- Image courtesy of shutterstock.com
A few days ago I wrote a post, Arizona’s Economic/Education Divide, about the undeniable correlation between the state grade schools in Arizona receive and the family incomes of the students who go there. I’ve hammered away at the connection between family income and school achievement for years and will continue to hammer away at it in the future. Let me explain why.
For lots of people, the income/achievement connection in education is so obvious, it hardly deserves mentioning. I mean, just look around the Tucson area. Marana, Oro Valley, the Foothills and Vail are filled with “A” schools along with a smattering of “B” schools — high grades to match the areas’ high incomes. The south side of Tucson is where you find the greatest concentration of “D” schools to go with the high rate of poverty in the area. You’ll find the same geographic/economic distribution of school achievement across the U.S. You’ll find it around the world.
Of course, some students provide stunning exceptions to the overall rule, starting out in poor families and ending up with PhDs from Harvard, and some schools manage to defy the odds and get test results higher than their students’ low socioeconomic status would suggest. But those are the occasional exceptions to the rule. They’re outliers in an overwhelmingly consistent pattern.
However, some people deny this fundamental correlation between family income and educational achievement. In fact, leaders of the Education Reform/Privatization movement have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars purposely, systematically, repeatedly denying the connection, or at least minimizing its importance. Low achievement by students from low income families isn’t about poverty, they maintain. It’s about failing schools, bad teachers — and, of course, teachers unions which pamper their members and ignore the needs of the students. “Stop making excuses!” they shout to people who acknowledge that low income schools tend to have low performing students. “Students will do great things if you just give them great teachers with high expectations!”
Remember George Bush’s line about “the soft bigotry of low expectations”? It’s a beautiful phrase with at least a kernel of truth to it, but its main purpose was to bludgeon teachers and administrators who work with low income students, saying to them, “You’re all a bunch of bigots who think your students are too stupid to do well in school because they’re black or brown or poor! Their low test scores are your fault, because you’re lousy educators who refuse to have high expectations for your students.”
The leaders of the education reform/privatization movement are accomplished snake oil salesmen. Like the con men of old who used to stand on the back of wagons pitching their wares, these purveyors of educational snake oil begin by rolling out their gruesome descriptions of the aches, pains and mortal illnesses their audience is afflicted with. The only difference is, their pitch is about educational, not physical ailments.They tell horror stories about the mortal danger our country is facing due to our “failing schools” which are sapping our children of their educational potential and turning us into a second rate economic power, soon to be overwhelmed by international competition. When their audience has been sufficiently beaten down, when they’ve lost all hope that our system of public schooling can ever succeed, when they’re ready to grasp at any solution offered up with sufficient evangelical zeal, the con men pull a bottle of magic potion off the back of the wagon and wave it in the air, guaranteeing it will cure all our educational ills. They recite the ingredients in their elixir: charter schools, vouchers, elimination of teacher tenure, elimination of teacher unions. And they promise, if the country drinks it, our educational ills will be cured.
The biggest problem with buying snake oil is, if you believe it will cure what ails you, you’re likely to ignore treatments which can actually help. The con man’s “magic elixir” won’t make things any better, and over the long run, it could make things worse. That’s the primary danger in buying the phony cure-all offered by the reform/privatization salesmen. It’s not that charter schools and private schools are inherently worse than school district schools. They aren’t. The vast majority of serious studies say there’s little difference between the achievement of similar students in the three types of schools. The problem is, they’re no better than what we already have. If we drink their reform/privatization potion and think it’s going to make a difference, we’ll end up running in place, going nowhere in terms of improving educational outcomes. Or worse, we’ll end up dismantling the system of public education which, for all its flaws, is the best hope we have for educating our children.
And if we drink the reform/privatization snake oil, if we believe our schools can make children from poor families achieve at the same level as children from well off families, we’ll ignore the fundamental truth that poverty and poor educational achievement are inextricably linked. We’ll forget that if we address the root causes of poverty — even if we can lessen the adverse impacts of poverty on children — we’ll raise student achievement whether or not we improve our schools. And if we work on making our schools better at the same time, we’ll achieve a multiplier effect. We won’t work the miracles the snake oil salesmen promise, but we’re far more likely to see genuine improvement in student achievement, especially from the lowest achieving students who live in the greatest poverty.
