The appearance of one’s hair may seem like a trivial or superficial matter to some. For students at South Africa’s Pretoria High School for Girls or PHSG, however, hair is an integral part of their cultural identity–and it’s currently under attack. Fed up with being told that they look “exotic” or distracting to others, or chastised for speaking their own local languages, these young girls have taken to the streets to protest the institute’s dress code and code of conduct as inherently racist. 

Pupils at the prestigious all-girls school, which became racially integrated in 1990 (four years before apartheid ended), have historically been penalized for adorning “natural” hair in the form of afros or cornrows more than a centimeter wide. Girls at the school have been forced to straighten or chemically “relax” their hair to satisfy the school’s standards. Those who fail to conform to such regulations face possible disciplinary action that not only deducts from valuable class time, but also contributes to the development of low self-esteem and a sense of inferiority.

“You weren’t welcomed into any assembly; you’d most probably be kicked out of class,” said Tiisetso Phetla, a recent graduate of the PHSG, about the consequences of looking too “native.” “So it basically took away your learning time, it took away your right to education and the image of beauty that you possess of yourself because that’s what they were telling you, that you’re not good enough to be here with your natural hair.”

Despite the abolition of apartheid more than 20 years ago, many black South African students say the country’s current education system continues to be full of racial inequalities that force them to assimilate into a foreign culture.  This country is still healing from decades of systematic segregation and marginalization, but policies against natural hair are just the tip of a much larger, problematic iceberg.

History of Apartheid-Era Policies

Before apartheid was enacted in 1948, black schools fell under the jurisdiction of missionaries and churches, meaning they were relatively autonomous from white minority rule. Educational inequalities were exasperated when the National Party centralized the nation’s education system under the Bantu Education Act of 1952. This mandate segregated South Africans into “population groups,” deliberately depriving blacks from receiving a quality education. The architects of apartheid justified such arrangements with the false advocation of a “Christian National Education,” saying that “the task of white South African with regard to the native is to Christianize him and help him culturally.” 

South Africa’s Department of Education was unevenly partitioned by race as a result of the Bantu Education Act, with black schools receiving the least amount of funding, resources, and qualified teachers. The ordinance also determined the length of time students had to be in school, which of course varied by one’s perceived ancestry. While whites were obligated to be enrolled in school from the ages of seven to fifteen, black students were only expected to attend from seven to thirteen, if at all. By limiting access to the classroom and keeping access to education low, the blatantly racist act ensured that blacks remained part of the poorer working class. Considering that students at PHSG can lose classroom time for simply wearing their hair in its natural form, today’s circumstances have opened old wounds for many South Africans.

Has the Rainbow Nation Fulfilled its Promises?

Originally, when democracy was introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, education was touted as the key to solving South Africa’s economic and social inequities. As the World Bank put it in a 2010 report, “development through education would lead to freedom.”

Yet some scholars believe South African schools function under “de facto” segregation. More specifically, only white students can afford to study at private institutes, while black students and students of other ethnicities are left with resource-scarce schools. All things considered, these educational barriers have magnified economic disparities for people of color in South Africa. Fact of the matter is that blacks earned 20 percent of what their white counterparts were making in 1994 when apartheid formally ended. Considering that blacks are still on the lower-end of the economic spectrum, they still have less means to pay for schooling, and are therefore less likely to attend school at all.

Post-apartheid South Africa also saw a shift in policies, from being race-based to race-blind. What this means is that although South African schools cannot legally deny admission to somebody based on their race, black learners are still in overwhelmingly black schools. The majority of African students continue to live in rural areas or geographically isolated urban communities, which reinforces apartheid-era restrictions that forced blacks to reside in their own separate communities that were typically off the grid. This has made white schools all the more whiter. Therefore, schools are being segregated by default without overt racial discrimination ever being brought into the picture.

Present-Day Movement for Equal Rights

Equal Education, a South African civil rights group, was not surprised by the recent discrepancies from PHSG. The organization, which is comprised of activists, educators, students, and parents alike, strives to mobilize stakeholders in finding democratic solutions to these oftentimes neglected problems. For example, the committee implores the Department of Basic Education and provincial education departments to be adequately trained on matters of diversity and human rights. According to a press release on its website:

Racist prejudice is being expressed in the language of undemocratic school governance. South Africa’s schools continue to be dominated by hierarchical and authoritarian power relations. Just as racism must be rooted out of these institutions, so too must their modes of governance be transformed so that it will not be possible for learners to be victimized like this in future.

