Stacking the Deck Against Success
Paul and TPM, Thank you for inviting me to participate in this week's discussion. I'll echo the previous posts by saying that Paul's book is compelling and terrific in so many ways, and I am sure that it will push the education debate in some important directions.
There's no question that the Harlem Children's Zone is an exciting, innovative model that's producing results. But refining and replicating it and other projects like it takes time. Right now, our kids and our nation don't have a moment to spare.
I am fervently committed to ensuring that all American children grow up in vibrant, healthy and thriving communities. Yet at the same time, I can fully imagine traditional public schools and even entire school districts that serve low-income students well by recognizing that all kids can achieve at high levels, regardless of family background. My colleagues and I at The Education Trust have the privilege of working with such schools in small towns and big cities across the country. They never ignore the outside challenges their students face. Instead, educators at these schools are acutely aware of those challenges and are uncompromising in their efforts to help students achieve in spite of them.
Unfortunately, they represent only a fraction of the schools that serve our nation's low-income students and students of color. As a result, they are often discounted as 'flukes' or 'outliers' rather than proof of the academic abilities of their students.
The sad truth is that we organize traditional public education in ways that give the children who need the very most from their schools the very least we have to offer. Low-income kids and kids of color are much less likely than others to attend schools with strong teachers; up-to-date text books and technology; rich, broad curriculum; or powerful instructional strategies. And yet, we blame their families and communities for low student achievement instead of taking a painful look at how school systems often stack the deck against their success.
Our society's collective excuse for not providing them with the academic supports they need is the pervasive and pernicious belief, even among people of extraordinarily good will, that these students can't learn because of circumstances outside of school. That notion runs counter to America's faith in education as the surest road out of poverty and strongest weapon against racism. It's also disconnected from the demands of the increasingly complex and diverse world in which our children live--a world in which we cannot afford to continue to under-educate wide swathes of our fellow citizens.
I don't think the focus of the education reform discussion should be viewed as an 'either/or' proposition. Yes, we must continue to work hard to eliminate the social and economic injustices that have plagued this country throughout our history. But in the meantime, we also must press forward with the systemic changes in public education--like equitable school funding and teacher assignment patterns--that we know can quickly level the playing field when it comes to how resources are distributed across schools and school systems. Educators and policymakers have to work together aggressively to make sure that every single student, regardless of what kind of school he attends, gets the kind of education he both needs and deserves.
. . . all kids can achieve at high levels, regardless of family background.
Any evidence for this absurd, platitudinous assertion?
September 17, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
Have a cup of coffee and do your yoga or whatever makes you one of the most rational people here. After all, you have made hyperbolic statements in the recent past.
Achieve doesn't mean any more or less that "Be the best that you can be." Megan McArdle will never play in the WNBA, but if she had studied hard in college she could be writing intelligent columns on economics for The Atlantic.
z2v
September 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but 'to be all that you can be' requires proper maintenance, nuturing and feeding. It is no different than a plant, which if it does not receive adequate sun and water it will not ever be a lush full potential plant. If you overwater or undersun the plant during it's crucial seedling stage..it does not progress to full maturity in terms of what was available.
So, yes the children can achieve. However, the purpose of education is to optimize and maximize their academic potential which is impossible if the child has need received the right developmental nurturing in the first THRRE years of life they can become achieve their maximum human potential. If not, then no amount of education can make up for that.
The child will still achieve just not to the maximum of their human potenial.
September 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I took the evidence to be the work that the Harlem Children's Zone has done, mentioned in the second paragraph.
http://www.hcz.org/our-results
September 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am living proof.
September 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoisting this from my comments to an earlier post by Paul Tough.
(1)Are the educational systems we envy national educational systems? If so, ....
(2)To pay more than lip service to equality of opportunity, shouldn't educational spending be federalized and equalized?
(3) The US pioneered mass public education, 1-12, and shot ahead in the world. With higher skills now needed to maximize productivity, shouldn't we catch up with our competitors by providing free public 12+ education?
(4) And to get back to the topic, shouldn't the US offer free, universal, public pre-K enrichment/day care? If we are serious about saving as many as possible?
September 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wilkins' attitude is the reason for the poor performance of the poor, disadvantages, at risk youth. She is not part of the solution, she is part of the problem.
