Scott Waldman writes thoughtfully about education for the Albany Times-Union newspaper in upstate New York.
In this article, he demonstrates what most educators know and what ought to be common sense for everyone else:
The schools rankings in affluent districts have the highest rankings, and the schools in districts with high levels of poverty have the lowest rankings.
Some people don’t seem to know this. Unfortunately, the people who don’t know this are in Congress, state legislatures, the U.S. Department of Education, and the governors’ offices.
Thus, policymakers berate those who teach children in impoverished districts and even close or privatize their schools.
Children who grow up poor are not destined to do poorly in school. If they attend well-resourced schools that are not dominated by poverty and segregation, they do better in school.
Call it peer effects, or something about getting the attention and resources needed.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
NOTHING! Policy makers have NO CLUE about good teaching. They only make policies, which suck the life out f public schools — their aim. High-stakes tests make money for testers who fund campaigns so laws are passed for their own benefit…like having the BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, great Retirement Benefits, and Egads… The politicos even passed a law that specifies politicians can TAKE ALL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AS PERSONAL INCOME WHEN THEY LEAVE OFFICE.. How convenient!
LikeLike
Scott simply states the obvious truth about public education. My fellow colleagues and I put tremendous amounts of time and effort into teaching children of poverty. Unfortunately growth rarely showed in test scores but showed in many other ways, portfolio assessment, social skills, and verbal skills. Of course, based on test scores they were considered failures…so unfair and sad!
LikeLike
Love ya, Diane, but it’s not within a light year of being that simple.
LikeLike
If it’s not that simple then how about we take all the teachers out of the affluent districts and put them in the poverty districts and see what happens.
LikeLike
Excellent point.
LikeLike
How about we take the scores of parent volunteers from affluent schools and send them to support schools with high free and reduced lunch? We need these affluent parents to really get to know what real life is like. It is easy to talk about poverty and the effects on learning. It is another thing to truly understand it to build a sense of social justice and empowerment for those in this predicament.
LikeLike
Thanks jon for this comment. So correct that the affluent parents could learn a real life lesson if they would graciously volunteer to tutor in the inner city classrooms.
Educators have always understood the devestating effects of poverty, and now often homelessness, on children. In LA, Monica Ratliff, our new Board member showed LAUSD that these children could be consistent learners with the encouragement of a dedicated teacher…plus help in getting them fed and rested in order to be prepared to learn.
When a child’s only food is the free lunch, and maybe breakfast, at school, how can they be expected to even stay awake much less learn. And if their parents are working for minimum wage, at not even subsistence level jobs, why blame them for not being able to connect with the schools?
Let’s not only encourage the wealthy parents to spend time in inner city schools, but also let’s mandate legislators spend time there as well.
LikeLike
Jon and Ellen, as one of the “scores” of parents who volunteer at my local public school, I would like to thank you for pointing out my need to “really get to know what real life is like” as well as my need for a “life lesson”. It is this sort of appreciation and respect that induces me as well as “scores” of others to donate our time to public education over and over. As a token of your appreciation, please “take” me and “send” me wherever you think that I might best become enlightened. As a volunteer, it is reassuring to know that others are so superior and knowledgeable about my shortcomings. I realize that I should feel guilty because others are less fortunate than me and because they may not have the time to give to their children’s education. But you’ll be happy to know that I already harbor some guilt. If I and other parents had never had children, there would be no schools and we wouldn’t have all of these problems.
LikeLike
Maybe its not that simple but shouldn’t this data at least be informative to our elected leaders. Nothing is simple and the result of just one thing but some factors are weighted heavier than others. That’s what we are saying about the use of data, it should be informative and not punitive against teachers or students.
LikeLike
Data only counts when it will be manipulated for their purposes, otherwise they ignore it.
Most of the reformers couldn’t even pass the national writing, reading, speaking and listening standards.
