Archives for category: Poverty

Anthony Cody has worked for nearly two decades in the Oakland public schools. He knows what poverty does to children. He knows what hunger and violence do to their lives. He thinks the Gates Foundation should stop pretending that it can end poverty by putting “a great teacher” in every classroom. How will that feed children? How will it end the violence to which so many are exposed? How will it change the terrible conditions in which so many live?

In this post, Anthony Cody brings the facts to light that never figure in the Gates’ plans. Let’s hope that the executives at the foundation pay attention.

It is time for the Gates Foundation to take a risk and prove what they promote.

Instead of scattering its billions around the nation and chanting incantations about great teachers, why doesn’t the Gates Foundation select one school district–say, Oakland or Newark–and use that district to demonstrate its theories for all to see? What we have now is a multi-billion foundation using its clout to spread unproven ideas everywhere. How about evidence before pushing the entire nation’s education system over the edge of a Gates-built cliff?

The corporate reform crowd thinks that fixing schools will fix poverty.

They say that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers.

They think that closing schools where test scores are low will improve education.

They have all kinds of wrong ideas, but wrongest of all is their notion that schools by themselves will fix the social order.

Gary Rubinstein has some interesting thoughts on that subject.

A reader comments on this post:

Poverty is not destiny; it’s policy.

Not long after corporate reform started in New York City, the Department of Education adopted a formula promoted by conservative think tanks called “fair student funding” or “weighted student funding.” The surface idea was that each child would have the money he or she deserved “strapped to his/her back.” (Sorry for the clumsy effort to be gender neutral.) The real purpose, from the point of view of those on the right, was to enable students to go to charter schools or maybe even voucher schools bringing their public dollars with them. After all it was only “fair.”

In New York City, the funding system was designed by Robert Gordon, an economist and reformer who now works for President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget.

A reader in New York City examined how fair student funding was affecting the schools serving the neediest students. The answer: they get a raw deal.

Wouldn’t you think that in an effort to be fair, the DOE would attach MORE funding to students who have the greatest needs? It turns out that they aren’t even getting a fair deal.

The New York State Department of Education has expressed concern about New York City’s pattern of concentrating high needs students in specific schools. New York City has refused to acknowledge the merit of those concerns.  In fact, the leaders of New York City’s schools place all responsibility on individual schools as in this recent story.

Blaming schools and teachers seems to have become the go-to strategy of high-level education bureaucrats. This is one way to avoid personal accountability. All they need to do is “evaluate” schools using standardized exams and manage their “portfolio” of schools using a range of punitive measures. We decided to look at one area where these bureaucrats can’t deny their role in helping schools either ameliorate or worsen the effects of poverty on kids. Namely, how does the New York City Department of Education fund the richest and poorest schools? As can be seen in the charts below these bureaucrats have decided to fund schools in ways that increase these inequities. The richest 10 elementary/middle schools (as measured by the percent of students who are eligible to receive free lunch) receive an average of 89.1% of the funds they are entitled to by the city’s own formula. On the other hand, the poorest 10 schools receive an average of 82.7% of the funds they are entitled to.  The range of values also favors the richest schools. None of them receive less than 86% of their funding formula. Some of the poorest schools, on the other hand, receive 22% less money than they would be entitled to under the city’s “Fair” Student Funding formula. 

Richest Schools

% of Fair Student Funding Actually Received

School Name

% of Students Free Lunch

90.68 Special Music School

3.7%

88.52 P.S. 006 Lillie D. Blake

4.6%

89.34 The Anderson School

4.6%

88.08 P.S. 77 Lower Lab School

5.7%

86.09 P.S. 234 Independence School

6.4%

93.07 P.S. 098 The Douglaston School

6.4%

87.23 P.S. 89

6.7%

90.89 BATTERY PARK CITY SCHOOL

7.4%

88.1 P.S. 041 Greenwich Village

7.9%

89.16 P.S. 290 Manhattan New School

9.3%

 

Poorest Schools

% of Fair Student Funding Actually Received

School Name

% of Students Free Lunch

85.4 P.S. 167 The Parkway

98.9%

79.35 P.S. 199X – The Shakespeare School

99.1%

78.81 P.S. 115 Alexander Humboldt

99.5%

80.14 M.S. 302 Luisa Dessus Cruz

99.6%

102.67 P.S. 034 Franklin D. Roosevelt

99.7%

Closed M.S. 321 – Minerva

100.0%

84.76 P.S. 025 Bilingual School

100.0%

78.57 P.S. 230 Dr Roland N. Patterson

100.0%

78.02 I.S. X303 Leadership & Community Service

100.0%

79.46 P.S. 291

100.0%

 

Perhaps when these bureaucrats announce that “poverty is not destiny” they could explain why they insist on sending poor kids to schools that they have deliberately impoverished through their own decisions. Do they feel that schools with poor kids don’t deserve the same funding as schools with rich kids? 

