Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University offers common-sense ideas about closing the achievement gap. She says that testing is less important than teaching. No surprise there.
She reviews an OECD study about teachers. What it shows is that teachers in the U.S. work longer hours under more difficult conditions than teachers in many other nations.
“Now we have international evidence about something that has a greater effect on learning than testing: Teaching. The results of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), released last week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), offer a stunning picture of the challenges experienced by American teachers, while providing provocative insights into what we might do to foster better teaching — and learning — in the United States.
“In short, the survey shows that American teachers today work harder under much more challenging conditions than teachers elsewhere in the industrialized world. They also receive less useful feedback, less helpful professional development, and have less time to collaborate to improve their work. Not surprisingly, two-thirds feel their profession is not valued by society — an indicator that OECD finds is ultimately related to student achievement….
“Nearly two-thirds of U.S. middle-school teachers work in schools where more than 30 percent of students are economically disadvantaged. This is by far the highest rate in the world, and more than triple the average TALIS rate. The next countries in line after the United States are Malaysia and Chile. Ignored by our current education policies are the facts that one in four American children lives below the poverty line and a growing number are homeless, without regular access to food or health care, and stressed by violence and drug abuse around them. Educators now spend a great deal of their time trying to help children and families in their care manage these issues, while they also seek to close skill gaps and promote learning.
“Along with these challenges, U.S. teachers must cope with larger class sizes (27 versus the TALIS average of 24). They also spend many more hours than teachers in any other country directly instructing children each week (27 versus the TALIS average of 19). And they work more hours in total each week than their global counterparts (45 versus the TALIS average of 38), with much less time in their schedules for planning, collaboration, and professional development. This schedule — a leftover of factory-model school designs of the early 1900s — makes it harder for our teachers to find time to work with their colleagues on creating great curriculum and learning new methods, to mark papers, to work individually with students, and to reach out to parents.”
She offers specific proposals for supporting teachers.
She concludes:
“We cannot make major headway in raising student performance and closing the achievement gap until we make progress in closing the teaching gap. That means supporting children equitably outside as well as inside the classroom, creating a profession that is rewarding and well-supported, and designing schools that offer the conditions for both the student and teacher learning that will move American education forward.”
“We cannot make major headway in raising student performance and closing the achievement gap until we make progress in closing the teaching gap. That means supporting children equitably outside as well as inside the classroom, creating a profession that is rewarding and well-supported, and designing schools that offer the conditions for both the student and teacher learning that will move American education forward.”
I think she needs to get much more specific. Give us details. Call Bill. Call Arne. Call Barack.
How do we do that Linda and are you going to tell Obama that his toxic policies are leading us in the opposite direction?
It’s a war against teachers and the only war his administration is winning.
Absolutely right, thank you. LDH has to specify exactly what is needed from whom for whom. Small class size? Librarians, counselors, parent educators, community liaisons, after-school and weekend learning and recreation, school nurses seeing all kids in school and medical care at home? Free books distributed each month to school kids? Full-time arts and music programs? Lay out exactly what is needed, including an anti-poverty program which attacks the biggest factor in student achievement, the economic level of the family.
Oh yes, here’s a good idea. Barrington gets good scores on tests, so Barrington must have all the excellent teachers. Let’s move those teachers to Central Falls and Central Falls’ test scores will become on par with Barrington. Because that’s how this all works. This is super logical.
Of course if Cental Falls’ scores don’t go up, then those teachers will have become ineffective and will be fired. I bet those “Effective” teachers can’t wait to see who gets placed with the high need areas first!
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University reveals how to close the achievement gap in U.S. public schools while proving with facts that U.S. teachers work harder with less support in horrible conditions than any other developed country.
Based on your teaching experience in inner-city schools, what do you feel are the chances that improvements in the way we treat teachers will lead to our making “major headway in raising student performance and closing the achievement gap”?
Based on my experience teaching high poverty students in urban settings, the effects of treating teachers better will be nil. Children need economically stable homes with food regularly on the table and consistent medical care. The casualties of the war on teachers are the children. They suffer from the added instability of teacher churning. Perhaps the billionaires could focus their excess energy to lifting children out of poverty rather than on torturing teachers. Darling Hammond would be well advised to do her homework before dishing out her platitudes.
N J teacher:
Of course treating teachers better won’t, in itself, solve all the problems. But do you really believe that lowering class size, giving teachers more time for collaboration, and having meaningful professional development ( not top down, flavor of the month) would have no effect?
English Teacher in California, not as long as VAM exists and every breath we take is in fear and under stress,. Not as long as strangers and our principal are constantly popping in with their little checklists to mark down everything we do wrong. Not as long as we watch our students move in and move out and miss day after day of school, knowing that their performance on one test will determine if we get to keep our teaching license and our job. Not as long as we have to think about how we will survive once we are fired, RIF’ed, or excessed because test scores.
