Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools and ...

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 1

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools

Sabrina Zirkel Mills College

Publication information: Zirkel, S. (2008). Creating more effective multiethnic schools. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 187-241.

Sabrina Zirkel, PhD. School of Education Mills College 5000 MacArthur Blvd. Oakland, CA 94613 (510) 430-3380 [email protected]

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 2

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools Abstract The empirical literature from education, psychology, and sociology is reviewed in order to identify strategies with demonstrated effectiveness in improving either the educational outcomes of students of color, interethnic relations in schools and colleges, or both. The conceptual framework for this review identifies eight core themes that can guide policy and change efforts in this area: (a) the need to explicitly and directly address issues of aversive and institutional racism, (b) the importance of conceiving of schools as agents of change, (c) the importance of leadership in setting a school or district tone, (d) the paradox that strategies for improving the educational outcomes for students of color can only be achieved by focusing on race and ethnicity, but the outcome of these efforts benefit all students, (e) the ways in which the goals of improving interethnic relations and the educational outcomes of students of color are linked (in that improving one improves the other), (f) the need to explicitly affirm one‟s confidence in the abilities of students of color, (g) the importance of creating opportunities for the development of a strong, positive racial or ethnic identity, and (h) the need to create settings in which students feel connected to school through their relationships with peers and teachers.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 3 Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools More than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), educational equity for students of color remains a primary concern at all levels of education in the United States. Broad, extensive, and pervasive disparities persist in the educational experiences and outcomes between many students of color and many white and Asian American students. African American and Latino students particularly, but also American Indian and some groups of Asian American students have persistently lower grades and test scores (Ladson-Billings, 2006) and graduate from high school at half the rate of more affluent white and Asian American students (Greene & Winters, 2005; Orfield, 2004). They are also less likely to enroll in college and to graduate within six years if they do (Bauman & Graf, 2003; Horn et al., 2004; Steele, 1997; 2003). We must not let the pervasiveness of this so-called “achievement gap” lead us to think that these disparities should be understood to emerge from within students and not from within schools. Nor should we allow ourselves to imagine that these patterns are either inevitable or unsolvable. These racial and ethnic disparities in educational outcomes are directly linked to demonstrated differences in students‟ educational experiences, and there is much that we know and can do in order to create more effective schools for students of color (Hilliard III, 2003). Moreover, strategies for the creation of more effective schools for multiethnic student populations and better outcomes for students of color are known and do not wholly depend on increased spending – there is much that policy makers, school leaders, and teachers can do to address issues of educational equity more effectively. Racial and Ethnic Inequity in Education The pervasiveness and the persistence of inequities in educational outcomes between African American, Latino, American Indian, and some Asian American students on the one hand and many white and some Asian American students on the other can seem daunting. Grades and standardized test scores for African American and Latino students lag behind those of their white or Asian American counterparts (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2006; NCES, 2008). African American and Latino

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 4 students are over-represented in special educational programs (Harry & Klingner, 2005) and underrepresented in gifted programs nationally (e.g., Ford, 1998; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008). In addition, educational persistence data reveal that African American and Latino students are likely to leave school earlier than their white or Asian American peers. High school graduation rates for African American and Latino students are substantially lower – nearly two-thirds the graduation rate for white and many Asian American students (Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in California, 2005; Fine, 1991; Greene & Winters, 2005; NCES, 2008; Orfield, 2004). College enrollment and graduation rates follow a similar pattern – a smaller percentage of African American and Latino students graduate from high school with the academic preparation required by most four year colleges, and even among those who are prepared for college, a smaller percentage enroll in a four year college (Greene & Winters, 2005). Among African American and Latino students enrolled in predominantly white universities, a smaller percentage graduate from college within six years of enrollment compared with their white and Asian American peers (Bauman & Graf, 2003; Greene & Winters, 2005; Horn, Berger, & Carroll, 2004; Steele, 1997; 2003). Certainly, resource-based disparities are enormous in U.S. schools, and this plays an important part in accounting for differential school outcomes for different groups of students (e.g., see LadsonBillings, 2006). Class and economic barriers to student success are many, and include disparities in health, nutrition and housing that certainly contribute to student performance and educational outcomes (e.g., Noguera, 2003a; Rothstein, 2004). There are also wide disparities in educational facilities and school resources across racial and ethnic groups (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Fine et al., 2004; Fischer et al., 1996; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Oakes, 2004; Oakes & Saunders, 2004; Orfield, 2001; 2004; Kozol, 2005; Yun & Moreno, 2006). Similarly, there are wide disparities in the level and quality of teacher training in schools serving largely white, suburban affluent communities and those serving urban, often poor, families of color (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Fischer et al., 1996; Yun & Moreno, 2006). These disparities are heightened by a school

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 5 context in the United States in which schools are widely and increasingly racially and ethnically segregated (e.g., Bell, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Orfield, Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). Nevertheless, school resources do not account for all of the racial and ethnic differences in academic achievement. Disparities in students‟ academic achievement and educational outcomes occur even within the same school (Lee, 2005; Lewis, 2003b; Noguera & Wing, 2006; Steele, 1997), and so we need to look beyond school resources to understand differences in student achievement and outcomes. These disparities in academic achievement and educational outcomes in high school and beyond are dramatic, but differences start small when students enter kindergarten and they get larger with time (NCES, 2008). Early achievement test results in no way predict the wide disparities of high school graduation rates. Similarly, although economic disparities in school facilities, resources, and teacher preparation are important and need addressing, they do not provide the whole story of differences in academic achievement across groups. The U. S. Department of Education reports that although the presence of a variety of economic and social “risk factors” tend to depress students‟ academic achievement, statistically controlling for these factors reduces but does not eliminate racial and ethnic differences in achievement (NCES, 2008). Instead, the data highlight that in order to understand these disparities in student outcomes, we need a better analysis of what is happening in school. Schools are not neutral settings and the social and psychological landscape of schools is not similar for different groups. Student achievement is not simply an economic phenomenon: It is also an essentially social and a psychological one, and understanding the social processes that influence student achievement can take us far in articulating how to improve the experience and outcomes students of color have in school. Changing Demographics in Schools Within the U.S. and in many other countries as well, changing demographics and immigration patterns mean that the school-age population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse (Deaux, 2006a; 2006b; NCES, 2008; Zick, Pettigrew, & Wagner, 2008). Within the U.S., students of

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 6 color make up 43% of the public school student population nationally, 48% in the Southern part of the U.S., and 55% in the Western U.S. These percentages are more than double those of thirty years ago (NCES, 2008). Although the underachievement of students of color has long been a pervasive and important problem, these changing demographics have highlighted and given added urgency to questions of how to create schools that better serve students of color. This paper focuses on the United States, but the educational patterns, changing demographics, and social processes involved in these issues extend far beyond the U.S. We will return to this issue at the end of the manuscript. The increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the public school student body in the U.S. is occurring at the same time that the public school teaching force remains overwhelmingly white. In the 2000-2001 academic school year, 90% of teachers in the United States were white, a number which, if anything, has increased slightly over the last 30 years (Keller & Manzo, 2003; NEA, 2003). Additionally, although white flight to the suburbs played a central role in the increasing level of segregation of urban schools, recent housing trends show increasing numbers of families of color also moving to the suburbs (McArdle, 2002a; 2002b; 2002c), making many of these schools less racially isolated than they once were. These demographic patterns highlight that strategies for creating effective multiethnic schools are important for teachers and administrators in all schools – including those wanting to work more effectively with a racially and ethnically diverse student body, those wanting a largely white teaching staff to work better with students of color, and those experiencing an increase in the population of students of color either through immigration or though changing local demographics. FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW Despite the increasing racial and ethnic segregation of schools in the U.S. (Orfield, 2003; Orfield, Frankenberg, & Lee, 2003; Kozol, 2005), schools are still the setting in which most people will have their first and most extended interracial or interethnic interactions (Wells, 1996; Wells & Crain, 1994; 1997). Moreover, because the teaching force in the U.S. is largely and increasingly

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 7 white at the same time that public schools, particularly, have increasingly more students of color, schools are inherently multiethnic settings. Schools are not neutral sites for interracial and interethnic interaction. Although there may be no truly neutral site for interracial and interethnic interactions to occur, schools are particularly “hot” settings. Schools and education matter a great deal, and so the stakes are high. Throughout U.S. history, the issue of children and teachers from different racial and ethnic backgrounds coming together to participate in our largest public institution – public schools – has been highly contested. Efforts to integrate U.S. schools were hard fought in many communities, even to the point that some cities closed their public schools rather than integrate them, and in others the National Guard had to escort children to school to keep them safe (Zirkel, in press; Zirkel & Cantor, 2004). Schools are also, in many ways, “ground zero” for negative stereotypes about students of color and their families. These negative stereotypes are often held by teachers (e.g., McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004) and are widely discussed in modern life (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Students of color and their families are very conscious of the presence or potential presence of negative stereotypes, leading to potentially high levels of stereotype threat (the fear of confirming a negative stereotype

about one‟s group) (Steele, 1997; Steele, Spencer, & J. Aronson, 2002) and belongingness uncertainty (Murphy & Steele, 2008; Purdie-Vaughns et al., in press; Walton & Cohen, 2007; Zirkel, 2007a). Walton and Cohen (2007) define belongingness uncertainty as the increased concern about social belonging that can occurs because members of stigmatized groups may be uncertain about the quality of their social bonds in stigma relevant settings. Teachers with such attitudes do behave differently towards students of color in ways that lead to lower levels of student learning and performance (Jussim & Harbor, 2005; Rosenthal, 2002; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007; Weinstein, Gregory, & Strambler, 2004).

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 8 Exposure to these negative stereotypes and prejudiced behavior is emotionally exhausting (Dovidio, 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005; Shelton & Richeson, 2006), cognitively taxing, (Richeson, Trawalter, & Shelton, 2005; Salvatore & Shelton, 2007), and has the potential to lead students to dis-identify and withdraw from school (Finn, 1989; Steele, 1997; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Schools are also settings in which everyone feels measured and assessed (frequently because they are), and so hierarchically organized comparisons between people and groups are often present in explicit or at least implicit forms. Attention to measurement and assessment can discourage the development of an orientation to learning and development and instead create a “culture of performance” (Murphy & Dweck, 2008), which in turn can be debilitating to students and will only serve to heighten fears about confirming negative stereotypes among stigmatized groups (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). The interracial and interethnic interactions that happen in schools are meaningful and important, but they are also fraught with challenges. Interracial interactions – particularly among those without much interracial or interethnic experience – can be difficult to initiate (Shelton & Richeson, 2005; Richeson & Trawalter, 2008) and emotionally and intellectually exhausting (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005; Richeson & Shelton, 2003; 2007; Richeson et al., 2003; Richeson et al., 2005; Shelton & Richeson, 2006) for members of both groups (Richeson & Shelton, 2005; Shelton, 2000; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005). Even among well-meaning individuals who identify as non-prejudiced, interracial and intergroup interactions can be difficult, both because of implicit or non-conscious attitudes (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dovidio, 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2008), and because of a fear of appearing prejudiced (Devine et al., 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2005; Richeson & Trawalter, 2008). All of this means that interethnic and interracial relationships in schools are not generally easy ones, and that without direct action, they are not likely to prove helpful for improving intergroup relations in the larger society.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 9 Despite all of this, schools and colleges, as places of learning and development, are in many ways ideal settings in which to tackle these challenges. Creating conditions for improved student learning and academic outcomes across all groups is central to the mission of schools, which is not typically true in other organizational settings. Moreover, schools are settings in which intergroup interactions can be carefully orchestrated. The four conditions of Allport‟s contact theory for improving intergroup relations (Allport 1954; see also Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 for a recent metaanalysis) are more easily constructed in schools and colleges than almost any other settings: (a) ensuring people come together over extended periods of time, (b) work to achieve superordinate goals, (c) ensuring that members of different groups come together on equal terms, and (d) with the support of authority. Schools and classrooms are also sites in which open but carefully managed dialog can and sometimes does take place. Finally, schools are populated with teachers and leaders who have dedicated their lives to a social mission, many of whom are there because they sincerely want to make a different in young people‟s lives. Why, then, is it so rare to find effective multiethnic schools that serve all students equally well? In large part, it is the presence of unrecognized aversive racism and institutionalized racism in schools that makes effective change so challenging (e.g., see Lee, 2005; Lewis, 2003b; Noguera & Wing, 2006; van Ausdale & Feagin, 2000 for concrete examples of aversive and institutional racism even in schools that are making efforts to attend to issues of educational equity). Aversive racism refers to the fact that “. . . many whites, who consciously, explicitly, and sincerely support egalitarian principles and believe themselves to be non-prejudiced also harbor negative feelings and beliefs about blacks and other historically disadvantaged groups.” (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005, p. 618). Bonilla-Silva (2003) calls this “racism without racists”, and King (1991) “dysconscious racism”. Schools are full of well-intentioned people who display the behavior of aversive racism – that is, they hold egalitarian values and desire to create better schools for students of color, but they often also hold negative beliefs about students of color and their families. McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) have

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 10 termed these beliefs “equity traps”, because of the way such beliefs and attitudes undermine any school‟s attempts to improve the educational experience and outcomes of students of color. Undoing such attitudes and beliefs needs to be an essential part of any school change effort, and this work requires conscious and concerted effort. Similarly, schools are frequently sites of institutionalized racism, Institutional racism “. . . refers to the intentional or unintentional manipulation or tolerance of institutional policies (e.g., poll taxes, admissions criteria) that unfairly restrict the opportunities of particular groups of people . . .‟‟ (Henkel, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2006, p. 101; see also Jones, 1997). Within many schools, patterns and processes of assigning students to academic classes (Oakes, 2005), as well as gifted (Ford, 1998; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008) and special education (Harry & Klingner, 2005) programs, the assignment of teachers to classes and classes to classrooms, and even of recruiting students to extracurricular activities (Rubin et al., 2006) are all examples of processes that are structured such that they “unfairly restrict the opportunities of particular groups of people.” In each case, students of color disproportionately suffer when choices are to be made about who gets access to better resources and who does not (see also Harry & Klingner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Oakes, 2004; Oakes & Saunders, 2004). Curricular decisions in most schools also reflect a privileging of the experience of white Americans over those of people of color (e.g., J. A. Banks, 2004). Similarly, patterns of discipline in schools showcase the interplay of institutionalized racism and aversive racism in ways that disadvantage students of color, and particularly male students of color (Skiba & Peterson, 2003; Skiba, et al, 2002). These processes and practices need to be undone if any large-scale effective change is to occur in schools. Several themes emerge across this review that can inform our understanding of how to develop more effective multiethnic schools. These themes will be visible throughout the review and need to govern our efforts to create more effective multiethnic schools (see Table 1). First, it is imperative that efforts to create more effective multiethnic school environments acknowledge and address both