LikeLike
I am the superintendent of one of the high performing schools Waldman identified. He is, of course, absolutely accurate. The issue has always been poverty–urban, rural, and increasingly, suburban. It is easier and more expedient for politicians and naysayers in general, to attack schools–their costs, their teachers, their calendar, their curriculum–rather than address the root cause of the discrepancies–multi-generational systemic poverty. We have known about the impact of poverty on student achievement for hundreds of years. We have known how standardized test scores are skewed by zip code for years. Even the inventors of standardized testing (in the very early twentieth century) argued that they should be used judiciously because they are so sensitive to environment. I know an urban educator very well, who constantly states that it is not that his kids (grade five) can’t learn–indeed, they have already learned some skills about survival that are much more compelling than their ELA scores. The problem is that the things they have learned can not be reduced to a multiple choice test.
LikeLike
Thanks Teresa, For your thoughts and insight. Maybe one day the pendulum will swing back to a place where truth about social inequities is part of e everyone’s conversation. When I first began teaching in the mid eighties this was part of the conversation. Now it is something discussed on the fringes. We can’t turn our back, it is reality for many students and their teachers.
LikeLike
NOt only is it reality, but it is worse now that the jobs market plummeted and so many people are disenfranchised, on top of those that live with poverty or minimum wage jobs. It seems absurd to me that people don’t “just realize” how it is, but many don’t. And, many choose to continue to sit in judgment of those they look down upon. I have never figured out how to change one person’s mind. When their minds are made up, they just delineate their world as they feel it “must be” and move on with their own lives. They don’t even feel they are being mean or greedy. They think they are just preserving what they worked so hard to “have”. When is having “enough”? I have never figured that out either. But, we attempt to educate despite all these incongruities and to be equally judged for our choices and “greedy” desire to likewise be middle class, not wealthy, but middle class. Ah, well.
LikeLike
Occam’s Razor, it’s the poverty stupid.
LikeLike
We’ve all stated the obvious over and over. So what can be DONE? How do we organize ourselves to push back?
LikeLike
I would say that someone in Congress or national prominence has to take the lead, to stand up for what is right, risk re-election or popularity, and lead. It has to be someone with voice, with presence, with conviction, and with national recognition. Maybe enlisting someone such as Bill Moyers would be a good idea. He seems to be an even-handed, honest man who doesn’t always follow the mainstream line, but he doesn’t go to extremes. Could he lead us? I don’t know.
Someone has to get around the influence of corporate ownership of media and opinion. It is obvious that there are various views on this blog that all support change. Gathering those into one voice isn’t going to be easy. Even on this board there are a few trolls. How they infiltrate is “interesting”. They do so to break up the conversations when they are heading in a positive direction, asking questions that have no answers, engaging people in personal attacks, and acting superior in both knowledge and action. People need to join forces to help the cause or to just go away or be banned.
The solution is difficult because all over the U.S. the same issues are arising. You can read posts from so many states, maybe not all, but many. So, there are commonalities. Now, to find a common solution to kick back the insanity that is obviously undermining the public commons and the society that many of us dreamed about when we were growing up. We are leaving nothing but hopelessness and despair to the masses. Only the few can and will benefit from what is in store in schools, local and state government, and Congressional failure to take action for ALL Americans. Maybe they’re all bought off. I don’t know. What good is a Congressman who gets voted off after 2 years? They buy in so they can stay, not so they can truly serve ALL.
Here it just seems like we are floundering, mostly agreeing, with little victories here and there, and it is difficult to jump in NOW after the years of plotting and planning and setting the agenda to change America into pre Civil Rights era mores. While there are extreme views, there needs to be a real examination of what can be done that will help the MOST Americans and, here, the most students.
I feel that public schools represent the beginnings of establishing an America where we can have civil discourse and learn to live together as one country. This doesn’t mean that all schools need to march to the same drum. However, without education, crime and poverty will increase. “Wisely” those with the money have found a way to again segregate and condescend. They have found a way to render public education and the teaching profession as “unworthy”. Unless and until there is a way to take back the schools from the takeover, things will continue to get worse. However, anecdotal successes are going to do no more good in the short term, and maybe in the long term, than the Moms against Guns is achieving. They get a little press and try to make their voices heard. This effort needs to gain prominence or the forces of change will prevail, since even the NEA is buying into the Common Core in a way that contributes to the demise of public education.
