The role of stress in urban public education

How humans respond to stress

The human brain is at the core of our response to stress. Social interactions can create stressful events. When these stressful events incorporate social constructions, such as discrimination, poverty, dilapidated housing, dense social interactions, we can think of this as urban stress.. When exposed to this over prolonged periods it leads to chronic stress which we may or may not even notice.

Repeated responses to stress, over time, lead to behaviors and eventually habits that an individual might display when dealing with a stressful situation (e.g. poor sleeping and eating habits) (McEwen, 2007, 2006).  Early life experiences contribute substantially to how a person learns how to deal with stress (Heim and Nemeroff, 2001). This suggests that care-givers of young children can significantly influence the way those children respond to stressful situations. Further, care-givers can also positively affect the way young children respond to stress by helping them to develop positive self-esteem and social supports as coping mechanisms (McEwen, 2008; Seeman, Singer, Ryff, Dienberg, Levy-Storms, 2002).

How stress affects what students can do in school

Allostasis is an organism’s ability to maintain internal constancy in the context of change. This is the process that facilitates homeostasis. The allostatic state is a condition of sustained activity that is different from the organism’s naturally occurring state. The condition occurs in response to long term stress or changes in the organism’s environment or during challenging social interactions.  Unchecked chronic stress, or chronic exposure to stressful situations, results in high allostatic load or allostatic overload (McEwen & Wingfield, 2003). In addition, to a sustained altered state of activity, high allostatic load includes the associated habits that can be of further detriment to health (i.e. poor sleeping, poor eating). These habits can further influence learning. For instance, sleep plays a role in learning and memory consolidation.

In a state of high allostatic load, an individual produces stress hormones that affect the human brain by changing the actual physical nature of neurons, dampening their function (McEwen, 1999, 2008). In particular, these stress hormones act on the hippocampus (associated with the consolidation of memory and spatial navigation), the prefrontal cortex (associated with cognitive function, personality expression, social behavior and decision making) and the amygdala (also associated with decision making, memory and emotional reactions.) Thus, high allostatic load affects regions of the brain associated with learning and behavior, thus having implications for what a child can do and does in school.

Stress Disparity in the Urban Neighborhoods

Research has pointed to factors that increase the likelihood of stress, which are applicable to the social conditions present in many urban environments. For intsance, one such study suggests that children of low SES families are more likely to produce stress hormones when learning something new. While family language complexity was shown to intervene between SES and learning, the lower a family’s SES the less likely they were to have high language complexity (Sheridan, Sarsour, Jutte, D'Esposito, & Boyce; 2012). Another study found that people of color and the poor are more likely to suffer from poor sleep quality, one of the side effects of chronic stress. Further, factors like employment level, education attainment and health status only influenced levels sleep quality in poor individuals, suggesting that they are especially vulnerable to differences in those factors (Patel, Grandner, Xie, Branas, & Gooneratne, 2010).  Sharkey’s (2010) study examining violence and cognitive function in children showed that exposure to local violence diminishes that child’s performance on cognitive assessments. This suggests that following neighborhood violence local children’s ability to perform in school or on some sort of cognitive assessment is diminished. His study also found that in the Chicago neighborhood where it was conducted African Americans were more likely than Hispanics and much more likely than whites to be exposed to violence. While the data in Sharkey’s (2010) study could not point to stress and the mechanism that diminishes the child’s ability to perform on a cognitive assessment, we synthesize his findings with the previous studies on stress and cognitive function. These suggest that local violence serves as a stressor for neighborhood children which potentially influences both their cognitive and behavioral outcomes in school. Finally, studies have suggested that discrimination and lack of belonging, is related to high levels of stress contributing to high allostatic load (Cokely, Hall-Clark, & Hicks, 2012; D'Anna, Ponce, & Siegel, 2010; Johnston-Brooks, Lewis, Evans, & Whalen, 1998; Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2007; Williams et al., 2012). American cities, post WWII were more likely to have a high concentration of African Americans due to surburbanization and codified geographic segregation. Remnants of historical codification of African American discrimination still persist institutionally (Satcher, 2001) Further blacks are most likely to perceive discrimination across all racial groups (Cokely, et al., 2012). Taken together, these studies highlight the role of stress in places with high concentrations of poor and minority urban environments, which specifically has repercussions for children’s outcomes in urban public schools.