Sausalito, CA-highest per student spending in the Bay Area. Lowest scores. Predominently poor black kids from the local Marin City housing projects.
Alice Fong Yu, San Francisco- Far less per pupil. Predominantly Chinese students form homes where parents take a keen interest. One of the highest scoring schools in the entire state.
Swap those kids and I guarantee all of a sudden Sausalito will have the highest scores.
It's the kids and their families that are mostly responsible for their failure. Not the system or the amount of money spent.
People like Amy Wilkins are reason to hold progressive education advisers in contempt. I can only hope she is removed from whatever position of responsibility she has.
September 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's the kids and their families that are mostly responsible for their failure. Not the system or the amount of money spent."
I have to start by pointing out that it's completely ridiculous to blame kids for their circumstances. A child born into a poor family in a dangerous neighborhood starts out with infinitely less opportunities than s/he would have if born into an upper/middle class family, in an area not plagued with gang violence. That is in no way the kid's fault. Blaming families I can see people doing, although I disagree with that in many cases because it disregards a lot of information too.
The point you're making is actually the point she is trying to refute here. Wilkinson is not saying that we need to just spend more money on education, period. She's saying that it's important for school systems to be aware of the circumstances that are outside school as well. She says of her colleagues, "They never ignore the outside challenges their students face. Instead, educators at these schools are acutely aware of those challenges and are uncompromising in their efforts to help students achieve in spite of them." That is not about money spent per child. Good teachers understand that. It's about getting a whole picture.
Wilkinson here is pointing out that we can't just underfund these schools, because then the chance to actually having a community in which these issues are understood is much lower. Spending time in one of these damaged communities only reinforces the point that these students are exactly like every other student anywhere else, except that they know what it's like to have violence and/or poverty ravage their community, and what it's like to be able to drop out of school at 13 and make serious bank selling dope on the corner. Dealing with this kind of student IS different, and requires a different approach.
September 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Poor kids are not "exactly like every other student anywhere else," and to promote that claim is to set the school's bar much too high.
By the time they get to school most poor kids are damaged, neurobiologically. The better schools may be able to raise them to the level of the best they can be but they can't make them the best the could have been.
September 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
klara and ellen,
Good points. You go, girls. Poor kids are just like you and me in the "There but for fortune ..." sense. And it may or may not be possible to make up for early deficits. Olajuwon didn't play basketball as a child. Some gifted scientists and writers and musicians didn't start at a 6 months.
September 17, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not accessing skills until later in life is not equivalent to the skills never being developed. The human brain can be considered like a highway which lays multiple routes in the early years between 0-5. Subsequent to that time new data can only be laid on the roads that are present.
So, someone like Oljawon would have had the requisite tracks given his prodigious soccer playing which developed much of the eye-hand coordination, foot work, balance as well as respiratory stamina that is demanded in basketball. He simply applied his skills in a different sport.
Scientists brains along with musicians are developed early on and they too would be merely applying what is already there in different ways.
All of which is different from the wiring not being present due to deficient planning in the formative infant/toddler years.
September 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
wrb,
What you say sounds good, but I'll argue it's not true. (1) We create neurons all our life. (2) Learning, memory, etc are synaptic which we create all our life. (3) Consider victims of traumatic brain injury who recover by reprogramming or rewiring or resomething other portions of the brain.
(4) Consider those blinded after birth. The visual areas are coopted for other functions.
z2v
September 18, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you comparing a school which accepts all local residents to a Chinese-immersion school which probably means that parents select the school? TROLL.
Has anyone on any of these threads denied the effect of early enrichment by motivated parents? STRAWMAN BURNING TROLL.
I doubt you have any position of responsibility to be removed from TROLL.
September 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I urge you to take a look at the public schools in Port Chester,NY. Port Chester has the lowest per capita income level in all of Westchester County, NY, over 60% of its students are English language learners and each year enrolls many illegal, itinerant students - similar to large cities across the US. The school's mantra is "Success for Every Student" and every educator takes this to heart. No matter how you measure "success" - including the NY State standardized tests - this district and its students measure up thanks to dedicated teachers, enthusiastic administrators, creative partnerships with outside groups and businesses and a willingness to break new ground.