Today, even a good education doesn’t help to bring everyone out of poverty because we have the same people controlling education, Congress, Wall Street, and state governors/legislatures. They have plotted and planned to reach this point. They have rammed this ridiculous testing throught in order to achieve their goals and re-election. Why? Because so many seem to find the word “taxes” to be compelling and it brings out the urge to do one of two things: see them as being used to even the playing field in an unfair world or 2) see them as if they are stealing from some to give to the “undeserving”.
LikeLike
You raise an interesting question as to why corporate reform keeps ploughing along. I presume I am one of the “trolls” to whom you attribute the magical ability to break up successful unified action. If only that were true. The REAL problem is that no one can or will answer the hard questions, such as “Do you support the constitutional protection of private property?” Or “Do you support capitalism?”
Your puzzlement as to why the public schools are not being successfully defended (actually only 6% charters) is natural because you cannot see the socialist monkey on your back. The philosophy of a large percentage of the cadre of public school teachers is bureaucratic socialism, even communism. It is a profoundly unAmerican, and I argue even unnatural philosophy of the relation of the individual to the society.
Most people think that the members of the FAMILY are the basic property holding unit of society. The family educates the children to continue the family religious and cultural tradition. Inheritance of property goes the same way. By contrast the philosophy of the socialist/communist view is that the person is FIRST of all a citizen of the state, and that the state should be responsible for bringing him up and thus has a claim on the fruits of his work. It is the horrifying world of BRAVE NEW WORLD.
One might say without too much hyperbole that public education over the last 100 years was taken over by the communist party, and that most people in public education don’t even think of that as strange. Like good communists, they are content to have good jobs, living off of the peasants (i.e. by educating them in state schools). Now the purifying reaction is setting in.
I don’t think that the person is first of all a citizen. I think he is an individual within a family, and I believe that the purpose of the constitution is to protect his freedom of action, not to contribute to society. If you’ve never considered that point of view before, you might well do so, if only as a way of understanding the general deafness of the society at large to the plight of the teachers in the public schools.
We are seeing a conflict of two different philosophies of life. One is whether one should live for the state and the welfare of others. The other is whether one should live for one’s own purposes. The USA constitution was founded on the latter. Communism rests on the former, and most people repudiate it. If you do not repudiate that philosophy of life, then you are part of the problem, in my view.
LikeLike
Apparently you are of the Ayn Rand philosophy. I do not agree with you.
I understand your commentary, but I think it is inherently selfish.
Perpetuating one’s self and family to the sacrifice of all others and then claiming Christianity in the same breath (which I don’t accuse you of doing) is an outrageous stance.
But, I do agree that those who are entirely selfish would be proponents of charter schools, of ousting teachers who have been educated to deall with ALL people, and of finding ways to shut out others who don’t measure up to their narrow agenda of selfishness.
You and they have every right to believe that way, but you need to accept the mantle of being selfish and condescending.
You might do well to examine your reasons for believing as you do as well. I have read and experienced much of what you have advised me to contemplate.
You see, I had an epiphany upon watching “The Help” and decided that I needed to repent of that narrow way of viewing and feeling.
LikeLike
I do reject the mantle of being selfish and uncaring because were I to wear your mantle I would have to base my benevolence on the readiness to steal from some to give to the poor. As a voluntary act that is desirable. You are free to do all you want with your own earnings. I don’t feel it is fair for you to assume that the rich or middle class got their wealth illegitimately and that therefore you and those who vote with you have a “right” to some of it. Diane thinks the same way you do, and it is a flaw in the argument of the benevolence through government view of social life.
When I talk about the family, I merely mean to say that I try to meet my responsibilities to the members of my family first, and I expect every other father to do so as well. If every member of the society, rich and poor, were to be just minimally responsible within their family lives, we would have a good deal less social and psychic trauma among the children.
