Kids, Defined by Income

This weeks article focuses on income disparity over race, in terms of education inequality. The article tells us, that as the gap between incomes grows, so does the gap between quality in education. While this is discernably true, it does not take into account all the factors involved. This type of statement does not include the child’s environment, both social and cultural, or what level of poverty the child suffers from. The term income inequality is so generic it can mean different levels of wealth. There is no indicator in the article if there are disparities at specific levels of wealth. Possibly, more specific research in this area can help figure out where problems will be, not just where they are now, if this trend continues.

The article also references counter measures taken by schools to combat income disparity. The schools where these measures are in place are a pre-K in Boston, a high school in Brooklyn, and a charter school in Chicago. The steps taken are high academic standards, on going support for students and teachers, and common sense accountability. What makes this appealing is you can infer that red tape usually associated with school reform is little to non-existent with these types of changes. Words like “common sense accountability” takes away from the impression that teacher must meet generic and counter productive government standards to keep their jobs. I would assume that most teachers, particularly those who are dedicated, would embrace a philosophy that would free them up to teach “to learn”, not teach “to test”.

As Americans continue to see economic markets and career options shrink, there is desperation to prepare our youth for the future. The problem is we are being reactive and not proactive. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the middle class is returning or that income disparity is declining. If this article says anything significant, it is that education is the key to out future. The American education system has “some deeply rooted problems,” however; there is recognition that we need to save our education system. Hopefully, more “common sense” measure will be taken nation wide.

The Real 21st-Century Problem in Public Education is Poverty.

Other than Poverty

This week we were all assigned to read, The Real 21^st-Century Problem in Public Education is Poverty, from Bill Moyers website. Since we have all been assigned the same article for this week’s blog, I will spare everyone a summary of what Elaine Weiss said in her article.

My particular assignment for this article is refutation of the claims made by Elaine Weiss. She points out through her article that the cause of failing schools is poverty and the peripheral causes and effects of living in poverty add to failing schools. While it is hard to dispute that poverty offers challenges, it should not be used as an excuse. Dr. Christopher Boerl, conservative commentator on American politics and education, said that poverty is a legitimate issue, but that schools should not rely on poverty as an excuse for not trying. He uses author, Amanda Ripley’s, book The Smartest Kids I know, to show how educators in poor schools take it upon themselves to set high standards for all students regardless of economic background.  Dr. Boerl argues that by setting the same standard, “poor” kids will do better simply because they are expected to. What he is implying is that feeling sorry for a child because they are poor, and lowering the stand by the educator for the work they produce, creates the separation in the quality of learning. He is basically saying the excuse that a child is “disadvantaged” is a label that fosters an environment failure that the child will eventually live up to. Dr. Boerl’s does not offer where his information is coming from, but notes that research in poor schools where children are held to the same standard as those in the suburbs show positive results including receiving academic awards for excellence. (There is not indication where the schools are located and the information cannot be verified).

Validated or not, this raises and interesting question. Does applying a label and having low expectations create the desired result of failure? When looking the same idea of poverty in schools to poverty and crime, can we say the same things? If a person is told “this I what you are and this is all I can expect,” should their be any real expectation that that person will achieve higher on their own. If a person commits a crime and we are told they are poor as a source of motivation should that be reason to dismiss the act? It does make sense that the same applies to failing student who just happens to be poor. If a student is failing and is poor should we simply dismiss them and blame the system?

Weiss argues that the peripheral issues surrounding poverty, such as poor health care and nutrition, are systemic problems that also cause failure. It is hard not to look objectively at the situation and agree that it is a cause. The problem is when we stop at the cause and except the adversity that comes with it. The problem is that poverty is just part of the issue. It is other factors, such as the environment in which a child is surrounded, that can affect the outcome as well. I point to the film Pressure Cooker, as evidence that the proper support within economically disadvantage areas can make a difference. The students of the north Philadelphia school achieved success with the aid of a supporting and strict teacher who did not accept excuses for failure. While this is not an answer to the system as whole, neither is expecting mass policy changes to universally apply to everyone either. The system does need change, but change at many levels including student and teacher accountability (not referring to NCLB accountability).

No one said life is fair, and although we are taught we live in an equitable society that is just not a reality. Some people are poor and some are rich. Some people are dealt an easier hand while others are given the worst circumstances. While I agree that the playing field should be leveled as much as possible, there is no reason to wait in the wind for changes to happen.

Reformers can't Dodge Race Issues.