Smaller class sizes and meaningful professional development, both of which we’ve tried (but no wholly supported) in my district help a little bit but they don’t ameliorate the things I’ve listed here.
Chris in Florida,
I guess I’m hoping against hope that treating teachers better would eliminate all of the fear-based policies in your post. Maybe I’m just looking for a ray of hope that will help me get out of my funk.
Hey California,
You make a dent in my funk and I promise to help you with yours. In the past year, I have received PD in whole brain nonsense, Responsive Classroom, Turnaround for Children, Core Knowledge, Expeditionary Learning, Checks for Understanding and other assorted BS that escapes my memory at the moment. I could talk to my lovely colleagues until the cows come home and it would serve little purpose. I have been in four schools in three years and I am off to an unknown other. Reform has done nothing for my students and is on the verge of putting an end to my career.
Chris in Florida: you made a number of good points, beginning with “not as long as VAM exists and every breath we take is in fear and under stress.”
Ah, VAM and its fuel/food, high-stakes standardized testing….
Again, with all due respect to Linda Darling-Hammond, I just took another look at a very slim book called MANY CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND: HOW THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IS DAMAGING OUR CHILDREN AND OUR SCHOOLS (2004). There are contributions by Theodore Sizer, Linda Darling-Hammond, George Wood, Stan Karp, Deborah Meier, Alfie Kohn, and Monty Neill. *Regular visitors to this blog should recognize at least some of the names right away.*
The piece by LDH is entitled: From “Separate but Equal” to “No Child Left Behind”: The Collision of New Standards and Old Inequalities (pp. 3-32). The measure and punish (M&P) approach to education that Audrey Amrein-Beardsley outlines in her very recent book on VAM—and its consequences—were laid out 10 years ago.
This thread took me back to LDH’s piece. This is what I noticed on this go round:
pp. 24-25, under FIXING NCLB:
“And gains should be evaluated with ‘value-added’ measures showing how individual stu-[25]dents improve over time, rather than school averages that are influenced by changes in who is assessed.”
pp. 30-31, near the end, about fixing NCLB:
“• Including multiple measures of learning and progress in assessing school progress and success, not just standardized tests—as well as results of performance assessments, attendance, and student continuance in and progress through school. [31]
Evaluating gains using ‘value-added’ approaches that assess the progress of individual students, not changes in average student scores that penalize schools which serve the neediest students or encourage schools to keep out or push out low-scoring students.”
I now quote from the HuffPostEd piece that can be accessed via the link in the posting:
“The United States is the only country in which students are tested annually with external, multiple-choice standardized tests, with scores reduced to a value-added metric assigned to teachers. Aside from the wide error range found to be associated with these metrics, they offer no information about what students actually did, said, or thought that could help teachers improve their practice. A more meaningful system would use classroom data and feedback from peers and principals in ways that are much more focused on how to teach specific content to particular students.”
I realize that LDH is trying to be reasonable. But after visiting ed blogs for five years and educating myself on the merits and demerits of standardized tests, I think the only defensible and consistent position for those in favor of a “better education for all” is—
Junk VAM. Junk the standardized tests that are its lifeblood.
English-to-English translation: junk the Potemkin Village Business Plan for $tudent $ucce$$ that masquerades as an education model and go back to trying to follow/implement a pedagogical version that is concerned with genuine learning and teaching that fosters citizenship in a democracy.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
KTA,
You have to be a socialist to promote “and go back to trying to follow/implement a pedagogical version that is concerned with genuine learning and teaching that fosters citizenship in a democracy.”
Señor Swacker: to borrow an idea [they don’t have many actual ideas] from the edubean counters who “know the price of everything and the value of nothing”—
Whatever it takes to ensure a “better education for all.”
Remember: political turmoil without end and economic meltdowns and nuclear weapons and the like are not the real existential threat to the good ole US of A—
It’s the state of public education.
Ok then, whatever it takes to fix the problem.
Billions and trillions for education; let the Pentagon hold a bake sale for their wars.
“I reject that mind-set.” [Michelle Rhee]
How did I know she would say that?
😎
Arne has just come out with a new plan. States must develop a comprehensive equity plan. They must identify effective teachers and move them to low performing schools. He will then report out how well states are doing. See Huffington Post.
He is going to force teachers to leave one school and work at another?
Is he providing transportation? A new home? Moving expenses?
Another stupid idea from the Manchurian candidate.
An “effective” teacher in an affluent school is not necessarily going to be “effective” in a low SES school.
I’m pretty sure I would fall flat on my face.
If so, watch a whole bunch of veteran teachers who value their lives find new careers.
What careers are they finding Jack?
