A SPECIAL SECTION ON The Achievement Gap

Education Reform as if
Student Agency Mattered:
Academic Microcultures
And Student Identity
Placing the self and student agency at the center of the educational
process might make educators steeped in subject-matter standards
uncomfortable, Mr. Jackson avers, but at some level most laypersons
understand the importance of a school culture that encourages students
to identify with academic work.

BY D. BRUCE JACKSON

Our thought, incessantly deciding, . . .

chooses one of many possible selves or char-
acters and forthwith reckons it no shame to
fail in any of those not adopted expressly as
its own.
—William James, Psychology, 1892

he words of William James echo

T
through the halls and classrooms
of the urban high school where I
teach, resonating in the studied
STUDENT AGENCY
nonchalance of students like Dev-
on,1 arriving at algebra class with- Students are central to the educational process. It
seems strange to write the obvious as if it were a revela-
out paper, pencil, or textbook but tion, but it’s something education reformers keep for-
with a meticulous attention to dress getting. We (and I count myself among the reformers)
and demeanor that announces: “I am coolest of the
cool.” Devon is telling us something we should try D. BRUCE JACKSON teaches mathematics at Tennyson High
School, Hayward, Calif., where he also participates in the Ten-
to hear. nyson Community Multi-Media Academy.

APRIL 2003 579

forget with the best of intentions. When students fail
in our schools, we are leery of explanations that seem
to blame the victims. No, it must be failing or “under-
achieving” schools, schools in need of higher standards
and better teachers, perhaps even schools in need of
reconstitution. Or it must be poverty, broken families,
lack of social services, and the cumulative effects of prej-
udice, discrimination, and social inequality. Since all of
these explanations carry grains of truth, we are easily
led away from the students themselves, as if they were
but passive players, pawns in games organized and con-
trolled by adults. In short, student agency is buried be-
neath layers of well-meaning obfuscation.
In my algebra classes, I know that my own words
and behavior, classroom organization, and lesson plans
make a real difference in determining my students’
success or failure. But education is dialogical — and
many factors beyond my direct control have a power-
ful impact on our classroom dialogue: student willing-
ness to struggle with difficult concepts and vocabulary,
to put in long hours on homework, to study for mas-
tery of building-block math skills, to show up for tutor-
ing sessions. If all of my students were willing to become
serious math students for the duration of the course
— both full-time inside of class and part-time outside
— virtually all of them would pass. But the chances of
this happening within the current social contexts of
their lives are near zero, and I’ll be lucky if 60% of my
students pass algebra this term.
I have high hopes for Devon. He is bright and capa-
ble, and he’ll have a head start: this is his second try at
passing algebra. But I worry about his mental attitude.
The reality is that success in a college-preparatory
math class depends so heavily on what students decide
to do or not to do — on planning and effort outside
of the classroom — that even my best teaching is close
to useless if too many students decide not to invest in
becoming serious about mathematics. To be sure, I can
influence these decisions, and doing so is in many ways
my most important role as a teacher. But ultimately my
students are in charge of how they spend their time,
how they wish to be seen, who they wish to be. They
are active agents, critical decision makers. When it comes
to visible effort in public — in front of peers and rivals
for peer-group status — student decision making be-
comes a high-stakes matter of self-definition in which
academic behaviors may directly conflict with social
identity needs. I can design engaging lessons, but un-
less students are willing to be seen seriously engaged
in mathematics, my efforts are futile. I can assign home-
580 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
work, but student self-definitions dictate whether and
how carefully it will be completed. Again the echoes
of William James: a student who chooses a self-defi-
nition that excludes serious academic effort will “reck-
on it no shame to fail” at algebra and will turn a deaf
ear to my pressures, pleas, and reasoned arguments.
ACADEMIC IDENTITY
We know, without lengthy research citations, that
high academic achievement depends to a substantial
degree on the time and mental energy students put in-
to academic pursuits, including such activities as com-
pleting homework, reading independently, and ask-
ing serious questions. We know that as students move
up through school and become more independent of
their families, the time and energy they devote to ac-
ademics are increasingly functions of their willingness
to take on and sustain what might be called an “aca-
demic identity” — an understanding of self in which
“intellectual” activities both within and outside of school
play a valued role. Such an identity is difficult enough
to sustain in society as a whole; in low-income areas
where few students have experienced strong academic
traditions, it tends to be possible only for a high-achiev-
ing few who find support in gifted or honors classes.
Devon was once in a GATE (gifted and talented ed-
ucation) class, but he no longer identifies with that crowd.
IDENTITY CONFLICT
Fostering and sustaining academic identities for
low-status students is not a simple task. In tradition-
al schools, students not already strongly committed to
an academic identity face powerful pressures, both in-
ternal and external, to define themselves in ways that
minimize identification with schooling. Internalized
voices argue incessantly against alignment with teach-
ers and their academic tasks, making schoolwork seem
incompatible with popularity, the good life, or loyal-
ty to some key reference group: culture, ethnic group,
gender, family, or peers. By high school, barely 5% of
all students belong to groups primarily defined by ac-
ademic excellence, and many of those students would
opt to join other groups if they had the chance.2
For students who start school feeling unsuccessful
or “slow” in crucial academic skills such as math and
reading, the process of disidentification and alienation
from academic work soon becomes self-perpetuating.
