Ira Shor describes our complex system, based on race, class, income:
“Teachers count only if their students count. To count in this society, kids have to come from affluent families; the teachers of those affluent kids are paid more and generally treated better. The vast majority of students in k-12 pub schls don’t count b/c they are poor, working-class, or lower middle-class, many not white, many first-generation immigrants. They need small classes and veteran teachers and lots of good food and warm clothes in winter and eye exams; we know what they get instead. The kids that count go to private schls and to pub schls in affluent suburbs. The teachers there are paid more b/c the families of the kids are richer. For the most part, these teachers are also treated with more regard. The private k-12 schls do NOT require their teachers to come out of teacher ed programs or to meet state certification requirements; they can pick and choose among many applicants. Some teacher ed programs are truly excellent despite this class-based hierarchy, despite being under-funded and over-regulated. Other teacher ed programs function as mediocre pipelines to mediocre school systems. The situation is fragmented b/c there are really 6-8 school systems in America–private independents, private religious, private special ed, public affluent, public working class, public poor, privatized charters, etc. Then, there is internal tracking in all schools which further separate elite segments from the general student group. It’s useful to clarify which sector of “American education” we are talking back b/c class and race differences affect schools so much.(Ted Sizer said 30 years ago, “Tell me the income of your students’ parents and I will describe to you your school.”) As long as poverty and inequality rule, schools for the bottom 80% will treat their kids and teachers largely with disregard and disinvestment.”

I agree of what you said for the most part. I taught in an inter city school for 6 years. It does not need to be this way. Money is not the answer just dedication of parents, teachers, administrators and kids of course. All parents want the same thing for their children. They want them to grow to be happy adults and even in some cases they want them to be great. This is all possible. The kids of all races come to school wanting to learn to read and just learn. What happens then why can’t they? Many problems prevent some children to succeed. Expectation is huge and like I said dedication.
LikeLike
“Money is not the answer….”
Yeah it is. http://preaprez.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/breaking-shocking-new-study-disproves-the-theory-that-throwing-money-at-schools-doesnt-do-any-good-it-does/
Where do you think “dedicated teachers” come from? The volunteer pool? What do you think “dedicated teachers” teach with? Rocks and sticks?
Anyway, if money is not the answer, why do the already affluent schools need so much of it?
And what do you think should happen to those kids not fortunate enough to be born to “dedicated parents”?
LikeLike
The more wealth, the more freedom to fail.
LikeLike
Yes, Mart, dedicated parents, dedicated teachers and administrators, and dedicated students do make a difference. The problem is that dedication is undermined and sabotaged as you go down the class ladder in American schools. Dedicated parents come in all colors; it is a grave error to think parents of color are less dedicated than others; education has always been of immense importance in the African-American community even before Emancipation; slaves risked their lives to learn to read and write. Working-class parents of all colors also want their kids to do well. If only poor students did not have to cope with their worsening poverty in a land of vast wealth; if only all students got what the affluent get–small classes, lots of field trips, arts/music/lavish sports programs, exotic vacations to faraway places, plenty of food whenever you want it, all the warm boots and gloves you need in winter, a dentist straightening your teeth for $7000, a doctor curing an acute eye infection before it becomes chronic, a set of entitled parents who lobby schools ad town govt.’s nonstop for their kids’–well, then we could finally judge who is dedicated and who is not.
LikeLike
Ira, which teacher preparation programs are “truly excellent” and what criteria do you use?
I am not disagreeing. I’m interested in what you think.
LikeLike
Me too. Ditto what Joe said.
LikeLike
I don’t think lower class people are undedicated to their children. That is a myth. They are just often overwhelmed. I had a parent in my after school tutoring in New Orleans who worked one job in the morning, having to leave before her three kids left for school and another job from 5-10 in the evening. Her 4th grader was in charge of a pre-k and a Headstart child. She could not rely on her mother because grandma was on drugs and her boyfriend/dealer had molested the 4th grader. It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that they will be homeless if they can’t pay the bills! I had a handicapped child in my class who came to school sick because her mother could not take off work and cover the bills. Her mama worked too. Every school day I see parents—mothers, fathers, and grandparents walking their kids to and from the bus stop. Sometimes even middle schoolers are supervised. These are some VERY poor people. They work minimum wage jobs with no benefits often part time. Some of the older ones sell plates or candy.
Poor people also have achieving children. Two of my neighbor’s grands are in Gifted and their oldest brother graduated from high school last year and is now in college. His mother was trying to get him a car, but until then they have a schedule involving mama, uncle, grandma, and daddy to get him to and from his classes and his part time job. All of those adults work.
