Archives for category: Poverty

LG, a longtime reader, wrote a letter to Senator Stacey Campfield (R) in Tennessee, who sponsored the legislation to cut the welfare benefits of poor families by as much as 30% if their children don’t raise their test scores. The legislation is inherently discriminatory, she writes, because it singles out poor families for punishment.

This raises interesting questions. How about increasing taxes on wealthy families whose children don’t raise their test scores? Senator Campfield would get way more letters from them! And people would begin asking who made the tests so important. And whether they should be used to mete out punishments and rewards. That would be a boon for the anti-testing movement.

LG writes:

Dear Senator Campfield,

Thank you for your reply.

This is a radical solution for a very important issue. How can anyone reconcile this same targeting strategy for middle and higher income families whose children are in the same academic position?

What is proposed in this bill is discriminatory in that it does not solve academic performance issues by making some rules for some of the people to follow while leaving the others to continually fail in schools. Where is the incentive for middle or upper level income families?

A large concern is for the children at lower income levels who have not yet been identified as having learning disabilities. As you said, no system is 100% perfect, including child study services. Some children may not be identified as learning disabled for years–should their families be punished by this?

I would think a better bill would target the inequality in our economic infrastructure. Apply more oversight to the assistance programs to help people get out of situations of poverty. Provide opportunities for employment, and offer health care for families who struggle. Stop discriminating against the poor and provide solutions to aid in their upward mobility.

If this is about holding parents accountable, why hasn’t this bill been piggy-backed with parental accountability for all income levels? To make any solution about money on all levels is also flawed because people with access to money may try to “buy” results or intimidate those reporting grades. The poor do not have the luxury of “buying” their way out of anything. What your bill proposes is segregating the population into haves and have-nots and then creating different rules for the have-nots. This solves nothing in the way of making positive changes in academic progress.

Instead, hold parents accountable for communicating with schools or attending parent sessions by other means. If a parent is abusive toward a child, there are laws protecting the child. It is difficult to prove if a parent is uninterested in the academic well-being of a child, but perhaps there could be requirements for ALL parents of academically-struggling children by law that do not involve financial burdens.

This bill is anti-American, and should not be pursued. As a public servant, it is your responsibility to find another way to reach these students. Singling out low income families is discrimination, no matter how good the intentions behind the act.

Here’s more about the Tennessee proposal to cut the welfare benefits of families if their children don’t make progress on state tests.

155,000 families will be affected if the bill passes.

Is this value-added right-to-eat?

The main sponsor of the bill has no children.

I knew it was Ebenezer Scrooge.

Here are the names and contact number for the committee in the Tennessee legislature that will decide whether to cut the welfare benefits of families whose children get low test scores.

Please contact them, in the name of decency.

Just when you think that things couldn’t get any worse, some legislator comes up with the meanest, cruelest, dumbest idea yet.

Tennessee is considering legislation to cut the welfare benefits to families if their children get low test scores.

Some exceptions are carved out, but the basic idea is that the kids need a carrot and stick approach. Or more likely, a whip. The kids need to be afraid that their family won’t eat.

That’ll fix education.

Who are these people?

Do they have an ounce of charity in their hearts?

Do they have any religion? Any sense of humanity?

Will they sleep well at night knowing that someone went to bed hungry because of a law they passed?

Matt D Carlo evaluates Néw Jersey’s
decision to take over the Camden school district.

Di Carlo says it may have been justified or not.

But state officials did not make their case.

Sounds like Chris Cerf should hire a statistician.

Marc Tucker has published what he says will be the final round in his debate with me.

He noticed that I never actually responded to his first two posts. I printed the views of others.

I have not debated him because I don’t see how it is possible to debate a hypothetical.

OK, we can debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but I am too busy to debate that.

Or we could debate whether test scores will go up or fall if we give every student access to medical care.

But we won’t know until we try.

He thinks the Common Core standards are fabulous; I don’t know whether they are good or not because they have never been field-tested. He doesn’t see the necessity of field-testing, but I disagree. You don’t impose new standards, new tests, and new everything without some advance knowledge about their consequences.

Do we know if they will improve students’ knowledge and understanding of math and reading and other subjects? No.

Do we know if they will widen the achievement gaps between students of different races and students from high- and low-income families? No, we do not.

Do we know if they are developmentally appropriate for children in K-3? No, we do not.

Wouldn’t it be useful to know these things before we change everything? I think so, Marc does not.