Students from PHSG are also joining a much wider educational reform effort aiming to dismantle and “decolonize” the remnants of apartheid throughout South African schools. For example, proposed tuition increases in 2015 resulted in massive demonstrations last October, which later came to be known as the #FeesMustFall movement. At the epicenter of this activity were black South Africans who (aware of previous precedents) thought such proposals were deliberate means to exclude them from receiving an education. They succeeded in persuading South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, to prevent a tuition hike from being legalized, but recently the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, said that it should be up to a university’s discretion to raise tuition or not. Protests are still ongoing. 

Similarly, a documentary entitled “Luister“ (which translates to “listen” in Afrikaans) showcased 32 interviews from black students at Stellenbosch University–all of whom discussed their trials and tribulations at allegedly one of the most racist schools in South Africa. Dan Corder, a literature student at the University of Cape Town, produced the 35-minute film in 17 days after his friend was penalized for protesting against the school’s language policy, which they say clearly favors Afrikaans speakers. In fact, many South African public schools (like PHSG) and universities shun local African dialects and only conduct classes in the colonial language.

“Being black within the Stellenbosch community you know that you’re not accepted and you kind of ask yourself what’s wrong with me, like what did I do wrong?” said one interviewee. “In the beginning I actually started to assimilate, you know, wanting to lose myself and attain whiteness. Maybe this will work better and they’ll accept me more because I’m trying to be like them. And I realized that I cannot do that. I’m not willing to sell my soul to whiteness. I have to be proudly black.”

Conclusion

Following nationwide demonstrations, an online petition that garnered more than 30,000 signatures, and a meeting with parents, administrators in Gauteng province suspended PHSG’s code of conduct surrounding in response to the protests over hair. The Head of Education, Panyaza Lesufi, also announced that an investigation will soon commence over accusations of racism.

“The code of conduct […] is insensitive to different people and discriminates badly against black pupils as it asks them to straighten their hair,” said Lesufi. “ That is not fair because some pupils have natural[ly curly] hair so we have agreed with the student governing body that it be suspended.”

Resources

Primary

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy: Racial Equality in Education: How Far has South Africa Come?

Additional

CNN: South African Students Protest Against School’s Alleged Racist Hair Policy

The Guardian: Luister: the Viral Film Exposing South Africa’s Ongoing Racism Problem

The Guardian: South African Students Speak Out Against ‘Aggressive’ Ban on Afro Hair

NPR: Girls At South African High School Protesting Hair And Language Bans

The Washington Post: Protests Over Black Girls’ Hair Rekindle Debate About Racism in South Africa

The Washington Post: South Africa’s Student Protests are Part of a Much Bigger Struggle

Education Equality: We Demand an End to Prejudicial School Codes of Conduct!

Stanford University: A Brief History of Educational Inequality from Apartheid to the Present

The World Bank: South Africa’s Long Walk to Educational Equality

South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy: Bantu Education

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Apartheid-Era Racism?: South African Students Protest Discrimination in Education appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last July, the Obama Administration selected 67 colleges to participate in an experimental pilot program through the Department of Education (DOE) to extend Pell Grants to certain incarcerated individuals. The experimental program will impact up to 12,000 inmates working to earn a post-secondary degree. 141 correctional institutions will take part in the Second Chance Pell Grant program. 

This monumental move in criminal justice policy marks the first time inmates will be eligible for Pell Grants in over 20 years, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly banned grants to any incarcerated individuals. Though that bill is still in place, the new pilot program is granted through experimentation under the Higher Education Act.

As for the grants, they function in the same way as grants for non-incarcerated students. Federal Pell Grants are available to students seeking a college degree with demonstrated financial need. The grant is proportional to the student’s income with a maximum amount of $5,815 for the 2016-2017 academic year.

The initiative follows a slew of research in recent years showing that educational rehabilitation for inmates sharply decreases recidivism, increases social capital, and aids re-entry into society. One such 2013 study found that individuals who participated in correctional education were 43 percent less likely to recidivate in the three years after release than individuals who didn’t participate in education. Further, the program serves individuals marked for release within the next five years, the demographic educational programming will benefit most.