And you can be sure the stats and facts ably summarized by the American scholars Linda-Darling Hammond, Diane Ravitch, and others will be totally ignored in this initiative. This initiative is about shuffling teachers around with new employment policies and the ame all dumb definitions of an “effective teacher.” It is likely to result in another of those great “game-changing” moves to reform education from the iron triangle of Gates, Obama, and Duncan.
Just making the proposal shows that the advice of knowledgeable professionals is being ignored.
You really have to question the oft-repeated logic of putting the “best” teachers with the neediest (worst) students. (Put aside for a moment the question of how you measure effectiveness — I’m speaking here of the larger idea.)
Will the economic future of this nation more depend on today’s good students or today’s bad students? Why should the most promising students get the worst teachers? Does this really make any sense at all?
How are you determining the “worst” teachers, test scores? And why do you assume the “worst” teachers come from the urban schools? Where do you teach, what grades, subjects, certification, etc?
You misunderstood me, Linda. I am not presuming to know who the best and worst teachers are, and I agree with you about the fallacy of using test scores to make this determination.
Rather, I am commenting on the oft-repeated claim that we should have our best teachers teaching our neediest students. No matter how one makes such qualitative assessments of teacher quality, this seems like a really dumb and shortsighted policy that potentially shortchanges many of our best students.
It’s just another hair brained scheme by a group of bureaucrats who have no friggin clue what they are doing. Teachers in the suburbs of Boston, Chicago, Baltimore etc are going to give up their positions to commute into the city because Arne, Bill and Obama say so. And those in the city are going to move into the suburbs. These men are clueless, careless, dangerous and sociopathic.
Which suburb are you sending me to?
Do you have a link to the Huffpo piece?
Just do a web search and click on the first non-Huffpo story about it that you find. Never click on a link to a Huffpo story.
“They must identify effective teachers and move them to low performing schools.”
If that is truly Arnie’s inane plan, then it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the legal differences between the SEA* and the LEA**.
Just another instance of proving the Peter Principle-Arnie the Inane Dunkster as Secretary of Education. (and to the complete lack of competence in the one who appointed him and those in the Senate who confirmed him)
*State Education Authority
**Local Education Authority
But wait! This can’t be! America says I am overpaid, underworked, incompetent, Marxist, evil, heathen, lazy, unaccountable, national security risk, uncaring, “bad”, out of touch, and obsolete. Just when I was starting to believe The Reformers, Ms Darling-Hammond has to come along and actually VALUE education and teachers. What is this country coming to?
You left out pedophile..see Brown, Campbell.
Looks like treating us like 💩 isn’t working out that well. Who knew?
I once admired Linda Darling-Hammond, at the beginning of my career. I bought her books a read them with deep interest. Eventually I supported Obama because she was his supposed education advisor when he ran for president. I was outraged when Arne Duncan was named as Secretary of Education and she was back-shelved, supposedly because she was acceptable to the unions and Obama wanted to show that he was not beholden to the unions.
Then something changed. She started making statements that echoed lots of the reformists basic tenets. Her work began to take on the look and feel of the extremely teacher-hostile nonsense that Marzano and Danielson produced, largely, it seemed, because they were suddenly the popular “it” people of the teacher evaluation field. It was pretty clear that both were paid for by Gates and not because they had histories of peer-reviewed research or experiences as teachers themselves.
Marzano simply complied other people’s research and wrote some slim books and suddenly ACSD declared him the king of teaching. Then he started his own business and began raking in the cash. Teachers were overwhelmed with the Marzano teaching points that suddenly took over their daily teaching. Nothing much happened as to the results of the Marzano training, checklists, book studies, etc. except that Marzano began raking in big, big money.
Danielson was paid to produce a document that would be used to stack rank teachers a la Microsoft’s now-abandoned, failed policy and got her wagon hitched to CCSS and RTTT. Suddenly states were clamoring to pay her big money to train their principals how to destroy the careers of teachers through her impossible to achieve framework.
Both Marzano and Danielson mildly object that it was never their intention to destroy teachers with their programs when it is pointed out to them that they are persistently misused and abused by principals and other “observers”. They sigh loudly and say, “Of course you won’t see all 22 components with the 60+ subcomponents in a 15 – 20 minute observation!” They don’t follow up these heavy sighs with any kind of real effort to stop school districts from misusing their follies to destroy the lives and careers of veteran teachers however.
Linda Darling-Hammond was in a unique position to do something about this abuse. She was well-known in the world of education. She was widely seen as being the real thing — a global expert on teacher preparation and evaluate — that Marzano and Danielson were falsely recognized for being. She had an international platform from which to address the abuses and the real-world destruction of the careers and lives of actual teachers.