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 11 aversive racism and institutionalized racism as described above. Efforts that take place without an awareness of these two processes cannot address the covert racism that governs many school processes and practices. Second, school leaders and teachers must perceive schools as agents of change. It is individual schools and the individual leader, teachers, and staff in a school that will make a difference for students. Policies matter, but people matter even more. Third, leadership is essential to implementing change in this area. We need school and district leadership at every level that is ready to address issues of racial and ethnic disparities in education, and without strong leadership these issues cannot be effectively addressed. Fourth, paradoxically, educational practices that promote the achievement of students of color are practices that promote the achievement of all students, but they must be implemented with direct and clear attention to issues of race and ethnicity in order to be effective. Fifth, there are direct links between efforts to improve the educational outcomes of students of color and to improve intergroup relationships in schools – in that interventions designed to address one implicitly also address the other. These operate in tandem because both necessarily address racial and ethnic stigma. Sixth, efforts that encourage the development of a strong, positive ethnic identity among students of color are helpful for improving student outcomes in a variety of ways. Seventh, explicit and sincere affirmations of the academic abilities of students of color are an essential ingredient in their success. Finally, building strong relationships between and among students, staff, teachers, and school leaders are an important mechanism for improving student outcomes, but most important throughout will be the development of constructive and thoughtful relationships between students and teachers. This review will be structured around two different types of school change that will facilitate the development of more effective multiethnic schools (see Table 2). The first focuses on efforts to change the “climate” of schools. These changes endeavor to improve intergroup relations, reduce or eliminate stereotype threat, and develop schools in which all students feel welcomed, supported, and in which all students‟ identities are able to flourish. In many ways, this first section addresses issues

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 12 of attitudes and beliefs and through them, relationships in schools. The second section focuses on changing school structures and policies in ways that provide more empowering schools for students of color and fairer and more equitable policies and practices. Here, the strategies are more focused on changing institutions. Thus, the first section is focused more on addressing issues of aversive racism, and the second more on addressing institutional racism. CHANGING SCHOOL “CLIMATE” Changing the school “climate” will have an enormous impact on student well-being and academic and educational outcomes. Students‟ academic life is centered in their classrooms, and so it is essential that classrooms be settings that are supportive of all students (see left hand column of Table 2). When young people reflect on what motivated them to succeed or discouraged them in damaging ways, it is teachers and experiences in classrooms that are most frequently mentioned (e.g., Plank & Jordan, 2001; Sánchez, Reyes, & Singh, 2005; Valenzuela, 1999). In considering how to address issues of stereotype threat, cultural distance between teachers and students, and interethnic relations between students and teachers or between and among students, classrooms are an essential place to concentrate efforts. In addition to changing the climate in classrooms, schools can also do much to create a school setting that supports and fosters student development and the development of students‟ ethnic identity. Finally, many schools, particularly in urban areas, have poor relationships with their families and the community, in part because teachers and principals do not live in the area. Building better relationships with the families and communities they serve is an important part of changing the social climate in a school. Identity Safe Classrooms In order for students to succeed, classrooms have to be safe places for them to be (see “Identity Safe Classrooms”, Table 2). A great deal of attention has been given to the physical safety of students (Noguera, 2003a), but far less attention has been given to the psychological safety of students. Do students feel that their classrooms are a warm and welcoming place where relations with

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 13 peers and teachers are positive? Do they feel that teachers hold high expectations of them and believe them essentially capable of the highest level of academic work? Or, alternatively, are classrooms places in which students experience hostile or difficult relationships with teachers or peers, and feel subjected to negative stereotypes about their capacities as learners and people? Do students feel that their identities are valued, understood, and protected, or do they feel that they are targeted as a member of a particular group? Are students encouraged to be motivated by learning and discovery, or by competing with their classmates and performing? D. M. Steele and her colleagues (D. M. Steele et al., 2008) outline a model of identity safe classrooms that highlights the work of teachers who create classroom contexts in which all students feel like fully respected and valued members of the community. They note that such classrooms incorporate many of the features to be described below, but most importantly try to address issues of race and ethnicity openly and directly rather than through a color-blind approach (Markus, Steele, & Steele, 2000; Plaut, 2002; Plaut & Markus, 2006; Pollock, 2005; Taylor, 2000). Similarly, LadsonBillings‟ (1997/1994) case studies of teachers who are particularly effective with African American students help us see this kind of teaching in action. Such teachers are made, not born. There is much that we can do to build teacher capacity for working with different students and developing the dispositions and orientations necessary to do the work (Murrell & Foster, 2004). Hiring practices Even as we endeavor to build capacity in all teachers to work effectively with all students, hiring (and tenuring) a diverse and culturally competent teaching staff is an often mentioned as an important ingredient in creating environments that serve all students equally well (e.g., Cooper & Jordan, 2003; Hurtado et al., 1999; Jordan & Cooper, 2003; Quiocho & Rios, 2000). This need is especially apparent as we see the teaching force becoming increasingly overwhelming white and female and the student body becoming increasingly ethnically and racially diverse (see above). Several studies highlight specific ways in which students of color would be well-served by a teaching force that

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 14 better matched the ethnic make-up of the student body. Most importantly, African American and Latino educators often bring with them a sense of urgency about educating students of color and an emancipatory, activist agenda that can have a profoundly positive effect on student learning, engagement and achievement (e.g., see Foster, 1997; Gordon, 1993; 1995; hooks, 1994; King, 2005; Moses & Cobb, 2002). A diverse teaching staff may better enable students of color to feel that their teachers will be fair (Ancis, Sadlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Brown & Dobbins, 2004) - perceptions which are not unjustified. Studies of K-12 students and their teachers reveal that teachers themselves report more positive relationships with students of their own ethnic background (Saft & Pianta, 2001) and a study of white female teachers demonstrated that they treated their African American students less favorably than their white students (Casteel, 1998). Perceptions of teacher bias are associated with higher drop-out rates (Wayman 2000). African American and Latino students are less likely to experience stereotype threat in classrooms with teachers from their own ethnic background (Casteel, 1998; 2000; Galguera, 1998; McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Tatum, 2004; Walters, Shepperd, & Brown, 2003). Teachers of color are also more likely than white teachers to engage issues of race and ethnicity throughout the curriculum, facilitating all students‟ intellectual growth and development (e.g., Gaines, 2004; Tatum, 2004). However, there is much that white teachers can do to effectively divert fears among students of color. Simple affirmations to students of color about teachers‟ confidence in them (Cohen & Steele, 2002) or teachers‟ statements affirming their interest in cultural diversity (Brown & Dobbins, 2004) can have a substantial calming effect on students‟ fears. Increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of the teaching force is not a strategy that can stand alone. When we focus exclusively on increasing racial and ethnic diversity among the teaching staff, we act as though we can relegate higher expectations of students of color to members of students‟ own ethnic groups and other teachers of color, and thereby absolve white teachers of any responsibility for making changes in their teaching

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 15 to address these issues. We also cannot assume that all teachers of color are by definition effective teachers of students from their ethnic background. This can only be one small part of a more comprehensive strategy for teacher development and capacity building. Changing Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs In building schools and classrooms that effectively work with students of color, the importance of building teachers‟ capacity for working effectively across racial and ethnic lines cannot be overstated. Developing a strong, equity-oriented teaching staff is the single most significant and effective change that can be made in a school. A poor quality or inadequately prepared teaching staff is the most pervasive barrier to the development of effective schools for students of color. Study after study, however, reveals a majority of teachers need tremendous development in this area. Research in schools reveals a pervasive pattern of teachers describing students of color as lacking – lacking motivation, lacking skill, lacking potential, and lacking caring parents (e.g., Conchas, 2006; Lee, 2005; Lewis, 2003b; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004; Noguera, 2003a; Noguera & Wing, 2006). In McKenzie and Scheurich‟s (2004) study of teachers in an urban school in the Southwest, students of color were described as being unreachable as early as four: “Sometimes I think by the time they are 2 or 3 they probably already have that [anger] . . just from the 2 or 3 years of living in the environments they live in or whatever the circumstances . . I hate to say that they are already tainted when they are 4 year old, but . . .” (p. 609). By blaming school failure on parents, teachers were able to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their students‟ performance: “[I blame the parents] 100%. Not that it‟s their fault. But it‟s their culture that they are living in . . . our kids come to us at pre-K, 2 or 3 years below grade level already . . . we are playing catch up from preschool on.” (p. 608). Such statements of the deficiency of particular groups of students do not explicitly name race, but it is clearly present (Conchas, 2006; Lee, 2005; Lewis, 2003b; Pollock, 2005).

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 16 As we would expect from modern or contemporary racism theory (Dovidio, 2001), these discussions typically happen in covert ways. Most teachers do not generally make direct statements to the effect that certain racial or ethnic groups are “smarter” than others. Rather, they appeal to “cultural,” “family,” or “class-based” differences in ways that are designed to place the blame for any problems students are having outside of the school (Pollack, 2008). Despite a lack of direct statements about deficiencies being racially or ethnically focused, the implication is obvious. Lee (2005) notes, for example, the way in which teachers in her study described their US born white students as “talented” but their immigrant students of color as “interesting” – terms that convey a great deal about how students and their potential are perceived. Lee‟s (2005) analysis provides many telling exemplars, but the comments of her teachers are in no way unique. Researchers find very similar deficit-based conceptions of students of color among white teachers in the rural South (Moses & Cobb, 2002), an urban school in Texas (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004), politically liberal teachers in Berkeley, CA (Noguera & Wing, 2006), and teachers in urban and suburban, progressive and traditional schools on the west coast (Conchas, 2006; Lewis, 2003b; Pollock, 2005). School leadership is essential for building a team of allies who support efforts to create greater equity in education. Emphasizing the importance of equity, providing training and opportunities for teachers to discuss equity issues, and making efforts to alter the socialization processes between teachers to facilitate more socialization towards equity rather than away from equity all lend themselves to the growth and cultivation of an equity-focused teaching staff. School leaders play an important role in this process at both ends – both in framing a school context that socializes teachers‟ attention towards an equity-focus, and also in providing support for teachers who engage in such professional development on their own. Lawrence (2005) found that support from school administrators played a central role in the extent to which teachers engaging in antiracist professional development felt able to implement relevant changes in their classrooms over an extended period of time.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 17 Ensuring all teachers work well with all students takes focused, concrete professional training. Although teacher education programs are increasingly taking up the issue of training teachers to work with students from diverse backgrounds, these efforts are often insufficient and/or meet with resistance from white preservice teachers (e.g., Case & Hemmings, 2005; Gay, 2005; Gay & Howard, 2000; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; King & Howard, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2004; McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Montecinos & Rios, 1999). The teaching of multicultural educational principles is still developing and although some programs have both the interest and the expertise to teach it well, many do not. Moreover, a high percentage of the existing teaching force in the United States was trained more than 20 years ago (Keller & Manzo, 2003), when multicultural educational practices were not widely taught in teacher preparation programs in the US. Training teachers to work in multiethnic schools requires far more than helping them develop the intellectual capacity to appreciate students‟ differences. It requires that teachers learn to form authentic and deeply felt relationships with all of their students. Such training is possible, but it requires thoughtful attention. There is a strong role for school leaders to play, as both administrative and instructional leaders, to demand that their teachers undertake such training and to assist them in acquiring it. School administrators can help their teachers acquire these skills and dispositions through modeling these relationships with students and families, and by making clear that anything less will not be tolerated. An example of the kind of professional development that would be beneficial for school personnel is one created by Lawrence and Tatum (1997a). They developed a semester-long antiracism seminar for white teachers and administrators to help participants to thoughtfully and carefully document the ways in which racist practices and beliefs are woven into everyday school practices. The authors document the impact the seminar had on participants through an examination of participants‟ journals: More than half of the participants documented concrete changes that they were making in their personal and professional lives as a result of what they learned in the seminar.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 18 These actions generally fell into three broad categories identified by the authors: Changes in the quality of interpersonal relationships between school and community members (e.g., reaching out to students and parents in new ways), changing the curriculum to reflect what they had learned (e.g., focusing on slave resistance rather than just stories of slave victimization) and implementing changes in institutional policies (e.g., questioning the criteria they had been using in student assessments for special education; bringing forward concerns about disciplinary practices). Additionally, participants reported that the seminar empowered them to act as allies and to advocate for their students of color in new ways. By emphasizing changes teachers can make in the way they work with students of color rather than chastising them for past behavior, the training provides a powerful model for how to move teachers to become allies in the struggle against racism in the schools. However, Lawrence and Tatum (1997a) emphasize that this change occurs slowly over time, and point out that these changes occurred in a program in which teachers and administrators read about, discussed, and reflected upon these issues over the course of several months, not hours or days. Pedagogical Approaches and Specific Classroom Strategies Research has identified both broad pedagogical approaches and specific classroom strategies that can be helpful in creating more identity safe classrooms for students of color. These are important components to the creation of classrooms that are warm and supportive of all students, but especially to eliminate some of the identity safety concerns of students of color. Culturally-relevant or antiracist teaching. Teaching that is consciously designed to address issues of racism in schools or to expressly work to better the educational outcomes of students of color have been variously termed culturally relevant pedagogies (Delpit, 1996; Gay, 2000; 2002; Howard, 2001; 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1997/1994; 1995; Moses & Cobb, 2002), anti-racist teaching (Lawrence & Tatum, 1997a; 1997b), multicultural education (e.g., J. A. Banks, 1997; 2004; J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks, 2004; McAllister & Irvine, 2000), liberatory education (Gordon, 1993; 1995), or identity-safe teaching (e.g., D. M. Steele et al., 2006). Teachers are asked to examine how

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 19 the curriculum presented and the methods of instruction can differentially advantage some ethnic groups (e.g., white students) over others (e.g., immigrant students, or students of color). With strong professional training – either pre-service or in-service – teachers learn different pedagogical approaches and curricular content that can make an enormous difference in how effective they are in teaching students of color (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1997/1994; 2005a; 2005b; Zirkel, 2008b). For a comprehensive review of multicultural educational practice – including, among other aspects, curricular content and pedagogical approaches – in which it is shown that they have a demonstrated and substantial positive impact on both student achievement and intergroup relations within schools, see Zirkel, 2008b. Teaching a learning orientation. Dweck‟s model of fixed vs. malleable models of intelligence have important implications for individuals‟ experience of classrooms and their relationship to learning (see Dweck, 1999; 2002 for reviews). A fixed model of intelligence holds that intelligence is a static commodity. Implicit within such a model is that tests, assignments and classroom behavior are measures or demonstrations of intelligence rather than a means to develop it. Such an orientation leads to more anxiety about being seen as “not smart,” and leads to a greater reluctance to exert effort or to ask questions because such actions might imply a lower intelligence (Dweck & Sorich, 1999). These concerns are likely to be especially heightened in settings where negative stereotypes or stigma reinforce and exacerbate concerns about appearing not smart – such as girls in math and science, or students of color in a wide range of academic settings. Alternatively, a malleable model of intelligence holds that intelligence grows with learning, and that effort and learning are important ingredients to increasing intelligence. When students perceive intelligence as malleable and as improved through effort, they are then more willing to exert effort and ask questions to improve performance (Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Hong et al., 1999). Perhaps most importantly for our purposes, fixed or malleable models of intelligence are strongly shaped by the context, organization or school setting in which an individual is operating, and people learn to adapt

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 20 their behavior and attitudes to that of the group (Murphy & Dweck, 2008). Interventions that focus attention away from competition and grades, test scores, and performance and instead focus on cooperation, learning and growth are techniques for changing the “intellectual culture” of a classroom and the implicit (if not explicit) messages students receive about their potential. Their potential for improving intergroup relations in classrooms as well as reducing anxiety and increasing academic effort and performance are discussed below. J. Aronson and his colleagues (J. Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Good, J. Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003) have used Dweck‟s model to create a successful classroom intervention for reducing stereotype threat by explicitly fostering the development of a malleable model of intelligence. The intervention has been successful with both college students and younger students making the transition to middle school. College students trained in holding a malleable model of intelligence exerted more effort, participated more actively in class, performed better over time, and enjoyed schoolwork more than did those who did not receive this training. Moreover, the effect was strongest among African American students, a result the authors speculate is because a malleable model of intelligence can reduce stereotype threat (J. Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002). This pattern also holds true for younger students. In the study of seventh grade girls of color, Good, J. Aronson, and Inzlicht (2003) trained mentors to encourage the girls to understand the problems they were having with their schoolwork as normal struggles associated with the transition to middle school. In so doing, the mentors encouraged them to see these difficulties as temporary and caused by something other than their own abilities. The girls whose mentors had encouraged them to think this way showed more improvements in their standardized test scores in both reading and math later that year than did a group of control students who had not received this encouragement. Thoughtful approaches to providing students with feedback. White teachers can also be more thoughtful in the way they provide feedback, especially negative feedback, to students who are negatively stereotyped. Combining negative feedback with invocations to both maintaining high