But the program has been met with some public disapproval, largely because some believe that confronting the student debt epidemic in the U.S. and extending grant programs for traditional students should receive higher priority than funding education for incarcerated students.

Nevertheless, the DOE has made their priorities and intentions clear with regards to the intersection of criminal justice and education. In a report released this month, the DOE pointed out that in the last 25 years average spending on PK-12 education has increased around 100 percent, whereas correctional spending has increased around 300 percent. That figure is even higher in states like Texas, where correctional spending has increased by 850 percent during the same time period. 

Investing in education is a cost effective method for reducing crime. The DOE report points to a study which found that a 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates could result in an approximately nine percent decrease in arrest rates leading to drastically fewer inmates and prison costs.

As a snapshot example, it cost the city of New York an average $167,731 for each inmate held in a correctional institution in 2013. By reducing arrests and thus incarceration, correctional institutions can re-allocate greater funds towards rehabilitative services like vocational training and higher education aided by Pell Grants.

For now, the Pell Grant extension to inmates is experimental, but marks an important shift away toward rehabilitative approach to inmates within the U.S. criminal justice system. A grant program that was created to allow students to go to college who otherwise could not has a clear purpose in correctional institutions where inmates may have their only chance to pursue a college degree.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration to Extend Pell Grants to 12,000 Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that the state of public education in the United States is concerning. We are falling behind our peer nations, and recent efforts to improve the American education system haven’t been great. So what can be done? One proposal that has been floated is to link the pay of teachers to how successful their students are, sometimes referred to as “merit pay.” Read on to learn why merit pay was suggested, what it means, and what the arguments for and against merit pay are.

How’s the state of public education in the U.S.?

Let’s be honest, not that great. There are a lot of factors at play here, but a lot of people are concerned about what our students are learning. There are many voices and debates out there — should we test more or test less? Offer more structured education, or less structured education? No one’s really sure, but what we do know is that something definitely needs to change. A big question is if we’re spending money in the right places. Here’s a quick overview on the money spent in the American educational system.

What is merit pay?

Amid a general call for reform in American education that resulted in legislation such as the Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind” Act and the Obama Administration’s “Race To The Top” school incentive program, there has been a call for the implementation of a merit pay system for public school teachers. Currently, teachers get a set raise in salary each year. Merit pay would establish a system in which teachers would receive raises and bonuses based upon their effectiveness, much the same way that corporate employees receive raises.

There’s no real consensus about how merit pay would be decided — some suggestions include that it be tied to test scores, teacher evaluations, or a combination of those factors and other more intangible parameters.

What are the arguments for merit pay?

Advocates see merit pay as a fair system that would create a form of natural selection that retains effective teachers and drives out those who are ineffective. Advocates of merit pay note the flaws in the current system, wherein teachers who have been at a school the longest have the highest salaries based on set raises each year, and the tenure system that keeps older teachers in their jobs. They say this old system assumes that experience translates into effectiveness, which is not always the case, and also prevents younger teachers with newer, fresher ideas from being able to get jobs.

Advocates point to merit pay’s successful use in the corporate world as an indicator of its possibilities in education. If teachers’ salaries were based upon their performance, all teachers, young and old, would continually strive to improve their teaching and work hard throughout their careers to ensure that they are effective in teaching their students. This system would also draw more highly-qualified professionals to the profession who would have otherwise been driven away from a profession known for its relatively moderate salaries, thus adding more quality to the talent pool. While many opponents chafe at the thought of standardized test scores determining teacher salaries, advocates argue that this system could be based on a combination of test scores, lesson observations, school involvement, and even peer reviews.

Those who favor a merit pay system also point out that it was originally met with resistance in the business sector, as well. The current system of rewards that we see right now at many corporations only came to fruition around the early 1980s. It was deemed unfair and too subjective by many workers, but now it’s become the norm. Advocates for merit pay point out that the transformation didn’t happen overnight but rather took some time, and now business as a whole has been improved by the implementation. They argue that the same thing will happen with merit pay for teachers — it will take some time but the kinks will be worked out and everyone will eventually be pleased with the changes.

What are the arguments against merit pay?