Initial disappointments lead to resentment and redi-
rection of effort away from academics into more re-
warding areas. “Acting out” behaviors contribute to a
downward spiral of low achievement and conflict with
school authority: each new difficulty weakens ties to
school and strengthens identification with other stu-
dents who are building a sense of self divorced from
schooling or directly counter to it.
Anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists who
have studied this process in depth often conclude that
most school failure is socially constructed.3 Some fur-
ther argue that school success could in principle be so-
cially constructed as well, if only we could influence
enough of the relevant social factors. But most research-
ers see that challenge as being far outside their academ-
ic fields if not altogether mind-boggling in scope.4 How
could one possibly design an experiment that would con-
trol all of the social influences impinging on a student’s
learning-related behaviors when school classrooms them-
selves exert control (and very loose control it is!) over
only about one-sixth of their students’ waking hours?
So in the academic world, the notion of socially con-
structing school success tends to remain hypothetical.
There is much research on the social mechanisms of
school failure and very little on the mechanisms of suc-
cess, even though that is manifestly what schools are
all about.
Meanwhile, out “in the trenches,” school reform tends
to be driven haphazardly by politics, intellectual fash-
ion, and piecemeal research, focusing first on one part
of the picture, then another. Conscious planning rarely
addresses the overall social fabric of schools, let alone
the powerful outside social forces acting on students.
It needn’t remain this way. If we were to treat stu-
dent agency as the single most important ingredient
in the educational brew, we would have to acknowl-
edge the power of the social forces each student must
contend with. We would also begin to recognize the
potential of having small groups of students work close-
ly with supportive teachers to take substantial charge
of their learning and play active roles in constructing
their own success. We would take a fresh look at the
processes leading to school underachievement and dis-
cover that they are thoroughly interlaced with student
identity issues: failure to identify with school, insecurity
at not belonging or not measuring up, feelings of mis-
match or incompatibility with school, difficulty seeing
schoolwork as an important part of who they want to
be. We would meet William James many times over. With
a new appreciation of the centrality of the self in edu-
cation, we would bring this understanding to an analy-
sis of schooling in terms of identity congruence or con-
flict. We would discover, I believe, that there are only a
few critical areas of conflict, all of which can be addressed
by thoughtful adults willing to collaborate in chang-
ing the social architecture of their schools.
THE IDENTITY WATERSHEDS OF SCHOOL
For most students school is not altogether a bad place
— it’s where their friends are, it’s the scene where stuff
happens, it’s the place to be for school-age children
and youths. Attending school, doing the minimum
needed to pass, participating in required or popular
activities, and even obeying strictly enforced rules are
not normally identity issues — they’re what you do.
The problems arise when school expectations involve
public choices and visible student efforts that set some stu-
dents off from others. During the course of a student’s
career, a critical set of behaviors that are necessary for
school success become identity watersheds: complet-
ing homework, reading independently, studying seri-
ously for tests, striving for good grades, mastering and
using proper English, paying attention to the teacher,
asking questions and getting help, signing up for spe-
cific academic courses, and choosing to obey loosely
enforced rules. It is not a long list, but each element is
increasingly essential to academic success as students
progress through the grades, and each is heavily laden
with meanings supplied by the social context of schools
and their youth subcultures.
Three of these watershed activities — homework,
independent reading, and serious study for tests —
must generally be performed outside of school, far
from the watchful eyes of teachers. They are no longer
part of the price of admission; they are now statements
of self. Doing them in front of friends, or when friends
would have you join them in some other activity, can
become an identity-defining act — a statement of al-
legiance to a distant school authority or an elitist at-
tempt to appear better than others. Similar meanings
attach to the other six watershed behaviors, each of
which must be carried out publicly in school, in front
of peers who may be choosing different courses of ac-
tion. One cannot: a) use correct English in front of
others who are using slang or vernacular, b) attend to
the teacher in front of others who are off-task, c) com-
pete for high grades when others are refusing to com-
pete, d) ask questions and seek help when others are
rolling their eyes, e) sign up for academically difficult
classes when friends are choosing easier courses, or f )
APRIL 2003 581
obey loosely enforced rules while others are ignoring liers” — blips on the smooth curves of educational pre-
them — without making a high-visibility statement dictability, assumed to represent combinations of cir-
of identity and risking being labeled as “not one of us” cumstances so unique and so dependent on the dis-
(or some more graphic phrase from the rich vocabu- tinctive qualities of the lead personality that they can
laries of adolescents). contribute little to the broader conversations around
These identity watersheds are active in virtually all education reform. A careful look at such unexpected
schools by early adolescence. In large urban schools, academic microcultures, however, suggests that they are
they are given added strength by powerful forces of not statistical aberrations but rather part of a consistent
ethnic, class, culture, and language divisions, such that pattern that cries out for greater recognition by edu-
choices essential to school success may be seen as be- cation policy makers.
trayal of group solidarity, The patterns found in
denial of ethnic heritage, “unexpected success” sto-
or rejection of family and
friends (“acting white, for-
getting your roots, sucking
up to the boss, selling out”
are typical interpretations
of academic striving). In 5