A reader, noting the plan to privatize 40% of the schools in Philadelphia, had this to say:

WILLIAM PENN is rolling over in his grave, I’m sure.

It occurred to me that :

John Dewey must be rolling over in his grave as he sees our national leaders using standardized tests to impose rankings and ratings on students, teachers, principals, and schools, while many abandon the arts to reach their targets.

Horace Mann must be rolling over in his grave as he sees corporations descending on the schools to make a profit and to privatize as many as possible.

Henry Barnard must be rolling over in his grave as he sees a Democratic governor in his home state of Connecticut handing public schools over to private managers and calling it “reform.”

Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave as he sees Bobby Jindal giving public funds to voucher students to attend religious schools in Louisiana.

Lyndon B. Johnson must be ruling over in his grave as he sees his beloved Elementary and Secondary Education Act, meant to equalize resources and help poor kids, turned into a club to impose testing and privately managed schools.

Martin Luther King, Jr. must be rolling over in his grave as he sees Wall Street hedge fund managers and billionaires say that they are leading the civil rights movement of our day, as they attack unions and privatize public schools.

Who else is rolling in their grave?

A retired teacher writes about her experiences teaching in an inner-city school in Hartford, Connecticut:

I retired last June, after nearly 38 years of teaching at M. L. King Elementary School, in Hartford, CT. ,one of the poorest mid-sized cities in the nation.   As I listen to the President, educational leaders, media commentators, and many in the concerned public, I am always distressed by the degree of blame and scorn heaped upon “failing” city schoolteachers and their “obstructionist “ unions.  While I believe that the expressed concerns regarding the state of education in our poorest communities are valid, the solutions seem to be leaving many of our most vulnerable students even further behind.

I began my teaching career with a Masters in Urban Education, from Columbia University.  Over the years, I earned 90 college credits beyond my masters, all in efforts to improve instruction.  My last year of teaching, as in most other years, I was at school daily until 5, 6, 7, or even 8:00 PM.  In addition, I took work home at night, and over the weekend as well.  There are countless other teachers just like me. With all of our training, experience, and effort, we faced “failure” on a daily basis.

With the advent of “magnet”, and “charter” schools, I watched the population of King School decrease by more than half.  It had been, for years, a stable community school, with parents, children, and sometimes grandchildren being taught by the same teachers who spent their entire professional lives serving this community.  Out of district families often requested special permission to attend the school.  Over time, the student population of King School has decreased by more than half, with numbers of students leaving to attend “choice” schools.  Unfortunately, many, if not most of the students and families who left, were those who had greater economic, educational, emotional, and social advantages.  It takes time, knowledge, and energy for parents to apply to these choice schools. The application process is now on line.  Those families without time, computer skills, or even basic literacy are excluded.  Those students left behind require more resources, yet in the current decentralized, competitive school model, they receive far less.

Despite all of these disadvantages, Martin Luther King School teachers have demonstrated marked improvement on test scores for two consecutive years. They are no longer considered a “failing school”. Yet in spite of these efforts, teachers were recently told that their school will be shut down.  Not immediately, but phased out over three or four years. King School will be replaced by a charter school.  Teachers will gradually be laid off.  The nine teachers who are being cut this year have been informed that they might not have the option to transfer to another Hartford Public School. It seems to me that we have stepped through the looking glass, with all reason and fairness having evaporated.

I can’t help but compare my teaching experiences to those of my sister, who works in a nearby suburban school.  She earns more money than the teachers in Hartford. She works in a brand new building, with state of the art equipment.   While she is a hard working teacher, she works far fewer hours.  She does not have to deal with an enormous amount of paperwork documenting her efforts to improve instruction for large numbers of academically deficient students.  Her students are overwhelmingly well cared-for, and it is highly unlikely that any of them have encountered drug dealers or traumatic violence in their neighborhoods.  These children have, for the most part, grown up with respect, and in turn, have been taught to respect others, particularly their teacher.  She has a wealth of supplemental materials she may need, at hand.  She’s never had to spend her own money on crayons, markers, copy paper, or other critical supplies.  When school begins in the fall, she is treated to a teacher’s luncheon, provided by the school PTA.  She has well-educated parent volunteers in her classroom every day, to assist her students while she delivers small group reading instruction.  At holiday time, she comes home with bags full of gifts given to her by the children, and their parents.  At the end of the school year, she gets expensive gift certificates, cooperatively given by the parents in her class, as a thank you gift for all she has done.  Most importantly, she is not blamed for her students’ failure to meet proficiency.  They are usually all at, or above proficiency.  She is a member of a teacher union that bargains for improvements in teachers’ pay and working conditions  (amount of preparation time, additional duties, etc.).  It is a source of counsel and support,  should she be harassed or mistreated.