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 21 standards and assurances that the teacher believes that the student can meet those high standards helps alleviate the debilitative effects that negative feedback can have – for students of color especially, but also for white students (Cohen & Steele, 2002; Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999). Although these studies of providing student feedback have been conducted in college settings, they can inform how teachers can be trained to give feedback in K-12 settings as well. Younger students look to their teachers for affirmation of their abilities (Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005; Pianta, 1999) and teachers‟ assessments of students‟ potential has been demonstrated to have a great influence on students‟ motivation (Baker, 1999; Deiro, 2004; Pianta, 1999; Telan, 2001). Consequently, paying careful attention to how K-12 teachers give feedback to their students concerning how to improve their work can have a profound impact. Building Relationships between Schools, Family, and Community Parental involvement in school has long been seen – incorrectly – as a proxy measure of parents‟ interest in their child‟s education. School personnel frequently assume that parents who are not involved with school in numerous ways are not interested in their child‟s education. However, parental involvement in school is highly correlated with parent socio-economic status. Parents of high status children often wield a great deal of power in schools (e.g., Noguera, 2001b; 2003a; 2004a; Oakes et al., 1997; Welner, 2001). Non-white, poor or immigrant parents are often excluded from many sources of parental influence in schools because of the attitudes of school personnel about poor, immigrant, and/or families of color, parents‟ work schedules, challenges finding or paying for child care, language barriers, and the social capital to know how to most effectively interact with school personnel. Noguera (2003a) adds that high status, economically well-off parents are able to influence school policy and practice because they have the power to leave the community or school and “take their students‟ tax money with them”, whereas parents of poor students, as a ”captured market”, can be ignored without threat to the district budget. These disparities have led at least one scholar to argue that schools would do well to better separate themselves from families, because any

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 22 attempt to involve families in schools will necessarily privilege the children of the most affluent and highly educated parents (de Carvalho,2001). Nevertheless, there is much to be gained from building better relationships with families and communities that have not been deeply involved in schools (e.g., Constantino, 2003; see Improving School-Family Relations in Table 2). Developing stronger relationships with parents can be an effective tool for helping teachers to better understand their students and to assist teachers in seeing parents as allies who are indeed very concerned about their children‟s education (e.g., Blumer & Tatum, 1999; Fine, 1991; Lee, 2005; McHatton, Zalaquett, & Cranso-Ginras, 2006; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). Reaching out to families in meaningful ways can be an effective tool in helping families to understand how they might be able to influence their child‟s school experiences. Efforts to reach across language barriers or other obstacles can deepen students‟ sense of connection to school and their feeling that schools are a place that embraces their families and cultural traditions (e.g., Gibson, Gándara, & Koyama, 2004; González, Huerta-Marcías, & Tinajero, 1998; Lee, 2005; RoutéChatmon et al., 2006). This can be particularly important for immigrant students who are experiencing a cultural conflict between the expectations of peers, school, and family (see, e.g., Lee, 2001; 2002; 2005; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). When parents of students who are less well-served by a school organize, they are able to effect important educational changes in the school(s) that specifically benefit students having the most trouble. It has been efforts such as these that have created some of the more innovative and helpful school reforms, including the development of small schools in places like Oakland, Chicago, New York, and Boston (e.g., Fine, 1993; Strategic Measurement and Evaluation, 2007; Paolino, 2006; Stovall & Ayers, 2005). They have also been instrumental in developing programs that give special attention and scarce resources to the lowest performing rather than the highest performing students (Ginwright, Cammarota, & Noguera, 2005; 2006; Routé-Chatmon et al., 2006).

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 23 Fostering Student Development and Positive Ethnic Identity The development of a strong, positive ethnic identity is emerging as an important way to develop a more empowering school culture, and a positive influence on the academic achievement among students of color (see Fostering Students‟ Ethnic Identity Development in Table 2). A strong, positive ethnic identity has long been known to contribute to psychological well-being across ethnic groups (e.g., see Cross & Straus, 1998; Mossakowski, 2003; Phinney, 1991; Sellers, CopelandLinder, & Martin, 2006; Yip & Fulgni, 2002). Recently, we have become aware of the role a strong, positive ethnic identity has for students‟ educational commitment and academic performance. Students of color with a strong, positive ethnic identity that is central to their self-definition have better grades in middle school (Zirkel, 2008a), high school (Chavous et al., 2003), and college (Thomas, Caldwell, & Njai, 2006; Wout, 2006). They are also more likely to graduate from high school and to enroll and persist in college (Chavous et al., 2003), and are more committed to college while enrolled (Chavous et al., 2002; Cole & Arriola, 2007; Ethier & Deaux, 1990; 1994). Moreover, case studies of successful African American high school and college students reveal similar patterns (e.g., Tatum, 2003/1997; 2004). School leaders can do much to structure opportunities for students to explore and develop their ethnic identity, both through curricular content and through extra-curricular activities. Such opportunities, like all aspects of schools, need to be constructed thoughtfully, with attention to what, precisely, students will find useful, relevant, and helpful. When constructed in ways that affirm students‟ identities, such activities become opportunities for students to participate actively in the development of schools (e.g., Ginwright, 2004; Ginwright, Cammarota, & Noguera, 2005; 2006). It is important that school leaders see students‟ efforts to build ethnic or racial identity as positive and as contributing to school success and commitment to the larger organization, rather than detracting from them (Tatum, 2003/1997; Villalpando, 2003).

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 24 An example is provided by a project conducted by Hains, a First Nation elder and high school teacher. She used a combination of Aboriginal and participatory action research methods to invite First Nation students in her school to reflect on why so many First Nation students were dropping out of school (Hains, 2001). Although not part of her original plan, once students had an opportunity to reflect together in a culturally-affirming way about what they felt was leading First Nation students to leave school and the need for First Nation students to get an education, they decided they wanted to take action. The students then designed a mentoring program for new First Nation high school students which paired a more senior First Nation student with each new student to help connect them to a community of students and to provide someone to help address newer students‟ concerns. After the first year implementing the student developed and led mentoring program, the drop-out rate among First Nation students at the school dropped from 90% to zero. The students continued to meet after the study was completed, and began to lobby for and effect other changes in the school around issues of curriculum, language learning, and disciplinary practices. The students‟ self-empowerment through an affirmed ethnic identity also helped bring their families to the school and form bridges between First Nation families and the high school that were previously not present. Improving Intergroup Relations among Students Relationships with peers play an important role in students‟ educational experiences --- and this is particularly true for students of color (Zirkel, 2004; 2007a). A feeling of belonging in school is essential for intellectual and academic growth (Osterman, 2000). Belonging and connection among peers is closely tied to individuals‟ motivation to engage in a setting and persist in it through challenging situations, and to see oneself in similar settings (e.g., college). There are a number of cues that young people can use to assess whether a setting is one in which they will feel a strong sense of belonging and connection with peers – including the numerical proportions of individuals who share a similar identity (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007; Murphy & Steele, 2008; Purdie-

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 25 Vaughns et al., in press) and the ease with which they make friends in that setting (Zirkel, 2004; Zirkel, 2007a). Intergroup relations within a school can have a profound effect on students‟ feelings of connection to and belonging with peers in school, and has important implications for students‟ trust in the setting (Purdie-Vaughns et al., in press), motivation and engagement (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007; Murphy & Steele, 2008), persistence (Chavous, 2000; Zirkel, 2007a), identity development (Zirkel, 2004), and educational aspirations and goals (Zirkel, 2007a) (see “Improving Intergroup Relations among Students”, Table 2). Intergroup relations will not improve with vague appeals to abstract concepts like “colorblindness” or “treating all kids the same” (Lewis, 2003b; Markus, C. M. Steele, & D. M. Steele, 2000; Plaut & Markus, 2006). In fact, such vague appeals can backfire and instead indicate to students a lack of will to directly address issues of race and ethnicity in the classroom (e.g., Purdie-Vaughns et al., in press). Instead, concrete and focused attention to improving intergroup relations and to fostering the ideal conditions outlined more than fifty years ago by Allport (1954) (see above) is necessary. These approaches are both implicit, in terms of the pedagogical approaches one uses to deliver the curriculum and arrange one‟s classroom, and explicit, in terms of creating space for developmentally appropriate open dialog and conversation in the classroom. Pedagogical Approaches that Improve Intergroup Relations Implicit in the way teachers structure their classroom and organize student work are messages about competition or cooperation, of building relationships and working together or learning as an individual, isolated activity. Also implicit in teachers‟ pedagogical approaches and classroom organization are messages about who is smart and who is not, whose ideas are valued and respected and whose are not. Specific attention to fostering positive intergroup relations through pedagogical approaches that sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly convey messages about the value of all students, affirm that all students can learn and can learn from each other, and that learning is a

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 26 cooperative activity that happens with others rather an individual activity that happens in competition with others are important ingredients in developing schools that will work for all students Creating less hierarchical classrooms. Teachers have a large influence on the kinds of social groupings students develop within their classrooms and the level and kind of interactions that occur between members of different racial and ethnic groups. Some teaching styles increase attention to status and status hierarchies between students and some deflect attention away from such concerns. When teachers place a strong emphasis in their classroom on outcomes like grades and standardized test scores, that increases a sense of competition between students, and this in turn is likely to increase prejudice between students (e.g., Esses, Jackson, & Dovidio, 2005) and suppress cross-race friendships (Hallinan and Teixeira, 1987a; Hallinan and Williams, 1987). Less hierarchically organized classrooms can have a profound effect on student achievement as well. These are classrooms in which student performance is measured in a variety of ways and in which students are not implicitly compared to each other along a universal norm. Plank (2000) finds that students build more cross-group friendships in classrooms with more personalization and less of what he calls universalism – or holding strict guidelines for performance from students. Kuklinski and Weinstein (2001) found that the effects of self-fulfilling prophesies on student performance were minimized in classrooms in which these expectations were more hidden – specifically, in classrooms where less attention was given to organizing students hierarchically. Techniques for structuring the curriculum in less hierarchical ways, such as through cooperative learning techniques (see below) and de-tracking the curriculum school-wide (see later section) improve the academic outcomes of all students, and dramatically improve the academic and learning outcomes of lower-performing students. Less hierarchical does not mean less structured, however. Gluszek and Purdie-Vaughns (2008) found that stigmatized students who were concerned about whether they “belonged” in a prestigious university preferred structured classes in which guidelines were clear.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 27 Cooperative learning models. Studies of effective teachers often reveal that they are committed to the concepts of cooperative learning in its broadest sense (Ladson-Billings, 1995; 1997/1994). Some of the basic components of a cooperative learning model include a focus on students learning from each other, students learning to see each other as experts worthy of respect, and a commitment to having students perceive education as a cooperative process in which all succeed or fail together (see, e.g., Cohen, 1994; 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Carefully constructed cooperative learning paradigms have been demonstrated to have both a positive effect on student thinking and learning (e.g., Cohen, 1994; 2004; Cohen & Lotan, 1995; 1997) and intergroup relations between students (E. Aronson, 2002; E. Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979; E. Aronson & Osherow, 1980; E. Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Cooper & Slavin, 2004; Slavin & Cooper, 1999; Walker & Crogan, 1998). A number of formal models of cooperative learning have been developed that can be a great aid for teachers who are struggling to create the kind of classroom atmosphere that will foster this kind of work (see, e.g., Cohen, 1994; 2004; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Cooper & Slavin, 2004 for reviews). These more formalized models of cooperative learning are generally organized with several goals in mind: (a) learning from peers as a means of creating interdependence and connections between students, (b) development of interethnic bonds and friendships to combat ethnic segregation between students, (c) students learning to observe each other struggle through problem-solving so that they have a more complex understanding of how everybody learns, and (d) helping to form academically centered identities by integrating students into social groups that are based in academic work. Not all work group arrangements are productive. Every teacher can tell stories about the time they assigned students to work in groups and things went very badly. Instead of forming bonds, the students fought and ridiculed each other, certain students were excluded or scapegoated, and the teacher vowed to never use work groups again (e.g., Rubin, 2003). The student work groups to be discussed here are not created haphazardly – rather, a great deal of research and thoughtful planning

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 28 has gone into the development of particular work group configurations and strategies for the management of student work groups that make them effective and productive rather than destructive. The most effective cooperative learning projects contain several core features: Teachers take an active role to create both interdependency (Walker & Crogan, 1998) and equal status relationships between students by deconstructing pre-existing status relationships (E. Aronson, 2002; E. Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Cohen, 1994; 2004; Cohen & Lotan, 1995; 1997; Cohen et al., 1990; Treisman, 1992; 1993), in part by providing structures so that students without a strong history of academic success can participate actively and equally with their peers. In addition, Cohen (1994) emphasizes that in order to be effective, the projects undertaken in cooperative learning groups should be projects in which group work is genuinely and authentically helpful, in which the problems to be addressed are open-ended, and when the projects demand high level work. Strategies with an Explicit Focus on Intergroup Relations In addition to the implications of implicit messages that pedagogical approaches and classroom organization have for improving intergroup relationships within the classroom, direct, open, and explicit conversations about issues of race and ethnicity in schools and society can play an important role. These conversations must, naturally, be structured in developmentally appropriate ways – the conversations that college and graduate students can have are clearly quite different from those that can take place in elementary, middle, and high school. However, some version of an open discussion can be had at every age, and research consistently shows a positive impact of such openness on intergroup relations as well as on the feelings of belonging and connection of students of color. Open dialog and conversation. Teachers and peers have a strong influence on young people‟s attitudes about race and racism (Aboud & Doyle, 1996b; Aboud & Fenwick, 1999). Open discussions about race and ethnicity tend to lead to reductions in prejudiced attitudes among young people, in part because the less-prejudiced children tend to be more able to convince more prejudiced children to change their attitudes through their ability to appeal to notions of fairness and justice (Aboud &

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 29 Doyle, 1996a; Aboud & Fenwick, 1999) and in part because the openness of such discussions leads to better deeper connections between students and less reliance on stereotypes (e.g., see Schoem & Hurtado, 2001; Tiven, 2001). These conversations can take place even among fairly young children (Aboud & Doyle, 1996b; Aboud & Fenwick, 1999; Derman-Sparks, 2004), and they can take place even in all-white settings (Derman-Sparks, 2006; Tatum, 1992; 1994). Instructor and peer-led dialogs have even greater potential to effect students‟ intellectual outcomes as well as their social relationships when they take place in college (e.g., Antonio et al., 2004) and are well-structured for this purpose (e.g., Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Gurin & Nagda, 2006; ; Lopez, 2004). Peer led efforts to teach a curriculum that encourages young people to examine some of their biases and to examine the consequences of racial and ethnic bias in history have demonstrated important shifts in how young people think about and relate to others (Bettman & Friedman, 2004; McKenna & Sauceda, 2001). Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM) based interventions. Gaertner and Dovidio‟s Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM) (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; 2008 for reviews) provides a framework for developing improved intergroup relationships, and is particularly well-suited to use in a school setting. The CIIM predicts that when conditions are created in which members of two different group can find a common, perhaps superordinate, identity (members of the same community, school, etc.), intergroup trust will increase and intergroup bias will diminish. Dovidio and Gaertner and their colleagues have tested this model in a variety of settings and found improved intergroup attitudes (e. g., Beaton, Dovidio, & Léger, 2008; Dovidio et al., 2002; Neir, Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, Ward, & Rust, 2001; Johnson, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 2006; see also Stone & Crisp, 2007). An intervention study designed to use the CIIM to improve intergroup relations in an elementary school revealed promising results. Houlette and her colleagues (Houlette et al., 2004) utilized a curriculum focused on helping students see each other as part of one, larger superordinate group (students in this class) rather than as members of subgroups within the class. After