Dedication? A lot of rich people just pay someone to care for their kids and rarely see them. Poor folks know they have to work hard to keep their kids straight.
LikeLike
Good points.
LikeLike
@ Joe Nathan and Joanna Best. What teacher prep “programs” do you find are best? Would you agree or disagree that NJCU in Jersey City, NJ and MSU in Montclair, NJ graduate prepared teachers? Or, on the other hand, is a Princeton tfa graduate, with 5 weeks of training, more prepared?
What “teacher preparation programs” are you referring to?
I would think that getting a degree in education, having performed observations and clinical teaching would better prepare a teacher to teach, as opposed to the tfa route.
Please weigh in.
The tfa notion that the majority of teachers are turds, and tfa’s 5-weeks-of-training “teachers” are the cream of the crop is just propaganda, PR, and nonsense.
LikeLike
Donna, I have not conducted research about which are the “best” teacher preparation programs. I’m not a fan of US News & World Report, which rates education programs. So I was interested in what Ira Shor thought since he mentioned that some programs are excellent.
TFA is a separate issue. I agree that it’s not enough to know a subject well. People need to know how to work effectively with youngsters.
I’m a big fan of basing teacher preparation in highly effective schools, measured as effective in various ways (not just test scores and graduation requirements). I don’t know of any teacher prep programs that do that, but I don’t know the details of every teacher prep program.
We’re working with a local teacher’s union that is very interested in teachers playing a much larger role in helping recruit, train and mentor the next generation of teachers.
LikeLike
Twinkie:
I don’t know yet. I’d like to find a way to make the University ones the best they can be (I too became certified to teach in a traditional University College of Ed, albeit I did not get my undergraduate degree in education. . .I had to go back for my credentials).
I have read the Colleges of Ed were slightly abused in terms of rendering revenue for other departments within Universities and thus may have suffered by no fault of the students who graduated from them. I have seriously turned my attention to learning more about this. I saw Joe’s question and have the same one. . .so there it is. A very big question indeed. Surely not answerable on a blog, but food for thought can certainly be generated here.
LikeLike
Teacher training programs cannot begin to prepare new teachers for the chaos that routinely disrupts the worst of our impoverished inner city school environmements. It requires nearly superhuman effort to counteract the “distractions” that poor, mostly minority students face on a daily basis. If you have never taught for an extended period of time (5+ years), you would be hard pressed to imagine just how challenging this is. Rewards are few and far between. Getting dedicated to teachers to stake their career under such impossible working conditions is understandably difficult. The burn-out rate for teachers that truly care is understandably high.
LikeLike
Yet, families who choose to remove their children from these environments choosing private, parochial or homeschool are villified.
LikeLike
Huh?
LikeLike
“The kids of all races come to school wanting to learn to read and just learn. What happens [to them?] [W]hy can’t they?”
Consider that Deming’s Forces of Destruction is what happens to them…
http://newerahrsolutions.com/blog/new-era-leadership/01/10/2011/demings-forces-of-destruction/
Consider, too, the idea that all social and economic classes of children experience Forces of Destruction. A difference, however, is that, on the one hand, the more well-off communities tend to shield their children from Forces of Destruction less attempting to remove Forces of Destruction for all children while, on the other hand, the less well-off communities tend to inculcate Forces of Destruction within their children. It’s a vicious cycle out of which come ever virulent, and violent, Forces of Destruction. And democracy suffers. The common good suffers.
LikeLike
The public schools, and most private schools too are wedded to the grading syndrome and extrinsic rewards and judgement. I don’t see any way of altering that cultural preference by parents.
The difference between the privileged children and the less well-off seems to me to be that the children of the privileged simply do better at the pseudo learning imposed by the Forces of Destruction, whereas the children of the less well-off are less successful at earning the gold stars and high grades.
I would like to think that all children come to school wanting to learn, but they do not all come with the ability to learn successfully what the standard school curriculum prescribes. It’s the lucky kid whose curiosity can hold out under the assault of The Forces of Destruction, both privileged and not.
In some ways, psychological survival may mean ignoring the authoritarian structures of schooling, both schooling for the privileged and schooling for the less privileged. Perhaps good schooling is that which manages to preserve curiosity in the interstices of the net of traditional schooling. For that, you have to have teachers who have not been beaten down by the assign and grade cycle.
Failure begets not caring.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
“Teachers count only if their students count. To count in this society, kids have to come from affluent families; the teachers of those affluent kids are paid more and generally treated better.
Even though that may be the case in many Title I Schools, I question if it is typical. There appears to be an increase of “smother” mothers and “bullying” fathers throughout all socio economic levels as a result of overall social insecurity and social unpredictability that does not discriminate. Do statistics show that we have as many suicides, addictions, codependent, and self punishing behaviors in children of wealthy as poor?