Opponents of merit pay argue that this system would have less-than-desirable side effects that would damage the education system. Opponents point out that education budgets in most towns and cities are already stretched thin, and that these limited budgets would make the bonus incentives of merit pay minimal and parsimonious. Therefore this system would pit teachers against one another in competition for raises and destroy the collaboration that currently exists between teachers, while possibly leading to favoritism.

Merit pay would also reduce the intrinsic motivation that currently drives many teachers, replacing a genuine desire to educate students with a desire to merely jump through hoops in order to gain more money. Such attitudes, opponents argue, would promote a narrow focus on what educators are teaching students and, if the system were based even in part on standardized test scores, would also promote a practice of “teaching to the test”. “Teaching to the test” shows students how to answer simple, multiple-choice style questions without activating any deeper analytical or critical thought, and would provide an incomplete and shallow education for students as a result of standardized testing. If this emphasis were placed on standardized testing, the pursuit of merit pay would drive many effective teachers toward affluent, high-achieving districts and away from less affluent school districts where low socio-economic status and other problems often factor just as much into test scores as the effectiveness of a teacher.

There’s also the issue that merit pay would be very difficult to organize. The businesses that give certain employees bonuses for good performance already have many of the bureaucratic mechanisms in place. Schools don’t necessarily have the extra administrative capacity to come up with a fair and equitable way to measure merit in addition to actually implementing it. It would distract from the real goal of administrators: making sure that students receive the best education possible. Overall, opponents argue, these negative side effects of merit pay far outweigh the benefits it may bring to education.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that there are plentiful issues that need to be discussed in the way we run our public schools. One proposition has been to link teachers’ salaries to their performance, however that performance may be measured. The idea, while certainly drawing some applause, and some ire, is an interesting one in an environment where ingenuity is so desperately needed.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Teacher Incentive Fund

Additional

City Journal: Why Merit Pay Will Improve Teaching

Forbes: Merit Pay For Teachers is Only Fair

ASCD: When Merit Pay is Worth Pursuing

Washington Post: Does Teacher Merit Pay Work? A New Study Says Yes

CATO Institute: Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay

NEA: Pay Based on Test Scores?

Washington Post: Why Merit Pay For Teachers Sounds Good–But Isn’t

United Teachers Los Angeles: No Merit to Merit Pay

Voice of San Diego: Problems With Merit Pay Outweigh Benefits

eSchool News: Why Teacher Merit Pay Can’t Work Today–and What Can Be Done About This

USA Today: States Push to Pay Teachers Based on Performance

Economist: Merit Pay for Teachers

Dayton Daily News: Schools Push Merit Pay For Teachers

Times-Picayune: Teachers to Begin Receiving Merit Pay Based on 2013-14 Evaluation Scores

wiseGEEK: What is Merit Pay For Teachers?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Merit Pay for Teachers Fix Our Education Woes? appeared first on Law Street.

A contentious court battle has left California teachers in need of a new tenure system, after the California Supreme Court ruled that the current model does not allow all students equal access to education.

Back in February, nine students sued the school system. The students argued that the process by which teachers receive tenure and the way teachers are distributed to schools created inequity in the education received by minority students with lower income status.

One of the first things the ruling  references is Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark case that stated all students must have equal opportunity and access to education under the 14th Amendment– specifically, the equal protection clause. The case looked at three facets of the system: the 2 year tenure track, firing process, and “last in, first out” policy that led to newest teachers automatically being laid off first– regardless of how effective they were. All of these policies were found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court argued the minority and low-income students were disproportionately affected by these policies.

So, what are the implications of this ruling?

1. Other states will see similar lawsuits

California is not the only state that has rules like these, so it’s only a matter of time before other states are faced with people challenging their tenure laws, as well. It will be interesting to see if all states rule the same way- in all likelihood, they will not. Some might say these kinds of tenure programs are not unconstitutional, which could lead to drastically different tenure models in each state. There is also the possibility that some groups will try to appeal rulings to the Supreme Court. That’s still pretty far off, though.

2. Unions may get more creative in protecting teachers

This ruling does not remove the possibility of a tenure system for teachers, but makes clear that the system currently in place is unconstitutional. California, and other states who want to be proactive, will need to reassess the ways they protect their teachers. For example, the track to tenure may need to take more time, the firing process may need to get simpler, and newer teachers might not automatically be the first to go during layoffs. Of course, this ruling did not provide any specific limitations or recommendations for what changes should be made, so that debate will have to take place in the legislature.