Effects of urban school closures on students

Few studies focus on urban school closure and the effects on students. In these studies, the research suggests that student well-being is negatively impacted by school closure. Kirshner and Pozzoboni (2011) found that student perceptions of their school closing included feeling that the decision to close their school was imposed on them for reasons that they did not agree with. They also found that students appreciated and missed certain features of their closed school that contributed to their well-being, such as trusting relationship with adults and their sense of belonging (Kirshner and Pozzoboni, 2011). In a follow up article, Kirshner, Gaertner and Pozzooboni’s (2010) suggest that students face additional stressors when dealing with school closure. In a popular article found in the Hard Kennedy School Review, Chan (2012) explains that following the announcement of school closings both the students that will be displaced and the students and staff in the receiving school become anxious which serves as a stressor.

Student learning is also negatively impacted by school closure. Displaced student achievement is likely decline in both the year of the announcement of the school closing and year following their school closing, especially if the school that receives them is also failing school (Kirshner, Gaertner and Pozzoboni, 2014, Sherrod and Dawkins-Law, 2013).  Studies have found that following a school district restructuring during which schools were closed, although student test scores declined, they rebounded the year following suggesting a sort of resiliency in the displaced students and their ability to overcome loss (Brummet, 2012; Ozek, Hansen, Gonzalez, 2012). However, one of these studies occurred in the context of mass school closure during one school year that subsequently ended as the school district continued to restructure itself in a city that has undergone substantial gentrification (Ozek, Hansen, Gonzalez, 2012). This is quite different from the context in Newark. The other study found that any gains in displaced students’ achievement are countered by declines in the indigenous student populations’ achievement at the receiving school as a result of the disruption created with the entrance of a large group of new students (Brummet, 2012).  Thus student achievement in a receiving school can also be negatively influenced as a result of school closure.

            A sense of belonging in school is at the core of positive learning and well-being outcomes in students (McMahon, Parnes, Keys and Viola, 2008).  They describe school belonging as mediator between school resources and stressor and academic self-efficacy, school satisfaction, anxiety and depression, suggesting that strong belonging can insulate students from a lack of resources and other school generated stressors and a lack of belonging leaves students open to the negative influences of these stressors. Juvenen (2006) examined the connected between sense of belonging, social bonds, and student achievement finding a direct correlation between feelings of sense of belonging and student achievement.

Loss of sense of belonging and supportive social ties leads to stress which in turn dampens brain function necessary for learning, personality expression, social behavior and decision making and memory (McEwen, 2008). McEwen (2008) argues that stress affects brain function which in turns affects other systems such as the immune system. Over time chronic stress stimulates negative effects on the brain and the body. In addition, when a person gets “stressed out” behaviors that exacerbate health outcomes, such as poor sleeping and eating habits follow compounding the effects of high stress or allostatic load on individuals (McEwen, 2008). These habits can further influence learning. For instance, sleep plays a role in learning and memory consolidation. 

The School Choice Myth

So this term keeps getting thrown around: School Choice. What is school choice, you ask? Well, school choice districts implement a number of strategies to give public school children and their families a “choice” in which schools they can attend. Strategies include tax supported vouchers for private school tuition, choice of going to any school in a particular district, and charter school integration into public school districts.  In Newark, NJ school choice means for parents that they will get to choose from any school in the district, including charter schools that will help to improve the choice of schools available. The following excerpt is from the One Newark Initiative website. ‘One Newark’ is what new Jersey State has implemented as the new reform initiative for school improvement. (It’s also about controlling urban space though, or so I’m finding…)

From the One Newark Enrolls website:

What is One Newark Enrolls?