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 30 participating in this program over several weeks, participating students were more likely to report having a close friend of a different racial background than before the intervention. Efforts on the part of schools to build community in schools and to build a school identity can help facilitate the development of such a superordinate identity. Building school community through school-wide activities and events and within classrooms through cooperative learning strategies and creating more of a learning orientation all move students in this direction. Summary Changing relationships is an essential component of creating more effective schools for students of color, but in many ways it is also the hardest work. So much of the relationships between all of the actors in schools – principal, staff, teachers, students and parents – are rooted in deep attitudes, beliefs, and behavior that are not always conscious and are not always part of what we think about when we think about changing schools. It‟s much easier to think about improvements in curriculum, technology, facilities and even professional training than it is to think about how individuals within a school relate to one another. Nevertheless, it is the interpersonal work that will likely reap the greatest rewards in terms of student achievement and educational outcomes. In tackling these relationships, it is especially important to address the contemporary or aversive racism among teachers and school leaders – wherein they may profess egalitarian views and desire to work effectively with all kids, but nevertheless simultaneously hold attitudes and beliefs that will interfere with that work. A focus on aversive racism is primary because teachers or principals who explicitly hold or espouse “old-fashioned” racism – believing that some children are not capable of learning, or that certain groups of students will never get anywhere – do not really belong in schools, and they present other challenges that require other kinds of tools (i.e., human resource law) that are not part of the scope of this paper. Improving relationships across the board – between teachers and students, of course, but also between students and between schools and families – will change the “climate” of schools in ways

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 31 that will likely have a large impact on student motivation, effort, commitment, persistence, and performance. We ignore these or minimize the importance of these relationships at our peril. Beyond the relationships in schools, we must also attend to the policies and practices that give shape and meaning to the attitudes and beliefs discussed above. It‟s not just that teacher have attitudes about students – but also that those attitudes are reflected in everyday decisions about who gets taught what, where, and by whom, and whose behavior is acceptable and whose is not. Thus, together with addressing the relationships between actors in schools, we must examine and revise the schools‟ organization as reflected in the everyday policies and procedures that govern how schools operate. EMPOWERING SCHOOL ORGANIZATION J. A. Banks (2004) identified an empowering school organization as an essential component of multicultural education, and as such a central aspect of creating more effective multiethnic schools (see right hand column of Table 2). An empowering school organization is one in which the policies, practices, and structure of a school are aligned in ways that affirm the value and potential of all students. An examination of school culture and organization requires that we look beyond individual classrooms to explore the kinds of beliefs, values, and supports that the school as a whole embodies. Any effort to create more effective schools for students of color needs to involve creating a culture at the school in which student success is assumed and facilitated for all, and this includes a careful look at the way assumptions about students are embedded within broader school practices and policies. For example, how does the school leader make decisions about assigning students to courses, teachers to classes, and classes to classrooms? How does the school leader reflect on the fairness or justice implied in his or her practices of school discipline? These practices convey deep meaning to students and their families about who is valued and who is not, and these larger practices are cues to students and families about the extent to which they are valued members of the school, the district, and the community. For example, when students and families see that students of color are disproportionately assigned to special education or remedial level coursework, taught by the least

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 32 qualified teachers, and have their classes held in the least desirable classrooms in school (e.g., the basement, the unheated, un-air-conditioned portable buildings), the message is clear (see also Skiba & Peterson, 2003). In many schools and districts, this is a routine pattern. Similarly, many urban schools that serve primarily poor students of color are often very large and sometimes extremely large, creating very impersonal schools in which the challenges to the formation of strong and positive relationships between teachers and students and between and among students are exacerbated. In some urban districts, for example, many of the poorest performing schools were also the largest, with elementary schools that were built for 400 students serving student bodies of even 1000 students or more, or high schools serving upwards of 4500 students (Oakland Community Organization, 2008; LAUSD, 2008). Sometimes these schools become so large that they implement year round schedules or day and evening schedules to accommodate the student body. Even under less dramatic circumstances, attending to the size and structure of a school allows more personalized attention that teachers can give their students. Creating school organizational structures and practices that can interrupt these sometimes taken-for-granted practices is essential for creating more effective multiethnic schools. Structuring Schools with a Relational Focus School organization and structure have large implications for the relationships between and among people in those schools (see “School Structure” in Table 2). Changing school “climate”, as described above, is one component of changing relationships within a school. However, the relationships across the school are also influenced by the shape and organization of the school. School reform efforts that are directed towards restructuring schools in ways that improve relationships, increase trust between students and teachers, and foster the development of a common sense of mission and purpose are an important .part of many recent reform efforts (Kahne, et al., in press; Noguera & Wing, 2006; Strategic Measurement and Evaluation, 2007). Small class sizes

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 33 Several large scale analyses of the effects of carefully constructed interventions to reduce class sizes on student achievement have been conducted in recent years. The emerging consensus of these studies is that small class size, especially in the early grades, has a substantial, long term, positive impact on student achievement. Moreover, this positive effect is greatest among the lowest performing students, the effect is greater the longer students participate in smaller classes, and the effect of class sizes in the early grades on student achievement holds over the educational life of the student (e.g., Finn & Achilles, 1990; 1999; Finn, Achilles, & Bain, 1990; Finn, Gerber, Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2001; Finn, Pannozzo, & Achilles, 2003; Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2000). Small class sizes better enable teachers to work with students as individuals and thus to pay attention to students‟ strengths and weaknesses, rather than to rely on stereotypes. Similarly, small class sizes better enable teachers to form meaningful relationships with students and families that can have a positive influence on students‟ experiences and academic outcomes. Students may also be better able to form bonds between and among each other in smaller class environments. Small schools and “schools within schools” Studies of small schools and smaller “school within a school” programs also reveal a strong relationship between such programs and student achievement, attendance, and high school graduation rates. Small schools offer many of the same advantages that small classes do, in that such schools are often more easily able to develop a strong community and to help students form deeper and more personal relationships with each other and with teachers and staff. In addition, smaller schools better enable school leaders to keep on top of a number of equity issues that might otherwise remain either unnoticed or unattended. A careful examination of Berkeley High School, with over 3,000 students, leaves the impression that at least at the time of the study, “no one was watching the store” – meaning that concerns about racial and ethnic equity in school discipline, classroom management, student enrollment patterns, attendance and graduation were left unattended while a series of shortlived principals dealt with more immediately pressing problems (Noguera & Wing, 2006).

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 34 Both qualitative, case studies and large scale survey or experimental research reveal the positive influence of small schools on student outcomes. Small school reform efforts do appear to create school cultures of greater trust between teachers and between teachers and students, and also reveal a greater commitment among students (Kahne et al., in press). Many studies do reveal a positive impact on student attendance and graduation rates, and in many studies attendance and graduation rates tend to increase dramatically. Several studies showing student absences and school drop out rates are cut by one-third or more (Conchas, 2006; Strategic Measurement and Evaluation, 2007) and others demonstrating a smaller, though still substantial difference (e.g., Kahne et al., in press). In some small schools or “schools within schools”, graduation rates are near 100% (Conchas, 2006; Strategic Measurement and Evaluation, 2007) in schools and cities where graduation rates typically hover closer to 50%. Such an impact on attendance and graduation rates is important and meaningful. Even so, small schools or “schools within schools” are not a panacea. Achievement gains in small school reforms are variable and likely depend on specific aspects of the small school programs. Some studies demonstrate small schools having a positive impact on achievement (Conchas, 2006; Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort., 2002; Lee & Smith, 1995; Strategic Measurement and Evaluation, 2007), but others do not (Kahne et al., in press; Wasley et al., 2000). In part, the fact that many previously poor-performing students are staying in school and achievement levels are not going down may actually suggest that there is much improvement in student learning. However, how such programs are run and the implicit beliefs of teachers within them still matter tremendously for their effectiveness (Conchas, 2006; Noguera, 2002; Oxley, 1994). Small schools provide an easier context in which to build better relationships between teachers and students, especially when compared to the extremely large schools found in some urban school districts (Strategic Measurement & Evaluation, 2007; Paolino, 2006). However, leadership is still needed to ensure that smaller schools and the increased collegiality among teachers often found there translate into improved instructional practices (Kahne et al., in press; Strategic Measurement and

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 35 Evaluation, 2007). Studying the same set of Chicago High School Reform Initiative, Stevens (forthcoming) found that school principals play a pivotal role in determining the level of instructional improvement that takes place. Looping Looping refers to a strategy for building relationships between teachers and students and teachers and families by keeping children with a teacher for two or more years – that is, an entire class, including the teacher, moves together across grade levels. Often, students say together as a class with a specific teacher across their time in school (e.g., 6th-8th grade). Looping offers teachers, students, and families the opportunity to get to know one another over an extended period of time. In this way, teachers are afforded the opportunity to know their students at a deeper level and to work with students‟ own strengths as they develop greater understanding of their students over time (Black, 2000; Lincoln, 1997). Students and families are afforded the opportunity to work with a teacher who has the time to get to know them and to work with teachers more as a team interested in the students‟ long-term growth than in traditional arrangements. Looping in middle school means that students stay with one primary teacher not only over several years but also for most of the school day. This also addresses concerns raised by some developmental psychologists that children are harmed by a move to school schedules with a different teacher for every subject in early adolescence (e.g., Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles, Midgley, & Lord, 1991). Looping has been effectively used in elementary and middle schools to improve student outcomes (Black, 2000; Yamauchi, 2003) and relationships between school and family (Little & Dacus, 1999; J. Nichols & G. Nichols, 2002). There have been few comprehensive studies of looping, in part because looping often emerges within a larger reform effort and thus it is difficult to tease apart the specific influence of looping on student outcomes. However, it seems a promising strategy worthy of greater attention as we learn the value of relationships in student outcomes. English Language Learner Programs

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 36 English language learner (ELL) and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) programs often operate as small “schools within schools” in many urban U.S. schools. As such, they function to offer ELL students a place in which they feel a strong sense of community and belonging. In many ELL programs, students report having strong relationships with peers, teachers, and/or counselors, and these relationships are often described as an essential component of the value of such programs (see, e.g., Lee, 2005; Noguera, 2004b; Wing, 2006). However, these strong relationships often form as a result of the isolation of ELL students from the rest of the school, which can be the greatest weakness faced by ELL programs. As immigrants or the children of immigrants who typically have little understanding of how college admissions works in the United States. ELL students are also among the least likely to receive the kind of guidance they need in order to prepare for college, and their placement in ELL often bars them – formally or informally – from participation in AP courses or other curriculum that is important for college admission (e.g., Lee, 2005; Noguera, 2004b; Valenzuela, 1999; Rubin et al., 2006; Wing, 2006). ELL programs that combine the “school within a school” model of relationship building and the social activism often found among ELL teachers and counselors with a strong, mainstreaming and college-preparedness program to ensure that ELL students are achieving at the highest levels and are well-prepared for college would be a very powerful model. Strong leadership is required to ensure that teachers across the school are prepared to work with ELL students and to ensure they mainstream into classrooms beyond the ELL program. Lucas, Henze, & Donato (1990) conducted case studies of schools that were successful with language minority Latino students, and they outline several ways that school leaders can help to improve the educational outcomes of ELL students more generally. These strategies are first, to recognize the value of heritage language and culture for immigrant children and children from immigrant or aboriginal families (see also Hains, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999; Villegas, 2006). This requires teachers and administrators across the board to learn about the cultures and languages

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 37 reflected in the student body (Olson, 1998; 2000; Olsen & Jamarillo, 1999), and to have at least some staff who speak the language(s) of students on site. It is also important to make the education of ELL students a priority, with staff development time and resources focused on how to accomplish this effectively (see also Olsen, 1998; 2000; Olsen & Jamarillo, 1999), and to have sincerely high expectations for the educational achievements of ELL students. This means designing programs that effectively teach ELL and LEP students English literacy sufficient for both social and academic success (see, e.g., Crandall et al., 2002). It also means preparing to move students from ELL classes at some point. Several studies highlight the processes that sometimes lead ELL students to be kept in ELL classes long past the time when such classes are necessary. This happens because of a push from outside of the ELL program (non-ELL teachers often do not want to work with ELL students) and the pull of ELL itself (students and teachers fear what might happen to students outside of the “cocoon” that ELL can become). School administrators can provide leadership to help teachers and students resist these pressures, and help them to see both how to serve ELL students across the curriculum and how ELL programs can provide supportive relationships that are not stifling of students‟ academic development. Olsen and Jamarillo (1999) would add that it is essential for school administrators to develop data systems and habits of analysis and reflection on the performance and outcomes of ELL and LEP students in their schools, and to actively and regularly listen to their ELL and LEP students and families to better understand which needs are being met and which are not. Dismantling Institutionalized Racism in Schools Institutionalized racism in the everyday practices of schools is widespread, but it can be seen most dramatically in the processes and procedures of academic tracking and school discipline. Careful attention to the differential impact of these practices on students of color and changing processes to foreground equity issues has a tremendous impact on students‟ experiences in schools and their academic outcomes (see “Dismantling Institutionalized Racism” in Table 2).