September 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's the kids...that are mostly responsible for their failure." --fogu2 (back atcha, pal)
"They bash your face in and say you were always ugly." -- Russian proverb, quoted by Aleksandr Solzhenitysn in The GULAG Archipelago.
As a longtime student of education policy here and abroad and an inner-city resident, I would note that fogu2's views are perfectly illustrative of why the Education Equality approach is perilous: Any gains that can be made solely within school walls are tentative, fragile, and reversible unless and until the Bigger, Broader agenda is effectively met and addressed. That is all.
September 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I worked on a construction project for a very poor school district involving 10 schools in CA.
One of the schools had set up some programs (for free) that offered up the cafeteria in the evenings for volunteers to help teach the other parents English so that they could be better suited to help their children.
What's funny, this school was old, just like the others, but it was better kept, etc.
In a sense the principal was getting the parents on board by giving them a chance, keeping them involved and I can't see that that won't help in the long run.
September 17, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few weeks ago, when the Broader, Bolder and Ed Equality approaches were first proposed and widely discussed, I asked what two-way accountability would look like. Still looking for ideas. It's easy for society to measure things about schools and implement consequences to those that don't do well enough - but much harder for educators and society to hold our policymakers accountable for the other half of the equation: fighting poverty from all possible angles. Anyone have any thoughts?
September 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
On pre-k... yes, we do need to offer very high-quality pre-K programs targeted specifically to the children who need that extra boost. That means ensuring that we are providing the same things at the pre-k level - strong teachers combined with intentional instruction and programming - that we also need at the K-12 level.
But even the best pre-k programs aren't an inoculation against the damage that low-performing K-12 schools can inflict on children. We must have a pipeline that starts strong and stays strong. We can't use the absence of high-quality pre-k as an excuse for failing to educate some groups of students, and we can't write off those kids who enter our schools without the foundation of strong pre-k. Our K-12 schools must have the supports in place for these kids to succeed, too.
The schools we work with every day are evidence that all groups of kids can learn at high levels. Among them: Atlanta's Capitol View Elementary School - 95% black, 88% low income - which blew GA state averages out of the water in 5th grade reading and math with 100% proficiency in both subjects. And Granger High School in rural Washington state, a school that educates primarily Latino children of local farm workers. Last spring, they graduated 90% of their students on-time and, of those, 90% are going on to post-secondary education. And ‘twomom,’ thanks for pointing out our friends in Port Chester. Their middle school - 65% low-income, 65% Latino - has outpaced New York state averages in 8th grade reading, math, and science while educating a large population of recent immigrants from Central America.
The research also points in this direction - a 2006 Brookings Institution analysis of teacher and student data in Los Angeles found that having an effective teacher four years in a row would be enough to close the black/white achievement gap. Similarly, a 2002 study of Texas data found that having a high-quality teacher throughout elementary school can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of a low-socioeconomic background.
No one’s saying it's easy; the point is that we KNOW it's possible.
September 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can read more about these schools in the profiles on our website at http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/main.htm#sp.
September 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in a neighborhood with many immigrants and first generation americans. The parents often had not finished high school and I don't think there was one college grad among them.
They had low paying but regular jobs mostly in manufacturing, and they had stable family lives. Parents taught their kids manners and kept them clean and well fed. Parents didn't value education so much as they valued being good citizens. As a result, they made sure their kids went to school and did their work.
Not all the kids achieved at high levels, because not all the kids were equally intelligent, but all of the kids learned and those who wanted to go on to higher education had the basis for it.
September 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The parent's involvement made the difference. Thanks for agreeing with my point.
September 17, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
SO much of the pooh-poohing of the original post is rich in stereotyping and bias. Contrary to popular opinion, AFrican American parents want their children to do well in school and succeed. In fact, while more than a quarter of all Americans have not read a book in the last year, African Americans do better than the national average. Only 20% of them have not read a book in the last year. I work with a woman who would probably on the surface seem to fit your biases. She has a criminal record, is unmarried, has four children and one on the way. Yet, the children have the same father, they go to school. She gets up hours early each day to take them by bus to the different magnet schools that cater to their specific interests (arts/science, etc) She qualifies a low-income yet ekes out enough from that to pay a tutor for her learning-challenged youngest child. She read to her kids and makes them do their homework. She has them read to her and checks their homework. She never misses a tacher conference.
