NYT article: Class Matters

[Bang!Zoom!]

Hmm.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?_r=1&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all

 

Op Ed Piece-intro:

 

Durham, N.C.

 

NO one seriously disputes the fact that students from disadvantaged households perform less well in school, on average, than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds. But rather than confront this fact of life head-on, our policy makers mistakenly continue to reason that, since they cannot change the backgrounds of students, they should focus on things they can control.

[butterflymommy]

I'm always uneasy when I see propositions to increase intervention in a child's life to compensate for, or reverse, the "bad influences at home." The push to get children in school at younger and younger ages (some propose by age two!) reminds of the attempts to assimilate Native Americans by taking them away from their families in order to teach them "proper" behavior and attitudes.

 

The opinion piece was all over the place. The authors devalue charter schools by saying perceptions of success are based on isolated examples, then they go on to cite a few isolated examples of high-intervention schools as evidence that this is the best route to follow. I was also puzzled by their mention of Finland-- last I checked, children receive free food and health care in public schools here, too. All schools in my district offer free breakfast, most have 75%+ free lunch, and all have at least one certified nurse on staff.

 

They also don't fully address the problem of setting benchmarks that failing schools can't-- and probably won't ever-- meet. What are they implying? That we should have lower standards for certain populations?

 

On the surface it's simple to say that there is a link between income and school performance, but the causality might be far more complex. Perhaps the wealthier families are better off due to factors that-- in addition to making them more successful-- cause their children to do better in school. In other words, it's not the money alone, but the factors that led up to the acquisition of wealth that in turn influence the child and make him/ her a better student.

Edited December 16, 2011 by butterflymommy

[Bang!Zoom!]

It's a opinion-piece for sure.

 

I was arguing with it two sentences in on failure of logic.

 

It's difficult reading things like this for me, I have to read it several times over through the eyes of expression of opinion only, and that skill takes me several tries. Op Ed is not my forte'.

 

I dissect them with my own personal bias, and have difficulty absorbing the message as intended.

[butterflymommy]

Even the title makes no sense-- "Class Matters, Why Won't We Admit It?"

 

I don't know anyone who wouldn't admit social strata has an impact on a child's educational prospects. In fact the educational system has been obsessed with closing gaps between racial and economic groups for the better part of this generation. So who, exactly, is denying it?

[Renee in NC]

I live in Durham, NC. There are serious, serious problems here that cannot be addressed just by the schools. Unless the problems of race, class, gangs, crime, and culture are addressed, there will be no change in the achievement of the children. Don't get me wrong - the policies of DPS are part of the problem, but to ignore the home life and background of students would be a mistake.

 

In most cases, I would not be supportive of more intervention before school-age, but in this case I most certainly am. I have read quite a bit about the Harlem Childrens' Project - I believe that a similar program would be very successful in Durham as well.

[cathmom]

Did that article have a point?! :D It rambled all over the place!

[kalanamak]

Hmm.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?_r=1&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all

 

Op Ed Piece-intro:

 

Durham, N.C.

 

NO one seriously disputes the fact that students from disadvantaged households perform less well in school, on average, than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds. But rather than confront this fact of life head-on, our policy makers mistakenly continue to reason that, since they cannot change the backgrounds of students, they should focus on things they can control.

 

I'm not sure how focusing on things they "can't control" would help. :)

 

And, instead of pulling kids out of their house at a younger and younger age (shades of rounding up Native kids and sticking them in government schools ... a real success story), how about working with the parents' low level of language skills, e.g.

[Roadrunner]

I think "the lack of language skills" is an excuse. You lack language skills if you don't care to learn. That simple. I have a good friend who started school without knowing a single word in English (her parents were Chinese immigrants and didn't speak English at all) and graduated the top of her high school to go on to University of Chicago. I know lots of immigrants like this. If they can learn, anybody can learn, especially when you are young. I started college at the age of 18 with very little knowledge of the language, yet graduated valedictorian, and there isn't anything special about me.

Honestly, I am soooo tired of hearing "poor kids, their parents don't speak English."

[Stacy in NJ]

Which is race.