This hits at one of the primary reasons the conservative proponents of the reform/privatization movement are so keen on selling their snake oil. They don’t want to shoulder the burden of reducing poverty. That would cost money. The richest individuals and corporations would end up paying more taxes and the money would be redistributed in ways that will improve the lives of the poorest among us. It would mean maintaining a robust food stamp program and improving access to quality health care. It would mean raising the minimum wage. And actually improving the educational quality of our schools would mean repairing and replacing school buildings, replacing outdated infrastructure and textbooks, lowering class sizes and paying our teachers the kind of wages which will attract top quality educators and keep them in the classroom.
All these things cost money, and the people funding the reform/privatization movement absolutely don’t want to spend more money on wages, social programs or education. So they continue to push their wares on a gullible public which is willing to believe the reform/privatization snake oil will cure our educational ills.
This article appears in Aug 21-27, 2014.
I only need rest my case by pointing to the Post Office. Story over.
The only problem with this story is that it continues to equate educational success with test scores. In my experience, the low-income schools that manage to markedly improve test scores manage it by endless drilling and getting rid of everything that won’t be tested. That means no time for science, music, art, learning through play, the list goes on and on. Do their test scores improve? Yes. Does the education being provided to the children improve? No. The high income schools aren’t getting great test scores by getting rid of music in their schools. It’s one more way that the divide widens.
You forgot intelligence and values.
David, I agree with much of what you write, but experience has taught me that the effects of poverty can be undone to a significant degree by quality public education. The real problem I have observed over many decades is that…on the whole…the nation’s poorest children also go to school in school districts that either cannot compete for the nation’s best teachers or won’t compete for great teachers because they have bought into other varieties of snake-oil.
Before getting into the other variety of snake oil, let’s examine how this competition plays out. New York City and Chicago are expensive cities. Teachers who work there make excellent salaries by Tucson standards. (Most Tucson area teachers top out at what would be a starting level salary in NYC.) But, the suburbs of both NYC and Chicago are very wealthy, and their salaries are astronomical compared to salaries in this area and competitive enough (wealthy NYC suburbs regularly offer veteran teachers 6 figure salaries) to attract the most marketable NYC and Chicago teachers to, literally, “greener pastures.” The law of supply and demand plays out in local teaching markets just as you’d expect. So…even though the big cities appear to be paying teachers very well, in their own market areas they pay relatively poorly, and they regularly see their best teachers move away from teaching poor kids in the South Bronx or Harlem to teaching wealthy kids in Scarsdale, Bedford, Oak Park, and other tony suburbs. This system is enabled by state funding for school districts that does not use a “Robin Hood approach” and include extreme poverty and other societal factors in its funding. The federal Title I program is sort of a “crippled” Robin Hood. Title I funding is almost never used to make districts more competitive in attracting great teachers. Instead it is used to provide the type of programs I describe below as just a different form of “snake oil.”
The other variety of snake-oil being pitched to poor school districts is the “silver-bullet program.” Many districts…two of the most prominent are right here in Baja Arizona… have essentially opted out of competing for great teachers and, instead, put unholy portions of their budget into silver-bullet programs that are, somehow, going to magically undo the impact of poverty. Our own local favorites, TUSD and SUSD, spend less than half their revenue in the classroom…great evidence they are refusing to compete for the kind of life changing teachers many local students need. Instead, many (maybe most) of these programs promise great results regardless of how qualified the teachers using them. They are often marketed, in fact,as being “teacher-proof.” Sadly, most of these silver-bullet programs do not work as advertised. The end result has, in the aggregate, been disastrous for the nation’s poorest children.
Anybody else here feeling sad for “Rat T?”
He seems like such a lonely guy.
A few replies to commenters. (Maybe we should have a “Reply” feature on this blog? Tweekly web folks, is that possible?)
Nanette, I agree completely, equating achievement with test scores is problematic for the reasons you mention. Our crazy high stakes testing culture is creating far more harm than good. But I’m using it as a proxy for achievement, partially because that’s the measure being used to trash “low performing” schools. If I could find a better approach to make my point, I would.