She chose to appear on may occasions with these enemies of teachers. She spoke in carefully parsed academic terms that, perhaps, raised a few doubts about the wisdom of pursuing such punitive checklist/framework evaluation systems but she never came right out and challenged them head on. Instead her own work and recommendations began to mirror those of Marzano and Danielson. She leant them legitimacy and political cover. She agreed that teachers need to be monitored constantly and directed by those outside the classroom with little to no expertise in teaching themselves. She began advocating the silliness of “continuous improvement” in which one can never achieve success, one can never complete something, and one can never protect oneself from productivity, reputation, and professional theft because you can always “improve” on whatever it is you are doing.
Another issue was the Stanford Charter school, which was a disastrous failure. How much of her theories, philosophies, and programs were implemented there and why didn’t they work? If they weren’t implemented, why not? What did she attribute their failure to and why? If she is so much more the expert on good teaching and teacher improvement and evaluation then why didn’t she produce teaches at this school that were able to do so much better than “traditional” teachers at public schools?
I lost respect for Linda Darling-Hammond. I don’t trust her. And I don’t think this article will help teachers in any meaningful way.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! May I share your thoughts?
Please, feel free to share. Thanks!
Chris in Florida: you comments are much appreciated.
While I welcome any positive statements from Linda Darling-Hammond, I must add that like many others—you mentioned Marzano and Danielson—she must do more than they do when they “mildly object that it was never their intention to destroy teachers with their programs when it is pointed out to them that they are persistently misused and abused by principals and other ‘observers’.”
With all due respect to Linda Darling-Hammond, this reminds me of John Merrow. He lent his own prestige and reputation to Michelle Rhee, one of a select number of individuals who quite literally made her who and what she is. Yet when he finally decided posted a piece on his blog entitled “Who Created “Michelle Rhee”?” his answer was:
1), Michelle Rhee created herself;
2), “We, the mainstream media,” created her;
3), “They” [a la conspiracy theorists] created her;
4), Unions created her.
Link: http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=6316
Look again at #2 and decide for yourself: does the “diffused responsibility” argument work here?
IMHO, no. And the way to take individual responsibility: say what you mean and mean what you say, be your own most severe and honest critic.
The owner of this blog would be a good example to follow.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
Yes. Lest we forget, it is Darling-Hammond who is responsible for the edTPA, though she seems now to be claiming, like Gates, that the problem is not in the conception but in the execution, again putting the blame where it does not belong.
Thank you, Chris.
Linda Darling Hammond is a political log-roller who, while not coming directly from the academic brothel of so-called education reform, is careful to parse her words so as not to offend the powerful.
Thanks Chris, as I am typing my fingers off taking special ed classes for my M.A. I thought of responding to this post, you said it all and covered all the bases well. Well done! I’ll take any support we can get, but at the same time I am leery, this is still close to “Let’s blame the teachers.” Thanks again for saving my fingers and saying what needs to be said.
Thank you, Chris. This needed to be said.
“. . . the silliness of “continuous improvement” in which one can never achieve success, one can never complete something, and one can never protect oneself from productivity, reputation, and professional theft because you can always “improve” on whatever it is you are doing.”
No hay duda.
Shouldn’t any list of priorities for closing the achievement gap be topped by the inexcusable levels of children living in poverty? I find Darling-Hammond’s positions confusing.
It would. E interesting to analyze how much we are spending on testing ( including iPads just for that) and figure out hoe much of the school based plan could be implemented. Of course we could strip out some admins and consultants too.
Yes, we are top heavy for sure. We could also abolish the Gates USDOE and save a lot of money. Linda DH needs to get specific or her claim is meaningless. It’s also a CCS argument writing standard at all levels.
I am concerned with anyone using the word “achievement gap”, lost
faith long ago with LDH and her Common Core
This is a corporate term of dominance.
How does one define “achievement”?
How about “Love of Learning Gap” or “Income Gap”
Imagine Education as the Boston Marathon. Now we have decided to close the achievement gap of the marathon. This is a race where the span between the first runner to cross and the last can be a few hours. But we are going to close the achievement gap. 1) How can we get the slower runners at the end to go faster, when they are probably going at their physical max already. 2) How can we get the runners in the front, who can win and want to win, to slow down? This is Education Reform.
“Nearly two-thirds of U.S. middle-school teachers work in schools where more than 30 percent of students are economically disadvantaged. This is by far the highest rate in the world, and more than triple the average TALIS rate. The next countries in line after the United States are Malaysia and Chile. Ignored by our current education policies are the facts that one in four American children lives below the poverty line…”
When discussing these issues, we need a little bit of a reality check. One reason our “poverty rate” looks so bad is because of the way the U.S. government chooses to define “poverty.” Since each country chooses its own definition, international comparisons are virtually meaningless.
The fact is that “poor” people in America are rarely destitute. According to a 2005 U.S. Dept. of Engergy survey, for instance, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven, a stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.
Certainly life isn’t easy for them, and there are families that legitimately are destitute (i.e., not every family is “typical,” obviously). And certainly there are children in this country in dire need. But for the most part, such kids are victims of their parents’ neglect and stupidity, rather than casualties of a lack of material resources. How many kids go to bed hungry at night even though there are cell phones, video game consoles, and cable television in the house?