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 38 Eliminating Ability Groupings or Academic “Tracks” Academic tracking in elementary and secondary schools can present strong organizational barriers to the achievement of students of color and to the development of positive relationships between students of different ethnic backgrounds. Academic tracking or ability grouping almost always serves to separate students by race and ethnicity (see, e.g. Khmelkov & Hallinan, 1999; Oakes, 1996; 2005; Schofield, 1989). Students of color are less likely to move “up” to higher tracks and more likely to move “down” to lower tracks than their white peers (Hallinan, 1996a; 1996b; Ford, 1998; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Oakes, 2005). Tracking also has a negative impact on the development and maintenance of interethnic friendships at school (e.g., Braddock & Slavin, 1993; Hallinan & Williams, 1987; Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987b; Hallinan & Tuma, 1978; Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1998; Schofield, 1979; Tatum, 2003/1997). Academic tracks are based in educational models which see intelligence as a fixed and unidimentional entity that is easily measured – ideas that run counter to much of our modern understanding of educational and cognitive processes (see, e.g., Dweck, 1999; Oakes, 1994; Oakes et al., 1997 for relevant reviews of different literatures). Some schools and districts have endeavored to eliminate academic tracks from their curriculum – offering all students mixed classrooms with a challenging curriculum. Several studies of the impact of detracking have found solid and extensive evidence that all students perform better in heterogeneous groups, but especially that poorer performing students show dramatic increases in performance after detracking. Burris and her colleagues (Burris et al., 2006) undertook one of the most thoughtful and systematic detracking efforts ever documented, and their efforts have been enormously successful in improving the academic outcomes of all students, and in getting nearly all students to achieve at very high levels. The effort was district wide, and started with 6th grade math, with the goal of all students completing Sequence I (roughly equivalent to Algebra I) in eighth grade and completing at least precalculus, if not Advanced Placement Calculus by the end of their senior year in high school. Prior to

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 39 the study, 5% of the low “track” students, 29% of the middle “track” students, and 64% of the high “track” students completed Advanced Placement Calculus in high school. After the change, 18% of the low track, 44% of the middle track, and 76% of the higher track had successfully completed Advanced Placement Calculus. Similar gains were seen across all groups of students. Why did everybody‟s performance improve? Because in addition to a clear, focused high level curriculum, the schools offered math support to any student who wanted extra help – including the higher performing students. In other words, part of the harm we do to students by tracking them is to reify students‟ placements, implicitly encouraging a “fixed” model of intelligence, and in so doing we minimize our efforts at encouraging a culture of asking for assistance among all students. Detracking has effects beyond academic achievement, however. When carefully planned and executed, it can also improve intergroup relations between students in school. Relationships between formerly lower-track students and their teachers also improve after detracking (e.g., Cooper, 2000; Oakes, 2005). Students who were formerly enrolled in lower-tracked classrooms were less likely to be described as “behavior problems” in heterogeneously organized classrooms (Oakes, 2005). Improvements in students‟ behavior can be linked to the more challenging and engaging curriculum, changes in peer norms about behavior in different settings, and students‟ greater feeling of being engaged in meaningful work that suggests the school as an institution believes in them. Despite their demonstrated success, efforts to eliminate tracking in public schools often meet with resistance, and this resistance needs to be anticipated in order to effectively engage in efforts to detrack the curriculum. Resistance is largely based on lay understandings of teaching and learning (e.g., Wells & Serna, 1996). These concerns need to be addressed if efforts are to be successful. Some resistance will almost certainly come from some parents, particularly parents of highachieving, high track youth (see, e.g., Marsh & Raywid, 1994; Oakes et al., 1997; Wells & Oakes, 1996; Welner, 2001), who can be very effective in derailing efforts to eliminate tracking (Burris & Welner, 2005; Oakes et al., 1997). Resistance can also come from teachers who are accustomed to

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 40 particular ways of teaching (Oakes et al., 1997), and efforts to eliminate ability groupings that are not well-supported by teachers may fail to create the desired classroom dynamics (Rubin, 2003). Several researchers document the inadequacy of efforts to de-track schools by allowing students and parents to choose the academic track in which a student participates, because students and parents are not equally informed regarding the pros and cons of different options (e.g., Noguera & Wing, 2006; Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002). Successful efforts at “detracking” school curriculum have paid careful attention to the resistance offered by parents of high-achieving students (Marsh & Raywid, 1994; 1995; Oakes et al., 1997; Welner & Burris, 2006). These parents are often afraid that de-tracking the curriculum will result in their children receiving a “dumbed down” education in order to accommodate the needs of a broader range of students. Oakes and her colleagues (Oakes et al., 1997) describe a successful program in which special attention was paid to including parents in the planning of the new curriculum to ensure that it would remain challenging. This involvement of parents was combined with extensive teacher training in the new curriculum over the summer to ensure that teachers mastered techniques by which they could engage the whole student body in a high-level curriculum. By engaging rather than simply resisting the concerns of the parents of high-achieving students, school administrators were able to enlist efforts of these parents and gain their approval of the new plan. Welner and Burris (2006) argue that a school leader needs to know the community in which he or she is working, and to develop strategies for effecting change based within an accurate understanding of the amount and kind of resistance that will be encountered when equity-based interventions are planned, and they articulate different strategies for working with more and less cooperative and equity-oriented communities. Student Disciplinary Practices Who, when, and how schools discipline students is highly racialized in most schools (e.g., Ferguson, 2001; Skiba et al., 2002; Noguera, 2008). Studies of disciplinary practices in schools

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 41 reveal that from the earliest school years, practices which are based in assumptions about “getting rid of troublemakers” disproportionately identify the behavior of male students of color as problematic and serve to effectively drive some students away from school (e.g., Ayers, Dohrn, & Ayers, 2001; Ferguson, 2001; Fine, 1991; Gregory, Nygreen, & Moran, 2006; Noguera, 2003a; 2003b; 2003c; 2008). Such disciplinary practices are based in assumptions that behavior emerges wholly from the individual and is not understood to emerge within a particular school context. In addition, behavior is perceived to be “good” or “bad” rather than simply functional and instructive about what is happening in students‟ lives. Data from nearly three decades of research have consistently demonstrated that students of color, and most particularly African American and/or Latino boys, are disproportionately more likely to be involved in disciplinary actions at school and more likely to receive more severe punishments (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) than their white peers (e.g., Ayers, Dohrn, & Ayers, 2001; Gregory, 1996; 1997; McCarthy & Hoge, 1987; McFadden, et al., 1992; Nichols, Ludwin, & Iadicola, 1999; Skiba et al., 2002; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997; Wu, Pink, Crain., & Moles, 1982). Careful studies of disciplinary practices reveal that although lower SES students are more likely to be the subject of school disciplinary actions (e.g., Skiba, et al, 2002; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997; Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982), racial differences in school discipline cannot be accounted for solely on the basis of SES (Skiba, et. al., 2002; Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982) or the severity of the behavior resulting in disciplinary referral (Shaw & Braden, 1990; Skiba, et. al., 2002; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997). Rather, several studies suggest that students of color, and particularly African American and Latino boys, receive more severe punishments for the same behavior. For example, Shaw and Braden (1990) found that African American male students were more likely to be referred for disciplinary action and to receive corporal punishment, even though the offences for which they were referred were less severe than those for which white students were referred. In a

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 42 large, statewide study of disciplinary practices, Skiba and his colleagues (Skiba et al., 2002) found that white students were more likely to be referred for behaviors in which they objectively disobeyed school rules (e.g., smoking, vandalism), whereas African American students were more likely to be referred for behaviors involving a more subjective judgment of behavioral appropriateness (e.g., loitering, disrespect, excessive noise). These latter concerns frequently represent power struggles and cultural and class tensions between a largely white, female, and middle class teaching force and young, male students of color. School districts and administrators play a central role in crafting and implementing school disciplinary practices. Keeping schools safe for students and ensuring that they are places where effective academic engagement can take place is one of a school leader‟s primary duties. Nevertheless, the possibility of racial differences in disciplinary practices highlight that this is an area requiring careful attention and thoughtful implementation. “Zero tolerance” policies, in which a single instance of fighting, drugs or alcohol – even off campus -- can lead to expulsion from the school are increasingly popular in response to media images of “out of control” schools, and they are particularly likely to have a negative effect on students of color (Ayers, Dohrn, & Ayers, 2001; Koch, 2000; Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Disciplinary practices that are exclusionary (suspension and expulsion) are likely to lead to students‟ increased alienation from school, which is in turn directly linked with dropping out (e.g., Bowditch, 1993; Finn, 1989; Gregory, 1997; Townsend, 2000). Skiba and his colleagues (Skiba et al., 2002; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997) find that racial differences in disciplinary outcomes is primarily accounted for by racial differences in teacher referrals, suggesting that administrators need to take a leadership role in ensuring that all teachers are engaged in processes of critical self-reflection regarding who, when, and why they decide to refer students for discipline. Discipline audits are a good strategy for beginning a school- or district-wide conversation about disciplinary practices. Discipline audits can highlight both who is doing the referring for discipline

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 43 and who is getting disciplined. Often, a small number of teachers are doing most of the referring for disciplinary practices. Teachers who feel they have no control of their classrooms may refer a large number of students for discipline for even minor infractions. Once particularly frequent “referrers” are identified, a school leader can direct effort to helping those teachers find ways of getting control of their students and to think differently about how to manage their classroom. For example, the teachers might be paired with effective senior mentor teachers who can help them to think about discipline differently. Ongoing staff development time could be devoted to the issue of the racial makeup of school disciplinary rolls, with particular attention given to how disciplinary patterns may reflect broader problems in relationships between a largely (female) white teaching staff and (male) students of color and how these issues can be addressed. Noguera (2001a) points out that when we identify disciplinary problems within individual students and locate those individuals as the problem, we miss the larger social context in which student behavior occurs and misread students who are bored, frustrated, and angry with their educational experience as “the problem” (see also Valenzuela, 1999). He notes that students who are deeply engaged in their learning generally do not misbehave, and that presenting students with more challenging material can improve their behavior as a result. Remember that students previously labeled a “behavior problem” often “behave” better in heterogeneous classrooms, and particularly those with a more challenging curriculum. Studies of schools that are effective in creating safe, orderly environments in poor, urban communities do so by building strong relationships between and among students, faculty, and staff (Sandler, 2001). Summary Changing school organization and undoing institutionalized racism in school practices and policies can go a long way to create better, more effective schools for students of color. Audits of the implications of school practices and policies can help uncover the unintended institutionalized racism that may lurk in, for example, school discipline practices. The policies and practices – for example,

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 44 tracking – may also reflect deeply held and yet unexamined beliefs about teaching and learning and about student performance. Thoughtful explorations of such practices among teachers and principals can help teachers and parents move forward with changes that challenge the status quo in ways that will improve the school experiences and academic outcomes of all students. Large scale structural change will likely not take place in the first place, nor stay in place if it does, without careful planning and strategic political thinking. Creating an empowering school organization that will serve all students typically means creating large-scale change. Large-scale change will necessarily meet with resistance, be it political, economic, or social. Large-scale changes often mean interrupting policies and practices that are serving some students and families well in order to more equitably serve all students. In some cases, all students benefit academically from the change, as we see in the efforts at detracking undertaken by Burris and her colleagues (as described above). However, in order to create this benefit to students, difficult choices have to be made. In order to fund the kinds of math supports that the detracking program entailed, less money was available for other projects. Similarly, smaller class sizes and schools are often politically “positive” in that nearly all parents will support them – but that support can wane when the financial and opportunity costs of such programs are realized. Organizational changes of the kinds documented here all require tremendous leadership – to create the vision of what can be, to facilitate the transition, and to manage resistance along the way. Structural changes (e.g., smaller schools) can create a context that can facilitate other change (e.g., improved teacher student relationships), but leadership is still necessary to ensure the changed structure leads to the kinds of improvements envisioned. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY, PRACTICE, AND THEORY In general, broad policies at the federal and state level have not been tremendously successful in making the changes we desire in schools. Court challenges such as Brown (1954) or federal policies targeting students of color or disadvantaged students have typically provided some important

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 45 ingredients for change, but on their own they have been of limited effectiveness. Hurston (1954) was skeptical of federally mandated school integration because she feared that forced integration would only harm African American children, as did Dubois. Their concerns were in many ways realized, with African American families exchanging segregated schools with poor resources but excellent, activist African American teachers committed to their students for resource-rich schools with teachers who were indifferent to their African American students – or worse (Foster, 1997; hooks, 1994). This poor exchange is part of what has led Bell (2004) to argue that the original litigation and compliance targets of Brown were ill-conceived. In our modern school context, Darling-Hammond (2006) points out that many civil rights leaders applauded the passing of the federal policy colloquially referred to as No Child Left Behind (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2001) because it finally demanded that schools give concentrated attention to racial and ethnic disparities in student learning. Unfortunately, it‟s punitive structure and sole focus on the constant improvement of average standardized test scores means that school reform efforts which lead to promising results such as increased high school graduation rates can be thwarted. This results from the unintended implications of the policy is that schools are advantaged if lower performing students drop out of school (and thus are not included in the testing). This is not to suggest that broad policies do not matter – rather, they matter very much. The recent Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003) and school desegregation (Parents v. Seattle School District, 2007) are important and will have a longstanding impact on schools and colleges and their accessibility to students of color. Change efforts in schools may need to start with litigation and/or legislation, but they cannot end there. These policies need to work through to the individual people in individual schools. Because teaching and learning are inherently relational activities that happen between individual people, the way that teachers and students come together in the classroom and the schoolyard

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 46 matters. I return to the seven themes that I identified at the start of this paper (see Table 1), to highlight principles that can guide school improvement efforts in more effective ways. Attending to aversive and institutional racism Creating more effective multiethnic schools requires attention to both aversive and institutional racism (see Item #1 in Table 1). When we do not acknowledge that people‟s (often sincere) belief in egalitarian principles may live side by side with attitudes or beliefs that advantage some students and disadvantage others, we undermine any change efforts we make before we start. Underlying attitudes and beliefs about cultural groups, class differences, families and communities, and even models of intelligence need to be acknowledged, surfaced, and confronted or they will undermine all efforts to improve relationships between and among students and teachers in school settings. Similarly, changes that do not address taken for granted ways of doing things that (in?)advertently advantage some students and disadvantage others cannot effect the kind of broad changes that are needed to create more effective schools. Too often, changes occur at the policy level – advocating, for example, for greater racial and ethnic integration in schools, without corresponding attention to how to do integration well. The net effect is that the policy change looks like it “failed” to make a difference for students. It is important to acknowledge both institutional racism and aversive racism – not just one or the other. Changes to institutionally racist policies and procedures – such as disciplinary practices and academic tracking as described above – are doomed to fail if aversive racism is not also attended to. Part of what made the detracking efforts of Rockville Centre School District so effective was that they were carefully planned to create successful experiences. All students were offered extra help – not just those that many might have supposedly needed the help. All students were offered only the highest level curriculum, not a mid-level curriculum that presumes some kids cannot work at the highest level. All of this required careful attention to implicit beliefs about who can learn what and

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 47 who cannot. In Oakes‟ (Oakes et al., 1997) terms, the effort was made to “detrack” minds as well as courses. Conceiving Schools as Agents of Change If we conceive of schools as the agent of change, we have to conceive our efforts to create more effective multiethnic schools holistically, rather than in terms of isolated programs or policy change (see Item #2 in Table 1). It is the school in its entirety that needs to change, and through systematic change, real differences in students‟ experiences and outcomes are likely to occur. School policies, practices, and everyday ways of operating across the board must be assessed for their impact on the educational outcomes of all students. Without that, any interventions we employ will be piecemeal and seen as peripheral to the educational enterprise. It is important that helping all students achieve at the highest levels and improving the educational outcomes of students of color in particular are perceived as central aspects of the educational mission of the school and not something to “add on” to the “real” educational work of delivering content. When we conceive of schools as agents of change, we can look more deeply at all of our practices and examine how and why they were developed as well as who they are serving and who they are not. Often, educational practices are designed to meet the needs of the highest achieving students whose parents are the most vocal in demanding that their children‟s needs are addressed. Leadership Sets the Tone One aspect of this work that has emerged again and again over many decades is that interventions must “come from the top” (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; 2006) (see Item #3 in Table 1). This means that administrators must be deeply involved in these efforts by providing the conceptual framework and the tone for the whole school (e.g., Blumer & Tatum, 1999). It is through leadership and leadership alone that educational reform efforts can be implemented completely as designed. Leadership needs to provide the vision and the plan, but leadership is also needed to build support for challenging reforms among teachers and parents.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 48 Efforts to change schools that come from administrators but are not wholly supported by teachers and parents can be undermined very quickly. Oakes and her colleagues (Datnow & Hirshberg, 1996; Oakes, 2002; 2005; Oakes et al., 1997; Wells & Oakes, 1996) have noted that efforts at de-tracking schools can easily be derailed by high status parents or poorly trained, unsupported, or unenthusiastic teachers. Undertaking a change of this size is not simply an organizational issue of setting up heterogeneous classrooms and letting the magic happen. This is because de-tracking the curriculum is not a technical solution but rather a conceptual one – it is a “deep” reform that involves rethinking what many believe about teaching and learning. In fact, Oakes et al., 1997 have specifically argued that the more important reform is “de-tracking the minds” of parents and teachers – getting them to change how they think about how and when teaching and learning take place – and officially de-tracking the curriculum probably should not take place until this deeper reform has taken place. Strong administrative leadership is necessary for these deeper reforms to take place. Similarly, leadership, broadly conceived, is an essential ingredient in all the strategies and reforms described above in that teachers must be actively, not passively, involved in each effort. Teachers who passively or unreflectively incorporate cooperative learning into their classrooms will not implement these strategies in a way that is effective. In fact, Rubin (2003) points out that in such cases, their efforts may do more harm than good. Teachers set the tone in their classrooms, and through their efforts they can create an “identity safe” or “identity threatening” environment, which will make all the difference in how effectively they can accomplish the twin goals of improved interethnic relations and improved educational outcomes for students of color (D. M. Steele et al., 2006). Teachers‟ explicit affirmation of their commitment to the success of all students and their deep belief in the abilities of all creates a classroom climate in which other reform efforts can be effectively implemented. The Paradox of Needing to Focus on Race and Ethnicity while Benefiting All Students