All about the adults

The Huffington Post’s, Richard Whitmire wrote an article about race affecting the attitude of change in schools. The article talks about former Washington DC Public School Chancellor, Michelle Rhee and her bold reforms. While she was in office, she closed down schools and fired numerous teachers and principals. The problem Rhee did not count on, was that in a mainly black community, firing black people and calling them incompetent will not go over well. The problem was linked back to Mayor Marion Berry when he created jobs for black people merely as a way to balance racism of the past. Many of his appointees and their created jobs were costing tax payers millions. In addition, the people placed in those positions were unable to perform. When Rhee came into office and tried to fire these people she was told, “Here at DCPS, we don't fire people for incompetence…(w)e send them to the schools."

From an outside perspective, Rhee was attempting to fix an issue caused by a politician who was only trying to secure himself votes. Sounds logical and efficient right? Wrong. The problem with this and other issues plaguing schools is this issue is all about the adults and not about the children. Instead of looking at positive changes being made and demonstrable improvements being shown, the adults cry racism for the firing of incompetent black teachers and principals. This is where racism gets turned on its head and makes waves in the wrong direction. Legitimately calling a person or organization out for racism should be reserved for positive social change. An incompetent employee, who happens to be a minority should not automatically use their race as justification for keeping a job they do not deserve.

Michelle Rhee made radical changes and her work had positive empirical and statistical results, yet the race issue was the deciding factor to accuse her of foul play. The whole time I was reading this article I had to ask, “what about the kids?” This is another example of adults putting themselves before children and education. Michelle Rhee may not have all the answers; however, it is not hard to see that she was trying to put the children’s needs ahead of the adults. Instead of looking at what she was trying to do for a failed education system, she was attacked as a racist for depriving black people of politically appointed jobs they did not deserve. In order for us as American to ignite true reforms in education, parents, teachers, and politicians need to put the kids first.

Low Income School Initiative

Fighting Income Inequality in Schools

Authors Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane, wrote an article for the The Atlantic about fighting against income inequality in public schools. The article mainly addresses the solutions they present in their new book, Restoring Opportunity. The book presents three initiatives that will help with education changes designed to combat deficiencies in low income schools.

Duncan and Murnane say that one of the problems with public schools, and the ideas to fix them, is that they rely on “silver bullets” to solve the problem. The authors believe throwing money at a school or creating charter schools does not address the problem. They believe that consistency and quality are the only way to prepare low income kids to obtain new technological jobs.

Duncan and Murname have proposed three ideas to help put quality and consistency into practice. First, they believe, that not only are Pre-K programs are essential; they need to be staffed with trained teachers following the same curriculum. Second, elementary and middle schools should have a system that has teachers working as one group, all responsible for literacy, not just English teachers. Third, large failing high schools need to be replaced by smaller focused schools with teacher and student support.

Every one of their ideas has been put into practice on a small scale in New York since 2001. The result has been a marked improvement on graduation and SAT scores. The article offers more information on how the initiatives work, however, no information on how they are implemented. I am assuming that in order to get more information they want people to buy their book. What I like about this article, is that if offers solutions and does not just point out the problems. The article does offer a quick explanation of how each program works, but there is not enough information to offer valid praise or criticism of their initiates. I think it could be interesting reading, especially after discussing Jonathan Kozal.

"We" not "Me"

Moral choice

            Arthur H. Camins, director of Innovation in Engineering and Science Education, ask if new school reforms have negative moral and ethical consequences? Camins focuses on the dilemma of self-interest driven reforms and how they affect society as a whole. Camins explores, in his article, at what point should we make decisions based purely on how it affects the individual, and to what cost on the community?

Camins focuses on collective bargaining, charter schools and performance based teacher salary. His main argument is that current reform in these areas has promoted a “me” instead of “we” attitude. The individual teacher or parent has to make a decision that benefits themselves with no regard for others. For example, a charter school, on the surface, gives a parent the option of giving their child a better education by removing them from a failing school. Camins sees this as a way of merely, “permeated popular thinking, promoting false hopes, while maintaining the very privileges its supporters disingenuously or illogically claim to mediate.” Essentially it is masking inequity by creating the illusion that the poor are offered the same choices as the rich. The fact is the rich have the mobility of choice that the poor do not. A rich person can opt to move into the best neighborhood and choose to send their children to private schools. These individual choices, do not, however, negatively impact the other rich people around them. Conversely, moving poor children out of failing schools only further decimates the school, adversely affecting the neighborhood and neighbors, who may not have the same mobility and choice.

Camins point about morality in school choice is not necessarily something commonly associated with reform. I think his perspective would be a positive addition to restructuring school reform policies. In fact, Camins goes on to offer solutions to getting "me" back to "we." He suggest changing school funding from property tax to capital gains and corporate tax. This forces those who benefit from an educated work force contribute to the development of that workforce. He also suggest changes in mobility (school districting), mixed housing incentives for integration, and collective teaching which will encourage students helping students. Camins focuses on and address these with the community at the front of the argument.

