Mirror Sites: CSUDH Habermas UWP

Violentization through Denial

Caliifornia State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: June 7, 2001
Latest Update: June 7, 2001
jeannecurran@habermas.org

This essay is based on an article in the California Educator, Volume Five, Issue 8, May, 2000: Zip Codes: Do They Deteremine Our Students' Future? pp. 6 and ff.

Tables and Graphs. On page 7 of the article there is a graph that visualizes the following data. We will run an SPSS graph of the same data, and compare the effectiveness of the various graphs we could present.

Data Tables:

Percent of Teachers on Emergency Credentials
School Rank on Test Scores:	Lowest 10%	Highest 10%
Elementary Schools	25%	4%
Middle Schools	27%	7%
High Schools	21%	8%

Percent of Schools on Year-Round Schedules
School Rank on Test Scores:	Lowest 10%	Highest 10%
Elementary Schools	58%	3%
Middle Schools	33%	1%
High Schools	34%	0%

Percent of English Language Learners
School Rank on Test Scores:	Lowest 10%	Highest 10%
Elementary Schools	62%	4%
Middle Schools	45%	4%
High Schools	36%	4%

Percent of Highly Mobile Students
School Rank on Test Scores:	Lowest 10%	Highest 10%
Elementary Schools	20%	14%
Middle Schools	20%	14%
High Schools	15%	9%

My first reaction to this article and to the tables as I put them up was one of horror. The results seem so clearly to indicate intimidation, domination, trivialization of the "Other." The title CTA gave to the graph they presented, "What high stakes testing can't fix," had too much information crammed together, and seemed wholly innocuous. I wanted to express more with the visualization of this data.

I chose to look at the school levels in separate tables, and so began to play with the data for the elementary schools. My freebie software program kept refusing to print and to color consistently, but that fit in with the mood these data provoked. I mixed type in with hand written material, and colored int the bars with loose and free brushstrokes. Though software programs dictated those choices, they fit my mood. And so I came up with Figure 1:

Figure 1. Relative Percentages of Educational Problems in Elementary Schools
Scoring in the Highest 10% and Lowest 10% on the API
(California's Academic Performance Index)

True to my training in statistics and methods, I proceeded to explain the graph of Figure 1 in words, as every good sociologist would:

Figure 1 shows that 25% of the teachers are on temporary credentials in elementary schools scoring in the lowest 10% on the California Academic Performance Index, while only 4 % of the teachers are on temporary credentials in elementary schools scoring in the highest 10% on the California Academic Performance Index.

Figure 1 also shows that 58% of the elementary schools scoring in the lowest 10% on the California Academic Performance Index are on year-round schedules, while only 3 % of the elementary schools scoring in the highest 10% on the California Academic Performance Index are on year-round schedules.

Figure 1 shows further that 62% of the students in elementary schools scoring in the lowest 10% on the California Academic Performance Index are English language learners for whom English is a second language. Only 4% of the students in elementary schools scoring in the lowest 10% on the California Academic Performance Index are English language learners.

Figure 1 shows a consistent and noteworthy difference between high achieving and low achieving elementary schools on the variables of professional preparation of their teachers, on overcrowding which forces year-round schedules, and on preparatory language learning. As we discuss social justice issues, these data suggest important factors in defining justice. Shall justice be fair access to communal resources (such as the public schools) or shall individual privilege grant greater access to those who are the progeny of more successful members of society? Bear these data in mind as we compare Rawls, Nozick, and Habermas' theories of justice.

Finally, we note in Figure 1, that 20% of children in the low achieving elementary schools are highly mobile, moving from school to school, while 14% of children in the high achieving elementary schools are highly mobile, moving from school to school. Perhaps this is a factor peculiar to California, where mobility is closer to normative expectations than in some parts of the country.

Notice that some of you will prefer the written explanation of what the data show to the table or graphic expressions. Because we all learn differently, good practice in research dictates that we interpret our results in written paragraphs, in figures, and in tables, making it possible for the reader to choose the presentation closest to his/her learning style.

In keeping with the emphasis we accord the "Other" and alterity in the twenty-first century, I was still unsatisfied with Figure 1. I wanted the stark reality of those data to jump out, and I wanted my sense of outrage at the cumulative effects of lack of access to come across.

And so, I played some more with Figure 1 and turned it into Figure 2:

Figure 2. Violentization through Denial

This is an exercise in reaching our denial and using art to help us past that denial. Please do not turn Figure 2 in as a bar graph with a traditional term paper. Why don't you try setting up a conventional bar graph just to present the data. But I would also appreciate your efforts at expressing your feelings about the inequalities of the public school system, as we are living them.