Marty, I’m also in agreement with what you say. I just think it’s a separate issue. I don’t believe in any educational snake oil that promises miracle cures, especially those “teacher proof” (God, I hate that term!) programs and lesson plans. We have to face the reality that most educational improvements are incremental, frustratingly so. Competitive wages and equitable budgets would improve the lot of students in some schools. So would fixing decaying buildings. So would lowering class size. So would genuine, sustained, long term teacher development which included time for teachers to work together and learn from one another. But none of them would turn students who are struggling in school into Harvard-bound scholars.
Marty, the problems you talk about don’t threaten to dismantle our system of education and replace it with a privatized, profitable system which will create further educational inequality. Those are the concerns I was addressing in the post.
I agree David, I’d love to respond to Rat T’s faux-noise inspired nonsense with the fact that most of the time when I order something and it’s shipped via “Fedex” or “UPS” it arrives punctually on time and safe in the hands of the hard-working, kind, courteous, smiling wonderful woman who delivers our mail dependably SIX days a week, every week.
Rat T is living in a cloud-cuckoo land that refuses to recognize the amazing job that the U.S. Post Office does.
UPS and other shippers are apparently realizing that the P.O. is so much more flexible, economic and effective at delivering small packages that they’re using the P.O. as well for final delivery…
Just as people like him ignore the premeditated inequality in this country that creates the conditions you describe in your article and blame hard-working, dedicated teachers or the overworked, oppressed parents!
Good comments, ChetDude. However, when I encounter a comment like Rat T’s, my maxim is “Don’t feed the trolls.” When people try to hijack the discussion, I say ignore them. If it’s too egregious, I’ll remove the comment — not as an act of censorship, but to keep the discussion more-or-less on topic. There are too many good, intelligent folks — on both sides (all sides?) — who contribute their ideas here to let some troll distract us.
Yes, studies do indeed exist that link poverty and academic underachievement. Anyone with access to the www can do the research unless they’re afraid such facts and data will interfere with their ignorance.
That said, be cautious of those fear-peddlers who seem to exist just to make a buck. Their formula: create a straw-boogeyman, have the public fear and loathe it, then promote their latest nostrum as “the cure”…for a price of course.
For the sake of profit nothing is sacred, not even our kids’ minds.
Be well.
Pat each other on the back and dismiss dissenters as trolls. But I have noticed that nothing gets solved. Could it be that is something of a personal limitation, that attracts a particular mindset?
Does anybody recognize this headline 11 days ago?
US Postal Service loses $2 billion this spring…
I didn’t think so.
There is nothing inherent about the socio-economic status of a neighborhood and the Performance Grade that is received by the State. Students, notwithstanding the economic status of their family, have the same distribution of learning ability and intelligence.
There are two factors that determine the Performance Grade:
1) a second rate instructional program and supporting classroom infrastructure in poorer neighborhoods, and
2) lack of Student motivation and Parental involvement in the education of their Children in the poorer neighborhoods.
Both can be corrected: if Parents DEMAND that their Children receive a quality education; if necessary by a complete reorganization of the Administrative and Instructional Staff in their neighborhood schools.
Further, Academic and Behavioral Standard must be implemented across the District and enrollment in all District Schools should be open so that:
a) All Students receive a quality education as measured, at each grade level/subject, by standardized performance testing, and
b) No Student is permitted to interfere with the instructional program of a Classroom Teacher. Chronically disruptive Students are removed from the Classroom, expelled if necessary.
Thank you Francis. That makes sense.
David, do you consider Barack Obama to be “conservative”? He helped launch Democrats for Education Reform in New York City in 2005, and it’s almost impossible to calculate the damage he, Arne Duncan, and his cohorts in the Democratic Party have done to public education through his Race to the Top program. And, would you consider Ted Kennedy, RIP, to be “conservative”? He claimed credit for No Child Left Behind till the day he died, and before he died, he campaigned to have it reauthorized AS IS.
I simply don’t understand why you keep talking about “the conservative proponents of the reform/privatization movement.” There’s no doubt that a good chunk of conservatives are behind the privatization agenda (like Chris Christie, who said Obama was an only-Nixon-can-go-to-China moment for education reform), but a good chunk of liberals are, too (especially the liberals who absolutely refuse to deal with Obama’s education reform agenda in public).
Point well taken, Jon.