Camins bring his argument back to morality as a whole. He reinforces moral and ethical choice by reminding his reader of the effects of civil rights in the US from the 1930’s to the 1970’s. The main theme of this historical reference is “we” and not “me.” Social changes helped the community not necessarily just the individual. With this in mind, Camins ask us to consider the good of the whole when really considering the consequences of government reforms in education. He asks us to stop, “de-moralizing and start re-moralizing education policy,” so that we invest back into the “we.” Camins final plea asks us, “if not now, when.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/26/education-reform-and-the-corrosion-of-community-responsibility/

New Mexico Politics Overshadows Education

Social Promotion

Last Sunday, the Albuquerque Journal’s front headline read, “Education policy in focus at Roundhouse.” This article deals with the ongoing issue of government mandated testing and evaluations the teachers feel are “faulty and unfair.” The teachers in New Mexico met in Santa Fe to protest Governor Susana Martinez’s education bill HB93. This bill mandates teachers to hold back third graders that do not read up to their level. The teachers want the option to hold students back, not to be forced to treat every child the same regardless of the situation. Bill sponsor, Rep. Mary Helen Garcia, supports the change to the bill that would give the districts and the teachers the option of holding back struggling students. Garcia argues that every child’s situation is different. The teachers feel this bill and similar ones in the state overemphasize testing. They also believe funding, which is going into “below-the-line” matters like, evaluations, the parent online portal (gives parents a daily update) and testing, should instead go directly to the districts to be used to meet their particular needs.

This summary had to be pulled from between the lines since the article mainly focuses on the political side of Governor Martinez reelection. What the article fails to ask is why the parent portal and evaluations are negative for teachers? On the surface it sounds like accountability. What parent wouldn’t want to know what their child is doing on a daily basis? Evaluations say to parents that their teachers are being held to set standards. This sounds like a positive situation for education initiatives.  Guessing at the answer, however, is where the article ends. Unfortunately, this article is an amalgamation of three staff writers, and it reads as such. This requires me to actually ask a teacher to get the answers the article fails to answer.

I spoke to an Albuquerque Public School (APS) teacher, who is a friend of mine, to get her perspective. From what she has told me, the online portal is not a bad idea, however, the $1.5 million the article says it is consuming takes away from actual classroom needs. She thinks the money should go to needs such as school supplies, text, and computers. My friend is no stranger to using her own money to by school supplies for her elementary class. When I asked about the evaluations, she told me that accountability is good, however, the evaluation system is unfair. She told me that teachers are penalized for taking days off, which adds stress to already taxed professionals. She also told me that if a student, for example, takes the state test and aces it, then they could not proceed past the limits of the test. So when the student takes the test a second time, it looks as if there is no progress, which reflects negatively on the teacher. On the other hand, if the student fails because of personal issues, like stress from a parents divorce, there is no way to factor in problems not related to academics.

This is another situation of a blanket response to education reformation by the state government. None of the solutions proposed by Governor Martinez fix problems; they only mask them. Someday, hopefully, the student’s academic needs will be placed above politics.

The Advantage of Wealth

Increasing the Wealthy Gap

The Hamilton Project, a think tank based out of Washington, DC, conducted a study concerning spending on education, based on income. The study compares how much is personally invested, by the parents, of both high and low-income families. The result of the study shows a gap of a $7,700 on average in spending. The impact of such spending has shown a result in the education gap growing between rich and poor kids. The so-called “leveling ground” of education is made even more uneven. It projects the idea that attainable skills and education for certain income groups is now out of reach.

What this trend seems to be accomplishing, is speeding up the gap between the rich and poor, not just increasing it. The study, which went back to the 1970’s to gather data on this subject, shows an increase of four times the amount spent on education, by the wealthy. It could be argued, that the peripheral effects of being wealthy have caused exponential growth for the rich. In other words, being wealthy means having the ability to spend more time with kids, possessing the education to advance the child outside the classroom, and the option to add extra-curricular activities making the child more competitive. These luxuries can be contrasted to the obstacles that face the poor: such as a parent working two or more jobs, poorly educated parents, unaware of how to enrich the child inside the home, food or shelter being in question. These stressors can have the opposite effect. Children of poor families could do worse that expected due to their stressors entering the classroom. This is, of course, opinion and not supported by the study.

The study, and lead researcher Professor Michael Greenstone, did develop suggestions to help reduce the gap. He suggests increasing federal grants for low-income families with the additional support of assisting in the application process. He also suggests proactively providing low-income, higher achievers, with more college options typically not pursued due to income. The suggestions are valid and realistic options for low-income students and their families. It will be interesting to see more of these suggestions arise and implemented, to see if they can close the income gap.