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.

Education proposals to close the income inequality gap

Can the Neoliberal agenda fix the income/education inequality gap?

In James Paul Gee’s third chapter of his book, Social Linguistics and literacy, he tells his readers that one of the facets of the Neo-Liberal philosophy, is for schools to become better through free market competition. The monopolized public school has no incentive to be innovative and maintain a good product.  Like any philosophy it sounds good until placed into practice. According to FOX News reporter, Shannon Bream, that is exactly what two Republican Senators are attempting to do. Lamar Alexander R-Tenn. and Tim Scott R-S.C., want to take billions in tax money being spent on education and give it to the individual states and parents; giving them a chance to take kids out of a failing school, and place them in a charter or private school. Opponents of this plan, such as Thomas Grentzel (Executive Director of the National School Board), see this as an elitist solution that will only take money away from already failing schools.  In my opinion, this is just repackaging the same idea that began in the 1980’s with Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and Ronald Regan in the U.S.  If these solutions were so effective, why are both countries still struggling to address the education gap?

There are many factors that money alone does not address. However, none of these factors were address by Grentzel. His response, that this tactic would circumvent “Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious institutions,” completely fails to gather my empathy or support. Being concerned with giving money to religious schools as being unconstitutional, is like drowning in a pool and rejecting the life preserver simply because it has a cross on it. If a parent has a problem with a religious school there are numerous secular private schools that offer education without the religion. That being said, I found that he missed the mark in his defense of the problem of throwing tax money into a free market strategy.

In James Paul Gee third chapter titled, Critical Literacies, he alludes to the possibility that these programs will allow for some to receive the minimum standard while the privilege few still gain more from the elite schools created through free market competition (pg. 30). According to Bream’s article, the Republican Senator’s strategy doesn’t seem to address money going to already privileged children. Also, it makes no mention of how the poor child will now get to his/her new school? If mom and dad are poor, who will provide the transportation? How will these kids now deal with a new social environment, possibly culturally different than they are accustomed? These may sound like minor issues but they are still potential recipes for failure. Simply taking an old idea and putting a new label on it, will not solve the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/29/gop-senators-offer-proposals-to-close-income-inequality-gap/

High Achievers

Forgetting High Performers

Are kids getting left behind on both ends of the education spectrum? Allie Bidwell, of the U.S. News World Report, raises the question about some of the students who are being ignored despite having high test scores. Opponents of education reform are complaining that in an effort to address the “achievement gaps” those performing at advanced levels are being forgotten.

I can see most people that are struggling with getting their schools up to par, easily dismissing this as a non-issue for high achievers. Why should they feel sorry for kids that are doing well in the education system?  In terms of fair education why should we care about those who are already getting the best advantage? The fear that Education Professor Jonathan Plucker has, is that if we continue to shoot for mediocrity where will that leave America in terms of global competition.

Plucker points out that “excellence gaps” have been closing since the “No Child Left Behind” initiative. Where will this eventually leave poor and minority children if we continue to strive for “minimum competency?” Plucker see the problem of education reform being an “either/or situation” with one side being victorious. Plucker advocates addressing both issues of deficiency and achievement separately for reform. They are not the same issue; however both issues will affect the future economy when America does not have the achievers available to obtain high end jobs. I agree, that if there is no one to fill the economy driving jobs, there will be no support jobs for the service workers as well. We need to help students achieve fair and equitable education, but not by creating a larger gap at the top. As Plucker points out about the “invisible children” not enough people are outraged and it is “inexcusable for everyone”.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/08/education-reform-may-leave-high-performing-students-behind?page=2

The Rotten Apple

Why largest school system in the nation is failing.

The Washington Post, Valerie Strauss asks why education inequality still occurs in this country. New York City, which is the focus of her analysis, is still failing primarily Black and Hispanic students. She simply points out that the poorest neighborhoods, which are predominately Black and Hispanic, have the fewest resources and least experienced teachers. In contrast the best resources, opportunities and teachers are in the more affluent parts of New York City. This continues the cycle of the blame being placed on the student, teachers and parents who were essentially dealt a losing hand.

Opposition might say, and Valerie Strauss agrees, that there are some schools in these poor areas that are doing well and providing quality education. Strauss counters this argument by point out the obvious, that it is still only a few, leaving the majority in poorly performing schools. Strauss uses a simple but effective analogy to further her point. She says to imagine testing a child on their ability to swim and placing them in a pool with no water. This comparison is effective in that it illustrates how unfair the test, the results, and the blame are for those students forced to deal with the situation.

With a system entrenched with bad policies, it is amazing that any children are succeeding at all. New York, like many school districts still employs a failed distribution of school resources ensuring the poor get nothing and the rich get everything. This sounds exactly like the point James Paul Gee is making concerning literacy and deeper social problems. Strauss again reminds her readers that despite the obstacles in the road, there are students that “swim up stream” and are still finding success. She concludes by saying that these old policies must make way for new reforms that will ensure that every child has the same equitable opportunities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-education-inequality-persists--and-how-to-fix-it/2012/05/15/gIQAXEIeSU_blog.html

Literacy Crisis

Is literacy just the ability to read and write, or does it mean the ability to obtain knowledge? On one hand, the ability to identify symbols and interpret them into words is the pragmatic way to view the skill of reading. However, Author, James Paul Gee, argues in chapter three, that literacy is the ability to understand and "produce knowledge" (Gee pg. 27). His argument is based on the United States (U.S.)  political link of literacy (education) and the workforce. Gee argues that the "literacy crisis" is actually a "symptom of deeper (social) issues"(Gee pg. 30).

Gee talks about the change from the "War on Poverty" to the neoliberal agenda still prevalent today in the United States (U.S.). Gee defines neoliberalism as a "market-driven approach to the economy" (Gee pg. 27) Essentially, he is saying that the neoliberal belief is that the "free market" economy should dictate, not only the type of schools Americans should have, but what is taught by the schools. He implies that this type of system creates a caste system or hierarchy of rich and poor. I agree, that this type of approach to education will further widen the gap between the poor and the rich, by only increasing the disparity in the quality of education provided and accessibility to the population. 

In the 1980's, the United States Government responded to a "knowledge" Asian workforce (primarily Japan) by trying to implement the same structure in the U.S.  Today, the U.S. Government response is to provide some basic literacy and numeracy skills to some, basic technical skills to others, and even fewer knowledgable skills to a small group. This process is designed, so that the U.S. has a service workforce and a few to produce new knowledge. Since, factory jobs are now outsourced, service jobs are in place to fill the void for the "illiterate" workforce. As Gee pointed out, literacy is more than just the basic skill of interpreting words and sentences; it is understanding the meaning of what is read and having the ability to apply that knowledge.

This chapter in James Paul Gee's book raises a valid point about the so called "literacy crisis." He demonstrates throughout the reading, that the crisis is linked to social issues and cannot simply be viewed as unrelated to one another. He implies that recognizing the causes of illiteracy (the ability not to comprehend) among children is directly connected to the poverty they endure. Perhaps, a realistic approach to the "literacy crisis" could possibly help close the ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor, the literate and the illiterate.