Archives for category: Poverty

One of the unsettled questions about the Common Core standards is whether they will widen or narrow the achievement gaps between children of different races and different income levels. In their first trial in Kentucky, the gap grew larger, and scores fell across the board. Some see this effect as a temporary adjustment to higher standards. Some suspect that it is intended to induce panic among parents about public education. Some see it as an opportunity for entrepreneurs to sell more stuff to schools.

This teacher read Stephen Krashen’s post last night about the Common Core and offered the following comments.

“From a teacher who has spent this year implementing CC I can tell everyone it has been a nightmare of epic proportion.

“We were already a standards based Title 1 school with great success over the past 4 years, and these past 5 months have left my students months behind. I am a great teacher, building the relationships necessary in a TItle 1 school for students to learn. I have always posted 90% and higher pass rates on the state test (not that I give any heed to those numbers – even though my job now depends on them), but I will be shocked if I hit 70% this year following this CC crap.

“The design and implementation has left my Title 1 students feeling like failures. There is no “leveling of the playing field.” If I am to salvage something from this year I will have to risk my job and fix what CC has done for my students, essentially nothing.

“There was zero thought given to low income students, how they think or how they learn. You cannot build EVERYTHING on previous learning. Anyone who teaches TItle 1 will tell you it does not work that way. The achievement gap widens, and will become irreparable in just a few years of CC.

“I sit here over my Christmas Break trying to figure out how to implement CC for the next 5 months and still catch my kids up to level. CC is not about teaching. It is about the creation of two separate educational systems, one for the haves, and one for the have nots. Sadly for my students, and more than 50% of the children in the South, they have not and CC is not helping.”

Paul Thomas of Furman University in South Carolina says it is time for Southerners to recognize that testing is a way of reinforcing inequity. Tests reflect socioeconomic conditions. The haves dominate the top half of the bell curve, the have-nots dominate the bottom half. And the tests legitimate their status. Tests measure inequality of opportunity. They don’t change it.

Did the Global Village School Zone in Newark have a chance?

Did it get enough time?

Did it spend enough money?

Does Superintendent Cami Anderson have better ideas?

Doesn’t reform take time?

Stay tuned.

Jersey Jazzman describes Race to the Top as “segregation gone wild.”

Strangely enough, the districts that applied for RTTT cash and mandates are mostly poor and minority.

Wonder if they know that none of the federal “remedies” has ever worked?

Wonder if they know their district is likely to spend more on implementing the mandates than the money it “wins”?

Gary Rubinstein ponders the familiar phrases “poverty is not destiny” and “poverty is not an excuse.”

He understands that many poor students succeed in school, but most don’t.

The typical claim of the “reform” movement is that every student, regardless of poverty, would perform at high levels of proficiency if their teacher has high expectations or if they attended a “no-excuses” charter school.

Gary suggests it might be more fruitful to ask whether insufficient resources are destiny.

He writes:

A suburban school where the students don’t have to contend with so many out of school factors might not need very many resources for the majority of the students to be ‘college bound’ (assuming, for now, that this is a good goal to have). A school with a lot of poor students, though, might require extensive resources in order to get the majority of their students college bound. They might need an army of nurses, social workers, mental health experts, and more. Either school if not provided with sufficient resources is going to ‘fail’ to get the students to be college bound. But the suburban school, not needing as many resources, is likely to have a sufficient amount, while the urban school, since it needs more, is unlikely to get the resources it needs.

Reformers like to point to schools like KIPP or Eva Moskowitz’s charters to say that they don’t spend more than regular public schools.

But, says Gary, that’s not true. They do spend more, and they don’t have to accept every student who walks in the door, and they do have higher attrition rates than public schools.

Maybe we have to change our spending priorities if we want to be sure that “poverty is not destiny.”

The latest research studies from Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child demonstrate how “toxic stress” can severely damage children’s minds.

Everyone needs to learn to deal with adversity, says Dr. Jack Shonkoff of the Harvard Center, and some stress is a good learning experience.

But the conditions associated with living in poverty harms children’s development.

“The same brain flexibility, called plasticity, that makes children open to learning in their early years also makes them particularly vulnerable to damage from the toxic stressors that often accompany poverty: high mobility and homelessness; hunger and food instability; parents who are in jail or absent; domestic violence; drug abuse; and other problems, according to Pat Levitt, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Southern California and the director of the Keck School of Medicine Center on the Developing Child in Los Angeles.

“Good experiences, like nurturing parents and rich early-child-care environments, help build and reinforce neural connections in areas such as language development and self-control, while adversity weakens those connections.”

This should be a required reading assignment for all those corporate-style reformers who insist that poverty is no excuse for low test scores, or that anyone who refers to poverty is making excuses for bad teachers.

Thus, when someone from TFA points to one school and says, “See, poverty doesn’t matter. High expectations are all it takes to overcome poverty,” tell them to read the work of Shonkoff and the Harvard Center on the Developing Child. Some children survive the most extreme adversity, but far more do not. Why should so many children in the richest society in the world be subjected to extreme adversity and toxic stress? The claim that charter schools can redress the harm done by living in deep poverty is shameful.

Poverty really does have an adverse impact on children’s development.

