REVIEW of Gilberto Q. Conchas’ (2006) Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth

/*! elementor – v3.9.2 – 28-12-2022 */
.elementor-heading-title{padding:0;margin:0;line-height:1}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title[class*=elementor-size-]>a{color:inherit;font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-small{font-size:15px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-medium{font-size:19px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-large{font-size:29px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-xl{font-size:39px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-xxl{font-size:59px}

REVIEW of Gilberto Q. Conchas’ (2006) Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth

REVIEW OF Gilberto Conchas’ Color of Success_REVIEWED

Gilberto Q. Conchas’ (2006)

Color of Success:

Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth[1]

(A Sociological Review)

General View

Gilberto Q. Conchas is a sociologist by training and associate professor of education at the University of California (Irvine) and researcher of Chicano/Latino studies. He is the author of the well-written and researched-based book, Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth – a social re-engineering of the sociological processes within the urban school context that structure variations in educational opportunity for low-income immigrant and U.S.-born Latino, Asian American and African American youth of Baldwin High School.[2] In essence, he focused on the issue of the school success of these students of color rather than their failure in the school setting. Lastly, he provided the implications for education by way of understanding the roles of racial, minority, high-achieving youth in improving engagement and achievement, or simply, academic success concerning social mobility.

Sociological Review

            The phenomenal, socio-cultural evolution[3]and ecological-interagency structure of large comprehensive high schools portray the spontaneous, diverse and replicated forms of racial, class, gender and economic inequality blanketed by the so-called mass schooling or education for all, or the politically-staged no child left behind. Understandably, for a functionalist-sociologist student like me, this general and unrealistic notion about the majority of high schools reveals, at the onset, the different evolving ideologies of education such as varied forms of meritocracy and even elite domination. Thus, from the sociologically redundant public education system’s perspective, most students fare behind opportunities because of choice deficiencies as to quality education. Chance meritocracy is the alternative offered to students for social mobility. While the few and affluent members of the esoteric, elitist society enjoy honors, privilege and gifted programs.[4] Thus, these apparent various socio-economic and cultural interpretations of educational processes are nearly intertwined with school issues vis-à-vis students’ racial disparities and segregation, socio-economic differences, stereotyping, parental education, violence and the daily practice of going to school, achievement gap, inequalities of resources and funding¹, less opportunity and minimal growth, and iota of chance to perform at par with the rest of society. Yet as the multilinear evolutionary theory³ holds, change can occur in several ways and does not inevitably lead in the same direction, which is to Conchas’ social re-engineering about the achievement of the culturally-advantaged minority students of color.

Conchas’ Color of Success has an air of optimism, that is, by advancing the possibilities for achieving social justice through education that overcome myriad obstacles and contradictions, that is, by examining schools and programs that succeed in producing academically successful students of color, whose sources of motivation and support made possible higher achievement.

            Although racial and cultural ‘trichotomy’ in urban schooling is present among Blacks, Chicano and Asians, these are simply challenges that said American school students must confront, for there seems to be ’life-support systems’ or ‘emergency bags’ that students have choice to be elated about. These are the advanced programs (AP) and career academies (Graphics and Medical Academies, respectively), or simply, the school-within-the-school small learning communities apart from the general high school.

On these small learning communities, the majority of the minority students become high achieving youth because of the interplay of school processes, school-community support system, ‘detoured‘ pedagogical methods, academic identity, perceptions of social mobility and opportunity support networks from parents, teachers and peers. In  particular, these ‘intra-school academies’ provide significant student engagement, that is, for a more specialized learning community despite in-between, within and among racially divided urban schooling. Students among these three academies have high satisfaction because of an intimate and rigorous learning community oozing with family-like atmosphere. Examples of these are the strong bonds among students and faculty, and camaraderie among faculty. In addition to these, familial sources of social capital (for example, family structure, talk to child about school experiences, about high school, about post-high school, parent-school interaction, parent-child interaction, parents’ PTA belongingness, volunteerism and attendance to meetings, child’s friend’s parents, parents’ educational expectations for child) as well as nonfamilial sources of social capital (for example, reduced-price lunch, drop out rates of 10^th graders, students going to a 4-year college, parents who volunteer, teachers push students to achieve, school type, school urbanicity, friends who dropped out, importance of studying among friends, teachers’ expectations) are significantly intertwined in overriding student attitudes with that of school effects for the attainment of a common goal – the high academic standards. In connection with those statements, the institutional arrangement that is created brings forth a much, better supportive cross-ethnic learners’ community; thus, serve as channels for learning with action – the key piece to positive disposition among faculty and students. Finally, these refer to the translation of the common contextual goal into school success.

