Analysis of Education in Bushwick, Brooklyn - Case Study Example

Abstract Schools have adopted computer technology to enhance the education experience. It is yet to be seen whether zoned high schools are capable of providing educational support through information communication technology (ICT). Schools operating in socially and economically less capable communities find it difficult to transfer the benefits of computer technology to all segments of society due to a number of reasons. In the context of recent discussion on digital divide within the schools, analysis of education in two schools in Brooklyn – Bushwich High School and New Utrecht High School with each other has been attempted to measure the result and search the reason behind the differences in available data on the usage of ICT in education. Literature Review Education in Bushwick has been a cause of concern. The issue of communication rights has been raised in the context of digital divide. The term ‘digital divide’ is used on a number of parameters; haves and have-nots being one of them comprising those who have access to information technology and those who don’t have access (Matwyshyn, 2003). Students learn the information and communication technologies fast. In that context, it is significant that the benefits of ICT reach the students through the class rooms. Bolt and Crawford have rightly remarked, “This is not a question of newer school texts or better school uniforms, it is literally a social fulcrum point that we… have come to which will determine the face of our society well into the next century”(Digital Divide, 2000: 32). While there is evidence that access to computers in schools has increased, the question remains to be answered whether low socio-economic status (SES) schools provide students with justifiable backing to attain information communication technology (ICT) literacy (Hohlfeld et al., 2008). Education technology should be used as a tool to better students’ proficiency in English language, arts, mathematics, and science. The New York State Education department sanctions funds to meet the federal goals of computer literacy in students by the finish of eighth grade (NYSED.gov 2008-09) To what extent the computers and related technologies integration should happen in the classroom is a big issue in itself. Burniske and Monke, former high school teachers, suggest being cautious in their book Breaking down the Digital Walls. Students don’t necessarily become a part of their community to serve after attaining proficiency to the extreme. They utilize the technological expertise to find a job of their choice but there are no lofty ideals other than that. According to Monke, “Is there a way to harness the power of computer technology to serve my students’ search for meaning in their learning and in their lives?” (Dexter & Shuler). According to Louis Althusser, digitally enabled schools help in transferring the ideology of the state. Besides learning the labor and professional skills, students learn the rules of morality and conscience. Althusser finds computer and related technologies a myth to change the world. It is because computer technology is not helping to create thinkers, leaders and ideal citizens but workers, as we see that hardware and software cannot help unless teachers and the whole environment supports the students to engage in various critical debates and discussions. Paulo disregards such transfer of technological skills in students by their teachers. Freire stresses on the importance of inculcating the values of critical thinking, analysis and dialogue through education. The question arises whether computer education can become the catalyst of imparting true human values in the youth (Dexter & Shuler). National policy makers, since the Regan-era report, ‘A Nation at Risk’ have been stressing on the significance of computer education in primary and secondary school syllabus. ICT was a trend changer to pay more attention on quantitative disciplines and more quantification of the education process, to check learning. It is taken as being politically right when more computers are installed in schools. Politicians get the opportunity to project their positive image in the public on education reform. Not only politicians, all stakeholders get elated (Dexter & Shuler). Maris Vinovskis who has been an advisor to the US Department of Education adheres to the notion that public response on the report A Nation at Risk didn’t have long term perspective of the education environment. As Vinovskis remarks, “Everybody wants their own plan, so we go through these big initiatives in an approach where we try a fad and don't really measure it to see whether it really works.” Now is the time when discussion on the digital divide is going on, we should try to mend our focus on education change. Instead of focusing on numbers and statistics, we should concentrate on finding ways of benefiting from computers that help us in attaining our educational targets (Dexter & Shuler). There can be myriad ways for students to use resources like Indymedia to share the community happenings with the world at large. Students can add to the knowledge houses like Wikipedia by participating in online collaborative projects. They can feel rewarded by writing blogs on their school and community. Technology should be taken with a spirit of additional mechanism to pursue study. Proposed Data Analysis According to the government report, 35 percent schools in the United States were providing internet enabled curriculum in 1994 while in 2002, the percentage reached 99. The students to computer ratio that was 12 to 1 in 1998, has reached 4.8 to 1 in 2002. Taking the case of New York City’s public schools, commitments have fallen short of the targets. Teachers are very much interested in integrating computers into the teaching pattern but infrastructure related issues remain to be solved first. Other than insufficient teaching facilities, shortage of teaching staff, misuse of security and “filtering” technology, hardware resources’ management is a big problem area. To illustrate the education scenario in Brooklyn, let’s analyze two Brooklyn high schools to know how ICT is helping the students in their learning experiences. Let’s review the result of a survey made on two “zoned” high schools in the borough of Brooklyn. Students living nearby attend classes in these “zoned” schools when not going to a school. In New York City, students with good grades and behavior get the opportunity of admission in a school of their choice. The zoned communities schools have a bad reputation as students earning below average grades get admission in such schools. New Utrecht High School is a different type of school in the sense that 1 out of its 6 students are fresh immigrants from countries like China, Pakistan, and Russia. A good number of students are bilingual in Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, Urdu, Bengali, Spanish, Italian, and Arabic with English. Problem, however, is that New Utrecht’s vast student community is highly short of resources and funds. Bushwick High School got a structural overhaul in the fall of 2003 by getting segregated into three smaller schools, each school having a distinct administration of its own. No new admission for the 9th class was made as a different branch conducted admissions. This restructuring was necessitated because of the poor performance of students in New York in standardized tests. There were many reasons associated to the poor performance of students, the primary being temporary teachers deficient in training and low economic profile of the adjacent community (Dexter & Shuler). Let’s compare the basic demographics of both the schools. Students are a mix of officially white and undocumented Asian immigrants with average household income of $50K. Community around is Hispanic 59%, Black 27%, and a number of Latino immigrants. 