Camika Royal, a historian of education and Teach for America alum, write a provocative post in which she called on people to stop using the term “achievement gap.” In her original post, she said the term is offensive and demeaning and explained why. The post generated many responses. I invited Dr. Royal to respond to her critics, and she does so here:

Some have tweeted me and/or commented on my original post about my objection to the term “achievement gap.” The post originally appeared on good.is and was reposted on the Philadelphia Public School Notebook’s blog. Some readers thought that my issue with the so-called achievement gap is just about words. It is not. My concern is neither. I am not the language police or the thought police. People may say what they want and think how they please.

However, there is a consequence for every choice we make. If we are serious about giving under-resourced and historically marginalized students the education they deserve, the narrative of education reform must shift, and our dialogue must honor all voices and perspectives, not just the loudest voices or the ones with the most money behind them.

Not only is the phrase “achievement gap” offensive (which is the least of my concerns), it is also inaccurate because of its inherent Anglo-normativity. Like so many other things in American life and culture, it suggests that whatever White people do is right and whatever everyone else does is wrong, incomplete, abnormal, and/or “the other.”

This is why when people suggest the difference in test scores between Whites and Asians is an “achievement gap” that supposedly disparages Whites, thus disproving the argument of Anglo-normativity, it does not. Even within the comparison of White and Asian students’ test scores, Whites’ test scores are seen as normal and Asians’ high test scores are seen as exotic and exceptional, hence the model minority myth. Both the so-called achievement gap and the model minority myth are racist constructs.

I realize that the label “racist” is strong and hard for some to digest. It isn’t my intention to offend by sharing this truth. Sometimes, the truth hurts. And our modern iteration of racism is so covert, insidious, and subtle that often people who benefit from it are usually completely unaware of it.

As for my blanket use of “White folks” in my original post, I apologize to those I offended by suggesting that there are no intra-racial differences among White people. There is a difference between Whites who are anti-racist advocates, White allies, those who advocate multicultural efforts, those who “don’t see color,” etc. If you believe the lie that we are post-racial in this country, then everything I am writing will seem as foreign as Klingonese.

I don’t think that education reformers use the term “achievement gap” cynically. I think they really believe they are working in the best interests of children. And to be clear, the so-called “achievement gap” and the work that goes into it are not only racist but also elitist.

What extends from the notion of the “achievement gap” is a messiah complex that fuels people rallied around “saving” children from themselves, their families, and their communities. Education reformers’ messiah complex manifests in the belief that the end (a “shot” in life via high test scores) justifies the means (mechanized and routinized instruction, ignoring or dismissing community input and cultural contexts, steam-rolling the concerns of veteran educators, etc.).

This messiah complex compels top-down reforms and resists partnerships with parents and listening to communities because these reformers truly believe they know best. Education reform fueled by martyrdom and the messiah complex is missing the mark. One of my mentors, Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, said recently, “Catching up is made nearly impossible by our structural inequalities.” In agreement with her and with you, Dr. Ravitch, I believe that until education reform corrects structural inequalities teeming in under-resourced, historically marginalized communities, education reform will continue to fall short of its goal.

As for Teach For America’s quest to close the so-called “achievement gap,” I received a message on Friday that the organization discussed my article on its monthly national call with its president. According to the message, TFA’s president agreed with my article and said the organization should no longer use the phrase “achievement gap.” This is a small yet significant victory.

Changing one’s language is just the beginning of the shift. Changing organizational thinking must then be tackled; then the actions can be changed. I am stunned but glad that TFA is examining itself for the ways it may be blocking its own mission. I was also impressed that TFA was willing to engage in a conversation with its employees and Twitter followers about my article. It tweeted my article along with the question, “What does everyone think?” One of my fellow TFA alums responded by tweeting, “I think she was a selection mistake.” It’s cool, though. I know a hit dog will holler.

Dr. Camika Royal explains here that the term “achievement gap” is offensive.  She says that the comparison between whites and African Americans is inherently demeaning to the latter and ignores the reasons for what it claims to address.

Use the term “opportunity gap” or “wealth gap.” But, please, she says, stop using the term “achievement gap.”

My thoughts, Dr. Royal: This phrase  (“the achievement gap”) is used cynically by self-proclaimed “reformers” who have no genuine interest in closing the opportunity gap or the wealth gap. In fact, if you mention the causes of test score differences, they will accuse you of making excuses. They don’t want to talk about poverty or segregation. They don’t want to hear anything about causes, only about test scores gaps. They will point to schools that get high test scores by operating as boot camps. They say that black children need a “different” kind of education, an education where they are taught to obey, to conform, to listen in silence, and to do as they are told without question.

They think that days on end of test prep is the right kind of education for black children, but not for their own.

Until the Wall Street guys, the high-tech titans, and the foundation moguls demand that poor children get the same quality of education that they want for their own children, with experienced teachers, small classes, excellent facilities, ample resources, and a rich curriculum, I can’t take seriously their talk about “closing the gap,” no matter which adjective it takes.

 

 

This passionate teacher in Indiana has the solution to improving education in Indiana:

1. Incentivize teachers by allowing the academic freedom to teach

2. End poverty

3. Vote for Glenda Ritz to replace Tony Bennett

Chris Lehman has written an excellent post pulling together solid data about the “reformers'” solutions and the issue that refuse to address: poverty.

What is the problem in U.S. education? What is the cause of low test scores? Is it bad teachers, as the reformers claim?

Or is it poverty, where the U.S. leads the advanced nations of the world?

Can school reform cure poverty? Has it?

If you don’t address the causes, you will never solve the problem of low academic performance.

Nice job, Chris.