I was about to write a completely different post, about an article maintaining that disadvantaged kids have less access to top quality teachers than kids from higher income families. But then I came across a very long paper by David Berliner, a highly regarded, much-published emeritus professor of education at ASU and a fellow at the National Education Policy Center, and I decided to go another way and look at Berliner’s assertion that problems related to income inequality and poverty have more impact on students’ educational achievement than schools and teachers. So I’ll save the “problem with schools” post for another day and focus on the argument that the major source of our educational problems originate outside the school walls.
There are two basic schools of thought about why children from low income families tend to achieve at a significantly lower level than higher income children. One school of thought says failing schools are to blame. If we just figure out how to get these kids into “successful” schools—maybe set up a bunch of great charter schools or give kids vouchers to private schools that can succeed where “government schools” fail, maybe “fix” the problems with schools that are part of our traditional education system, maybe combine both approaches—student achievement will soar and our educational problems will be solved. The other school of thought says schools can’t fix the educational problems that are linked to children living in poverty. We need to address the economic and social issues plaguing our society to see a significant improvement in achievement in lower income kids.
Obviously, these two views aren’t diametrically opposed. People who think “failing schools” are the problem acknowledge the fact that kids living in poverty have educational disadvantages, and people who think the problems are more societally based acknowledge that better schools lead to better outcomes. But the decision about where to put our energies and resources is determined by which aspect we think is more important.
Right now, the “good schools are the answer” side is winning, big time. The whole conservative privatization/”education reform” movement is based on the idea that all we need is better schools. And that’s the basic direction Obama and many other somewhat progressive Democrats have gone as well, even if they don’t emphasize privatization as much as the conservatives.
David Berliner disagrees, and I’m on his side of the argument. Here are some passages from his paper, Effects of Inequality and Poverty vs. Teachers and Schooling on America’s Youth, which summarize his ideas.
This paper arises out of frustration with the results of school reforms carried out over the past few decades. These efforts have failed. They need to be abandoned. In their place must come recognition that income inequality causes many social problems, including problems associated with education. . . . [T]he design of better economic and social policies can do more to improve our schools than continued work on educational policy independent of such concerns.
[snip]
[T]he best way to improve America’s schools is through jobs that provide families living wages. Other programs are noted that offer some help for students from poor families. But in the end, it is inequality in income and the poverty that accompanies such inequality, that matters most for education.
[snip]For reasons that are hard to fathom, too many people believe that in education the exceptions are the rule. Presidents and politicians of both parties are quick to point out the wonderful but occasional story of a child’s rise from poverty to success and riches. They also often proudly recite the heroic, remarkable, but occasional impact of a teacher or a school on a child. These stories of triumph by individuals who were born poor, or success by educators who changed the lives of their students, are widely believed narratives about our land and people, celebrated in the press, on television, and in the movies. But in fact, these are simply myths that help us feel good to be American. These stories of success reflect real events, and thus they are certainly worth studying and celebrating so we might learn more about how they occur (cf. Casanova, 2010). But the general case is that poor people stay poor and that teachers and schools serving impoverished youth do not often succeed in changing the life chances for their students.
[snip]
Because of our tendency to expect individuals to overcome their own handicaps, and teachers to save the poor from stressful lives, we design social policies that are sure to fail since they are not based on reality. Our patently false ideas about the origins of success have become drivers of national educational policies. This ensures that our nation spends time and money on improvement programs that do not work consistently enough for most children and their families, while simultaneously wasting the good will of the public (Timar & Maxwell-Jolly, 2012). In the current policy environment we often end up alienating the youth and families we most want to help, while simultaneously burdening teachers with demands for success that are beyond their capabilities.