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 49 Quite hopefully, the interventions and reforms reviewed here highlight the ways in which working to create more effective multiethnic schools is just good educational practice (see Item #4 in Table 1). Thus, the interventions and strategies discussed above are helpful and empowering for all students, not just students of color. However, a paradox that emerges is that although most of the principles, strategies and techniques outlined here will benefit all students, and not just students of color (e.g., see Zirkel, 2008b), they are only likely to have a positive impact on the educational outcomes of students of color if they are implemented with conscious and specific attention to issues of race and ethnicity. Efforts that attempt to create solutions to racialized achievement in a color-blind manner without conscious attention to issues of race and ethnicity have not been effective (e.g., Markus et al., 2000; Zirkel, 2008b). Without special attention to race and ethnicity, aversive and institutional racism can continue to operate without interference, and these processes will undermine any reform efforts. Moreover, color-blind approaches to solving racial and ethnic differences in school experiences and outcomes ignore the role that racial stigma plays in achievement differences, and they downplay or minimize the role that a strong, positive ethnic identity can play in propelling students forward. Encourage the Development of Ethnic Identity Efforts to improve the educational outcomes of students of color and intergroup relations in multiethnic schools are greatly enhanced by efforts to create a setting that facilitates the development of a strong, positive racial or ethnic identity among students of color, and there is much that K-12 schools can do in this regard (see Item # 5 in Table 1). The development of a positive ethnic identity has been demonstrated to be an important factor influencing a wide variety of educational outcomes for students of color. Many of the interventions described in this paper are likely to influence student outcomes at least in part by encouraging the development of students‟ ethnic identity. Such interventions include changes to increase the multicultural base of the curriculum, the creation of opportunities to openly

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 50 and directly discuss issues of race and ethnicity, and efforts to help teachers and schools to work to uncover institutional racism. However, Tatum (2003/1997) notes that in order to help foster ethnic identity, we might sometimes need to accept uncomfortable situations – such as when we see students separated by ethnic group in the school cafeteria or playground. We may need to allow students to actively engage in the process of ethnic identity development and provide structures and opportunities for interethnic contact within school activities rather than expecting it to emerge on its own. Contrary to fears that are often expressed, Phinney and Ferguson (1997) found that a positive ethnic identity led to more positive, rather than negative, attitudes towards out-group members. When we create space for students to explore their ethnic background in curriculum and student organizations and we also provide room to have thoughtful, engaging discussions of race and ethnicity, we provide an ideal setting for the development of a positive ethnic identity that is associated with better, rather than worsened, relations between groups. Explicit Affirmations of the Abilities of Students of Color Negative stereotypes about the academic abilities of students of color and the stigma that such stereotypes convey present an active threat to the educational outcomes of students of color as well as to intergroup relations between and among students (e.g., Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002; Zirkel, 2005b). Efforts to create effective schools for all students require that we not ignore such stereotypes but rather actively work to subvert them through direct efforts (e.g., J. A. Banks, 2004; D. M. Steele et al., 2006; Zirkel, 2005b) (see Item # 6 in Table 1). Many of the interventions described in this paper have as a key component the need to publicly and openly affirm our commitment to equity and our confidence in the abilities of students of color. Part of the importance of having at least some teachers of the same racial or ethnic background as students is that students of color do not fear that teachers of their own ethnic background have lower expectations of them than their white peers – this affirmation is assumed until demonstrated otherwise (Brown & Dobbins, 2004; Casteel, 2000; Galguera, 1998; Wout et al., in press). However,

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 51 white teachers can destigmatize their classrooms and more deeply engage their students of color through a simple, explicit affirmation of their belief in the abilities of all students (Brown & Dobbins, 2004; Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999; Wout et al., in press). The elimination of academic tracks, the invitation of students of color to academically oriented schools within schools, culturally relevant pedagogy, cooperative learning, organized study groups and similar interventions all have at their base the implicit, and sometimes explicit, statement that students of color are capable of the very highest levels of academic work. Such affirmations of confidence in students of color need to be addressed both explicitly, in teachers‟ statements to students and classes, and implicitly, in the curriculum offered students. Too often poor students in urban schools are offered a lower level curriculum that communicates all too clearly teachers‟ and principals‟ expectations for them (Noguera, 2003a). “Color-blind” approaches, in which the focus is on ignoring group membership, can exacerbate the problem, because we cannot subvert stereotypes without addressing them directly (Lewis, 2001; Markus, C. M. Steele, & D. M. Steele, 2000; D. M. Steele et al., 2006). “High expectations” is a concept that is frequently discussed in the educational literature, but rarely do we consider the many layered ways that low expectations are communicated to students. High expectations are not just a buzzword – rather, teachers and school leaders must deeply and authentically – rather than just intellectually – believe in the potential of their students of color and their families. Many teachers and administrators have vague notions about social justice and working in urban schools, but when faced with the realities such schools present, they often resort to deficitbased thinking about students and families (Flessa, 2008; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). It is important that teachers and administrators become aware of their own limitations and engage in whatever personal work is necessary to develop the ability to effectively work with different populations of students. This is often no small task, and school leaders can play an important role in

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 52 providing the space and time for teachers to reflect on their practice in ways that allows them to become effective educators for all students. Building Relationships The importance and effectiveness of relationships in student achievement cannot be overstated (see Item # 7 in Table 1). Good student-teacher relationships are essential, but so are peer relationships both within and across ethnic groups. These social bonds are what tie students to the academic enterprise generally and to each school specifically (e.g., Gibson, Gándara, & Koyama, 2004; Zirkel, 2004a). Recent studies of student development have demonstrated that simple interventions designed to increase students‟ attachment to each other and to teachers and administrators at school can have large and longstanding effects on a variety of life outcomes (e.g., Lonczak et al., 2002). The development of social bonds between students is at the center of efforts to explicitly improve intergroup relations such as the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) and intergroup dialogues (Gurin et al., 2002; Lopez, 2004; Nagda, Chan-Woo, & Truelove, 2004; Schoem & Hurtado, 2001). Improved and deeper relationships can be seen at the center of many other of the reform efforts described above as well. For example, small schools and schools within schools operate on the principle that teachers and students, because they are better known to each other, can work together more effectively. Recall that efforts at detracking improve intergroup relations within the classroom and also improve the relationships between formerly lower track students and their teachers. Cooperative learning and the creation of less competitively arranged classrooms both also improve students‟ relationships with each other and facilitate the development of cross-race friendships that are longer lasting than in more competitively organized classrooms. These social bonds are not an incidental aspect of these interventions, but rather are an essential ingredient in their success. The social bonds are important ingredient in keeping students connected to school (Gibson, Gándara, & Koyama, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004; McNeely, Nonnemaker, &

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 53 Blum, 2002). Improved relationships with peers and teachers at school are effective means to create less stigmatizing school environments (D. M. Steele et al., 2006; Zirkel, 2005b), which in turn provide a context likely to facilitate the engagement, persistence and ultimately the academic performance of students of color (Walton & Cohen, 2007; Zirkel, 2007a). These social bonds – with teachers and peers alike – likely keep students focused and committed to school when the schoolwork itself is not going so well, thus facilitating the academic persistence that is likely to lead to better educational outcomes over time (Walton & Cohen, 2007). Links between Improved Intergroup Relations and Improved Educational Outcomes Throughout this paper, we can see that efforts to improve intergroup relations and efforts to improve the educational outcomes for students of color are inextricably linked, in that efforts to achieve one also tend to facilitate the other (see Item # 8 in Table 1). These links can be seen in efforts to de-track the curriculum, develop cooperative learning techniques, change the classroom climate to focus on learning rather than performance, facilitate the development of racial and ethnic identity, as well as in organized efforts to facilitate both formal and informal interethnic contact. All of these strategies have been demonstrated to improve both intergroup relations and the educational outcomes of students of color (e.g., Antonio, 2001; 2004; Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004). The links between these two outcomes is meaningful, because in large part both are linked to efforts to de-stigmatize race and ethnicity in school and create an environment in which students of color do not feel threatened by stigma (D. M. Steele et al., 2006; Zirkel, 2005b). When we create classroom environments in which we thoughtfully facilitate interactions between diverse students at the same time that we destigmatize the classroom by creating less hierarchically organized classrooms and schools, we create the perfect setting for both intergroup relations and students of color to flourish. This is welcome news because it makes our work as educators concerned about the atmosphere of our schools and the educational outcomes of all of our students that much easier. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 54 Creating more effective multiethnic schools – schools with positive interethnic relationships and in which all students succeed -- is probably the biggest challenge facing educators today, both in the United States and around the world. This paper focused specifically on strategies and approaches that have been successfully implemented in the United States. However, similar if not identical issues are present in most parts of the industrialized world – including, but not limited to, France, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Brazil, and Japan (e.g., J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks, 2004; Grant & Lei, 2001). The persistence and pervasiveness of these issues speak to the urgency with which we need to address them. There are, however, many strategies and approaches to creating more effective multiethnic schools that can be implemented by individual teachers, principals, and/or school boards as they endeavor to create better educational experiences for all. Implementing new or innovative approaches to effecting positive changes in this area can be overwhelming, particularly as most educators already feel overloaded with demands. This paper provides specific strategies that can be immediately implemented in schools as well as an analysis of the principles that underlie these approaches and can guide the development of new approaches. An essential concept that emerges from this work is that effective multiethnic schools do not simply happen but do require specific, reflective attention in order to be successful. Across all strategies and approaches, the need to address issues of race and ethnicity directly becomes clear. We cannot solve racially or ethnically coded problems with solutions that do not specifically address issues of race and ethnicity. The good news is that strategies for creating more effective multicultural school environments that are grounded in current understandings of multicultural or antiracist education and are thoughtfully implemented can and do have enormous impact on students. The disparities we see in students‟ outcomes are deeply rooted in students‟ experience – and by changing the experiences students have in school, these problems are imminently solvable. It‟s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 55 References Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. (1996a). Does talk of race foster prejudice or tolerance in children? Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science [Special Issue: Ethnic relations in a multicultural society], 28, 161-170. Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. (1996b). Parental and peer influences on children‟s racial attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations [Special Issue: Prejudice, discrimination, and conflict], 20, 371-383. Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Exploring and evaluating school-based interventions to reduce prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 767-786. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial interaction on the development of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42, 593-617. Antonio, A. L. (2004). The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self-confidence and educational aspirations in college. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 446-471. Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 507-510. Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In J. Aronson (Ed.) Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pps. 209-225). San Diego: Academic Press. Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom; In pursuit of common goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 438-446. Aronson, E., & Osherow, N. (1980). Prosocial behavior and academic performance experiments in the classroom. Applied Social Psychology, 1, 163-196.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 56 Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method. New York: Longman Books. Aronson, J. L., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125. Ayers, W., Dohrn, B., & Ayers, R. (Eds.) (2001). Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools. New York: The New Press. Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. Elementary School Journal, 100, 5770. Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society: Multicultural education series. New York: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical developments, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.). Handbook of Research in Multicultural Education. (pps. 330). SF: Jossey Bass. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. SF: Jossey Bass. Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes. Psychological Science, 17, 53-58. Bauman, K. J., & Graf, N. L. (2003). Educational attainment: 2000. Census 2000 brief. Retrieved from ERIC database on February 8, 2006.

Beaton, A., Dovidio, J., & Léger, N. (2008). All in this together? Group representations and policy support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 808-817.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 57 Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. New York: Oxford University Press. Bettman, E. H., & Friedman, L. J. (2004). The Anti-Defamation League‟s A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE Institute. In W. G. Stephan and P. G. Vogt (Eds.) Educational programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research, and practice (pps 75-94). New York: Teachers College Press. Black, S. (2000). Together again: The practice of looping keeps students with the same teachers. American School Board Journal, 187, 40-43. Blumer, I., & Tatum, B. D. (1999). Creating a community of allies: How one school system attempted to create an anti-racist environment. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2, 255-267. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493-507. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown, L. M. (1998). Ethnic stigma as contextual experience: A possible selves perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 163-172. Brown, L. M., & Dobbins, H. (2004). Students‟ perceptions of teachers: The role of ethnic matching between pupils and instructors. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 157-174. Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105-136. Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 594-598.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 58 CADRE/Justice Matters (2004). We interrupt this crisis – with our side of the story. Relationships between South Los Angeles parents and schools. Retrieved December 14, 2006 from http://www.justicematters.org/jmi_live/jmi_sec/jmi_dwnlds/interrupt_eng.pdf. Case, K. A., & Hemmings, A. (2005). Distancing strategies: White women preservice teachers and antiracist curriculum. Urban Education, 40, 606-626 Casteel, C. A. (1998). Teacher-student interactions and race in integrated classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 115-120. Casteel, C. A. (2000). African American students‟ perceptions of their treatment by Caucasian teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 143-148. Chavous, T. M. (2000). The relationships among racial identity, perceived ethnic fit, and organizational involvement for African American students at a predominantly white university. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 79-100. Chavous, T. M., Bernat, D. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L, & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among African American adolescents. Child Development, 74, 1076-1090. Chavous, T. M., Rivas, D., Green, L., & Helaire, L. (2002). The role of student background, perceived ethnic fit, and racial identification on the academic adjustment of African American students at a predominantly white institution. Journal of Black Psychology, 28, 234-260. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, E. G. (2004). Producing equal-status interaction amidst classroom diversity. In W. G. Stephan and P. G. Vogt (Eds.) Educational programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research, and practice (pps 37-54). New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. (1995). Producing equal-status interactions in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99-120.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 59 Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., & Catanzarite, L. (1990). Treating status problems in the cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and Research (pps. 203-229). New York: Praeger. Cohen, G. L., & Steele, C. M. (2002). A barrier of mistrust: How negative stereotypes affect crossrace mentoring (pps. 303-327). In J. Aronson (Ed). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., &Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor‟s dilemma: Providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302-1318. Cole, E. R., & Arriola, K. R. J. (2007). Black students on white campuses: Toward a twodimensional model of Black acculturation. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 379-403. Conchas, G. Q. (2006). The color of success: Race and high-achieving urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in California. (2005, March). Downloaded on April 18, 2005 from The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University website: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/dropouts/dropouts05.php#reports Constantino, S. M. (2003). Engaging all families: Creating a positive school culture by putting research into practice. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Cooper, R. (1999). Urban school reform: Student responses to detracking in a racially mixed high school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4, 259-275. Cooper, R. (2000). Urban school reform from a student of color perspective. Urban Education, 34, 597-622. Cooper, R., & Slavin, R. E. (2004). Cooperative learning: An instructional strategy to improve intergroup relations. In W. G. Stephan and W. P. Vogt (Eds.). Education programs for