3. Not a “fix all” for the education system

Education reform advocates are cheering after this ruling, but it is important that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Getting rid of tenure alone is not going to change the bad schools in California, because there are astronomically large social and bureaucratic barriers that play a much bigger role than this tenure program. As Jesse Rothstein points out in the New York Times op-ed, getting rid of bad teachers and fully integrating students in the classroom are not mutually exclusive. Even with good teachers, issues like poverty and language barriers affect how effective teachers can be in classrooms. While the tenure system certainly impacted students by way of ineffective teachers- even the best teachers in the world will still have a hard time in the most difficult schools.

Whether you consider this a win for students or a loss for teachers, one thing is for certain: no one has the answers to come to a balanced solution. As Judge Treu notes in the final paragraph of his ruling, “It is not the function of this Court to dictate or even advise the legislature as to how to replace the Challenged statutes.” Until state lawmakers come up with a new system, balancing the interests of students and teachers, this ruling might not be a win for anyone.

[CNN] [Court Ruling] [New York Times]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Colleen via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Major Ruling in Education: California Must Change Tenure System appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that higher education comes at a cost, one that many find overwhelming and in some cases impossible to cover. There has been no shortage of news coverage on the current state of the education crisis seen here and here. With increasing publicized coverage of the rising student debt, perspective students are reconsidering their future plans at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some schools have recently recognized the problem of funding higher education and are attempting to make some reforms. Here are some highlights of what is happening in education reform today.

Free Tuition.

That is not a typo. Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam is proposing a program, called “Tennessee Promise” that covers a two year full ride to any high school graduate. The goal is to improve the current graduation rate of 32 percent to a desired 55 percent by the year 2025. Overall, this campaign is an effort to improve job qualifications and attract employers to the state. Students graduating from this two year program can choose to continue onto a four year track and enter another university as a rising junior. This program is projected to pass through the voting process, with some adjustments and a set plan to cover the costs of this education reform. Higher education experts list Florida, Oregon and Mississippi as other states considering similar reforms. College may not have to burn a hole in your pocket, with future reforms such as this one, higher education may not cost anything at all.

A One Year Law Degree That Means Something. 

Law school, many have tried it, some have prevailed and others would prefer not to continue to the bar exam. What about the individuals that decide after year one that law school is not for them? Cleveland Marshall College of Law now offers alternative option for these students and is removing some of the financial risk from attending three years of law school with a convertible new, one year masters degree in legal studies. This degree was implemented in spring 2014, making CML one of the first colleges to offer an advanced legal degree to professionals wanting to work in close proximity with the law, but not necessarily be admitted to the bar. Students who complete one year of J.D. curriculum, now have the option to accept this degree in legal studies without taking additional courses. This education reform makes law school less risky and offers a faster and less expensive alternative.

Cutting Tuition Costs and Forgetting About National Rankings.

Recently covered by my colleague, Brooklyn Law School is becoming a trailblazer in reinventing legal education. In order to increase demand and remain open, Brooklyn Law School is abandoning their attempts to rise in national rankings and cutting their tuition costs by fifteen percent. Other law schools are quickly following this trend such as the University of Iowa College of Law and University of La Verne College of Law. These law schools are taking the hint that not everyone can afford ridiculously expensive tuition and with a loss of students comes the closure of a school.

An International Effort. 

The obstacles that are preventing students from reaching their educational goals and receiving a college degree are becoming recognized not only in the United States but around the globe. Countries including Ireland, China, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and the United States are coming together on April 9th and 10th to discuss higher education reform at the Galileo Summit. This international summit is occurring in Essex, New York to spark a discussion how to expand college access. It is taking some of the most powerful countries to discuss the policy, funding, and proposed graduation rates of the future.

Graduating college is a hard enough task on its own and the financial burden is an unnecessary restriction. The United States as well as countries around the world are finally realizing that education is not affordable to everyone, when it really needs to be to maintain the global economy. An educated society is beneficial to all countries and if education is a prerequisite for the workforce, it has to be more easily attainable.

[The Huffington Post] [DNJ] [The New York Times] [Cleveland State]

—

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Education Reform Relieves Students’ Debts and Doubts appeared first on Law Street.