[snip]
The achievement gaps between blacks and whites, Hispanics and Anglos, the poor and the rich, are hard to erase because the gaps have only a little to do with what goes on in schools, and a lot to do with social and cultural factors that affect student performance (Berliner 2006; 2009). Policymakers in Washington and state capitals throughout the USA keep looking for a magic bullet that can be fired by school “reformers” to effect a cure for low achievement among the poor, English language learners, and among some minorities. It is, of course, mostly wasted effort if the major cause of school problems stems from social conditions beyond the control of the schools. The evidence is that such is the case.
[snip]
Virtually every scholar of teaching and schooling knows that when the variance in student scores on achievement tests is examined along with the many potential factors that may have contributed to those test scores, school effects account for about 20% of the variation in achievement test scores, and teachers are only a part of that constellation of variables associated with “school.” Other school variables such as peer group effects, quality of principal leadership, school finance, availability of counseling and special education services, number and variety of AP courses, turnover rates of teachers, and so forth, also play an important role in student achievement. Teachers only account for a portion of the “school” effect, and the school effect itself is only modest in its impact on achievement.
On the other hand, out-of-school variables account for about 60% of the variance that can be accounted for in student achievement. In aggregate, such factors as family income; the neighborhood’s sense of collective efficacy, violence rate, and average income; medical and dental care available and used; level of food insecurity; number of moves a family makes over the course of a child’s school years; whether one parent or two parents are raising the child; provision of high-quality early education in the neighborhood; language spoken at home; and so forth, all substantially affect school achievement.
What is it that keeps politicians and others now castigating teachers and public schools from acknowledging this simple social science fact, a fact that is not in dispute: Outside-of-school factors are three times more powerful in affecting student achievement than are the inside-the-school factors (Berliner, 2009)? And why wouldn’t that be so? Do the math! On average, by age 18, children and youth have spent about 10 percent of their lives in what we call schools, while spending around 90 percent of their lives in family and neighborhood. Thus, if families and neighborhoods are dysfunctional or toxic, their chance to influence youth is nine times greater than the schools’! So it seems foolish to continue trying to affect student achievement with the most popular contemporary educational policies, mostly oriented toward teachers and schools, while assiduously ignoring the power of the outside-of-school factors. Perhaps it is more than foolish. If one believes that doing the same thing over and over and getting no results is a reasonable definition of madness, then what we are doing is not merely foolish: it is insane.
[snip]
It is hard to argue against school reformers who want more rigorous course work, higher standards of student performance, the removal of poor teachers, greater accountability from teachers and schools, higher standards for teacher education, and so forth. I stand with them all! But in various forms and in various places, all of that has been tried and the system has improved little—if at all. The current menu of reforms simply may not help education improve as long as we refuse to notice that public education is working fine for many of America’s families and youth, and that there is a common characteristic among families for whom the public schools are failing. That characteristic is poverty brought about through, and exacerbated by, great inequality in wealth.
This article appears in Jul 9-15, 2015.
“Which Has a Greater Effect On Student Achievement: Inequality/Poverty or Teachers/Schooling?” What a confusing headline! Does “inequality/poverty” mean inequality divided by poverty? Inequality OR poverty? Inequality and poverty? Does “Teachers/Schooling” mean teachers divided by schooling, what schooling itself means? The headline itself reads like Twitter talk, not English.
I don’t get it. There is a smaller percentage of people who score better because they have rich parents. I realize the overall numbers might be a bit skewed but how is it roughly 70% of India is literate? Or even the Philippines. Could it be the value placed on education vs the value of education? I’m the cockeyed optimist who believes ANY child can be taught no matter how dire the situation. I don’t buy into your constant doomsday diatribe. I would say negativism is the greater killer of education and I don’t mean by the kids.
I don’t believe either answer to the problem is a solution. We, my two siblings and myself, came from a low income family and we all did well. So did many others, but that was long ago when parents ruled the home. The problem now, seems to be the low income parents. Parenting has become a hobby rather than a job. The article doesn’t state if we are talking about specific groups of people, or all poor people in general. Good language and communication skills are a must, if you want to succeed.