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 60 improving intergroup relations: Theory, research and practice (pps. 55-70). New York: Teachers College Press. Crandall, J., Jamarillo, A., Olsen, L., Peyton, J. K. (2002). Using cognitive strategies to develop English language and literacy. ERIC Digest, ED469970. Retrieved electronically on December 19, 2006 from www.eric.ed.gov. Cross, W. E. Jr., & Strauss, L. (1998). The everyday functions of African American identity. In J. Swin & C. Stangor (Eds.) Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pps. 268-280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Daniels, E., & Arapostathis, M. (2005). What do they really want? Student voices and motivation research. Urban Education, 40, 34-59. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and student achievement. Du Bois Review, 1, 213-246. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 639-673. Darling-Hammond, L, Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach or America, and teacher effectiveness, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved [November 16, 2005] from http://epaa.asu.edu/edaa/v13n42/. Datnow, A., & Hirshberg, D. (1996). A case study of King Middle School: The symbiosis of heterogeneous grouping and multicultural education. Journal for the Education of Students Placed at Risk, 1, 115-134. de Carvalho, M. E. P. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Deaux, K. (2006a). A nation of immigrants: Living our legacy. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 633-651. Deaux, K. (2006b). To be an immigrant. NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 61 Deiro, J. A. (2004). Teachers do make a difference: The teacher’s guide to connecting with students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Delpit, L. (1996). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. Derman-Sparks, L. (2004). Culturally relevant anti-bias education with young children. In W. G. Stephan and P. G. Vogt (Eds.) Educational programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research, and practice (pps 19-36). New York: Teachers College Press. Derman-Sparks, L. (2006). What if all the kids are white? Anti-bias multicultural education for young children and families. New York: Teachers College Press. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835-848. Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 829-849. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 5-21. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., Hodson, G. (2002). Why can‟t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88-102. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students‟ beliefs, motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In J. Aronson (Ed.). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pps. 37-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 62 Dweck, C. S., & Sorich, L. (1999). Mastery-oriented thinking. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.). Coping. New York: Oxford University Press. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York. Academic Press. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Lord, S. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents? The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 99, 521-542. *Esses, V. M., & Hodson, G. (2006). The role of lay perceptions of ethnic prejudice in the maintenance and perpetuation of ethnic bias. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 453-4468. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group competition, conflict, and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio & P. Glick (Eds.) On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pps. 227-243). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1990). Hispanics in ivy: Assessing identity and perceived threat. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 22, 427-440. Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243251. Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban public schools. Teachers College Record, 94, 682-710. Fine, M., Burns, A., Payne, Y. A., & Torre, M. E. (2004). Civics lessons: The color and class of betrayal. Teachers College Record, 106, 2193-2223.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 63 Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557-577. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee‟s class size study: Findings, implications, and misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97-109. Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. M., & Bain, H. P. (1990). Three years in a small class, Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 127-136. Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring effects of small classes. Teachers College Record, 103, 145-183. Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). The “why‟s” of class size: Student behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73, 321-368. Fischer, C. S., Hout, M, Sanchez, Jankowski, M. S., Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., & Voss, K. (1996). Inequality by design: Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Flessa, J. (2008). “That’s the kind of neighborhood we have, that’s the kind of product we get: Urban school principals, deficits, and implications for leadership. Manuscript under review. Ford, D. Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., Whiting, G. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap: Learning from the experiences of gifted Black students. Urban Education, 43, 216-239. Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York: The New Press. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 615-639.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 64 Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (2008). Addressing contemporary racism: The common ingroup identity model. Motivational aspects of prejudice and racism (pp. 111-133). New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704. Gaines, S. O. (2004). Color line as fault line: Teaching interethnic relations in Southern California in the 21st century. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 175-194. Galguera, T. (1998). Students‟ attitudes towards teachers‟ ethnicity, bilinguality, and gender. Hispanic Journal of the Social Sciences, 20, 411-428. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106116. Gay, G. (2005). Politics of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 221-228. Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. Teacher Educator, 36, 1-16. Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42, 181-187. Gibson, M. A., Gándara, P., & Koyama, J. P. (2004). School connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement. New York: Teachers College Press. Ginwright, S. (2004). Black in school: Afrocentric reform, urban youth, and the promise of hip-hop culture. New York; Teachers College Press. Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. (2005). Youth, social justice, and communities: Toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice, 32(3), 24-40.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 65 Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. (2006). Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America’s youth. Oxford, UK: Routledge Press. Gluszek, A., Purdie-Vaughns, V. & Eibach, R. (2008, June). Belonging uncertainty and structureseeking in intellectual settings. Paper presented at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Chicago, IL. González, M. L., Huerta-Marcías, A., & Tinajero, J. V. (Eds.). (1998). Educating Latino students: A guide to successful practice. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishers. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents‟ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645-662. Gordon, B. M. (1993). African American cultural knowledge and liberatory education: Dilemmas, problems, and potentials in a postmodern American society. Urban Education, 27, 448-470. Gordon, B. M. (1995). Knowledge construction, competing critical theories, and education. In J. A. Banks and C. A. M. Banks (Eds.) Handbook of Multicultural Education (pps. 184-199). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grant, C. A., & Lei, J. (Eds.) (2001). Global constructions of multicultural education: Theories and realities. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2005). Public high school graduation and college-readiness rates: 1991-2002. Manhattan Institute Education Working Paper No.8. Retrieved electronically from: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_08.htm on February 2, 2006. Gregory, A., Nygreen, K., & Moran, D. (2006). The discipline gap and the normalization of failure. In P. A. Noguera and J. Y. Wing (Eds.) Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools (pps. 121-150). San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 66 Gregory, J. F. (1996). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 454-462. Gregory, J. F. (1997). Three strikes and they‟re out: African American boys and American schools‟ responses to misbehavior. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 7, 25-34. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366. Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. A. (2006). Getting to the what, how, and why of diversity on campus. Educational Researcher, 35, 20-24. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 17-34. Hains, S. L. (2001). An emerging voice: A study using traditional Aboriginal research methods to better understand why First Nation students drop out of school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, San Francisco, CA. Hallinan, M. T. (1996a). Race effects on students‟ track mobility in high school. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 1-24. Hallinan, M. T., (1996b). Track mobility in secondary schools. Social Forces, 74, 983-202. Hallinan, M. T., & Teixeira, R. A. (1987a). Opportunities and constraints: Black-white differences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child Development, 58, 1358-1371. Hallinan, M. T., & Teixeira, R. A. (1987b). Students‟ interracial friendships: Individual characteristics, structural effects, and racial differences. American Journal of Education, 95, 563-583. Hallinan, M. T., & Tuma, N. B. (1978). Classroom effects on changes in students‟ friendships. Sociology of Education, 51, 270-282.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 67 Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1987). The stability of students‟ interracial friendships. American Sociological Review, 52, 653-664. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2005). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. NY: Teachers College Press. Henkel, K. E., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Institutional discrimination, individual racism, and Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6, 99-124. Hilliard, A., III, with Amankwatia, N. B., II (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans and excellence. In T. Perry, C. Steele, & A. G. Hilliard, III (Eds.) Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. *Hodson, G., & Esses, V. M. (2005). Lay perceptions of ethnic prejudice: Causes, solutions, and individual differences. Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 329-344. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). A test of implicit theories and selfconfidence as predictors of responses to achievement challenges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Oxford, UK: Routledge Press. Horn, L., Berger, R., & Carroll, C. D. (2004). College persistence on the rise? Changes in 5-year degree completion and postsecondary persistence rates between 1994 and 2000: Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports. [NCES-156]. Washington, DC. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Houlette, M., Gaertner, S., Johnson, K. M., Banker, B. S., Ricke, B. M., Dovidio, J. F. (2004). Trying to induce a more inclusive social identity: An elementary school intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 35-56. Howard, T. C. (2001). Powerful pedagogy for African American students. Urban Education, 36, 179-202.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 68 Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42, 195-202. Hurston, Z. N. (1954, August 11). Court order can‟t make races mix [Letter to the editor]. In Martin (Ed.), Brown v. Board of Education: A brief history with documents (pps. 209–212). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin‟s Press. (Reprinted from Orlando Sentinel, The Public Thought). Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. Ashe-Eric Higher Education Report Volume 26 No. 8. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Johnson, K., Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J., Houlette, M., Riek, B., & Mania, E. (2006). Emotional antecedents and consequences of common ingroup identity. Social Identities: Motivational, Emotional and Cultural Influences (pp. 239-257). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis (UK). Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism 2nd Ed. NY: McGraw Hill. Jones, J. M. (1999). Cultural racism: The intersection of race and culture in intergroup conflict. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.). Culture divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pps.465-490). New York: Russell Sage. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of social justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919. Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 69 Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S. E., & de la Torre, M. & Easton, J. Q. (in press). Small high schools on a larger scale: The impact of school conversions in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Keller, B., & Manzo, K. K. (2003). Teachers: white, female, and middle-aged. Education Week, 23(2), 10. Khmelkov, V. T., & Hallinan, M. T. (1999). Organizational effects on race relations in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 627-645. King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 133-146. King, J. E. (2005). Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. King, J. E., & Howard, G. (2000). White teachers at the crossroads. Teaching Tolerance, 18, 13-18. Koch, K. (2000). Zero tolerance: Is mandatory punishment in schools unfair? Congressional Quarterly Researcher, 10(9), 185-208. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of a nation: The return of apartheid schooling in America. Crown Publishers. Kubitschek, W. N., Hallinan, M. T. (1998). Tracking and school friendships. Social Psychology of Education, 61, 1-15. Kuklinski, M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72, 1554-1578. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491. Ladson-Billings, G. (1997/1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. SF, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 70 Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005a). Beyond the big house: African American educators on teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005b). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 229-235. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). 2006 Presidential address: From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U. S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12. LAUSD (2008). Los Angeles Unified School District. Retrieved from http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,47493&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP on August 1, 2008. Lawrence, S. M. (2005). Contextual matters: Teachers‟ perceptions of the success of anti-racist classroom practice. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 350Lawrence, S. M., & Tatum, B. D. (1997a. Teachers in transition: The impact of antiracist professional development on classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 99, 162-178. Lawrence, S. M., & Tatum, B. D. (1997b). White educators as allies: Moving from awareness to action. In M. Fine, L. Weiss, L. Powell, & M. Wong (Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power, and society (pps. 333-342). New York: Routledge Press. Lee, S. J. (2001). More than “model minorities” or “delinquents”: A look at Hmong American high school students. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 505-528. Lee, S. J. (2002). Learning “America”: Hmong American high school students. Education and Urban Society, 34, 233-246. Lee, S. J. (2005). Up against whiteness: Race, school and immigrant youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 71 Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers‟ attitudes and students‟ achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 3-31. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270. Lewis, A. E. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) allwhite school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 781-811. Lewis, A. E. (2003). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the color line in classrooms and communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Lincoln, R. D. (1997). Multi-year instruction: Establishing student-teacher relationships. Schools in the Middle, 6, 50-52. Little, T. S., & Dacus, N. B. (1999). Looping: Moving up with the class. Educational Leadership, 57, 42-45. Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted disease outcomes by age 21 years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 438-447. Loo, C.M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a predominately white university. The Journal of Higher Education, 57, 58-77 Lopez, G. (2004). Group contact, curriculum, and attitude change in a multi-ethnic context. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 75-94. Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 315-340. Markus, H. R., Steele, C. M., & Steele, D. M. (2000). Colorblindness as a barrier to inclusion: Assimilation and non-immigrant minorities. Daedalus, 129, 233-259.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 72 Marsh, R. S., & Raywid, M. A. (1994). How to make detracking work. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(4), 314-317. Marsh, R. S., & Raywid, M. A. (1995). Making detracking work. Educational Digest, 60(7), 15-18. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 70, 3-24. McArdle, N. (2002a). Race, place, and opportunity: Racial change and segregation in the Boston metropolitan area, 1990-2000. McArdle, N. (2002b). Race, place, and opportunity: Racial change and segregation in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1990-2000. McArdle, N. (2002c). Race, place, and opportunity: Racial change and segregation in the San Diego metropolitan area, 1990-2000. McCarthy, J. D., & Hoge, D. R. (1987). The social construction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage out of universalistic process. Social Forces, 65, 1101-1120. McFadden, A. C., Marsh G. E., Price, B. J., & Hwang, Y. (1992). A study of race and gender bias in the punishment of handicapped school children. The Urban Review, 24, 239-251. McHatton, P. A., Zalaquett, C. P., & Cranson-Gingras, A. (2006). Achieving success: Perceptions of students from migrant farmwork families. American Secondary Education, 34, 25-39. McKenna, J. H., & Sauceda, J. M. (2001). Student voices: The ADL„s A WORLD OF DIFFERNCE Institute peer learning program. In D. Schoem and S. Hurtado (Eds.). Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace (pps. 59-73). University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan. McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 601-632.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 73 McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74, 498-515. McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School-connectedness and the transition into and out of health risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74, 284-292. McNeely, C., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence form the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138-146. Montecinos, C., & Rios, F. A. (1999). Assessing preservice teachers‟ zones of concern and comfort with multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(3), 7-24. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2002). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon Press. Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 318-331. Murrell, P. C., & Foster, M. (2004). Teacher‟s beliefs, performance, and proficiency in diversityoriented teacher preparation. In J. Raths and A. C. McAnich (Eds.). Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education [Advances in teacher education] (pps. 43-64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). A culture of genius: How environments’ lay theories shape people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Manuscript submitted for review. Murphy, M. C., & Steele, C. M. (2008). Cues, contingencies and belonging in academic settings. Manuscript submitted for review. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 74 NCES. (2008). Condition of Education Report. Retrieved from the National Center of Education Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008031 on July 8, 2008. NEA. (2003). Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved online from: http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2003/nr030827.html on December 13, 2006. Nichols, J. D., Ludwin, W. G., & Iadicola, P. (1999). A darker shade of gray: A year-end analysis of discipline and suspension data. Equity and Excellence in Education, 32, 43-55. Nichols, J. D., & Nichols, G. W. (2002). The impact of looping classroom environments on parental attitudes. Preventing School Failure, 47, 18-25.