One Newark Enrolls is a system of choice where all families can access great schools for their children, regardless of the school’s status as district or charter. The system is available to any Newark family wishing to enroll their child in a new school for the upcoming year. Students may rank up to eight school choices – both district and charter – on a single application. They will then receive a single offer to attend the best possible school given their selections.

I was just talking to my advisor about the mythical quality of this notion of choice. The notion of school choice assumes that one makes mental decisions between one or more things simply by judging the merits of that decision for them. It doesn’t include geographic, economic, knowledge based or emotional constraints. During the AERA annual conference some researchers presented work that identified specific barriers to this notion of free choice in schools.

First they talked about how economic constraints lead people to choose housing that they can afford not one that is in a good school district. This issue alone places people in neighborhoods, where their priority is affordability, not education. So people don’t necessarily choose the neighborhoods or school districts where they will live.

Second, when economic constraints outweigh everything else, children’s caretakers are not necessarily aware about schools or school choice policies in their school district. They are largely unaware of which schools are good choices or that they are allowed to choose from any school in the district. In recent interviews, I conducted for a study, when asked about Charter schools, community residents of a poor urban neighborhood expressed that they thought there might be a cost associated with Charter schools and so did not pursue them, because they knew they could not afford it.  Further in another investigation of an open choice district in New York City, the researchers found that because of the way different schools approached open choice (i.e. some used applications, some used geographic preference, etc.) parents received different messages when they tried to register their students leading to whether or not they were able to get their child in that school. For instance, one mom talked about being told that she needed to fill out an application, so she left thinking that she wouldn’t be able to get her child in the school. Thus the  school choice is thwarted by a lack of money and knowledge about education.

Finally, Peter Sharkey, a colleague of and coauthor with Robert Sampson, talks about violence in neighborhood and the effect on students. His study actually looks at the connection between the ability to learn (cognitive function) and control oneself (executive function) and neighborhood violence. He found a decrease in both cognitive and executive functions following exposure to violence. We know that poor neighborhoods contribute to a greater share of violence than more affluent neighborhoods. In addition, suburban residents seem to experience less violence than do urban residents. Soooo...essentially… if I live in a violent neighborhood and I'm expected to sit down, shut up and take a test at school, it may not be as easy for me as someone who didn't live in a violent neighborhood. So now my choice of engaging in school effectively is not even my own.

The One Newark Initiative doesn’t address any of these issues. On the website that State education department outlines how students will be assigned to schools:

How are students matched to schools?

After the application closes, automated computer software will match each student with the best possible school based on the student’s choices and the policies of the enrollment system. This computer software is used in several other districts with centralized enrollment systems, and has been customized for Newark’s needs. Students will learn of their matches in April 2014.

The issues around how economic constraints lead people to choose housing that they can afford are completely out of the scope of work that a school district does. Further the “algorithm” being employed to assign children to their schools (based on their top three choices) will still continue to assign schools based on mostly geographic preference (according to inside sources)…meaning that students who live close to a particular school will be given preference for that school, AND siblings of students are also given preference for a particular school.

When all of this is laid on a population that may not be unaware of all of the twists and turns of school choice policy, how is the policy helpful? Further Newark communities have been critical of the engagement around the One Newark initiative, although school district officials have maintained that they have held hundreds of meetings.

Finally once the children have been assigned by the algorithm, how will schools deal with different levels of violence around different school locations? Will they allow students in a violent neighborhood to forego academic commitments on a day when they’ve been exposed to violence? What if the whole district is sitting for mandatory exams?

How will the school district address these issues as they unroll this choice initiative? It doesn’t seem as if these issues have been or even can be addressed at this time. So, school choice in Newark… real or nah?

One Newark: Update

One Newark Enrolls

Attention Families:

Please note that One Newark Enrolls applications were due Friday, February 28th and are no longer available. 

Families who completed applications for their students will be notified of their school matches in April by mail, by logging into www.newarkenrolls.org, and through their current schools.  School match letters will also include information about school registration.