Yet, whenever there is an issue, the default assumption by authority is that she is negligent. For example, her daughter quit taking her asthma meds by sticking them under her tongue, and the doctors called child services alleging noncompliance and neglect. She had teacher conferences scheduled at 4 different schools on the same day (teachers set the schedule and inform parents) one ran late and she missed the next and she got a call from children's services. Another teacher assumed that a black single mother was skipping conferences and so she reported her.
To be honest, seeing the way the administration and others in authority deal with this woman who tries very hard, puts her children first in all things and struggles to see the good wherever possible has more than any other thing convinced me of the cloying omnipresence of racism in every interaction between blacks and "authority"
The blame-shifting here - just more of the same.
September 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanting your kids to to do well and actually being involved are different things. The blames shifting usually is the parents who want their kids to do well, but do nothing toward that end, blame the schools.
In my overly progressive town there is massive infusions of money and experienced teachers into poor performing schools. Yet the gap between blacks/latinos and asians/whites is increasing. The cause or blame lies outside the school system. The victim mentality of the poor performers relies on blaming anyone but themselves.
September 17, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
fu2.
"In my overly progressive town there is massive infusions of money...." No, maybe there ARE massive infusions, but I wouldn't trust you to be truthful. If you can't write the English so good, get out of my country, UNGRAMATICAL TROLL.
September 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you too bigoted to comprehend what you read?
She doesn't just want her kids to do well. She pays for a tutor. She reads to them. She helps with their homework. She goes to conferences. She takes them on the bus to different schools to best serve their individual needs. I listed several active steps she takes to ensure they do well, but your bigoted mind assumes all she does is vaguely hope for the best.
I am sick to death of people who keep saying "don't throw money at education" when we have never thrown money at education and have always done it on the cheap. Look at Finland where they have extraordinary success. They do it the opposite of us, no standardized tests, teaching kids in all the touchy-feely ways that the right screams bloody murder about.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your assumptions.
September 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
fogu2: omg, you must be from my home town!
btw: in case you're new to TPM, you should know that if you say anything they (the self-appointed protectors of the lib left) disagree with, you will be called a troll. if you support the military you will be called a troll. if you're pro-life you'll be called a troll.
and if you plan on voting for McCain instead of Obama you will be called a RACIST troll.
ignore them and keep on speaking the truth.
September 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, and zeno? there are two Ms in "ungrammatical."
gosh, does that mean YOU have to leave the country TOO?
September 17, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
gratz,
Thanks for the correction. I don't have to leave the country, but I'm considering it if another election is stolen.
And I do support the military, but oppose wasting lives. I also support the VA; McCain doesn't.
cheers,
z2v
September 17, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Z-
it's, uh "gretz" actually, but whatev...
my point was that I visit a lot of blogs on all sides of the political spectrum, and I have to say I do find TPMcafe to be one of the least welcome-to-other-viewpoints sites around. I just don't get calling people "trolls" if they have a different opinion than you do.
but anyway, my problem with the liberal way of looking at education is that I don't think throwing more money at the public schools is going to work. I live close to Detroit and you probably known what's going on with the schools there...we should be trying to find ways to spend the money in a wiser way.
we just haven't been very smart in this country, and it's not just Bush, although he's definitely in the top 5 Idiot Hall of Fame. we Americans aren't thinking anymore. our outward obesity has become a metaphor for our un-exercised brains.
September 17, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone from somewhere,
Only my friends call me Z. z2v to you. Having examined your profile, I consider you a smarter species of troll. You claim to be a centrist and a Democrat, but in your posts leftie is your usual appellation for people with whom you differ. And in agreeing with OldSarg you criticize "the Democrats." A better impersonator would say "we Demoocrats."
Your response above is the most centrist post that I noticed.
Cheers,
z2v
September 17, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Amy - Give us the story behind those statistics. How did they do it, exactly?
This is important to know. It's not enough to say - "It's been done, you can do it too!" With the implication -- if you don't, there's something wrong with you - you're incompetent - you're not trying hard enough - you don't care enough.
Please provide details. Links to the stories and studies you cite would be a start.
Thanks
September 17, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink