My response is:"Superintendent Dr. Aldo Sicoli said the following in reaction to the test scores; “These results are not as good as we would like them to be. We are committed to the academic success of our students. We are continuing implementation of programs that we believe will help more students improve their state test results.”
Gee, we haven’t heard that before. I thought lower class sizes were supposedly going to bring us great results. Poverty must be the reason we can’t score well. Remember according to the district and their apologists poor kids are all stupid."
"Yes, I must be one of those apologists… However, I do not think they are stupid… I think that the poor students have almost insurmountable obstacles to overcome. Here are some advantages that my own children have that many poor students do not:
- Parents that both speak English fluently and have read to them daily since they were infants.
- A parent (ie Mom in our case) that has been home for them everyday after school since they started school.
- A parent (ie Mom) who held them accountable daily for reading, studying, doing homework, etc
- A parent (ie Mom) who taught them self control, listening and study skills that help them everyday in class
- A parent (ie Dad) that makes enough money to enable this, and parents that make financial life choices that make this possible.
- Parents that are very familiar with working systems and bureaucracies to ensure their kids get as many opportunities as possible
- Parents who set and are there to enforce strong value based rules, and follow through with appropriate punishments consistently when the little darlings wander to far of course. Even when it is not convenient.
- Parents that attend all conferences, volunteer in the class, get to know the teachers, etc
- Parents that teach the kids to respect their teachers and classmates. And follow through if they gets reports of any misbehavior in school.
- Parents that can afford 2 computers with the latest software and high speed internet
- A parent (ie Dad in this case) that can tutor them in any Math, Physics, etc coursework.
- A parent (ie Dad in this case) that can work with or fix pretty much any computer, wood working, mechanical, audio visual, etc tool or system. (ie even helping them to put video and sound clips into presentations… It was a learning experience for me…)
- Parents that promote the importance of learning and academics. (for better or worse.. I do not think they know there is a non-college career path)
- Parents that encourage their kids to try new things, and then try again if things don’t work out so well.
- Parents that praise their kids often.
- Parents that ensure boredom leads to positive hobbies or work. (whether the child likes it or not…)
- etc, etc, etc
By the way, I would like to take a moment to thank my parents for making ME one of the lucky kids. They made many of the same choices that my wife and I have. They made my development one of their top priorities. Therefore I can freely and happily offer my children the same excellent opportunities.Now, being a kid in a poor family is unlucky since they often do not have the above advantages. Even the best poor families do not have the free time or funds to provide their kids with many of these. And often the poor families are poor because they do not have certain knowledge or skills. Your denying the reality of their challenge is interesting to say the least.
By the way, there are some poor families that chose that lifestyle. They choose to live very modestly so that the kids will have a parent at home. That full time parent can do wonders to help the kids not be a statistic.
The graphs on G2A show the unfortunate reality of the poverty related academic proficiency gap that is so pervasive in our society. Denying it is not the answer."
So what do you think?
15 comments:
I, too, was a lucky kid. Thanks mom. Thanks dad. And I also was able to "fund" a stay at home mom for my kids.
But let's give the kids (and parents) without the many advantages you list some credit for a talent I actually admire: working the system.
"Welfare is just a tiny part of the budget!" liberals wail, but they only look at one piece at a time. The underclass know better, how to assemble a portfolio if you will of various programs to support their limited employment. Medical assistance, section 8 housing, transit subsidies, food stamps, WIC, etc all add up.
In education, you are socially promoted and handed a high school diploma for attending and behaving. Show any spark and scholarship opportunities abound.
Being poor is one thing, something many in all groups have overcome, yes, often drawing on all those support programs. Being poor of spirit is what leads to many of those symptoms cited for educational failure; they were beaten before they got to the schoolhouse door.
The only thing that really matters in education is how much money we spend on it, and the state aid formula FULLY COMPENSATES for the effects of poverty by sending more money to the districts with the most poverty. So, if kids in your district don't do well, it's because the money isn't being spent wisely.
Come to think of it, that would be true regardless of how much money was being spent, n'cest pas?
J. Ewing
In a Lou Tice learning video, he speaks of visiting a clinic in the projects of Chicago. He says he started talking to a young girl and then asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up? She was unsure, so he asked if being a Nurse or Doctor would interest her? She started to agree, when her Grandma jumped into the conversation with the following "motivational" comment.
"She's from the projects and she will never become no Nurse or Doctor... She'll stay poor like me..."
I am not sure how much money and effort it would take to undo that kind of negative brainwashing. Especially when they hear few positive voices for 5 years, and only hear it occasionally from then on.
By the way, "poor in spirit" folks can be found in all economic classes. They just seem more prevalent among the poor. It may be part of the cause for their low income. (ie chicken or egg)
If you believe you will be poor and milk the system, you will be poor!!! If you believe you will succeed, you are more likely to succeed !!!!
Exactly. So we send more money to the schools with lots of poor kids, and then expect those kids to fail anyway. In those private and parochial schools, every kid is expected to succeed, and we give them any needed help to overcome their other obstacles. That is at least as it should be.
J. Ewing
I tried to find results for privates and parochials that have similar demographics as the 3 publics shown. No luck so far, however I will keep my eyes open.
Many apparently use a different testing regimen, so it will be hard to compare apple to apple.
Per Speed's term. I think the "Poor in Spirit" would not be likely to have their kids attend the privates or parochials. Therefore I think you are comparing apples and oranges again.
My rationale is that often the Parents of kids that attend these schools are interviewed and required to sign a contract that specifies how they must support the school and student. It is unlikely that the "Poor in Spirit" Parents would be up for that.
My view, teachers are teachers in that they truly want to make a difference in as many kids as they can. Whether they work at a public, private or parochial school.
My objection to all of this is the belief that the "poor in spirit" parents are but a tiny, tiny fraction of those whose children are repeatedly and consistently disadvantaged and abused by the current system of public education. When scholarships or vouchers to get OUT of these schools are offered, thousands of parents sign up; everybody seems to want what is best for their kids, and an education is one of those obvious things (while others are not). My theory has always been to give every parent the means to choose the best education for their child, and see what happens. And if you can't do that, at least give the poor parents the means to do so, since for reasons not of their making they do not have the choices that the wealthier among us do, to move to a place with "better schools."
It all comes back to expectations, in my opinion. If you send thousands of dollars per student to schools with poor kids so as to compensate for their disadvantages, you are saying that these black kids really can't learn as well as the white kids can. If you could expect them to learn given the opportunity, and then give them the opportunity, you wouldn't see this kind of a gap in learning (after a few years).
J. Ewing
Have you read "Whatever It Takes" yet? Definitely worth the time given your interest education, race and poverty.
Harlem Children's Zone
HCZ White Paper"
Whatever It Takes Summary
As for many parent's signing up for vouchers and scholarships... I also see a lot of people signing up for welfare checks and lottery tickets. Sometimes in the same day. This does not mean that they have the knowledge, work ethic or perserverance to stick with it and improve. It just means that they think they will get "something" better for no extra effort on their part...
This is why the schools that cater to this group need the interviews and contracts. They know they can not succeed with the child unless the parent's are willing to really really work for it and make some lasting changes in their parenting methods.
As for extra money, I don't think anyone is saying that the rate of learning is different. The reality though is that some kids need to learn much more than others. This in the same number of hours. And some kids really need to unlearn some bad habits and beliefs before they can even start learning in earnest. And we all know how hard it is to unlearn bad habits...
So if you start the race significantly behind the leaders, you will either need to work harder or learn faster to close the gap. Or you will stay the same distance behind.
You just said it again! You say poor kids start school with disadvantages and aren't likely to ever overcome that. The "gap" can never be overcome. Yet Minnesota gaps are one of the nation's worst; other states do better. If poverty is educational destiny, how can you account for the many, many anecdotal but well-documented cases in which it is not? When we stop allowing our public schools to use poverty as an excuse for non-performance and then as an excuse to get more funding to, in essence, do no better, what else should we expect?
If I were king, I would tell these schools this: Not one dime, until you tell me exactly how much money you need to get exactly how much improvement. And if you don't have an improvement plan, I'm going to start cutting your budget every year until you do. And if you tell me you'll improve but don't, you're going to have a tough time getting funded the next year. I'm not going to lose another whole generation of kids and billions of dollars to your incompetence and malfeasance.
J. Ewing
My divorced mom raised 3 kids on a very small salary. We could have gone on the food stamp program and also free lunches. She refused. We went without the latest clothes and shoes trends. We didn't have high tech televisions and back than a vcr. Many times our electricity and gas were turned off until the bills were paid. This wasn't the 30's, it was in the 80's. My mother always insisted that we did our homework and did well school, so we could go to college. She wanted more for us that what she had. We were taught that you work hard to get what you want, not have it handed to you. All 3 kids now live in nice houses with pools, drive nice cars, great vacations, etc. We all worked hard to go to college and get good jobs.
My point is - why would some of these less fortunate families even bother to try? Everything is handed to them. You're poor, oh here's a laptop. We could afford it, but my kids don't have laptops. These kids on free lunch programs have nicer cell phones than my own kids. I could on and on! Kids need to eat, so yes food stamps and free lunches, but stop giving these schools more money just to continue to fail.
Whatever happened to working for the American Dream to better your life and not have everything handed to you. Invest in the middle class, that is what made America strong many years ago!
J,
Please post some facts and data to substantiate your claims... And remember they must be apples to apples comparisons... Schools that are forced to accept all students and have a 40+% poverty level... (ie no schools that only have hard working dedicated Moms/Dads like the last post)
Anon,
J and I have covered this topic repeatedly over the past ~2 years. So it is unlikely that we will surprise each other with anything new.
However, I am most interested in hearing new voices. What are your thoughts regarding the education gap? Do we leave it in place or do we find some way to close it? If we choose to close it, what methods would you advocate?
By the way, I am very happy that your Mom made the choices and took the actions she did. It sounds like she took her parental responsibilities very seriously, and it sounds like she believed in and encouraged you. I wish all parents would do this, no matter their race or economic standing, then we probably would not have a gap to discuss.
Just curious... If you or your siblings got in trouble for goofing around at school, would you be in trouble or would the teacher be in trouble? Thoughts?
Give--Interesting post. Poignant as well. I feel deeply fortunate that I was able to be one of the lucky kids, and I'm doing my best to help my own kid--and others'--have the same advantanges.
J--Sadly, you're right; Minnesota does have on of the largest racial achievement gaps. It also has one of the largest racial income gaps--there is virtually no black middle class in Minnesota. These two things are directly related. It's naive to think we can expect schools remedy the former without taking into account the latter.
--Annie
Annie, I was unaware of the income gap, so thank you for that. Question: Which gap do you think came first, the income gap or the education gap? Which one begets the other?
John, I'm not sure I can lay my hands on exactly what you are looking for, but there may be a study of "turnaround" or "reconstituted" schools out there somewhere. I keep thinking back to one of my favorite movies, "Lean On Me." It's based on a true story. The difference was a matter of expectations, both of teachers and of students.
J. Ewing
The concept definitely makes for exciting movies, and I agree whole heartedly that believing in a student is critical. Lean on Me The challenge is how much "Super Hero" behavior can or should we expect from our educators.
Using myself as an example. I earn a salary for working at a company. The work never ends and I could literally work 60+ hrs per week all the time. Besides results and rewards however, I also strive for a healthy work life family balance and I do not want to play the fool by working too much relative to my salary. Therefore I strive to balance all of these things.
I agree that the teachers do need to believe in and work to encourage the students during school/working hours that they are paid for. And be organized, thorough, effective, caring, etc.
However, should we expect educators to make home visits, counsel kids outside of the curriculum, risk being sent to jail, risk being sued, etc? Should we expect Teachers to volunteer hundreds of hours without pay to help these kids?
I ask this because this is what the "Super Heroes" like Joe Louis Clark seem to do. And I am wondering how many of us are willing to this for our companies, customers, co-workers, etc? Or even making time to volunteer with kids that could use our perspective and nuturing?
Just a note according to the linked summary: Clark is hired, and things immediately get tense after Clark dismisses from the school hundreds of students identified as drug dealers or abusers and troublemakers.
I wonder where those extremely troubled kids went next.
You know what? I don't particularly care where those kids go. My vision of universal vouchers includes a strong discipline policy centered around a "contract" between school and parent for educational services, and with the stipulation that sufficiently disruptive students break that contract and can no longer attend. If the parents had to pay extra to find a school willing to take the kid, there might be less trouble, and those few who are gaining nothing and being disruptive can suffer real consequences.
The movie, I think, show what would work in any school. The problem there was that the school Joe Clark became principal of was a disaster. It took a long time to get that way, and therefore drastic measures were needed to salvage it in a year's time.
All Joe Clark did was to know what education requires (or perhaps that it doesn't require drug dealers, dead enders and desperation), and then provide it. That means high expectations, strong discipline and caring. Our best teachers get the last one; our best students get the first one. I would say that none of our public schools have all three. Your test scores seem to prove it.
J. Ewing
Quoting J Ewing: "You know what? I don't particularly care where those kids go."
This is a big hole in your vision. The same kids who are major disciplinary problems are often also those with parents who can't/don't engage in their education. "Not caring" doesn't fix the problem--it's the most basic version of trying to ignore it and hoping it'll go away.
And your hypothetical contract only works if both parties adhere to it. Disengaged/mentally ill/culturally incapable/abusive/ chemically dependent parent--then what? So they get kicked out of all schools? Do you want teenage criminals in your neighborhood? I'm not trying to be all Chicken Little, but these are the very kids who too ofen fail in our current system and they will most certainly fail in yours.
We have a moral--and if you happen to be religious, that too--obligation to care for those less fortunate. Especially children. And it's the smart thing to do, too. It's shortsighted to think we won't pay the consequences in a generation if we just "don't care".
--Annie
Post a Comment