many urban schools, actions

in the identity-conflict zone
that are academically criti-
W hat matters most is
that students come
to believe deeply in
their own capacity to master
ries are easy to misconstrue
and mislabel. The adults in-
volved in educational oases
are themselves products of
an education system in which
the prevailing metaphors for
school reform channel think-
ing toward specific pedagog-
difficult academic materials through ical approaches. When look-
cal become socially impos- ing for answers to why cer-
sible for the large numbers
sustained, thoughtful effort. tain schools or programs suc-
of students who lack a strong ceed, many of us would ex-
academic identity. These students, predictably from groups pect to find that they are all constructivist, others would
already underrepresented in college-preparatory pro- assume that they all use clearly stated academic stan-
grams, almost inevitably engage in enough academi- dards, still others would look for evidence that they
cally self-destructive behaviors to ensure the “social re- all emphasize “culturally sensitive pedagogy.” And we
production” of existing ethnic, class, and gender dis- might each find just enough evidence to support our
parities in achievement. beliefs in what we should be finding. But in doing so,
Devon, a fluent reader, has learned to keep his excel- we would be distorting the data, for in fact, none of
lent mind under wraps except in such socially approved these generalizations holds true.
realms as the extemporaneous exchange of creative insults For some years I have been studying unexpected ed-
with other students. ucational success stories ranging from those of such
highly visible figures as Jaime Escalante and Deborah
Meier to those of countless unsung groups of commit-
OASIS SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS
ted educators working in small schools, career acade-
But even in the wastelands of urban education, there mies, and schools-within-schools. I have also followed
are occasional oases of excellence, places where success the work of those few replicable programs such as
has in fact been “socially constructed” and locally pro- AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination)
duced microcultures of academic achievement allow stu- and Puente that have managed to raise the academic
dents to flourish in defiance of the surrounding pover- achievement of historically low-achieving groups of
ty. These educational oases are usually small — a sin- students within social spaces carved from traditional
gle classroom, program, or school. Almost always there school structures. Inevitably this quest has been a process
is a strong individual at the center, a dedicated teacher of interpretive analysis — almost by definition, these
or administrator whose convictions and vision for what “outlier” programs involve far too many confounding
is possible are major factors in making it possible. And variables to yield quantitative data on their most impor-
it is this personal element which tends to guarantee that tant features. Yet all are successful by almost any meas-
these oases are rarely counted as significant in the big ure, including that of standardized test scores. And their
picture of school improvement. They are statistical “out- evidence is compelling. One can find academic oases