It appears that the whole of society has taken on the same dysfunctional dynamics that usually prevail in families with alcoholism. Have we all become ACoA & Dysfunction?
My opinion is that our unrealistic demands for performance and developmentally inappropriate expectations for children, both in home and school environments, without validation and the social and emotional support they need, is causing an increase in mistreatment of children on a grande scale, including “mistreatment” by Common Core.
There appears to be a more patriarchal control taking effect in the whole of US society.
LikeLike
Mimi–you asked about data: All data show the negative consequences of poverty and inequality. Poor teen girls are 4 times as likely to get pregnant as affluent teen girls as well as more likely to drop out of HS and not go to college. While affluent white teens in suburbs use illegal drugs as do inner-city teens, dark-skinned lower-income teens are far more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sent up for longer jail terms than are their white peers for the same offenses. Inner-city HS typically have metal-detectors and body searches welcoming dark-skinned teens to school, along with uniformed NYPD in NYC schools and a stop-and-frisk harassment of young black men which is only recently eased some under new mayor. Poor district pub schls spend more on spec ed and less on gen ed and AP classes than do suburban schls. I could go on, but you get it–poverty and inequality undermine communities of color more than they do white communities(35% of Black kids live in poverty; 11% of white kids). The only data I can find where white kids and richer kids do worse is in smoking–white teens are more likely to smoke tobacco than are inner-city kids. Class, race, and gender do drastically affect our children and their school outcomes.
LikeLike
Of course poverty and inequality give many children an enormous disadvantage, but money isn’t always the answer. I wanted to emphasis that CCSS is creating a punitive patriarchal environment for children in wealthy areas as well. Those children are equally impacted by emotional abuse. All children, regardless of their socio economic level are entitled to a school environment where they can receive the social and emotional support they need, rather than punishment.
CCSS is causing all children psychological abuse, it does not discriminate.
LikeLike
Except that the tests often discriminate based on race, poverty level, and experience. Three years ago, the writing prompt for the major writing test, which is a big determinant of school “grades,” was about tablets being used instead of books. Tablets were not as ubiquitous as they are now, and many of my students in my medium-poverty schools had never heard the term “tablet” (which wasn’t defined) in that context before. Most of them didn’t have tablets (a lot still don’t) because parents couldn’t afford them. They didn’t know what to write. The students struggled gamely, but there was a lot of frustration. We had prepared the kids to write, but had no idea that the question would deal with this scenario and so couldn’t define the word for the kids.
LikeLike
Is this a correlation or a cause, Ira?
LikeLike
Then “smother mothering” is a form of patriarchalism?
LikeLike
“Smother mothering” is a type of dominance that inhibits a child’s social and emotional development. It hampers their development of self and identity. Narcissistic mothers are “smother mothers”.
LikeLike
Harlan,
“Smother mothering” is similar to parochial authoritarianism, only it is dominance of children by the mother, while parochial is usually dominance by the father. Teachers can have the same impact of “smothering” their children. It causes them to become codependent and have a fear of authority. It can be seen in families with workaholism and alcoholism, and is sometimes called the ACoA Syndrome.
LikeLike
Ugh! Everything is a pathology.
LikeLike
Yes, money can help make a difference. So can well trained, committed teachers & principals who know how to form alliances with community members, families and others to help students, and who believe they can make a difference.
Sorry that you clumped together all charters. Like district schools, they vary widely.
LikeLike
Except that money affects community connections, too. In poverty stricken areas, there aren’t a lot of businesses with cash to donate, and many parents do not have the ability to donate much cash, if any. Furthermore, adults are working long hours, often at multiple jobs, and cannot come to conferences, concerts, games, and the like as much as they would like to.
I believe I can make a difference, as do the other adults in my building, and many others like my building. However, we simply do not get the help that we need to provide all of the amazing activities that wealthier schools get automatically. Teachers in high poverty schools cannot pay for special curricula or field trips, because we are busy paying for basics like copy paper, tissues, and basic school supplies out of our own pockets.
LikeLike
One of our grand daughters attends a neighborhood district elementary school with a very high percentage of students from low income families. I understand exactly what you are saying re the families and community groups can not equal what similar folks in affluent communities can and do contribute.
Fortunately Mn provides substantially more per pupil to public schools with high concentrations of students from low income families.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on jsheelmusic and commented:
This isn’t new knowledge… BUT, it is good to repeat to those who don’t know all ready..
LikeLike
Ira Shore is only partially right. The private school thing of picking teachers who are not teachers is not good because knowing your subject matter is not an assurance that you can teach it to children. It means they are probably actually not getting as good an education in some cases. A lot of non-teachers, including our president make this irrational assumption, that anyone can teach.