I don’t understand how we can debate a topic in which we know so little.

Here is what I do know.

The most reliable predictor of test scores is family income.

The Common Core will have no impact whatever in changing the scandalous proportion of children who live in poverty in this nation. Nearly a quarter of our children are living in poverty, as compared to far smaller proportions in other societies. If we were to make a dent on that number, bring it down to, say, 15%, that would have a bigger impact on test scores than Common Core. But that is just my guess.

The common wisdom, repeatedly predicted by state superintendents, is that test scores will drop by 30% or so when the Common Core standards are assessed because the tests are “harder.” This will feed the corporate reform narrative that “our schools are failing.” They will use the new stats to attack public education and demand more vouchers and more charters and more privatization. The entrepreneurs are eagerly awaiting the moment when the bad scores are announced, as it will give them new opportunities to sell their edu-schlock.

The fact that David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core standards, was an original member of the board of Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst–the corporate reformers’ attack machine against public education–is no comfort. The other members of her original board were Jason Zimba, who wrote the Common Core math standards, and a third person, who worked for Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners. In other words, Rhee’s board was the same as the Common Core leadership.

There, Marc, I debated you.

We have had a lively conversation on this blog about whether poverty matters in relation to test scores, whether it is a cause or merely correlated with low scores, and whether schools alone (as some “reformers”) claim, can end poverty.

TeacherEd weighs in here:

This is just a red herring. It’s been over 45 years since the “War on Poverty” started, which first aimed the focus on “fixing” poor school children, beginning in Head Start, rather than requiring that highly profitable corporations pay their employees a livable wage. We have had decade after decade after decade of subsequent education “reforms” imposed by politicians and big business, aimed at “fixing” schools and “fixing” teachers, and now aimed at replacing schools and career teachers entirely.

We should not still be having a conversation about IF poverty is the cause of the achievement gap. Whether it’s causal or just a very high correlation does not matter when it’s so evident that this is a global issue: “International tests show achievement gaps in all countries” http://www.epi.org/blog/international-tests-achievement-gaps-gains-american-students/

This is a problem that does not just exist in America; all nations have an achievement gap between lower and higher income students, and countries such as England have been researching it, too: http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/workarea/education-and-poverty

Continuing to raise questions about the causes and effects of school failure among low income students is just a diversionary tactic. This is a planned distraction. It’s a strategy for avoiding having to deal with the root cause of poverty, which is simply not enough jobs with livable wages.

It’s a pretense for diverting attention away from the increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth in countries like America, so that while everyone is busy looking the other way, questioning whether poverty is the culprit, blaming schools and scape-goating teachers, the elites can continue to bankroll the privatization of public education, while labeling their investment “reform” when it’s really a business plan.

Poverty is the issue, in EVERY country. So forget all the bogus “research” that billionaires can purchase to support the diversion.

Instead of taking all those hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations to “reform” education, it’s time to hold them accountable for perpetuating poverty and require that companies like Walmart, and all the other highly profitable corporations that are culpable, pay their employees a living wage, because “Low-Wage Workers Employed Mostly By Large, Highly Profitable Corporations” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/low-wage-workers-_n_1687271.html and “more Walmart employees on Medicaid, food stamps than other companies” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/dec/06/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-says-more-walmart-employees-medicaid-/

And they can well-afford equitable pay rates for their employees, instead of giving them brochures about how to apply for Food Stamps, etc: “Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/

This is corporate welfare and Americans should not stand for it, “Hidden Taxpayer Costs” (scroll down to see state by state) http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs

Wal-Mart is not alone and this is just the tip of the iceberg:
“Top Corporate Tax Dodgers” http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102512%20-%20JobDestroyers3.pdf

These are the conversations the billionaires investing in privatizing education want to avoid, so we MUST have THOSE talks and take action now, instead of falling for their red herring technique for another 45 years.

I have to take my hat off to Jersey Jazzman. He has endless patience to read the tendentious “studies” produced by corporate reformers with the intent of proving that poverty doesn’t matter.

Here he takes on another one, asserting that “quality” teachers trump everything.

There is a simple way to prove the proposition. Why not take the entire staff of New Jersey’s highest performing public school and switch them with the staff of the state’s worst “dropout factory”?

Don’t take into consideration that the high-performing school has smaller classes, better resources, a full curriculum, etc., just switch the teachers.

There is lots more that goes into the differences but at least we could test the simplistic claim that high test scores and low test scores are solely the result of differences between teachers..