582 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

that violate each of the cherished “truths” of different
reform groups: they are not uniformly constructivist,
not consistently standards-based, not all models of cul-
turally sensitive pedagogy.
IDENTITY-SENSITIVE EDUCATION
But if pedagogical technique does not predict aca-
demic oases, what does? Interestingly, the patterns one
finds are rooted in something more fundamental to
education than pedagogy: the attitudes and beliefs of
students about their own learning. What all the oasis
programs have accomplished is a focus on student agency
through what I would call identity-sensitive education.
They have not tried to influence all of the social fac-
tors impinging on each student, nor have they imag-
ined they could end poverty, prejudice, and intolerance
in the society at large. They have not tried to change
their members’ or anyone else’s culture — they have
simply created small but powerful microcultures in which
students from every background are able to develop
an academic identity that is compatible with their oth-
er components of self. That academic identity, in turn,
has empowered individual students to change how they
respond to the still-powerful outside social pressures,
to develop reactions of “resilience” or immunity. They
can make success-related behavioral choices that would
otherwise have been impossible. Within these micro-
cultures, students are able to pursue educational growth
with a commitment rarely seen outside the honors track
of traditional schools.
Identity-sensitive education, it turns out, is compat-
ible with a wide range of pedagogical styles and strate-
gies. What matters most is that students come to be-
lieve deeply in their own capacity to master difficult
academic material through sustained, thoughtful ef-
fort. Correspondingly, the social architecture of the
classroom, program, or school must strongly foster and
support such beliefs. There is nothing inevitable, after
all, about the meanings attached to the essential “water-
shed” academic behaviors. Even in large, impersonal
schools, their meanings vary with the popularity of teach-
ers, the social pressures within local ethnic and social
groupings, the overall image and reputation of the school,
and the accidental microcultures that may develop. When
intentional microcultures are created by “oasis” schools
and programs, however, many of these behaviors cease
to be identity watersheds at all because they no longer
set some students off from others. Within these oases, vir-
tually every student is completing homework, study-
ing for tests, and reading independently outside of class.
In short, these oasis programs have managed to bring
about identity congruence — at least with regard to stu-
dents’ academic identity.
At our high school, we’ve recently begun trying to cre-
ate just such an oasis program in the form of a career
academy, recruiting many students like Devon who have
the potential for college-preparatory work but haven’t con-
nected to a college-bound crowd.
THREE MODELS
Identity-sensitive education seems to emerge in three
basic patterns: 1) the charismatic teacher model, ex-
emplified by such teachers as Jaime Escalante, Marva
Collins, and other “star” teachers of more localized
fame; 2) the “together we’ll make it” programs exem-
plified by AVID, Puente, and the Mathematics Work-
shop Program created at the University of California
at Berkeley by Uri Treisman (now the Merit Workshop
Program); and 3) the small-school, intellectual hothouse
model exemplified by Central Park East Secondary School,
some career academies, and many individual small schools
with a strong culture of achievement. The charismatic
teacher model builds on the influence of a compelling
personality to create a school or classroom that over time
becomes central to the identity of its students, justify-
ing almost any amount of outside work. The “together
we’ll make it” model carves out space from existing schools
for carefully structured programs with a separate group
identity, a reputation for excellence, and peer social sup-
port for academics. The “intellectual hothouse” model
creates small schools (sometimes within larger schools)
with a distinctive scholarly image and a sheltered en-
vironment in which intense teacher/student relation-
ships can be built around a shared academic focus.
All three models create self-contained environments
of unusual student engagement and high academic
achievement. They are staffed by committed teachers
with an infectious enthusiasm for their subject matter
who communicate a caring concern for their students
as individuals, combined with a conviction that they
can accomplish more than the students themselves be-
lieve possible. All manage to build a reputation, an aura
that makes their classroom, school, or program “the place
to be” in the social map of student peer cultures. In such
microcultures, hitting-the-books time taken from other