The Philippine Educational Scenario vis-à-vis Conchas’ Color of Success:

A Student’s Personal Viewpoint

            In the Philippine educational setting, there are minority students or indigenous groups benefiting from educational policies. The government, local groups and even foreign organizations share same sentiments to provide them of equal opportunity for social mobility. However, in the actual school setting, government funding or budgetary appropriations for education cannot address the affirmative action of Education for All because of the so many varied constraints in the implementation of educational programs.

            In the urban and lowland areas of the provinces, there is too much to be mindful about. Schools have an inadequacy of needed facilities, textbooks, and classrooms and, in few cases, even teachers. These redound to limited opportunity for a quality education because of poor education evident from the below average National Assessment Test results[5] and similar government examinations for high school students.

            Plausibly, it cannot be argued then that for the minority students, less opportunity might be extended. If urban public high school students, for this matter, are very much affected by insufficient government funding support, more could be said of the plight of the minority or ethnic groups. Ethnic discrimination, and later their self-segregation that may worsen the case especially if they try to assimilate to the lowlanders.⁷

            But I would try instead to fashion a nexus to Conchas’ Color of Success with the internal migration of minorities, that is, Aetas of Tarlac, Philippines, based on personal observations. First, American minorities in Conchas’ study have radically different racial backgrounds although there are Asian Americans (Vietnamese) students mentioned, which are by far not Filipinos (much more specifically Aetas). Second, the equivalence of the said American academies are, in the general sense, vocational, laboratory and science high schools. (Although it is possible that there would still be the emergence of different schools out of the different minds and broader changes in socio-educational structure).⁴ The Advanced, Graphics and Medical academies have likelihood to those latter schools cited such as science and engineering courses. Thirdly, there are minimal researches in the field about Aetas or even other Filipino minorities when it comes to social mobility. (If ever there be researches, their number could be as negligible as their current plight.) These are indeed reflections of the inadequacy of investment for the health and education of minorities.[6]^{, [7]}

            With these cases being presented, I believe that the government’s focus and priority should be on education and public policies^8[8] and in the delivery of basic services, that is, education, food, health, housing and the like, to all. If the present Philippine educational setting will improve for the next ten (10) years, it is possible that affirmative actions will somehow be a kind of chain reaction affecting all members of the society – whether minorities or not.

---

References:

Note: Websites / URL addresses accessed on June-July, 2007.

[1] Conchas, Gilberto Q. The Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth. New York: Teachers College Press, 2006.

[2] http://www.whitman.edu/whitman/index.cfm

[3] http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072435569/student_view0/glossary.html

[4] Brown, Phillip. The ‘Third Wave’: Education and the Ideology of Parentocracy. (British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1990). In Halsey, A.H., Hugh Lander, Phillip Brown and Amy S. Wells (Eds). Education: Culture, Economy, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1997.

[5] http://www.deped.gov.ph

[6] Schultz, Theodore W. Investment in Human Capital. (American Economic Review, Vol. 51, 1961). In Karabel, Jerome and A. H. Halsey. (Eds). Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1977.

[7] Thurow, Lester C. Education and Economic Equality. (The Public Interest, Vol. 28, 1972.) In Karabel, Jerome and A. H. Halsey. (Eds). Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1977.

[8] EDFD 331 Lecture Note dated 07/14/2007