Students who did not participate in this application round but who need a school placement or want a new school for the 2014-2015 school year will have the opportunity to apply in a second application round (Round 2) which will open in May.  Please note that only schools with open seats will be available in Round 2.

Thank you to those families who have exercised school choice for your child by submitting a One Newark Enrolls application.  We look forward to informing you of your school matches in April.

This means that if you  or your caregiver missed this round...you must wait until May to apply to be enrolled  in a school by Fall 2014 or else you will be assigned to your neighborhood school. At a recent meeting held by state officials for NPS education stakeholders (such as school leaders and leaders for groups of schools), I heard both One Newark Initiate supporters and more skeptical folks talked about how the One Newark plan was unfolding. All participants agreed that parent enagagement was the number one element lacking from what they actually see going on. In light of that, how many parents actually made this deadline? How will parents and their children who missed the deadline be affected? 

By the way, I love the little Thank-you-to-those families-who-have-exercised-school-choice-for-your-child note that thanks the involved parents, who did not miss the deadline, for their effort. It reminds me of discipline strategies that positively reinforce behavior one desires to see in someone. For instance, when I passed out tests to my ninth grade class, I would say, "Thank you for listening and thank you for not looking at your test until I've instructed you to do so." Ick...especially when applied to free thinking adults in a community...it sounds condescending at best.

One Newark: Yet another school reform initiative in Newark Public Schools

Isn't this Urban Systems?: The CLIME Conference

Every now and again, I attend events with the potential to allow me to gather data. Sometimes the data aligns to what I am working on and sometimes it doesn't. In either case, I will share what I got from the event.

Today Nicole and I went to a conference at the Center on Law in Metropolitan Equity (CLIME) to see David Rusk Speak. David Troutt introduced the conference and talked about CLIME. To our shock (sarcasm), this program is Urban Systems in law. As a GA/TA, I wondered, "Why haven't we been invited to work together?  Can we teach in the program?"

David Rusk was the main speaker.  He noted that his priority is people but, place is related to people, thus is important.  It was immediately obvious to me that engagement was the name of his game. He invited the audience to have a conversation with him rather than simply listening to him lecture. Already I was intrigued. He spoke about ways to measure regional inequity and also posed interventions that might address the problem. I captured some highlights from his talk, but you can check out his report here: http://rutgers.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c53659eeaae0efe17e7cf2c77&id=2cc5ff6385&e=6114cb3890

He began by asking, "What is the role of regional equity to reduce social, racial and economic inequalities and between places and people? How do you evaluate what's done? Traditionally it was about inputs. Rather than focusing on need, which the Feds do, we should focus on opportunity. This is why there is more than the necessary share public housing in selected places and now public housing in other places. He noted also that there are little box places (e.g.East coast, Midwest) and big box places (e.g. Nevada).  Being from "little box" or "big box" states influence one's institutional framework. This framework shapes how you see urban problems. 

He continued to outline what seemed to Nicole and I as concepts in Urban Systems and we wondered more and more why our program had not been included in this. He laid out racial, place-based, and economic inequalities extremely well. He also linked the urban disciplines of environment, education, health and housing together quite nicely. But he seemed to address the macro-social issue alone. The comment/question that kept popping up for me was this:

I appreciate the data and analysis that delve into these macrosocial structures such as race, economic and housing inequities, and I think a few people touched on this, but how do you address the tension between the micro and the macro? What are the suggestions regarding more micro social interactions between groups people. For instance, in terms of integration, Lemann (1991) shows us that avoiding social interaction between their children and black children is one reason as to why whites historically didn't want their children to go to school with blacks. Perceptions like that would prevent the most liberal integration polices from being effective. How do we address personal relationships among individuals to decrease these kind discriminatory perceptions we have towards one another? And how do you do this in a way that can be sustained over time to give the intervention time to potentially be effective?

