Another arena that impacts the outcomes of student academic achievement in mathematics and science in schools of different social classes lies in the understanding that different teachers work in different contexts. Quite often, social class appears to sort teachers by their social class into a variety of schools. Conditions of work are usually defined by the resources, rewards, and incentives as well as by the degree of professional autonomy and collegial culture, which are shaped by the social status of the community in very complex ways. Teachers in lower class and working-class schools often experience severe barriers to teaching and learning in each of the above categories. Consequently, some of those teachers may rely on less demanding forms of teaching, which then produces lower educational achievement. This occurs frequently because teachers and schools often tailor the curriculum to social-class background without necessarily intending to do so. If it is assumed that society needs a certain amount of workers for a certain skill set, teachers and schools assume that learners' capabilities and occupational futures will resemble those of their parents, and hence the correspondence between taught curriculum and social-class background is not accidental but instead highly functional (Wilcox, 1982). As well, curriculum (formal and hidden) often does not reflect the racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds of the community and student population. Content and textbooks, even in modern standards-based curricula, most often do not reflect lower class workers or nonmainstream ethnic groups. Below are some of the aspects of taught curriculum in high- versus low-status schools (Knapp & Woolverton, 1995).
Return to "Remembering the Child: On Equity and Inclusion in Mathematics and Science Classrooms."