The way Carol Burris is meeting the challenge of irresponsible parents seems highly commendable. She has the luxury of running a school in a wealthy district. I’m not against helping the needy in an effective way, but I do object to the notion that just because someone is rich they have money they are not entitled to. I suspect Bill Gates THINKS he is doing good things with his wealth. He may THINK he is trying to “give back” to fund the projects he does (others would argue that that is unlikely, that he is really just investing his wealth in projects that will earn he and his friends even MORE money).
Most wealthy people pour a lot of money into foundations. Now you may disagree with what they invest in, but it is entirely possible they THINK they are doing what is best in the long term for poor people. It is even possible that school choice is REALLY in the best interest of the largest numbers of children, though to read this blog one wouldn’t think so.
But to say that people who disagree with you on education public policy are “selfish” seems bigoted and intolerant of YOU. I have no idea what ‘The Help’ is to which you refer as the source of your epiphany. It looks to me as if you are cloaking self interest in keeping a well-paying job as selfless benevolence, and anyone who doesn’t see it your way is arrogant, misguided, and lacking in heart.
But, I don’t especially want to argue with you either, though you seem ready enough to do so. Can we engage in debate on policy without your calling me an old meanie, and without my calling you a missionary hypocrite?
LikeLike
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17427-can-we-afford-to-wait-for-redistribution
LikeLike
It’s really just the age old struggle between labor and capital in a time of decreased tax revenue. If you see things the way the article in this link sees them, then you will naturally find yourself in opposition to capital. Redistribution is bad enough, but Predistribution, which appears to mean the unions running the enterprises, or possibly the government running them, is not something many Americans are comfortable with, given our recent observations of the President’s conception of paying off friends and punishing enemies (e.g. the permanent money going to “community organizations” under Obamacare to go out and sign people up for it, and under the as yet unpassed immigration bill, to go out and register the illegals and teach them about democracy).
To a citizen NOT working for the government, that just looks like pure piracy and indoctrination. Lots of people simply disagree with you that you are advocating disinterestedly. And, they aren’t shutting up any more.
I claim to want “better education for all” as much as you do, but I do define improvement considerably differently.
LikeLike
Of course, the family is the first unit of society. No man or family “is an island” though. When you tie a huge nation like the U.S. together with interstate roads, with telecommunications and other networks, we have to work together. Schools are a place to bring us together not a place to push us apart. To put one’s children in schools in order to keep them away from “the others” does not achieve this goal. But, I understand, some don’t wish to do this. They wish to breed “superior” children with more opportunities than “the rest”. For me, that is not an option. For others, it is.
I don’t believe we need to throw around the word communism or socialism as if they are somehow inherently evil and capitalism as if it embodies goodness. The truth is, they are words. Propaganda sells all 3 of them. Of course, Socialism and Communism have had their run as being terrible. I simply think Capitalism has now achieved that status.
This place is supposed to have liberty and justice for all … which doesn’t include STOMPING on those who didn’t start out three or four steps up the ladder from poverty … or who fell down a couple of rungs when the capitalists decided to buy the Supreme Court and Congress and many governors in the US.
Does public education need to improve? Sure. Are some teachers lousy? Sure. But, the fact is that smaller class sizes in the first grades K-4 would have the best chance of turning things around. Students who could go to school in their own neighborhoods where their parents could participate would also help.
Isolating some kids because their parents can “afford it” is doing fewer and fewer people any good.
But, sir, I don’t wish to argue with you.
LikeLike
Communism, socialism, and capitalism are not “just words.” There are real differences between their views of the role of government in distributing money (i.e. stored up work). I don’t think it is immaterial which system we vote for in this country. Yes, this nation is supposed to have “liberty and justice for all,” but you seem to want to go beyond legal justice to economic justice as well, as Rawls does in his book A THEORY OF JUSTICE. I know his approach is the prevailing one in this country.
If you’d care to, I’d be interested in having you describe what you mean, in your own words by “justice.” I’d like a definition and test that I can apply to every situation to see whether it is “just” or not.
Argue is a word that can mean friendly debate as well as conflict. I don’t wish to be in conflict with you either, BUT when we take a position on public policy, I do think it is useful among educated people anyway to try to underpin that position with sound and expanded rational discourse.
LikeLike