 

Middle class African-American students score one standard deviation below middle class white students and two deviations below middle class Jewish and Asian students on IQ and standardized tests. It's not about poverty or socio-economic status; it's about either culture or heredity. The former is a politically acceptable way to frame the discussion: the latter is unmentionable.

 

The author begins the article by stating we shouldn't shy away from talking about the causes of school failure, then shys away from talking about probably causes of school failure.

 

The article is a complete muddle and mess, and, if this is what passes for intelligent debate/editorial regarding education in our country, we are in serious trouble.

 

I'm always uneasy when I see propositions to increase intervention in a child's life to compensate for, or reverse, the "bad influences at home." The push to get children in school at younger and younger ages (some propose by age two!) reminds of the attempts to assimilate Native Americans by taking them away from their families in order to teach them "proper" behavior and attitudes.

 

The opinion piece was all over the place. The authors devalue charter schools by saying perceptions of success are based on isolated examples, then they go on to cite a few isolated examples of high-intervention schools as evidence that this is the best route to follow. I was also puzzled by their mention of Finland-- last I checked, children receive free food and health care in public schools here, too. All schools in my district offer free breakfast, most have 75%+ free lunch, and all have at least one certified nurse on staff.

 

They also don't fully address the problem of setting benchmarks that failing schools can't-- and probably won't ever-- meet. What are they implying? That we should have lower standards for certain populations?

 

On the surface it's simple to say that there is a link between income and school performance, but the causality might be far more complex. Perhaps the wealthier families are better off due to factors that-- in addition to making them more successful-- cause their children to do better in school. In other words, it's not the money alone, but the factors that led up to the acquisition of wealth that in turn influence the child and make him/ her a better student.

[Stacy in NJ]

Yes, unfortunately, we can't force people to value what they don't value (education). We can try to cultivate an appreciation in parents - encourage them in encouraging their own children - but fundamentally we can't control their behavior. We CAN provide a public education to these kids that lays a foundation for furture opportunity. This means emphasizing literacy, numeracy, and the development of disciplined habits.

 

I, for one, wish schools would focus like a lazer beam on basic literacy and numeracy. Any adult who can read at a reasonable level and possesses basic number competency can self-educate and even get access to community college or alternative education pathways.

[regentrude]

I think "the lack of language skills" is an excuse. You lack language skills if you don't care to learn. That simple. I have a good friend who started school without knowing a single word in English (her parents were Chinese immigrants and didn't speak English at all) and graduated the top of her high school to go on to University of Chicago. I know lots of immigrants like this. If they can learn, anybody can learn, especially when you are young. I started college at the age of 18 with very little knowledge of the language, yet graduated valedictorian, and there isn't anything special about me.

Honestly, I am soooo tired of hearing "poor kids, their parents don't speak English."

 

 

:iagree:

The language thing does not explain why kids of Asian immigrants are typically doing so well in school. How their culture values education does.

[kalanamak]

I

Honestly, I am soooo tired of hearing "poor kids, their parents don't speak English."

 

I've *never* heard that.

 

I do feel for children whose parents have low IQ (genetic disadvantage) or who don't keep learning in adulthood, who don't set an example of trying to better themselves. I work with perfectly nice people who don't value education enough to improve themselves. They want their kids to do well, but if mom spends her evenings in the casino (we have a lot of that out here), and dad pops open a beer and watches sports all evening, where is the example? I am always amazed at these nice, hardworking people who are amazed their kid ends up just like them: PG at 18 and/or doesn't even apply to college and/or takes a menial job and lives to party, etc. etc.

 

There are exceptions, but off the top of my head, and working with some 2000 people I can't think of a professional whose kid didn't go onto college, and only a few of non-professional whose kids did. Of those, most are 1st or 2nd generation Asian or African or Peruvian kids, and mom, with barely any English, works janitorial or the kitchen. Even then, mom or dad had a degree back home, usually.

[stripe]

:iagree:

The language thing does not explain why kids of Asian immigrants are typically doing so well in school. How their culture values education does.

And also does not explain why black children who speak another language at home do way better than English-speaking black children (i.e. African immigrants vs. African Americans), according to studies cited by Dianne Ravitch. Which indicates there is something beyond the "black people are dumb" line.

 

I hate to bring up the Tiger Mom thing again, but most African immigrants are Tiger Moms. Big time.