To me, this seems like the best argument for cultural integration. The Blacks need to drop their destructive sub-culture and assume a more Anglo-like approach. By the same token the Latinos should abandon their search for “cultural identity” and integrate into the American society as Americans. It was this way once and worked well, I know I can from the Latin culture and the whole family was raised in an Anglo environment, by my insightful mother and all nine of us succeeded academically and professionally.
Forget Mexico, forget you African roots, become Americans; the Asians seems to be quite successful at this, something that cannot be denied.
Get your kids out of tusd. Problem solved.
For what it’s worth, an observation from a former teacher in a private school which served a high SES, professionally educated constituency: though I agree that we need to solve our problems with income inequality and we need to ensure that full time work earns a living wage in the U.S., it’s important to recognize that raising income will not ensure student success.
This is what we saw in kids from families where both parents were professionals who worked full time and earned high incomes: if the parents had not hired (or secured through their family connections) fully educated, fully literate, high functioning in-home care during the infant and pre-school years — and to manage after school activities and homework help during the elementary years — the students struggled and the parents were doing expensive, and sometimes heart-breaking damage control. In general, the highest functioning students — academically, socially, and emotionally — came from families that had one fully educated adult present and responsive during out-of-school hours. It didn’t matter WHICH person filled this role — we saw many dads who did a fine job as primary school liaison / student support person and a few grandparents and “hired hands” — but having a fully educated, fully emotionally engaged adult consistently in that role did seem to be the biggest factor in student success.
Whether you can AFFORD to provide this relates to income levels. Once you have the income necessary to afford to provide this level of support, whether you CHOOSE to do so and KNOW HOW to do so relates to values and how well you understand pedagogy and child development.
How to develop programs that help people understand what really matters and that provide them with the support necessary to deliver what really matters to their children is a problem I’m not quite sure how to solve…but I know that the standard issue “liberal” solution of increasing access to group care pre-school programs and raising income levels always seems to me to fall short of what’s needed. This “solution” doesn’t address the problem of supporting the availability, responsiveness and competence of the primary caretaker, and that, in my experience as a teacher, is what makes the biggest difference.
Thanks, David W but the only thing that happens when I stick my head in the sand is I can’t see who kicked me in your brain.
Ending childhood poverty – 1 in 4 children in the U.S. live in poverty – and providing excellent, well paid teachers are both important goals to achieve.
Education does not always lead to good, well paying jobs. Witness the number of college graduates with only part-time jobs, living below the poverty line. Poverty is largely a function failed and failing policy that, over recent decades, has come to serve large multi-national corporations while exploiting the poor and middle-class. Democracy, not education will solve this problem.
Once we are recommitted to a zero tolerance of poverty in our nation and children enter schools with their basic needs met, education will improve greatly as has been demonstrated over and over again both in the United States and in other countries. Add great, well paid, highly valued teachers to the mix, educational outcomes will demonstratively improve.
We encourage poverty and single parent families: Our Welfare system only supports you and legalizes you if you continue to have children. SO the most ignorant among US propagates. This is now the problem:
Hispanic births, drive 78% US population growth.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/…
42% of Latino households are single parent. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/table…
53% of Hispanic women have illegitimate births ● http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/32943…
Welfare use by Immigrant Households with Children in states where the households have the highest use rates are Arizona (62%) Texas, California and New York (61%) each and Pennsylvania(59%).The study focused on eight major welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. http://cis.org/immigrant-welfa..
Several hospitals, including ones in Stockton (40% Hispanic & Bankrupt), CA and Dallas, TX, report as many as 70% of their deliveries are to nonUS-residents. Similarly, the parents of infant citizens still qualify for welfare in order to protect the child.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michealene-c…
Mindless propagation is what our policies and subsidies encourage not education. This is what it’s doing for the country – we are getting dumber:
Report by the Migration Policy Institute, 57% of limited English proficient adolescents nationwide are U.S. born. Up to 27 % of all LEP adolescents are members of the 2nd generation, and 30% are 3rd generation, meaning that many students educated exclusively in U.S. still can’t speak English fluently.
http://www.proenglish.org/projects/english…
Sorry about the brain kick Harold. My comment re: TUSD are simply a knee jerk counter action to David S’s support TUSD at all costs. It seems fitting to try and achieve some balance.