activities is no longer a source of identity conflict for
students, but part of a strong new academic identity.
But cultures don’t come into being overnight through
APRIL 2003 583
the willpower of a few teachers. It takes time, and our
new academy has been in operation for only six months.
For some students, like Devon, habitual defense-of-self
strategies make it doubly hard to buy into the still tenu-
ous patterns of scholarly behavior we’re trying to estab-
lish as the academy norm.
COMMON THREADS
Certain features tend to be characteristic of all three
models of identity-sensitive schooling, particularly at
the upper elementary and secondary levels:
1. Intentional creation of academic microcultures, in
which intense pursuit of high-status skills and knowl-
edge is the norm, pervading student activities and so-
cial relationships and becoming internalized by each
student.
2. Identity scaffolding in the form of mentoring and
teacher/student dialogues that help each student de-
velop “success narratives” — one or more “possible
selves” in which academic achievement plays a strong
role in an attractive future.
3. Long-term teacher/student relationships character-
ized by mutual investment on the part of teachers, stu-
dents, and parents and yielding mutual understand-
ing, family support, and student effort.
4. Symbolic visibility through distinctive group titles,
logos, and identity markers, as well as shared experiences
that allow each student to take pride in being part of
a select group and develop a strong sense of belong-
ing, membership, and identification.
5. Creation of cultural and social capital through ex-
plicit attention to and fulfillment of the conventions
and bureaucratic requirements of K-16 schooling, in-
cluding teacher expectations, course selections, regis-
tering for college-entrance exams, and applying for col-
lege.
6. Expanded student resources for academic success, such
as note-taking instruction, study groups, and other strate-
gic approaches to learning that build on student strengths
and guard against self-destructive reactions to setbacks.
7. Analysis of political, economic, and social realities
that includes frank discussions of prejudice, discrimi-
nation, racism, and stereotyping based on family in-
come, class, gender, ethnicity, and other group char-
acteristics.
8. Creation of identity congruence with academic be-
havior by building students’ pride in ethnic and fam-
ily heritage while opening doors to “code-switching”
and other strategies for dealing with sharply different
584 PHI DELTA KAPPAN
behavioral expectations of school, workplace, and peer
groupings.6
A THEORY OF SELF AND IDENTITY IN EDUCATION
Robert Marzano’s “four elements of thought” pro-
vide a conceptual framework that clarifies the role of
the self and identity in student learning-related deci-
sions.7 Marzano groups the full range of learning process-
es into four domains: 1) knowledge, 2) cognition, 3)
metacognition, and 4) the self-system. The self-system,
the “control center for human behavior,” is ultimately
responsible for whether or not a student engages seri-
ously in a learning activity and makes use of available
knowledge resources, cognitive skills, and metacogni-
tive strategies. All well-designed educational programs
introduce students to essential knowledge, skills, and
learning strategies (the first three domains), but unless
they enlist the active support of the students’ self-sys-
tems, these components may never be seriously em-
ployed. When a student at the self-system level evalu-
ates a given academic task as low in personal relevance
or probability of success, the result is that effort and
commitment are withdrawn and invested elsewhere,
in a wide variety of compensatory activities.
In reality, most of our attention in education is fo-
cused on the first two of Marzano’s four domains:
knowledge and cognitive skills. The current standards
movement is built on the assumption that becoming
clear about “what students should know and be able
to do” is the key to ending problems of low achieve-
ment. Rarely can mainstream education reform widen
the focus enough to include much emphasis on meta-
cognitive strategies, let alone the self-system. As Mar-
zano points out, instructional programs that address
the self-system are rare and tend to be controversial,
dealing inevitably with areas of belief, value, and pur-
pose.8 But they are also neglected because of a predilec-
tion for technological solutions that has afflicted Amer-
ican society for decades. Combined with the growing
specialization of academic fields, this has helped cre-
ate an educational culture marked by endless tinker-
ing with the technologies of teaching and learning,
while the self is pushed to the margin. Identity-sensi-
tive education has been a theoretical orphan, assembled
by individuals or small groups of visionaries using sound
instincts and a great deal of trial and error.