Dealing with that problem, however, is much more difficult than simply increasing funding for social services, and it brings charges of “blaming the victim.” So like the drunk searching for his car keys under the street light, we bumble along with the same tired “solutions” that didn’t work the first fifty times we tried them. There simply is no program that can fix people who refuse to act responsibly.
I think it is very difficult to sustain the argument that the US does as much to promote child well-being as many other advanced nations. Most measures as indicated by this report (http://www.oecd.org/els/family/43570328.pdf) don’t appear to be in the US’ favor:
“High overall levels of child well-being are achieved by the Netherlands and Sweden and low levels by the United States and the United Kingdom. Even at the top performing end, both the Netherlands and Sweden have a dimension along which performance is at best only adequate (material well-being for the Netherlands and Family relationships for Sweden). At the bottom, both the United States and the United Kingdom perform worse than the median country on all dimensions.”
Furthermore, the US’ relative child poverty rate (defined as living in a household that earns less than half of the national median) is extremely high when compared to other developed countries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/
Just looking at how we stack up with Australia and Canada should be illustrative given our similar income levels, immigration rates (actually higher in those nations), and shared cultural heritage.
Bill Moyers (and I) would disagree with your statement that “we bumble along with the same tired ‘solutions’ that didn’t work the first fist times we tried them.” He has a lot of information in this report that disputes your proof from one report written 9 years ago.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/08/the-war-on-poverty-at-50-did-it-work/
The War on Poverty, begun in the Johnson administration, worked well.
Having cheap, everyday appliances is not a sign of lack of poverty.
A used washer/dryer can be purchased for under $50.
A new coffeemaker can be purchased at a drug store or grocery store for less than $10.
A used television can be had for $20.
I find the examples here offensive because the implication is that people who have these basic appliances are not really “poor” by third world standards. By USA standards they are not exactly yuppies either.
The current (2014) level of poverty as measured by the US government in for a household of one to make $11,670 or less. A family of four would earn $23,850 or less.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
Yes, those amounts are equivalent to a small fortune in equatorial Africa but they buy precious little in the USA where food, rent, gasoline, insurance, medical care, and utilities have increased exponentially over the last generation.
Are there irresponsible parents? Yes. Does denying that poverty exists in high levels fix that issue? No, it provides justification for denying benefits under our once-robust safety net that is now in tatters. An examination of government statistics shows that the majority of recipients of TANF and SNAP (formerly ‘welfare’ and ‘food stamps’) are single mothers, children, the elderly, and the differently abled. There are lifetime limits 5 years on assistance so no one is sitting around being lazy and shiftless while raking in checks.
I work through the Roman Catholic Church on a variety of initiatives to end hunger, poverty, and homelessness. Education about the truth goes a long way to ending the conventional wisdom that makes it OK to hate the poor and deny them assistance because they are “bad” or “lazy”.
So again with teh “third world” canard (that I never said) and denunciations of those who might call poor people “bad” or “lazy,” even though I didn’t say that, either. Sure is a lot of defensiveness.
My only point, and I suppose I must restate it, is that there is not a clear policy path forward to fix a situation when so many of our poor have the resources to afford creature comforts, but choose not to invest in things that would further their children’s education.
The Department of Energy’s poor family sure doesn’t look like the poor families I dealt with. I would like to know in what context they were collecting information and how they collected it. I would like to know how it compares with data collected by someone with a more direct investment in such data like maybe the Department of Health and Human Services.
I would like to know what access to healthcare means. In my experience access meant a loss of wages and a long commute by public transportation followed by a long wait for service that often resulted in long waits in some other location or further service usually requiring a repeat of the whole process on another day.
I am really finding it hard to figure out where they found this typical poor family. Urban or rural that description is far too simplistic as is your dismissal of the poor as “people who refuse to act responsibly.” I’ll admit that people who have never known any other way of life but survival mode do not tend to be candidates for the Horatio Alger award. There are no easy or simple solutions. Contrary to your cynicism, however, we were making slow progress up until the Reagan era. Someone on this blog described the advent of “trickle down” Reaganomics more accurately as being “pissed on” economics. (And it wasn’t just the poor.)
2O2T,
I’ve been calling “reagonomics” “pissed on economics” (much to the dismay of my economic conservative friends) for many years before this blog was started. And yes, I’ve used that term here.
Poor people may have cars, old clunkers on their last legs but many poor people do not own cars, they use public transportation. If they aren’t homeless or moving from one low rental to another, they are living in poor housing conditions in poor crime ridden areas. This argument that poor people in the US are like rich people when compared to the inhabitants in some third world hell hole is just so much malarkey.
