Same School, Separate Worlds: A Sociocultural Study of Identity, Resistance, and Negotiation in a Rural, Lower Track Science Classroom

This ethnographic study examined how rural, lower track, underrepresented students made sense of their place in school and what role school science played in their cultural reproduction. The objectives of the study were to identify key components of science classroom discourse, analyze means of negotiating these components, and explicate participants' beliefs and roles in de®ning microcultural identities speci®c to rural, underrepresented school contexts. Eight students and their teacher participated in this study, which drew heavily upon teacher and student revoicing of common events. Results showed that the quality of science instruction was subverted through a process of negotiation between students and teachers in the context of low expectations and the school culture. Implications for research and practice are discussed. ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 574± 598, 2001 Lower Track Classrooms and Social Reproduction Tracking is a highly accepted and rarely questioned phenomenon that occurs daily within the public school system. Based on the practice of sorting students by their perceived academic ability (Wheelock, 1994, p.vii), tracking is considered an action by the school to classify and separate students to determine the amount, quality, and value of the education those students receive (Oakes, 1990; Page, 1991; Rosenbaum, 1976). Scholars further argue that tracking is but one way schools determine the levels of social reproduction within the U.S. school system of today (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Solomon, 1992). In many lower track programs, poor ethnic students are overrepresented whereas White middle-class students are underrepresented. Rosenbaum (1976) argued that tracking is neither just an educational curriculum for enhancing student growth nor an organizational plan for promoting ef®cient school operation. Rather, it is a societal institution whose ultimate justi®cation lies in its effectiveness for meritocratic allocation of students into societal positions. (p. 82) Correspondence to: R. Yerrick, North Education #90, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182; E-mail: [email protected] ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Of even greater concern is the fact that these differences generally fall along racial, economic, and cultural lines (Delpit, 1995, 1995; Ogbu, 1987) and as such tracking serves as a highly ef®cient mechanism to deliver students into their so-called proper places within society (Gamoran, 1987; Rosenbaum, 1976). Furthermore, creating unequal educational opportunities for tracked students sets up educational trajectories leading to different levels of educational and occupational attainment with lifelong consequences stemming from a systemic problem beginning quite early in lower track students' educational careers. Lower Track Students' Microculture Identity The National Research Council's (1996) National Science Education Standards called for the United States to set a goal of all students becoming scienti®cally literate. In light of these recent recommendations, the difference in quality of teaching between upper and lower track classrooms has become an important issue because reformers desire scienti®c literacy for all students, not just those who are deemed to have great potential and intelligence: The intent of the Standards can be expressed in a single phrase: Science standards for all students. The phrase embodies both excellence and equity. The Standards apply to all students, regardless of age, gender, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science. (p. 2) Schools, however, have been neither quick nor unanimous to change science teaching and learning for all students. On the contrary, schools attempt to shape students through standardized learning situations and rarely consider important differences among students. This goal is accomplished through agendas including rules of conduct, classroom organization, and the informal pedagogical procedures used by teachers with speci®c groups of students (LeCompte & Dworkin, 1991; McLaren, 1994). It is becoming more clear that schools and teachers are not passive observers of the socialization processes taking place in schools; rather, they help determine the nature and extent of the socialization. Often tracking provides teachers with preconceived notions and hierarchical labels and expectations that become associated with particular groups of students (Graham, Taylor, & Hudley, 1998; Oakes, 1990; Page, 1991). Several practical and theoretical student categorizations have been used to explain such phenomena (Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1997; Steele, 1997). We intentionally avoid descriptors such as at-risk and minority students because they sometimes share unintended connotations of ethnic or language de®ciencies. As Ladson-Billings argued, Being at-risk became synonymous with being a person of color. How did this happen? . . . This subtle but signi®cant shift is emblematic of the way the language of difference (disadvantage, diversity) works to construct a position of inferiority even when that may not have been the initial intent. (pp. 218±219) Although some efforts are intended to incorporate more diverse populations and discourses into de®nitions of educational success, many convey disparaging cultural messages regarding the school's role to compensate for the children's presumed lack of socialization and cultural resources. One unfortunate consequence of such insensitivity is that certain ethnic groups withdraw altogether from White interpretations of school success. For example, Steele (1992, 1997) and others (Major et al., 1997; Mickelson, 1990; Osborne, 1997) documented the plight of Black children in public schools and how coping with negative stereotypes about their academic competence has led many Black students to disengage from school altogether. SAME SCHOOL, SEPARATE WORLDS 575