Elise Boddie was the the discussant. Last year she gave a talk on campus about the legalese behind the Fisher vs Texas AM tria. She emphasized that poor whites will always push back when comparing poor minorities' circumstances to theirs. This line of discussion seemed to address my comment. She asked if there is some kind a mechanism we can foster to introduce diverse students into diverse school systems. She brought up a redistribution of education resources in places to ensure fairness to all. My comment remained relevant as I listened to the audience skirt around the issue. I had to get up, and ask my question. I watched several people avoid around my question and finally one woman talked about how the micro-social interventions are very necessary, they are challenging and must be deliberate, referencing efforts that occur in South Orange-Maplewood.  Nicole and I looked at each other and smiled. Following this was a short break during which two women who were part of the effort described by the woman above came over to talk about their programming. I asked them if they were open to students coming to working with them. They said Yes! Holla! Does anyone need a project?!

Following the break. David Troutt read selections from his book. In his book, The Price of Paradise, he argues that a lack of equity across regions, as it pertains to local decision making, has contributed to the inequity facing many urban areas. He called this "localism". During the talk he argued more specifically that "localism" became the more durable successor to Jim Crowism. He continued emphasizing that he considered the notions of Sampson, Massey, Brown, McEwen, and Kefalis among others to come up with his ideas. I know many Urban Systems students will recognize these scholars...so I ask again...is there a collaborative dimension to be considered between CLIME and the Urban Systems program?

Shutting it Down!: School closure impact on local community

          When I was 16, as a junior in high school, my school closed. My classmates and I were forced to spend our last year of high school as newbies in completely different schools after the high school component of our K-12 private school closed its doors. We would not go to prom together. The reputations we had built in clubs and other extracurricular activities would never foster a run for student body president. We would never decide whether or not to go to college, which college to go to or learn how to get financial aid as group. We would never get to have lead roles, reserved for seniors, in the annual school play and we wouldn’t get to graduate with our friends, some of whom had spent 11 years together, building deep relationships (I went to a K-12 where, like myself, some students had actually spent elementary, middle and high school years.) Essentially all our social ties--outside of our families and the neighborhoods we came from--were in an instant cut and the senior year we had spent so many years planning was taken from us.  I emphasize here that James Coleman describes these ties as in-school social capital, which facilitates a student’s ability to reach success in school and in many cases life. Moreover the psychological impact on us ranged from feelings of lack of belonging to feelings of hopelessness. 

Despite losing our immediate peer networks, most of the students in my class continued to have a relatively stable life beyond high school, so the blow of the losing our beloved school wasn’t very detrimental. I came from a middle class immigrant neighborhood with strong social ties. These social ties enabled my parents to leverage their social capital towards success in their children’s education and insulate me from the loss of my school. In addition, my parents still remained friends with the parents of classmates who lived close-by, thus maintaining some semblance of in-school social networks. Further, since I was a teenage and had some say in my own social life, I remained friends with my closest friends and saw them on school vacation breaks. Furthermore, I continued to go to private school and the school I went to next was actually a better resourced school. Although I didn’t become as popular as I was in my former high school, I did meet good people with whom I still communicate. Thus, I tapped into both my family’s social capital -and the network capital I built up until then- to facilitate my educational success. But what if i did not have these other networks? What if my parents did not remain friends with other parents? What if i was too young to still be able to choose to hang out with my friends? What if the next school that I went to was also under resourced?

More than often, when a school’s closes its doors, it is due failure. Schools that fail often do so because they are under-resourced in material or human capital. Under-resourced urban schools in particular, are often found in neighborhoods affected by high poverty rates. So when an urban school closes, many youth and their families are found in more dire circumstances than those I describe above. Studies have posited that a lack of social capital and institutional resources available to a community may contribute to a student’s inability to complete school (Chen, 2012; Coleman, 1988; Sampson, 2009; Sampson, 1999). While these community concerns do influence a student’s academic achievement, other studies have suggested that family characteristics significantly mediate the relationship between academic achievement/ student drop out and neighborhood factors (Ginther, Haveman, & Wolfe, 2000; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Plotnick & Hoffman, 1999). In light of this what are local community perceptions of school closings? How do they perceive the effects of school closings their community networks, cohesion, capital? Then…how do those local communities respond to these closings?