But we now have enough examples of the educa-
tional oasis phenomenon to know a lot about how and
why it works. It works by turning Marzano’s four-part
hierarchy of learning upside-down — or, more accu-
rately, right side up. The first priority of identity-sen-
sitive education is the self — ensuring that the student
self-system commits its energies wholeheartedly to the
educational project through an academic identity and
that it is immersed in a social and psychological environ-
ment that bolsters that commitment. Strength at the
level of self allows serious attention to metacognitive
learning strategies: planning, goal-setting, self-monitor-
ing, social processing, and help-seeking. Strength at this
strategic level, in turn, allows for the systematic de-
velopment of the knowledge and cognitive skills need-
ed for academic success. Effective teaching is still crit-
ical at these last two levels, for successful learning pro-
vides vital feedback and reinforcement for higher-level
strategies and solidifies self-system commitments to
the educational project. But the student is no longer
completely dependent on that teaching; he or she can
increasingly adjust learning strategies to a wide range
of teaching styles.
Placing the self and student agency at the center of
the educational process may seem uncomfortable to
many educators steeped in subject-matter standards
and the technologies of “curriculum delivery,” but at
some level most laypersons understand this hierarchy
and “vote with their feet” for educational experiences
that offer sensitivity to self and identity. More and more
parents are choosing private schools, charter schools,
or small public schools that promise attention to indi-
vidual personalities and a school culture that encour-
ages identification with academic work. Large, imper-
sonal, bureaucratically organized schools face growing
pressure to create smaller “learning communities” in
the form of academies, families, or schools-within-schools.
The burgeoning small-schools movement may not have
an official theory as to why small schools tend to work
better than large ones, but its momentum is growing none-
theless.
Even more important, the nagging achievement gaps
between different ethnic and socioeconomic groups are
creating issues that simply won’t go away. Schools in
which black, Latino, and Native American students
consistently show worse academic outcomes than white
and Asian students will inevitably be perceived as places
of institutional racism, even if the educators who work
in them believe they are doing everything possible to
level the playing field. The only way out of this dilem-
ma is to cease trying to be “identity-blind” and start build-
ing identity-sensitive education. If we recognize that
students from specific minorities will, for complex his-
torical and psychological reasons, tend to have more
difficulty identifying with the academic work that is
essential to their future, we can consciously create aca-
demic microcultures in which such students thrive.
And we don’t need to wait for the last vestiges of racism,
sexism, classism, or anti-intellectualism to disappear from
our troubled society. We can begin to do it now.
Since I started this article, yet another talented mi-
nority student has failed algebra — for the second time.
In isolation, Devon could have mastered all the materi-
al in the class and then some. But in the social context of
our high school, he was rarely able to focus more than
briefly on the substance of algebra, even with the added
help of our new academy. His preexisting social identity
was constantly fighting, and mostly winning, the self-sys-
tem battles for control. Devon’s academic self has not ex-
perienced the shame of failure, because it has never been
“expressly chosen.” It remains a possible self, inviting us
to keep trying.
1. Devon is not a real student but a composite portrait reflecting sever-
al I have worked with.
2. Laurence Steinberg, Beyond the Classroom (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1996).
3. For example, see Ray P. McDermott, “Achieving School Failure: An
Anthropological Approach to Illiteracy and Social Stratification,” in
George Spindler, ed., Education and Cultural Process (Prospect Heights,
Ill.: Waveland Press, 1987), pp. 172-209.
4. An exception is the admirable study of the AVID program by Hugh
Mehan et al., Constructing School Success (New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1996).
5. See Signithia Fordham, Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and
Success at Capital High (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
6. See Mehan et al., op. cit.; and Deborah Meier, The Power of Their
Ideas (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995).
7. Robert Marzano, A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on In-
struction (Aurora, Colo.: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Labo-
ratory, 1998).
8. Ibid., p. 130. K
APRIL 2003 585