I disagree on another point. In Metro Atlanta the highest paid district was Atlanta Board of Education. It was a predominantly inner city African-American system in both faculty and students. There was competition every year for the suburban systems to pay the best, to top Atlanta. But Atlanta usually overcame the suburbs in pay, had the biggest local supplement. Plus, the suburbs never mentioned that they cut the experience of their teachers. Wealthy Cobb County, home of Newt Gingrich, paid for only 5 years for regular ed and 10 for special ed. Gwinnett County, supposedly one of the best systems in the state did the same and was extremely difficult to get hired on. Atlanta did not cut experience AND they paid their teachers twice a month, not once a month as the burbs did. And they had better benefits. The rural districts usually paid the least, some only at the state rate. Atlanta had more trouble getting teachers and supposedly more difficult students than the suburbs did, so they offered a better deal.
Then there is another issue in Atlanta. Almost all the children, except the very rich with incredible connections, and even some of them, went to public school. The parochial system was small due to Catholics being an extreme minority. Some of their schools closed for lack of students. Even the very rich had to register their children at conception (yes literally, conception, for the preschool program) if they hoped to get them into the best private schools.
Yes, within the system there were some public schools that were better and better equipped and more elite than others, but when it was noticed that upper middle class black parents and teachers were sending their kids to North Atlanta High and Sutton Middle, (well off area) they built Arthur Ashe High School on the southwest side, conveniently located to the interstate to bring them back. Board employees could send their kids to any school that had room, so people watched schools that had a lot of TKs.
In addition, at the time, the rule for Atlanta was that even a substitute teacher had to have a college degree and a long term substitute had to have a current or expired teaching certificate—like was a retired teacher. They did not have to be in-field, but there was one lady who was a special educator and had taught the parents of some of the students at a school where I worked and she wrote IEPs.
So there are exceptions to the rules.
LikeLike
twinkie: You say: “knowing your subject matter is not an assurance that you can teach it to children.” True enough, but if a teacher does not know her subject matter well, that is a guarantee that she CANNOT teach it to children.
I’d go for subject knowledge FIRST, and then secondarily for pedagogical training. Pedagogy, except for special ed, can often be developed by experience in the classroom. It is, of course, better to learn how to sail, than try to pick it up, but if a teacher does not know how to navigate, i.e. what the intellectual goal is, no sailing skill can avail.
How many English teachers can read Shakespeare with comprehension? Without knowing Shakespeare well, should one even aspire to be an English teacher?
So called “content knowledge” actually matters.
LikeLike
The issues of race and class and gender as they relate to educational opportunity and academic succes) precede the ‘deform’ movement. They are historical characteristics of public schools. Public schools have never operated on so-called meritocratic principles: “Careers Open to talent”. Why do you think that working class and poor kids get tracked into the lowest rungs of the education and employment ladder? No, let’s not get sanctimonious about a delusional past. But, what we are seeing is the creation of a formal, institutionalized tracking system in which the historical victims remain the same. Only this time, the middle class kids are also suffering from the bogus, destructive pedagogy, with its despicable privatization of public schools. I am not making less of the current monstrous ‘deformation’ ‘movement, but, rather, asking readers to remember that public schools have a checkered history at best of providing equal educational opportunity to all kids.
LikeLike
Well said. If public schools had ever been some integration and equality utopia, charter schools and the bogus pedagogy they peddle never would have stood a chance.
LikeLike
Even in states with more equal income distribution, such as Utah, there are vast differences in school-level funding. My school, which is about 40% free and reduced lunch, isn’t poor “enough” to qualify for Title I funding, but still gets the “same” amount of money as wealthier schools in the other end of the district. The problem is then that my school has to cover 40% of the student fees, because those kids qualify for fee waivers. The teachers at the wealthier schools are always astounded when we all meet in district-level meetings: “Why don’t you have money for field trips, or paper, or tissues, or new curricular materials? We all get the same amount of money!” What they fail to realize is that we have so much more we have to cover in daily expenses than they do. Not to mention, because the parents in those schools are wealthier, they both donate more money to their schools AND have an out-sized influence on district-level administrators. Which is why MY school did not get air conditioning recently, where another school, same grade levels and roughly same number of students in a building that was built at the same time as my building was built, DID get air conditioning. The parents at the other school threw a fit, and they were listened to, because they have expensive lawyers. At my school, parents (and students and teachers) would dearly love air conditioning, too, but many of our parents work multiple jobs and cannot contribute the time OR money that they would like.
LikeLike
Good points.