Many teachers in Hartford are presently trapped, due to an economic situation which has resulted in few teacher openings, but this will soon change.  The “baby boom” generation of teachers is about to retire, and cities and towns will be in competition to hire the best and the brightest.  It doesn’t take an Ivy League education to see the stark disparity in the respect afforded teachers throughout the state and the nation.  When my generation entered the ranks of teachers determined to fight the “War on Poverty” in our cities, we understood that resources were unevenly allocated, and we’d no doubt have to work harder than our suburban counterparts.  At the same time, we worked collaboratively with administrators and, for the most part, received respect (if not appreciation) from the society at large.

In this brave new world of high stakes testing, and teacher accountability (note that there is little to measure parent, community, or student accountability), I fear for our most vulnerable children.  Who will choose to subject themselves to the very vulnerable position of teaching in our poor urban districts?  The disparity in pay, resources, and most importantly respect, will lead teachers to more stable careers in suburban school districts.  Our city children will be left further and further behind.  The tragedy of lost potential will only be magnified.

This teacher admits that he has not ended poverty.

But that doesn’t mean that he has been lazy or had nothing to do.

This is what he does every day.

This is typical of a teacher’s life today. I didn’t know I was suppose to end poverty. My bad. I’m already overwhelmed here in DC. Sorry. I ‘ll add poverty abatement to the list. Thanks for reminding me. In addition, I ‘ll also be mentoring, counseling, teaching, motivating, tutoring, breaking up fights, cheering on and at times being a surrogate father to three-quarters of my students. I do a few other things at school. I also have a life and a wife. I also need to eat and sleep. Plan and grade. Take a college class. Update my website. Make a few phone calls, attend a few meetings, send out and respond to a few emails. So before I forget. When will you join me in this care-free and under-worked profession? My door is always open. By the way, DC Public Schools is always in need of subs. Come on. You can apply online. I’m waiting.

This New York City teacher has been beaten down and out by ten years of reform that ended in more segregation and demoralizing actions by those at the top.

My advice to you: Don’t leave. There will be a new mayor. Maybe it will be someone who recognizes the damage of the past decade of endless and pointless reform and bragging. Stay and fight for the  kids. Don’t let them push you out. Your students need you!

After 10 years of teaching in NYC public schools, I’m quitting because I’ve become discouraged and can no longer deal with the upheavals that the so-called “reforms” bring to the everyday task of teaching. I’ve literally shed blood, sweat, and tears during these years of teaching at a school where the majority of the students live below the poverty line. Poverty Is the problem! NYC schools are segregated. How shameful that this is the case in this great city, and how unfair to students, teachers, and administrators.

This reader has some good ideas for StudentsFirst’s next campaign, now that the Olympics is over:

It really disgusted me how Rhee compares education in the US to being in the Olympics and how we wouldn’t want countries like Luxembourg and Hungary to get more gold medals than us, yet they are beating us in education. I mean, seriously?
Luxembourg?

Luxembourg has a $80,119 GDP and is one of the most wealthy of countries. Their children learn 3 mandatory languages in school, and they only have a 4.5% child poverty rate. Of course, those students are going to be more successful.

Hungary, on the other hand, only has a $19,591 GDP. However, when I looked at comparisons in literacy and math, the U.S. and Hungary were close in many areas, usually with the U.S. edging Hungary out a little. Hungary has a 10.3% child poverty rate.

The United States has a $48,386 GDP. Much higher than Hungary, but much lower than Luxembourg. The U.S. also has a 22.4% child poverty rate, second only to Mexico, which has 26.2. (I got these statistics from NationMaster.com)

To me, one of the greatest factors in education is poverty! It’s kind of like the little dirty secret that keeps getting swept under the rug. The U.S. needs to start addressing this. The school I teach at has a 75% free and reduced lunch population. These kids are more worried about the next meal than the next test. According to the US Census Bureau, “more than one in five children in the United States (15.75 million) lived in poverty in 2010. 2010. More than 1.1 million children were added to the poverty population between the 2009 ACS and the 2010 ACS. The 2010 ACS child poverty rate (21.6 percent) is the highest since the survey began in 2001.”

If StudentsFirst really cared about putting their students first, they would put their money into addressing the poverty issue instead of making insulting advertisements like the one with the out of shape Olympian.

I don’t know if reformers want to hear from an experienced teacher, but in case they do, here is a sound proposal:

After 39 years in education and living through many policy changes I can tell you from personal experience that children’s standard of living influences their success with school curriculum more than ANYTHING else. In my opinion we need to focus on reducing the number of children in poverty and invest in parent education and early childhood education.