40% of students at New Utrecht High School and Bushwick High School are below poverty line while 76% are born into poverty. The English language learners in the New York City are 14% on an average to 23.4% in New Utrecht High School and 29.4% in Bushwick High School. The percentage of poor students eligible for free lunch in New York City is 51.8 to 24% in New Utrecht HS, and 77.1% in Bushwick HS. In the matter of Capacity Utilization, the median in NYC is 107% to 139% in New Utrecht HS, and 99% in Bushwick HS. Percentage of students passing Eng/Math Graduation Assessment is 62/48 in New Utrecht HS and 23/21 in Bushwick HS. Dropout rate in NYC is 20% to 13% in New Utrecht HS and 36% in Bushwick HS. Spending per Student in NYC is $9348 to $7620 in New Utrecht and $9567 in Bushwick HS (Dexter & Shuler). Data Analysis The above data clearly indicates that Bushwick HS is lagging behind the New Utrecht HS in the matter of poverty, capacity utilization, passing in English/Math Graduation Assessment, dropout rate and spending per student. Only in English language leaning, the Bushwick HS students’ percentage is higher. The causes for differences in the performance indicators seem to be more economically weak and non-white communities living around. They want to learn English language to be in the race, that’s why percentage of English learners of Bushwick HS is higher than that of New Utrecht HS. The community around the New Utrecht HS is comparatively well off, that’s why they are not utilizing free lunches, are utilizing capacity the most, their pass % in English and Math is more than double of the Bushwick HS. This must be the reason of their comparatively less % in learning English Language. Generally, dropout rate is greater in communities living on the margin, which is almost three times of Bushwick HS to New Utrecht HS. It indicates again the lower economic status of the community around Bushwick HS. Because community around is poor, the government spending per student is the highest in Bushwick -- $9567. Both the schools represent a gloomy view of the United States public education system but these schools are doing a great task of educating around 4,000 students from culturally different backgrounds. It is a challenging task to teach them the basics of reading, writing, and Arithmetic, not to speak of making them computer technologies enabled and efficient. But the survey revealed that students using computers with internet made complaints with the filtering feature that was found to be a block in the educational research. It is a common practice of using filters in public schools (Dexter & Shuler). As per the report of the National Center for Education Statistics, schools take different steps to make the unwanted content out of the reach of students. The biggest percentage of schools (96) use blocking software, in 91% schools, teacher keep an eye on students’ access, 82% schools ask parents to sign for guarantee and 77% schools ask students to sign the contract statement, 41% apply honor code, and 32% permit the use of intranet (Dexter & Shuler). Coming back to the two selected schools – New Utrecht HS and Bushwick HS, 31 students were surveyed from New Utrecht HS. 30 students of New Utrecht have a computer at home, 25 of them use email and 14 students have computer in their classrooms while out of 36 students of Bushwick School, 26 have computers at home, 26 use email, and 15 have computers in classrooms (Dexter & Shuler). This data indicates that less percentage of (72.8%) Bushwich School students have a computer at home than New Utrecht (99%). This information shows less affording capacity of the Bushwick community. Further devoting daily hours to education via computer of both schools is quite different for 0-5 hours, as 15 students of New Utrecht students to 25 students of Bushwick. Rest of the data takes into consideration 6-10 hours a day usage, which is equal 8:8, weekly usage of 10+ hours is made by 5 students of New Utrecht and 3 students of Bushwick, and number of students who don’t know how to use computers is 0 to 4 of New Utrecht and Bushwick. The last piece of information related to 0: 4 ratios indicate that about 11% of the Bushwick students surveyed don’t know how to research and study via computer. Contrasting the Bushwick School data with CD 4 (Bushwick snapshots 2008) on language spoken at home (Age 5+), the number of only English speaking community in Bushwick is 31,150, which is 32%. Out of the total children below 18 years, this data applies to 63% of the children from 0 to 18 years, as 33% are under 6 years of age. Incidentally, highest number of people in Bushwick speaks Spanish, i.e. 62%. Definitely, this data analysis stresses on the need of investing government resources in such a way that raises the economic standards of the communities so that dropout rate could be reduced in schools where communities are living on the margins of poverty. References Bolt, David., Ray, Crawford. (2000). Digital Divide: Computers and our children’s future. Community Snapshot 2008. CD4: Bushwick. Retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloads/pdf/cd_snapshots/brooklyn_cd4_bushwick.pdf Dexter, Scott & Shuler, Jack. The Digital divide in Brooklyn’s public high schools. Brooklyn College of CUNY. Hohlfeld, Tina N., Ritzhaupt, Albert D., Barron, Ann E., Kemker, Kate. (2008, December). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida (EJ807628) ERIC Computers & Education, 51(4). Retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ807628&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ807628 Matwyshyn, Andrea M. (2003). Silicon ceilings: information technology equity, the digital divide and the gender gap among information technology professionals. Retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v2/n1/2/Matwyshyn.pdf NYSED.gov. New York State EETT Competitive Grant Program (2008-09). Retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/technology/programs/EETT_competitive_grant.html Read More