LikeLike
Good question. Just drove four hours to attend a parent input meeting regarding how best to display the newly required School Letter Grade (a la Jeb) and coordinating info on the state website.
MOST of NC will have a D or F.
Is this helping NC children?
LikeLike
“…how best to display the newly required School Letter Grade….”
On the toilet paper.
LikeLike
As our good friend Duane would say: TAGO!
LikeLike
🙂
Getting ready to write several people at state level with my thoughts. If we put the school letter grade up (as required by our ALEC-loving General Assembly) we should also put up a report card reporting on:
certified teachers, food provided, transportation provided, play grounds, facilities, where the graduates go to college, Tobacco free zone, etc.
BTW, if charters set up in strip malls, which some do, they are not a guaranteed drug-free zone are they? Nor are they free of registered sex offenders, necessarily (the vicinity, that is).
LikeLike
Ira,
One huge reason poor kids flounder after fifth grade is that they lack the foundation of knowledge necessary to operate well in the higher grades. See E.D. Hirsch’s work. Until we switch to a knowledge-rich curriculum, poor kids’ will continue to struggle after fifth grade.
LikeLike
Ponderosa–Been following Prof. Hirsch for 27 years, have yet to agree with his earnest labors. Factual knowledge is not what low-income kids need to succeed in school and society. Children of all classes need rich, involving, bedazzling encounters with all kinds of projects and problems which merge science, history, art, music, literature, poetry, math, and social awareness. Some kids get this kind of expensive schooling, most not. Most have always gotten lots of things to memorize for the test on Friday. Lower-income kids also need welcoming, open orientations to school discourse as it relates to their community discourses, and to civic institutions like public school as a welcoming, responsible inclusion in the making of society. Lists of facts, dates, events, famous people and sayings, places, etc., are not what kids of any class or race or gender need to develop intellectually as stakeholders of their society. They need complex, language-rich, meaningful, well-prepared, problem-posing, decision-making, deliberate activities through which to interact with peers, teachers, adult mentors, authorities, media, and parents. Educational research is laden with studies of how differentiated schools, family lives, geographies, and everyday experiences in diverse communities combine to develop kids’ cultural orientations. Shirley Brice Heath in ’83 published Ways With Words, very widely discussed then and since, about impact of sociolinguistic/sociocultural factors in and out of school structured by social class, impacting how kids fared in school(mostly middle-class kids succeeded). Annette Larreau’s Unequal Childhoods six years later was an even closer ethnographic study at the social context of class and race as they interacted with schooling to develop kids differently. Kids of different classes and races internalize different discourse habits from their speech communities of origin and from the experiential/intellectual structures of their schools; their ways of seeing, being, and speaking differ because their social locations differ along an influential hierarchy. The career work of Jean Anyon also demonstrated the impact of these school differences on different child development.Of course, all curricula require some rich contents, there is no such thing as a subject-matter-free pedagogy or a content-free syllabus or lesson plan; all schooling is a form of discourse–pedagogical discourse–and the starting point of any human discourse is a subject, what we are talking about. Humans don’t talk in the abstract, don’t just talk–we talk “about.” As Dewey proposed 100 yrs ago, the job of the teacher is not to “pour” facts into students but rather to structure subject matters into student experience. Freire reiterated this 50 yrs later. In the 80s, Bruno Bettelheim went so far as to suggest that the immediate social context of schooling itself should be posed as a problem to incoming kindergartners, “Why do we have to go to school? Why is it that we are in school?” Such a question addressed kids as constitutional stakeholders in the making of their knowledge and experience, not as passive receivers of contents handed to them. Dewey further proposed that all learning should be presented as research, as investigative problems engaging students in deep reflection on some meaningful material, to produce an intelligent habit of mind. Mere presentation of famous facts is not the way to move children’s wisdom forward.
LikeLike
“Factual knowledge is not what low-income kids need to succeed in school and society.”
They better hope it’s not what they need to succeed in school and society, because higher-income kids are getting much, much more of it outside of school than they are.