Blow the dust out of your nose and get back on the pony.
The only people that do NOT know the answer to your headline are those making $60,000 to a quarter of a million dollars plus benefits yearly from taxpayers.
Nothing like a description of the racist, systemic inequality of the USAmerican economic/education system to bring out the racists who post here…
Anyone who doesn’t consider economic inequality (exacerbated by corporate capitalist needs) as the essential cause of societal problems is a deluded fool…
You tell ’em chet. The hell with personal responsibility. It’s over rated. Wait, why are you talking about race? Are there no whites living in poverty?
Berliner has certainly made some good points. Here is a quote from another thinker on the subject: “Individuals who made it out of poverty usually cite an individual who made a significant difference for them.” and, if you believe it, “The hidden rules of the middle class must be taught so students can choose to follow them if they wish”.
( https://www.usd253.org/respect/documents/P…)
For those of us who have been working in the public schools for some time, and have studied the affects of poverty from researchers such as Ruby Payne, PhD (whom is quoted above), the fact that poverty is a great inhibitor is a “no-brainer”. And, although the quote above may be true for those who do in fact make it out of poverty, the problem remains that so many more children do not.
Take those of us who grew up in the Recession of the 1970’s: Long before the influx of refugee and immigrant populations (though they were still here, albeit not in as great a number), we were struggling in an education system that was still mired in outdated methodologies AND experiencing poverty across the nation. The line between the “haves” and “have nots” in society and in educational accessibility were pretty clearly defined. As one of those “have nots” from that era, I can say honestly that, yes, although several individuals encouraged me to keep going academically, it was poverty that kept me from doing so at a practical pace. I am certain that I am not the only one of my generation that had to work full time, while attending junior college, or perhaps even during high school. And if we did “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps”, it was because our parents, from the previous generation, believed in a good work ethic and in the “American Dream” or something similarly iconic.
Those of us (working poor) who did manage to make it to undergraduate and graduate programs, did so through years of blood, sweat and tears. I did not make more than minimum wage until I began teaching, at the advanced age of 41 yrs. I had to take out huge loans, and counted on scant scholarships to pick up part of the tab, while working part-time at the very least. Poverty was always looming (and still does, to a lesser degree) in my life. But I see MANY more parents, who live in abject poverty today…they don’t believe in the “American Dream”. They don’t instill good work ethics or hope into their children; they live day to day, moment to moment, just staying above water; many more seem to have drug and mental problems, then pass these on to their kids. And no amount of masterful teaching, mandated curriculum, or standardized testing is fixing the problem.
So, even with studies such as those conducted by Payne and Berliner being shared with the public, the problem persists, while so few heed their words, or make any real changes at a societal level. Instead, rhetoric remains popular, like “Public schools are failing our kids”, and “Liberals and (insert typical racist remark) are destroying our country and education!”. And now, it looks as if the Donald Trumps of our society will dictate who should have and have not, further dividing society, and widening the gap to a “nearly free” and equal education for all. Sad, sad times.
Claudia Splick Larson
Bingo!
“I was about to write a completely different post, about an article maintaining that disadvantaged kids have less access to top quality teachers than kids from higher income families. But then I came across a very long paper by David Berliner”
Why write your own stuff when you can just cut and paste? Saves a lot of bothersome effort.
There does seem to be a shortage of effort running around the country.
Thanks, David W for the clarification. From where my head has been it’s not always easy to see things so well ;-}
I no longer consider Ruby Payne PhD, to be an eminent “authority” on poverty in education, because her work, though broadly accepted in educational circles, is not based in scientific evidence. It is also rife with classism. Thank you.