Archives for category: Poverty

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.

A teacher in California heard Tavis Smiley and Cornel West interview Wendy Kopp, Jonathan Kozol, and me–in separate interviews–and this was her reaction. She wrote a post called “TFA can’t connect the dots.”

Here is a link to the interview with Kopp.

A link to the interview with me.

A link to the interview with Jonathan Kozol. I am not sure if this is the right link, as it is a panel discussion on poverty, not the 2:1 conversation found in the other links.

Paul Thomas chastises conservative leaders in South Carolina for doing the same thing over and over for thirty years and expecting to get different results.

Thirty years of testing, accountability, and choice have been expensive and have not solved the state’s education problems. The testing corporations have benefitted, but not students.

Meanwhile the root cause of poor academic performance is unaddressed: grinding poverty.

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry tore into New York City Mayor Bloomberg for his latest tactic: blaming teen pregnancy for causing poverty.

Harris-Perry knows that poverty is caused by the economic structure of society, by a society that allows one man–like Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates or Eli Broad–to accumulate many billions of dollars while millions are trapped in miserable living conditions with low wages or no jobs.

Harris-Perry knows that the 1% blame the poor for their poverty.

They also blame teachers and public schools for causing poverty.

Thanks, Melissa, for nailing it.

Before the passage of No Child Left Behind, public schools were seldom closed for low test scores. School officials and the public understood that low test scores reflected the social and economic conditions in which students live. It made no sense to punish the school because its students were living in poverty. After NCLB and Race to the Top, more and more urban schools are being closed to punish them for their low test scores.

A reader suggested that we read the following research brief:

“Here is a recent Issue Brief from Research for Action that looks into school closings in Washington DC, Pittsburgh, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Quick but great read:

http://bit.ly/13CAUuN”

An incisive essay posted on Valerie Strauss’s blog explains how we can use George Orwell’s classic 1984 to understand corporate-style school reform today.

The essay, written by North Carolina teacher Chris Gilbert, demonstrates that Orwell perfectly understood how lies, repeated often, tend to be accepted as truthful. Corporate reformers say the same things over and over again, expecting that in time their echo chamber will win out. Or, as Orwell puts it, “Myths which are believed in tend to become true.”

Gilbert gives as an example the familiar reformer claim that poverty doesn’t cause poor school performance, but “failing” schools and “bad” teachers do. We have heard this in one form or another from Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan. He offers this example:

“In a recent interview with TIME, Bush was asked, “What’s the role of poverty in education?” He responded, “I would reverse the question: education impacts poverty, not the other way around.”

Implicit in Gilbert’s essay is another point: Fiction can teach us as much about the present as non-fiction, sometimes even more. It is always amazing to young people–and to readers of all ages–to discover how a work written 65 years ago speaks loud and clear to us today. One could make the same points in “informational text,” but not with the same power as in a novel like 1984. That is the definition of a classic. It speaks to us across ages and continents, across time and space. It is as alive today as when it was written.