LikeLike
Ira, like many smart people, you are blind to the way memorized facts allow you to think, read and write. You take them for granted. You have millions of bits of information in your long-term memory banks that you take for granted. Without them, no amount of “nurturing environments” and opportunities for “discourse” would enable you to function at a high cognitive level. What do make of that study of good readers and bad readers getting an article on baseball –the one where the bad readers who played baseball scored better on the test than the good readers who didn’t play baseball? Prior knowledge is the key to reading comprehension! The best readers are the ones with the most general knowledge. Ergo we must bestow general knowledge on our kids. Dewey and Freire are demonstrably wrong when they say education isn’t about pouring knowledge into heads; it IS about pouring knowledge into heads. You’re confusing factoids with facts. Yes, disconnected bits of trivia badly taught is a travesty of education. Bodies of knowledge well-taught and memorably taught IS the essence of education. Kids who have a good foundation of knowledge DO remember lessons –I have former students who come back to me and tell me they remember everything they learned in my class (they’re exaggerating, but the truth is a lot did stick). Sadly, a lot of my underprepared students struggle to remember anything because they never understood in the first place –the onslaught of unfamiliar words and concepts was too much. They lacked the schemata on which to hang new facts (and before you condemn me for bad pedagogy, know that I draw tons of comics and use lots of visuals, skits and act outs, etc –these help, but they can’t perform miracles of remediation). Ira, our job as teachers is primarily to transmit knowledge. We’ve gone down a rabbit hole with our theorizing about education and come to this upside-down land where teachers are told not to teach and students are not supposed to learn! Come back to common sense. Let’s teach our students well.
LikeLike
If the teachers at private schools don’t have to meet the same standards as those from public wouldn’t the public school teachers be MORE qualified. Some of the poorest inner city schools have the highest per pupil expenditures yet still have dismal academic results. How do we address that fact?
LikeLike
The problem in inner-city schools is not the teachers. If you swapped the teachers from Harlem High and Scarsdale High, the scores at Harlem High would still be abysmal. The main problem is lack of intellectual capital in inner-city students. Schools should remediate this but they don’t because of an anti-knowledge bias amongst American educators. The problem is poor curriculum. As far as I’m aware, the only large-scale example of lifting up the disadvantaged through schooling is France before it Americanized its curriculum in the 90’s. The secret there was a knowledge-rich curriculum beginning in preschool. That closed the achievement gap. E.D. Hirsch writes about this.
LikeLike
Do you think the teachers matter more at Scarsdale High than they do at Harlem High?
I ask because I assume that when you refer to “the problem” in your first sentence, you mean something like “the most significant factor in student achievement,” rather than that the teachers at any two schools can always be interchanged without effect. Which made me wonder, if swapping the teachers from Harlem High and Scarsdale High would have no effect on Harlem High, would it have any effect on Scarsdale High?
LikeLike
Or, to rephrase my question, are you suggesting that importance of teacher quality is negligible when the students have less than a certain threshold of “intellectual capital”?
LikeLike
The gifts possessed by the Scarsdale teachers would have little impact on most of the Harlem kids b/c these kids failed at earlier ages to acquire the background knowledge/schema that would enable them to assimilate it efficiently (and that’s assuming the Scardale teachers could conquer giant behavior management challenges and do any teaching at all). Yes, you need foundational knowledge to gain more advanced knowledge. To be effective at all, the Scarsdale teachers would have to scrap their HS syllabi and concoct remedial ed syllabi.
The kids in Scarsdale would probably learn somewhat less, but many of the Harlem teachers who possess robust subject area knowledge would blossom in a way they probably couldn’t in Harlem and do a good job. Verbal SAT scores at Scarsdale probably wouldn’t decline much since kids there gain so much world knowledge outside of school. Math scores would probably decline, since most kids get most of their math knowledge from schools.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
While I think lack of background knowledge IS part of the reason that inner city schools struggle on standardized testing, which I assume is the definition of “failing” mentioned upthread, it is NOT the only reason. Kids who are living in chaotic home lives, in areas with violence, drugs, and gangs, with unmet health and vision and dental needs, who may be homeless or do not know where their next meal is coming from, sometimes do not care as much about academic learning at school. Sometimes they do, but it’s hard. I find many of these poverty stricken kids to be brilliant–but in ways that standardized tests would NEVER measure.
LikeLike
Re: the definition of “failing,” I was focusing on what Shor wrote: “Factual knowledge is not what low-income kids need to succeed in school and society.”
Certainly the kids you describe have problems that go beyond a lack of “background knowledge.” To put it mildly. My only point, to the extent I have one, is that lacking background knowledge sure doesn’t help you succeed, either on standardized tests or in life.
LikeLike
In response to Ira Shor: When Do Kids Count?
“Teachers count only if their students count. To count in this society, kids have to come from affluent families; the teachers of those affluent kids are paid more and generally treated better. The vast majority of students in k-12 pub schls don’t count b/c they are poor, working-class, or lower middle-class, many not white, many first-generation immigrants…”
I beg to differ. James Coleman’s study – 1966 – did an intensive study for the government which revealed that the most important variable in school achievement was the family. Family living has a lasting influence on children. Parental example is extremely influential in school success. Literacy level of parents is significantly related to that of their children. Children need quality time…parents/caregivers need to model for them those values they want their children to emulated. If we value literacy then we must create a literate environment and read themselves. Homes don’t have to be wealthy to do that. Repeatedly, research shows very important facts about the family and literacy. Parents who read with their child, who have books around the house as well as magazines and newspapers, who point out print on signs, who immerse their child in printed literature of one kind or another, do great deal to make reading a natural experience for their child.
