system certainly is not new (Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001;Katz, 1990Katz, , 1995Patterson, 2000;Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965). However, the federal law makes sure that the improvement of poor childrens' test scores becomes a major focus of every school in the country.…”