This is one of Gary Rubinstein’s most powerful posts.

He analyzes a series of TFA videos that are shameless propaganda for the view that high expectations overcome poverty and that TFA has cracked the secret code of education.

This sort of rhetoric reveals the basic sin of TFA. The organization encourages policymakers to believe that they don’t need to do anything to reduce poverty. Maybe that’s why the corporate giants and rightwing foundations such as Walton love TFA.

No new taxes, just higher expectations from teachers with five weeks of training.

Kenneth Bernstein is an award-winning NBCT who recently retired as a teacher of government. He is now caring for his wife, who is recovering from a major illness. He usually blogs at the Daily Kos but has taken the time to share his insights here as a comment. Thank you, Ken.

He writes:

We have had a decade of the “reforms” of No Child Left Behind. The approach embodied therein actually is traceable back 30 years, to the release of A Nation at Risk, continued through Goals 2000 which claimed that it would result in America being first in the world in math and science by that date, has seen policy doubling down through Race to the Top and the proposals in the Obama administration’s “Blueprint,” and now we continue the insanity through Common Core and the common assessments. In each of these cases what was excluded in the making of education policy were the voices of those expected to implement the policy choices, professional educators – teachers and principals.

Instead we have had think tanks, we have had politicians, we have had organizations that stand to profit from the decisions – and that includes ostensibly non-profit organizations such as the College Board and ETS among others.

The results to date have not been as promised.

We have failed to address many of the real issues affecting our students, starting with the high percentage (compared to other industrialized democracies) of children in poverty, children who do not get proper nutrition or health care, whose teeth may be rotting, who need glasses but do not have them.

We have had imposed policies that have already been tried and found wanting – turning schools over to “educational management” organizations, converting them to charters, turning to mayoral control – or not yet piloted and evaluated – here the Common Core is one of the best examples. The “data” that has been produced is often either incomplete or in fact downright manipulated – such as graduation rates in Texas, from which we got No Child Left Behind. We ignore contradictions in policies – we have too many students dropping out so to fix that we are going to raise the bar and impose “standards” that are not based on what we know about brain development and differential development rates.

Unfortunately too often the media organizations which should serve to explain things jumps on board the bandwagon. Perhaps it should be expected when the corporation which owns one of the major national newspapers, The Washington Post, gets most of its profits from a for-profit educational venture, Kaplan, which benefits from policies such as increased emphasis on tests.

Fortunately modern means of communicating and organizing are allowing pushback – by parents, students, teachers, administrators, even school boards.

Slowly Americans are beginning to realize that the emperor of educational “reform” is naked – that is, what is being forced upon America’s public schools is less concerned about real learning by students and more concerned about political and economic power.

Perhaps it is time for major media organizations to be far more transparent in their presentations on education, to give equal voice to the voices that have not been heard.

I once had a conversation with a sitting governor, close to a decade ago. The governors had just had a conference on education. Each governor had brought a business leader, which he acknowledged. I asked why each governor had not brought a teacher, or some other educator. He was shocked and acknowledged he at least had never considered the possibility. That is symptomatic of what is wrong in how we make educational policy.

It is also why so many educators – principals as well as teachers – are so demoralized. They are excluded from the making of policy, they are demonized when they object and try to raise the issues that should be discussed. Meanwhile they continue to see the conditions necessary for serving their students disappear, what protections they had to enable them to do their jobs correctly are being taken away from them.

I once told Jay Mathews that I might not object to having my students assessed by quality tests at the end of a course, but I refused to be held accountable if you told me how I had to teach them, because then I had no ability to shape my instruction according to what I knew of my students, and how they were learning.

Increasingly we are trying to tell our teachers not only what to teach but also how to teach it. Sometimes we are even imposing scripted lessons.

Should not the real evaluation be of the results of what has been imposed by those who are not educators, who are not attempting to address the individual needs of the students in their classes, in their schools? And were we to evaluate that way, would w not find almost all of the “reforms” to be failures?

Except the ‘reforms’ have not failed in their other purposes

– increasing profits for testing and curriculum companies (often the same)
– breaking the power of teachers unions
– diminishing the professionalism of teachers, principals and superintendents
– effectively privatizing one of the most important public functions
– removing democratic control of public education and politicizing it in places where it becomes easier to impose the corporatizing agenda.

You know all this.

You have written and spoken out about this.

We need more voices speaking out, loudly.

Thanks for being an important voice.