In contrast, the parent who never reads, who allows their child to watch hours of TV, play video games for hours, text message friends for hours or who do no value literature by his or her actions, will very likely transmit that anti-literacy value to the child. Literacy is not only a school affair; it is a family affair. Yes, parent/caregiver’s attitude and family life – not the poverty aspect -exerts a lasting influence on children and the parental example is extremely influential in school success. Where there is a will there is a way. The community provides plenty of resources -especially the public library to help any parent/caregiver at home. Some churches have taken up the challenge of providing books to poor families. If the parent/caregiver can’t read, the library provides read along discs and tapes. They provide computers and computer support and much more. What ever the excuse there is an answer if we look for it.
Ben Carson is just one example of one who rose above poverty and a poor neighborhood:
“Ben Carson overcame his troubled youth in inner-city Detroit to become a gifted neurosurgeon famous for his work separating conjoined twins.” http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#awesm=~oGlfm9ID0FjOIe
Another report: 2013 NEW LEADER SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS http://newleaderscholarship.org/scholars/scholar-stories/
refutes, who came from “poor, working-class, or lower middle-class, many not white, many first-generation immigrants…”
John Goodlad in his book A Place Called School doesn’t want to argue with Coleman but adds the demension of “classroom processes.” An informed electrified teacher (my words) has a lasting impact. So, too, the parent/caregiver along with the motivated, competent teacher can provide an outstanding education. Being, “poor, working-class, or lower middle-class, many not white, many first-generation immigrants…,” as Ira Shor states, isn’t an excuse or cause. Parent/caregivers who never read, who allow their child to watch hours of TV, play video games for hours, text message friends for hours or who do no value literature by their actions, will very likely transmit that anti-literacy value to the child. Literacy is not only a school affair; it is a family and community affair.
Yes, family life – not the poverty aspect -exerts a lasting influence on children-
parental example and attitudes plus teachers’ drive and competence
are extremely influential in school success. Where there is a will there is a way. The community provides plenty of resources – specifically the public library to help any parent/caregiver at home. Parents/Caregivers with an indifferent attitude; parents who think schools should do it all; parents who don’t value education are the culprits of student’s poor achievement. I am not referring to special education students nor homes handicapped with violence and incarceration – that happens in wealthy families also. I know plenty of homes where both parents work, including single parent homes and second language homes where the caregivers make time for their children. I know of homes where the father went to fifth grade but son/ daughter received a doctorate.
LikeLike
Mary DeFalco is spot on. Race, gender, class are far less determinant of school success than VALUES. VALUES transcend race, gender and class. When parents choose to spend their sometimes limited disposable income on trips to Las Vegas and Six Flags several times a year, but never take their kids to a museum, aquarium or even the public library, that is a values-based decision. When the library near my school (and several other schools) in a multiethnic neighborhood contains few Latino or African American students studying , but many Asian and “White” students studying on a daily basis, as well as Asian and White families reading with their younger children often on Saturdays, that is a values-based decision. The children’s librarian told me she sees few Latino or African American families there on Saturdays. Fifty years of Title I funding has made a tiny dent in the so-called achievement gap; Values transcend money, as well.
LikeLike
Well put, “nails . . . . ” That’s the kind of thing people do not want to hear. It hurts their tender psyches like the screeching of nails against the black board.
LikeLike
The reasons for social decline are innumerable and include numerous well intentioned social programs and the loss of moral judgement. In the effort not to stigmatize certain behaviors we de facto promoted them. It is a confusing world when “do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.
LikeLike
It’s important to remember that Ben Carson and others who ‘manage against all odds” are exceptions to the rule. As teachers, our job is to provide appropriate supports and conditions in school to offset the things we cannot control – what happens in kids’ lives outside our classrooms. When schools serving large numbers of kids with chaotic home lives are designated as “failing” based on the sole criteria of test scores, and subsequently closed, these same kids are left with no supports anywhere. As poverty among our school-age kids in the public schools rises, more and more of these supports are stripped away and monetized to the benefit of the private sector.
LikeLike
The value failure of the wealthy is endemic, with the causal factor, private schooling. There is as much, if not more, to fear from the abuses of the 1%, than to fear from poor people. Devastating bogus austerity fixes came out of private education. The fear that the 99% won’t tote that barge with the right education or won’t live up to the expectations of self-appointed saviors of society, pales in comparison.