The reason I distinguish between Democrats who support portions of the reform/privatization agenda and conservatives is that the movement is led and driven by conservatives. Conservatives are its most ardent proponents, the ones who pour the most money into it and the ones who are the most likely to resort to exaggerations and lies to make their case. As I have said in many posts, Obama and his Secretary of Education Duncan are on the wrong side on this issue in my opinion, along with a number of other prominent and not-so-prominent Democrats. I, alongside other progressive educators, will continue to criticize and condemn them for their positions and their actions. It may be the pressure is beginning to have some effect, which is what this post is about.
As for Ted Kennedy, he joined with Bush to pass the No Child Left Behind legislation, then later regretted it. He hoped and expected the thrust of the legislation to move in a different direction. He was wrong, as he admitted openly.
A correction to my comment. This post isn’t about the possibility of a change in direction by Arne Duncan and Obama. That’s the next post about Duncan’s statement. Sorry about the misstatement.
I have worked in poverty-stricken neighborhoods and Title 1 schools for most of my career, and I can definitely see the correlation between poverty and performance.
Many commenters above make good points: there has been an aura of low expectations surrounding the education of the poorest and most troubled students…I have seen this first hand. But it is also true that this is becoming a thing of the past, as “new blood” enters the teaching work-force. It is also true that teacher pay plays a major role in the quality of teacher a district will attract. It would be great if all teachers were so altruistic, that they were willing to work in thankless, brutal conditions, simply because they love teaching and wish to make a difference. But these kind of teachers are few and far between.
Politicos on both sides of the aisle have tried to address the problem, but continue to muddy the waters, because of their own agendas. They claim to be working for the public good, that they represent the parents, students and teachers. But none of this is entirely true. As David pointed out, as long as money comes into the question, and where to spend it, who deserves it, and who does not, education in this country will continue to suffer.
Then there is our state’s policy (and others as well) of punitive measures toward teachers and schools. How can a poorly performing school and its surrounding community be expected to become more involved and pull out of a nose dive of failure, when they are continually losing funding, then resources, and finally good teachers?
I have seen this happen in as little as two years while at a southside school. The despair was palpable, as news of closing schools, slashed budgets, an layoffs of even the most valued staff filtered down to the students. And that brings me to the students themselves.
Every year, a new mandate comes along to drive the curriculum toward teaching to the latest test and the newest standards. However, the populations coming in are more troubled and poorer than ever… many have been bounced from school to school , either because their home school was closed, or their parents are following the job closest to their kids’ school, or both. Some kids are coming in with no prior socialization or academic exposure, are from broken homes, or are fleeing with family from dangerous and corrupt societies.
We who work with them are expected to wear many hats of responsibility, including the actual job-description of “teacher”, and we do it because we want to help, or because it must be done. Many times these responsibilities extend beyond the school day…we are, for some kids, the most involved adults in their lives, and our schools the safest place for them. Take that away, and the social issues of poverty, mental illness and crime multiply. And still there are no easy answers…and won’t be, until poverty, mental illness and the value of teachers is honestly and completely addressed.
Thanks for the comments, Ronni. Very well put.
David’s piece is well written and strikes to the heart of what is being done today in pursuit of the huge pile of gold that underlies public education. My only concern is his predictable outrage with conservative proponents of school privatization, etc. I work in an organization that is engaged in building schools where No Child Is Held Back.
Dealing with a lot of snake oil salesmen (and a lot of sincere and hardworking folks) is part of my work and believe me, the only ideological thoughts in their minds revolve around how to milk the cow most efficiently – be they Democrats, Republicans, Progressives or simply as they describe themselves, businessmen. Follow the money, to Pearson or Arne Duncan and all in between.
Or simply sit down with a few teachers and ask for their opinions of how to improve schools. But hey, what would they know?
As a teacher new to the state of AZ, not new to teaching, one thing I have noticed is the amount of children crammed into a classroom. 33 students in a 3rd grade classroom! 40 in a 5th grade classroom! 25 + in a kindergarten classroom with no instuctinal aide! Plus the amount of work demanded outside the classroom in addition to lesson plans and grade ing papers is insane! I have a 12 hour work day and that’s not including drive time or time after I return home. Forget family time or time for myself.