Nier, J., Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J., Banker, B., Ward, C., & Rust, M. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: the effects of a common group identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 299-216.. Noguera, P. A. (2001). Finding safety where we least expect it: The role of social capital in preventing school violence. In W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, & R. Ayers (Eds.) Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools (pps. 202-218). New York: The New Press. Noguera, P. A. (2002). Beyond size: The challenge of high school reform. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 60-63. Noguera, P. A. (2003a). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York: Teachers College Press. Noguera, P. A. (2003b). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice, 42, 341-350. Noguera, P. A. (2003c). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 431-459.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 75 Noguera, P. A. (2004a). Racial isolation, poverty, and the limits of local control in Oakland. Teachers College Record, 106, 2146-2170. Noguera, P. A. (2004b). Social capital and the education of immigrant students: Categories and generalizations. Sociology of Education, 77, 180-183. Noguera, P. A. (2008). The trouble with Black boys, and other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. SF: Jossey-Bass. Noguera, P. A., & Wing, J. Y. (Eds.) (2006). Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools. SF: Jossey-Bass. Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 123-151. Oakes, J. (1994). More than misapplied technology: A normative and political response to Hallinan on tracking. Sociology of Education, 67, 84-91. Oakes, J. (1996). Two cities‟ tracking and within school segregation. In E. C. Lagemann & L. P. Miller (Eds.), Brown v. Board of Education: The Challenge for Today’s Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. (pps. 81-90). Oakes, J. (2002). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21, 12-21. Oakes, J. (2004). Investigating the claims in Williams v. State of California: An unconstitutional denial of education‟s basic tools? Teachers College Record, 106, 1889-1906. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality, 2nd edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Oakes, J., & Saunders, M. (2004). Education‟s most basic tools: Access to textbooks and instructional materials in California‟s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1967-1988.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 76 Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482-510. Oakland Community Organization (2008). Small schools research report. Retrieved from: http://www.oaklandcommunity.org/issues_youtheducation.htm on August 1, 2008. Olsen, L. (1988). Crossing the schoolhouse border: Immigrant students and the California public schools. A publication of the California Tomorrow Immigrant Students Project. Olsen, L. (1998). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York: New Press. Olsen, L. (2000). Learning English and learning America: Immigrants in the center of the storm. Theory into Practice, 39, 196-202. Olsen, L., & Jamarillo, A. (1999). Program improvement for English language learners. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28, 18-22. Orfield, G. (Ed.) (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing Group. Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing Group. Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E. D., & Lee, C. (2003). The resurgence of school segregation. Educational Leadership, 60, 16-20. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students‟ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323-367. Oxley, D. (1994). Organizing schools into small units: AlterFirst Nations to homogeneous grouping. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 521-526. Paolino, E. (2006, April). Parents and community creating an impetus for a new small schools movement. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 77 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. (2007), Pettigrew, T. P. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent metaanalytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. “The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology’ (pp. 93-114). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 193-208. Phinney, J. S., & Ferguson, D. L. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minority adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68, 955-969. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Plank, S. B. (2000). Finding one’s place Teaching styles and peer relations in diverse classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Plank, S. B., & Jordan, W. J. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions on postsecondary destinations: A study of talent loss. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 947-979. Plaut, V. C. (2002). Cultural models of diversity in America: The psychology of difference and inclusion. In R. A. Shweder, M. Minow, & H. R. Markus (Eds.). Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge to liberal democracies (pps 365-395). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Plaut, V. C., & Markus, H. R. (2006). Basically we’re all the same? Models of diversity and the dilemma of difference. Manuscript under review.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 78 Pollack, T. (2008). Stories of racial “others”, unchallenged orthodoxies and mentoring for equity. Manuscript submitted for publication. Pollock, M. (2005). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Randall Crosby, J. (in press). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Quiocho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70, 485-528. Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. J., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). An fmri investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1323-1328. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial contact on executive function. Psychological Science, 14, 287-290. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, possibilities. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 16, 316-320. Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2008). The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases. (2008). Psychological Science, 19, 98-102. Richeson, J. A., Trawalter, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2005). African American‟s implicit racial attitudes and the depletion of executive function after interracial interactions. Social Cognition, 23, 336352. Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Pygmalion effect and its mediating mechanisms. In J. Aronson (Ed.) Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pps. 25-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 79 Rothenberg, J. J., McDermott, P., & Martin, G. (1998). Changes in pedagogy: A qualitative result of teaching heterogeneous classes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 633-642. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute and New York: Teachers College Press. Routé-Chatmon, L., Scott-George, K., Okahara, A. K., Fuentes, E., Wing, J. Y. & Noguera, P. A. (2003). Creating demand for equity: Transforming the role of parents in schools. In P. A. Noguera and J. Y. Wing (Eds.) Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools (pps. 201-246). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Rubin, B. C. (2003). Unpacking detracking: When progressive pedagogy meets students‟ social worlds. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 539-573. Rubin, B. C., Wing, J. Y., Noguera, P. A., Fuentes, E., Liou, D., Rodriguez, A. P., McCready, L. T. (2006). Structuring inequality at Berkeley High. In P. A. Noguera & J. Y. Wing (Eds.). Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools (pps. 29-86). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teacher‟s perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125-141. Salvatore, J., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 810-815. Sánchez, B., Reyes, O., & Singh, J. (2005). Makin‟ it in college: The value of significant individuals in the lives of Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5, 48-67. Sandler, S. (2001). Turning to each other, not on each other: How school communities prevent racial bias in school discipline. In W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, & R. Ayers (Eds.) Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools (pps. 219-229). New York: The New Press.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 80 Schoem, D., & Hurtado, S. (Eds.) (2001). Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy: School, college, community, and the workplace. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Schofield, J. W. (1989). Black and white in school: Trust, tension, or tolerance? New York: Teachers College Press. Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., & Martin, P. P. (2006). Racial identity matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning in African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 187-216. Shaw, S. R., & Braden, J. P. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review, 19, 378-383. Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 374-390. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91-107. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Ethnic minorities‟ racial attitudes and contact experiences with white people. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 149-164. Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 16, 397-402. Skiba, R., J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practices. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 17-43. Skiba, R., J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317-342, Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (2003). Teaching the social curriculum: School discipline as instruction. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 66-73. Skiba, R., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary interventions in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295-315.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 81 Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647-663. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1-40. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of US–Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-619. Steele, C. M. (2003). Stereotype threat and African American achievement. In T. Perry, C. M. Steele, & A. Hilliard (Eds.). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among AfricanAmerican students (pps. 109-130). Boston: Beacon Press. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379-440. Steele, D. M., Steele, C. M., Markus, H. R., Green, F., Lewis, A. E., & Davies, P. G. (2006). How identity safety improves student achievement. Manuscript under review. Stevens, W. D. (forthcoming). Small is not enough: The characteristics of successful small schools in Chicago. Chicago Consortium on Chicago Schools Research at the University of Chicago.

Stone, C., & Crisp, R. (2007). Superordinate and subgroup identification as predictors of intergroup evaluation in common ingroup contexts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 493-513. Stovall, D., & Ayers, W. (2005). The school a community built. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 3437.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 82 Strategic Measurement and Evaluation (2007). An evaluation of the Oakland New Small School Initiative. Oakland, CA. Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1-24. Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching white students about racism: The search for white allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95, 462-476. Tatum, B. D. (2003/1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” And other conversations about race. (2nd Ed.) New York: Basic Books. Tatum, B. D. (2004). Family life and school experience: Factors in the racial identity development of Black youth in white communities. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 117-136. Taylor, E. (2000). Critical race theory and interest convergence in the backlash against affirmative action: Washington State and Initiative 200. Teachers College Record, 102, 539-560. Telan, P. (2001). Teacher-student relationships and the link to academic adjustment and emotional well-being in early adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61, 5602. Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers' expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253. Thornton, C. H., & Trent, W. (1988). School desegregation and suspension in East Baton Rouge Parish: A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education, 57, 482-501. Tiven, L (2001). Students talk about race. In D. Schoem and S. Hurtado (Eds.). Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace (pps. 74-85). University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 83 Townsend, B. (2000). Disproportionate discipline of African American children and youth: Culturally-responsive strategies for reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381-391. Treisman, U. (1992). Student students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. College Mathematics Journal, 23, 362-372. Treisman, U. (1993). Recruiting and retaining minority students and women in the sciences. Paper presented at the College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press. Van Ausdale, D., & Feagin, J. R. (2000). The first R: How children learn race and racism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and Latino/a critical theory analysis of a study of Chicano/a college students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 619-646. Villegas, M. (with Prieto, R.) (2006, February).Alaska First Nation student vitality: Community perspectives on supporting student success. Alaska Native Policy Center, Anchorage, AK. Walker, I., & Crogan, M. (1998). Academic performance, prejudice, and the Jigsaw classroom: New pieces to the puzzle. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8(6), 381-393. Walters, A. M., Shepperd, J. A., & Brown, L. M. (2003). The effect of test administrator ethnicity on test performance. Manuscript submitted for publication. Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., & Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools, great strides. New York: Bank Street College of Education. Weinstein, R. S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M. J. (2004) Intractable self-fulfilling prophesies: Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education. American Psychologist, 59, 511-520.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 84 Wells, A. S. (1996). Reexamining social science research on school desegregation: Long versus short-term effects. In E. C. Lagemann & L. P. Miller (Eds.) Brown v. Board of Education: The challenge for today’s schools (pps. 91-106). New York: Teachers College Press. Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64, 531-555. Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1997). Stepping over the color line: African-American students in white suburban schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wells, A. S., & Oakes, J. (1996). Potential pitfalls of systematic reform: Early lessons from research on detracking. Sociology of Education, Special Issue: Sociology and Educational Policy: Bringing Scholarship and Practice Together, 69, 135-143. Wells, A., & Serna, I. (1996,). The politics of culture: understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 93-118.. Welner, K. G. (2001). Legal rights, legal wrongs: When community control collides with educational equity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Welner, K. G., & Burris, C. C. (2006). Alternative approaches to the politics of detracking. Theory into Practice, 45, 90-99. Wing, J. Y. (2006). Integration across campus, segregation across classrooms: A close-up look at privilege. In P. A. Noguera and J. Y. Wing (Eds.) Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools (pps. 87-120). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Wout, D. A. (2006, June). The relationship between white friends, racial identity, and college GPA. Paper to be presented at the Biannual Meetings of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Long Beach, California. Wout, D. A., Shih, M. J., Jackson, J. S., & Sellers, R. M. (in press). Targets as perceivers: How do people determine when they will be negatively stereotyped? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 85 Wu, S. C., Pink, W. T., Crain, R. L., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspensions: A critical reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14, 245-303. Yamauchi, L. A. (2003). Making school relevant for at-risk students: The Wai‟anae High School Hawaiian Studies program. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 379-390. Yip, T., & Fulgni, A. J. (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity ethnic behaviors, and psychological well-being among American adolescents of Chinese descent. Child Development, 73, 15571572. Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S. & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing tracks: “Freedom of choice” in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 37-67. Yun, J. T., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). College access, K-12 concentrated disadvantage, and the next 25 years of education research. Educational Researcher, 35, 12-19. Zalaquett, C. P. (2005). Study of successful Latina/o students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5, 35-47. Zick, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. F. (2008). Ethnic prejudice and discrimination in Europe. Journal of Social Issues [Special Issue], 64, 2. Zirkel, S. (2002). Is there a place for me? Role models and academic identity among white students and students of color. Teachers College Record, 104, 357-376. Zirkel, S. (2004a). What will you think of me? Social integration and educational achievement among white students and students of color in elementary and junior high school. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 57-74. Zirkel, S. (2004b, August). White teachers and students of color: Where are we today? Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Honolulu, Hawaii. Zirkel, S. (2005a, February). Social climate and the development of academic identity among students of color: A longitudinal study of the influence of peers, teachers, and community. Paper

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 86 presented at the 22nd Annual Winter Roundtable on Cultural Psychology and Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City. Zirkel, S. (2005b). Ongoing issues of racial and ethnic stigma in education 50 years after Brown v. Board. The Urban Review, 37(2), 1-20. Zirkel, S. (2007a, April). Feelings of belonging and school achievement among students of color. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meetings, Chicago, IL. Zirkel, S. (2008a, March). Ethnic identity, academic achievement, and relations with white teachers among African American adolescents. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, NY, NY. Zirkel, S. (2008b). The influence of multicultural educational practice on student outcomes and intergroup relations. Teachers College Record, 110, 1147-1181. Zirkel, S. (in press). Civil rights movement. In J. M. Levine and M. A. Hogg (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zirkel, S., & Cantor, N. (2004). 50 Years after Brown v. Board of Education: The Promise and Challenge of Multicultural Education. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 1-16.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 87 Acknowledgements Correspondence should be addressed to the author at [email protected]. Portions of this manuscript were written while the author was a Visiting Fellow at the Research Institute of the Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University, and through the additional support of the Rollo May Foundation at Saybrook Graduate School. I also gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful comments and discussions that informed this work with Diane Ketelle, Claude Steele, Dorothy Steele, Hazel Markus, Mary Murphy, Jim Banks, Cherry Banks, Victoria Esses, John Dovidio and several reviewers along the way. I also wish to thank the students in my Issues of Race and Ethnicity in Education classes -- too many to acknowledge individually, but too important to ignore -- in helping me to develop my thinking in this area.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 88 Table 1. Themes and patterns for developing new policies and approaches.

Essential Ingredients for School Change 1. Change efforts must address aversive and institutionalized racism. No change can happen without the recognition of these and efforts to directly tackle them in every area. Examples include changing teacher attitudes and beliefs; changing approaches to reaching out to family; direct and indirect efforts to improve intergroup relations; examination and revision of school policies and procedures; uncovering assumptions about students implicit in student assignments to classes and academic tracks; uncovering school discipline processes that favor some students over others. 2. School leaders and teachers must conceive schools as agents of change. It is individual people in individual schools that make a difference for students Examples include building teacher capacities to work with different students; trying new pedagogical approaches and classroom organization processes; doing equity “audits” of student enrollment, discipline and other processes. Not accepting racial and ethnic disparities in achievement as inevitable. 3. Leadership is essential to implementing change. Big changes require leadership and management. School leaders hire, evaluate, and supervise teachers. School leaders build relationships with families and communities. School leadership makes disciplinary decisions and sets school policy. School leadership engages students, parents and teachers in changing popular policies like tracking. School leadership must supervise student outcomes and build capacity among staff. School leadership must ensure goals are met. 4. Paradoxically, practices must focus on race and ethnicity to be effective in eliminating racial and ethnic disparities, but the strategies improve educational outcomes for all students. Detracking, cooperative learning, less hierarchical classrooms, improved intergroup relations, new school disciplinary procedures, improved outreach to families; academic support to all students; fostering the development of ethnic identity – all policies that require careful attention to race and ethnicity, but they benefit all students. Attention to race and ethnicity brings urgency and creativity; changed school practices benefit all. 5. Efforts to encourage a strong, positive ethnic identity are helpful for improving student outcomes. A strong, positive ethnic identity is built in community; a strong positive ethnic identity forms a buffer against stress; empowers students to engage their own change efforts; encourages students to persist in hard times; ties struggles to a larger historical effort; is educational and aids students‟ learning of history.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 89

6. Explicit, sincere affirmations of the potential of students of color are essential. These affirmations address histories of racism and racial and ethnic stigma. Explicit affirmations place teaching in a context and increase trust and reduce anxiety, frustration, and stereotype threat. 7. Building relationships and a focus on relationships is the single most important ingredient for reform to take place. Teaching and learning is inherently relational; poor relationships between students and teachers make teaching and learning difficult if not impossible; school structures (small classes; small schools) that foster relationships are helpful; classroom strategies that improve relationships and reduce tensions between students foster student learning 8. Improving intergroup relations and improving academic outcomes among students of color are inextricably linked – improving one improves the other. Cooperative learning, less hierarchical classrooms, improved student-teacher relationships; improved school-family relationships; detracking the curriculum all improve both intergroup relations and student of color performance. Reducing racial and ethnic stigma is the common link between the two.

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 90 Table 2. Strategies and approaches to creating more effective multiethnic schools Changing School Climate

Empowering School Organization

Identity Safe Classrooms

School Structure

Hiring more teachers of color

Smaller class sizes

Changing teacher attitudes and beliefs

Smaller schools / school within schools

Pedagogical approaches

Looping

Culturally relevant pedagogy

Redesign English language learning programs

Developing a learning orientation Careful attention to feedback to students

Improving School – Family Relations

Dismantling Institutionalized Racism

Reaching out to families

Eliminating academic tracking

Empowering families to advocate for their children

Changing school discipline processes and policies

Fostering Students’ Ethnic Identity Development Curriculum School activities and clubs Nurturing rather than fearing ethnic identity

Creating More Effective Multiethnic Schools 91 Table 2 (continued)

Improving Intergroup Relations among Students Pedagogical approaches Less hierarchically organized classrooms Cooperative learning Explicit focus on intergroup relations Open dialog in class and school Common Ingroup Identity Model