“There simply is no program that can fix people who refuse to act responsibly.” That sounds like something that Donald Trump or some rich libertarian oligarch might utter. Blame the victim for their plight, spoken like a true right wing GOPer or Tea Partier.
“This argument that poor people in the US are like rich people when compared to the inhabitants in some third world hell hole is just so much malarkey.”
Well, yes it would be… if I had made that argument. But I didn’t. I have teacher friends who are really tired of kids coming in saying their family “can’t afford” money for field trips or other school-related expenses, but the kid has a smart phone that’s nicer than the teacher’s. Clearly, lack of material resources is not the problem in many of these households. Rather, the problem lies in lifestyle choices and spending priorities. No amount of redistribution can do much to help that.
So teachers should be able to tell a family how to spend their money? Are you serious? Why should the teachers’ priorities override the parents’ priorities when it comes to spending their very limited budgets?
Maybe they need the “nicer” phone because they got a good deal on it and it is the primary means of communicating in a household where everyone has different schedules. Maybe those parents know that having a child of color is the same as letting that child walk around with a target on their back and it is open season in Stand Your Ground states and with many police forces. Maybe parents remember the grinding poverty of their own youth and they want to provide something nice for their child?
Don’t judge others until you walk a mile in their shoes. They may be irresponsible but then most of us are at some point in our lives. They may have drug or alcohol problems but so do many “good” people with better public reputations. They may make bad choices but everyone does occasionally.
Many of the poor families I have had the privilege to work with over my 20 year career save up for months to provide a nice Christmas gift for their kids who do without much, including food, for the rest of the year. Others use their tax refund money to support the US economy by buying new shoes, “nicer” phones, and game systems for their children who do without so much the rest of the year.
Teachers do not need to add “judge” to their long list of extra-teaching duties. We have enough on our plates. My team tries to plan activities that won’t be a hardship on our poor students. We raise money to buy things families can’t afford. And guess what? Since we don’t judge, condemn, or humiliate them they are often generous to us beyond imagining, doing such things as cooking a huge feast for the teachers as a sign of appreciation or sewing costumes for a school play. I could list other things as well.
There are bad poor people like there are bad rich people (many of whom are now in power) but there are far more resourceful, kind, generous and loving poor people if you really look and get to know them.
“So teachers should be able to tell a family how to spend their money? Are you serious?”
Please cite where I said this.
“Maybe they need the ‘nicer’ phone because they got a good deal on it and it is the primary means of communicating in a household where everyone has different schedules.”
They need an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy instead of a less expensive model? Yeah, not buying it.
Your ability to rationalize anything is truly amazing, but the fact remains that you are going to have a difficult time helping people who won’t help themselves. And if there truly are people, as you claim, who are letting their kids go without food in order to buy an XBox, shame on them. And yes, I most certainly will judge them in a situation like that.
The point is, Jack, don’t judge. You can argue that you weren’t, but by stating that lifestyle choices are part of the problem of poverty, you are judging. Yes, some of my kids living in poor conditions have nice phones, but many have no phones at all.
I have helped plenty of people who do help themselves and often they help me.
I’m sorry that you feel somehow slighted because a poor person has something nice. In my Church we call that “envy” and it is one of the 7 deadly sins, a sin that has no “upside” but only the perpetuation of bad feelings.
I guess in your world being poor means you only deserve the cheapest or lowest value items because poverty is some kind of signifier for worn or something like that?
Again, I know of middle class families who lost their jobs and their homes and live in their cars but are homeless and poor. Pride keeps many who live in poverty from revealing that they are poor because of attitudes like yours. In a society such as ours having a nice pair of shoes, an expensive phone, or a game system are status symbols and yes, poor parents. just like middle class and wealthy parents, want that same status for their children. Why are the poor not allowed the aspirations of other parents?
Hating on the poor has been popular for millennia. Blaming them for their poverty is also a popular social pastime; People who hate the poor become famous, Ebenezer Scrooge and John Calvin come to mind immediately. It makes it so much easier to be selfish and ignore the plight of your fellow humans when you can say that they are bad and deserve their poverty, doesn’t it?
Chris — Sorry, but your lame attempt at moralizing isn’t going over with me. First of all, if a family is buying “nice things” with public assistance money and then claiming there is nothing left to provide food or schools supplies for the kids, that is a problem, and it would seem to be a much bigger moral problem for you to focus on. The fact that you are apparently untroubled by this does not reflect well on you, frankly.
Second — and I’m not sure what part of this you don’t get — my point here isn’t to simply disparage anyone but rather to say that there is very little, if anything, you can do to help people who insist on making bad life choices. The oft-repeated mantra that “more” must be done simply ignores the fact that “more” will not solve the problems afflicting many people. In fact, it’s likely to make them worse.
Jack, I don’t want to argue with you anymore. You shoot from the hip and that’s great. I will not let you make comments that disparage my students, my friends, or my family, some of whom are poor, without challenge.
