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.