The parents of the affluenza teen, didn’t have the skills to prevent their son from mowing down and killing 4 innocent people. In terms of contribution to a better future for the nation, what evidence do the plutocrats have that they haven’t done more harm than good?
LikeLike
Jeb Bush must be one heck of a man’s man to have had the kind of harmful influence he has had on states to which he has no real connection.
I baffled by it.
I wish I had that kind of charm. I would undo everything he has done to hurt public schools.
LikeLike
I am baffled by it.
LikeLike
It’s not Jeb’s fault, but George’s. The ENTIRE education community bought into the impossibility of NCLB because we really do believe that no child SHOULD be left behind, and we still do.
WE have undertaken the social responsibility for every kid’s having a truly fair shot, or equal opportunity, at becoming educated. WE think that we can save every kid. I still do. However, WE have not yet found the way to do so.
We think WE can prevent every kid from falling off the “crazy cliff.” We all want to be Catchers in the Rye, and save them all. There may be something wrong with that notion, but I haven’t yet found out what it is. Except that it doesn’t work.
LikeLike
The trail leads well before Bush. Really it can be traced all the way back to 1965 and the institution of the elementary and secondary schools act. Since then every administration, excepting Reagan, (though he owns A Nation at Risk) has promoted advancement of federal intrusion in education. The Clintons probably have probably done more damage then any other beginning with Hillary and Tucker in the 1980’s and, of course, Bill and goals 2000.
LikeLike
Jeb Bush grew up with a smother mother and a bullying father (Classic Elite Narcissistic Parents). That can be detected by his emotional immaturity.
LikeLike
Professor Shore seems to think there is a way to fix the problem. I wonder what his proposed solution is.
LikeLike
Interesting comments here, particularly about parenting.
The other thing I don’t get is the trend to undo things in this country that many developing countries are trying to do. Is it because education in the U.S is simply going to be extremely complex, and yet building a cinder block building in an African, Haitiain or Mexican village is a major accomplishment and here we walk away from ideal facilities to redo a strip mall store shell and call it a school? Could the temptation to run off to a smaller school endeavor be a way of simplifying the complexities that come with an American school? As Harlan said, surviving the psychological trials of public school might just be too much for some people? There has to be a deeper explanation (albeit values and parenting, as mentioned, are all very integral) as to why folks are going along with charter and voucher mindsets. Is it that hard to be American that we seek smaller ways to navigate the system?
LikeLike
Interesting questions, Joanna. There is considerable research that students from similar groups who attend smaller schools are safer, a higher percentage at the high school level are involved in extracurriculars, a higher % graduate, and other benefits.
However, I doubt most parents have read this research. What many educators found in creating smaller schools, whether part of district or as a charter, was that many families favored these options. They felt smaller schools would be more response and pay more attention to their youngster. This isn’t to say everyone wanted their youngster to attend a smaller school. But many sought and seek them out.
LikeLike
One way to investigate this would be to look at large and small school districts and see if the desire for choice schools is greater in the larger districts. There are individual school districts in the country that educate more students than live in my state. There are a number of school districts in my state with fewer students than a good sized suburban high school.
LikeLike
Please allow me to chime in. I am the daughter of parents who were farm workers and who only finished 8th grade. I was a free lunch kid who got teased because I had a cafeteria lunch everyday. Parental dedication is everything and to assume that a parent doesn’t care or is not dedicated is unfair and judgmental. As Nails stated it’s all about the values. Does poverty increase the likelihood of school failure? Research shows that it does, but poverty does not guarantee failure. My parents did take me to the museum, zoo and other low or no cost venues. That is because they understood the importance of education and culture. Do I owe my parents a debt of gratitude for my success, absolutely. As I finish my first year as a doctoral student, I know that parental involvement and dedication go along way to supplementing what school has to offer. My professional context is a school district with only a K-8 school and a high school. There are no other options for students to attend. High SES and low SES, Hispanic and white, EL and EO all coexist in the same place. Because we are the only game in town, we work it to our advantage. There is something to be said about having all the students of the community attend the same school. Our most recent API was 771 with 800 being the goal. Our forced heterogeneity creates a school where all kids count, not just the rich, white kids.
LikeLike
And there are plenty of poor, white kids as well. Successful education is a team effort with supportive parents likely the greatest factor. There also has to big mitigation of many of the social concerns kids may be exposed to in the public schools. These social concerns are endemic in many inner city schools. Perhaps rethinking the way that we provide public housing would be beneficial. Housing projects (ghettos) need to be eliminated. Perhaps enhancing the housing voucher system instead allowing the economically disadvantaged to be housed in more hetergenous neighborhoods would bolster success.
LikeLike