I actually agreed with some of the things you said up above about teachers and reformists.
Let’s leave it at that.
First, I already addressed your claim that “When discussing these issues, we need a little bit of a reality check. One reason our “poverty rate” looks so bad is because of the way the U.S. government chooses to define “poverty.” Since each country chooses its own definition, international comparisons are virtually meaningless.”:
https://dianeravitch.net/2014/07/07/linda-darling-hammond-how-to-close-the-achievement-gap/comment-page-1/#comment-2092823
Are you contending that the US’ high relative poverty rate and low scores on dimensions measuring child well-being don’t have a significant impact on academic achievement and/or test scores?
I really don’t think the evidence bears out your assertion that redistribution wouldn’t help, but I would like to see how you answer before we get into the details.
Years ago I made a point to read many of LDH’s articles especially on staff development and how it should be implemented. Not Top Down!! She was also to first to point out that students learn a different rates and through different methodologies. Yet they are now all pigeonholed. I welcome this LDH article too, but I too would like to see the specifics. There is nothing she states that we as teachers don’t already know. I also believe she supported the Pearson takeover of teacher certification which many universities and states are now implementing. This made no sense to me.
I totally agree with Linda’s comments above… We need to also look at the social issues our students and families face and find a way to work through them. Blaming the parents for “neglect” gets us nowhere. We need to open the doors beyond the classroom and the local community school is the best place to start. It is conveniently located and after school hours could be used for providing medical, dental, and job training. It could offer ESL classes, writing classes, and provide social and counseling services for families (and students) who need it. We cannot depend on a school guidance counselor or school psychologist to handle a whole student body. It’s impossible for them to meet with students on a weekly basis. I believe a school in Baltimore is working closely with John Hopkins on the re-design of a school in an inner city project that addresses these issues. We need to keep a close eye on this project rather than a closer eye on test scores.
Until we have a society where every child has a secure upbringing with decent housing,
adequate and nutritious food, medical care, and parents with jobs making a real living wage , great teaching; though critical, will not be enough.
the problem is Capitalism!
So you’re saying that nothing will ever improve. Gotcha. Because like Santa Claus, the great socialist Utopia doesn’t exist.
By the way, the computer you typed your comment on and the forum where you posted it… yeah, they’re the products of capitalism, along with pretty much everything else in your life. But hey, if you’re serious about your beliefs, make sure and post a photo of your sporty Trabant. I’m sure we’d all love to see it.
Actually the first modern programmable computers were WWII code breakers. They were funded by the German, British, and US govenments. The internet was also developed by the US DOD.
I am pleased to see that LDH is addressing teacher collaboration time, which is extraordinarily important.
Real continuous improvement flows from the bottom up. You know what flows from the top down.
Here’s how to improve teacher quality: Put teachers in charge of their own continuous improvement, treat them like knowledgeable professionals, and importantly, CREATE TIME IN THEIR SCHEDULES FOR THEM TO WORK TOGETHER COLLABORATIVELY to go over last week’s lessons and discuss what worked and what didn’t, to plan for the following week, to discuss issues and approaches, etc. In other words, institute a program of Japanese-style Lesson Study.
Extrinsic punishment and reward systems
a. Are powerfully demotivating for cognitive tasks, as has been demonstrated again and again in research by economists and social psychologists
b. Suppress the free and open communication necessary for continuous improvement to occur
c. Silence the voices of those who are in positions to know what is actually going on
d. Create climates of fear and distrust
e. Lead to widespread cheating and gaming of the system
f. Tend to be created at a distance and a priori and so to be stupid
g. Make into antagonists those (administrators and teachers) who should be working together
h. Create a climate in which teachers are competitors with one another rather than collaborators, a terrible thing because in a truly collaborative environment, stronger teachers will know who are the weaker ones and will coach and mentor them
When people feel safe, are given responsibility, and are empowered, they rise to the occasion. When they are micromanaged and disempowered and subjected to continual threat, they build resentments and subvert.
Anyone who has ever served on a jury will know what I mean. Take a cross section of the adult population, give them a grave collective responsibility and empower them, collectively, to make decisions, and they take that responsibility and power extremely seriously. I’ve served on juries three times, and each time I was AMAZED by and proud of what the ordinary people–the butcher and the baker and the candlestick maker–did.
The advice to get together often with other teachers in both formal and informal settings, for work and for play, is excellent. I don’t drink, but I will gladly, at any time, meet with fellow teachers for a wind-down session at the local watering hole after school on Friday.
Closing the achievement gap is another matter altogether. No real progress will be made there until much more is done to address inequities in the environments of children before they enter school (and even before they are born). Low SES kids come into school having heard 30 million fewer words than middle-class kids do, but their internalized models of their language are completely dependent upon that impoverished ambient spoken linguistic environment. This gap cannot be made up via explicit instruction starting at age 5 or 6, by which time irreversible damage is done. The children of the poor need rich, stimulating, safe environments that they can spend a great deal of their time in long before entering school–from birth on. If you think that providing such environments would be prohibitively expensive, consider this: as of 2010, prison cost an average of $31,286 per year per inmate and ranged from $14,603 in Kentucky to $60,076 in New York, and the United States leads the world in incarceration, with 3 out of every 100 U.S. adults either in prison, in jail, or on parole. We can pay on the front end or pay and pay and pay on the back end.
Bob Shepherd: no disrespect to you and others on this thread for what may seem like a nit-picking point—
I get what you wrote. However, very often what is meant—especially when it’s the MSM channeling a member of the charterite/privatizer crowd—is “test score gap.”
And I think that it behooves us in favor of a “better education for all” to bring up, at least once in a while, the fact that what the self-styled leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time” and their edubully enforcers and edufraud spin doctors call an “achievement gap” is really (and Rheeally) a “test score gap.”
They’re not the same thing. Just like saying a charter school that receives public monies but is run by a for-profit CMO (or a on paper non-profit CMO that contracts with for-profit companies for all its needs) is a public school. Another of the many misunderstandings that come directly from the FUDD [fear/uncertainty/doubt/dread] playbook of the $tudent $ucce$$ crowd.
Disregard if you think this is too petty, but I felt the need to put in my dos centavitos worth here…
As always, appreciate your comments.
😎
Spot on. http://www.heartlandalliance.org/the-war-on-poverty.html
I think we should be assuming that the word “academic” goes before achievement in Bob’s discussion. There is definitely an academic achievement gap. I think Bob is a bit too fatalistic in his assessment of all those children who have not received early support. Our prison population is not just made up of people who belong there since whether you are incarcerated too often depends on skin color and social status. I agree with Diane that we could go along way to alleviating the problems associated with poverty if we dealt with our employment problem. There is nothing like a job that allows an adult to support themselves and their families to raise self esteem and to change a person’s outlook on life.
Prohibitively expensive? Yes. Add unrealistic and undoable, as well. In order to provide the kind of environment you are describing, the state would basically have to raise people’s kids for them, because a few hours a day isn’t going to undo what these children are and are not getting at home. Furthermore, in order to really have an impact, it would have to be compulsory.
The implications of what you are advocating are straight out of Brave New World.
We have a choice. We can provide superb alternatives for children very early on, or we can live with the consequences of not doing that. Those consequences are catastrophic in terms of the human and financial cost.
Rewards seem to work. Extra pay for a masters or a National Board seems to motivate teachers. If they add an extra 10K to teach in a struggling district or school, more people will apply for those jobs.
You can already get student loan forgiveness for certain kinds of loans, pro-rated over a period of years, if you stay in a Title I school. Lots of people don’t know that.
Clinton had a great program that provided low-cost mortgages for teachers, cops, and firefighters who bought within their district and agreed to stay at least 3 years. George W. Bush canceled the program.
The issue is more teaching conditions than pay. Experiments have been conducted with offering higher pay with little effect.
Having overcrowded, dangerous classroom spaces badly in need of repair, with poor heat in winter and no A/C in sweltering summer heat is a factor. Getting few, if any, supplies, leaving the cost up to the teacher is another issue. Having little access to current technology (often no technology), outdated textbooks, no classroom libraries, no math or science materials, no playground or PE equipment, etc. all take a toll.
Parents can sometimes be neglectful or aggressive and administration will often side with them without even asking to hear the teacher’s story to protect themselves. Parents may avoid all contact with the school due to past experiences that were unpleasant for them or because they have criminal records, etc. so parental support is spotty.
Behavior is a major issue and lack of administrative and parental support makes it all the teacher’s responsibility. Some kids have gotten cynical from having so much churn in teachers so they test the new teacher to see if they are really committed and willing to stay the course with them.
Traveling in and out of dangerous, crime-ridden neighborhoods is an issue for many. Public transportation may be far away or haphazard and parking can be hazardous to the health of your car and expensive.
Constant churn in programs, policies, and procedures due to administration turnaround at both the principal level and the superintendent/district level is a huge problem. Everyone wants to put their own stamp on things so stability flies out the window and new programs come and go with little support and never enough time to work if they do work at all.
It’s a bit more complicated than just paying an extra couple of hundred dollars a week.
Alright, 10K and secure parking.
What the hell is “student achievement” and what does it have to do with the teaching and learning process.
I don’t give a damn about “student achievement”, I give a damn about student learning. And no those aren’t remotely the same thing.
Reblogged this on Teaching Wanderlust and commented:
This is one reason I’m not teaching in the US, “In short, the survey shows that American teachers today work harder under much more challenging conditions than teachers elsewhere in the industrialized world.”