[Bang!Zoom!]

I don't know if this particular TED is old hat for some, but Dave Eggers addresses some of those questions in this talk. Pretty inspirational stuff.

 

 

 

The full clip is about 25 minutes long, but if you are in the mood, it's not wasted learning.

[butterflymommy]

I've *never* heard that.

 

 

I hear it all the time. It probably depends on where you live-- I live in an area with many undocumented Mexicans (and Central Americans, but mostly Mexicans). English just isn't spoken at home and the parents often aren't literate even in their native language. The kids, even if born in the country, don't develop strong English skills (grammar, accent, vocabulary) unless they make a concerted effort on their own when they are old enough to realize that it matters. Poor English and grammar skills are a huge (negative) factor in school performance.

 

Not to start another "proper English" debate but this could arguably hold true for African Americans who use non-standard grammar. I can give you a real life example-- my daughters attended a mostly black school for the years they were in school. My girls and the other kids often couldn't understand each other in conversation. My daughters would have to backtrack, explain what certain words meant, and rephrase statements. This is pretty shocking given that the majority of the kids were native English speakers. My children had a much larger vocabulary than the other kids and used "proper" grammar. Extrapolate this interaction to the classroom and textbooks and it's no wonder the kids with non-standard English skills lag behind.

 

In fact the decisive moment for me in choosing to return to homeschooling was when my daughter won a writing award. The award ceremony grouped all the winning students-- most of them from middle class and private schools-- together. My daughter was amazed that the other kids could understand her when she spoke. I realized then, with a sinking heart, that I had to get her out of that school.

[regentrude]

And also does not explain why black children who speak another language at home do way better than English-speaking black children (i.e. African immigrants vs. African Americans), according to studies cited by Dianne Ravitch. Which indicates there is something beyond the "black people are dumb" line.

 

I think generally one common factor among all immigrants is that they are active and take initiative. People who manage to leave their African home countries and jump all the hurdles to make their way to the US must be very motivated to ensure a better life for their children.

I would assume the people who emigrate from their home countries are more driven and motivated than average, more willing to accept challenges, and in turn have high expectations of their children as well. (The same was probably true for the pilgrims and the pioneers.)

Edited December 25, 2011 by regentrude

[kalanamak]

I hear it all the time. It probably depends on where you live-- I live in an area with many undocumented Mexicans (and Central Americans, but mostly Mexicans). English just isn't spoken at home and the parents often aren't literate even in their native language. The kids, even if born in the country, don't develop strong English skills (grammar, accent, vocabulary) unless they make a concerted effort on their own when they are old enough to realize that it matters. Poor English and grammar skills are a huge (negative) factor in school performance.

 

I see. So the lament shouldn't be: their parents don't speak English, but their parents aren't very literate.

 

Alas, even I, who went to a midwestern moderate-sized college town's school, recall a girl from the wrong side of the tracks turning and hissing at me: talk English for once. I had been telling the teacher my opinion of Lord of the Flies in the standard English I used at home. I realized at that moment this big, mean girl thought I was a snob. (Even more funny because I was called "pig-farmer's daughter" by the "popular girls" because we didn't dress fancily, drive a new car, and have a big power boat. :lol:)

 

One of the non-mean but "greaser chicks" was helping organize our 35th reunion this year. I wasn't going, but helped google about to find some lost members of the class (really very easy). After a few pleasant business-like emails she asked me what I did, and when I told her I was a physician, she replied (bless her heart, as they say in the South), "Wow, you must have been real good at studying." :lol::lol:

 

Well, genes and upbringing. You didn't do anything to deserve them, you just pop out into the world into them.

[kalanamak]

I think generally one common factor among all immigrants is that they are active and take initiative. People who manage to leave their African home countries and jump all the hurdles to make their way to the US must be very motivated to ensure a better life for their children.

 

But I see the flip side: *mental illness is more common in immigrants*. African refuges are disproportionally represented in our mental hospital. Ditto Russians and citizens of the old USSR.

[stripe]

But I see the flip side: *mental illness is more common in immigrants*. African refuges are disproportionally represented in our mental hospital. Ditto Russians and citizens of the old USSR.

 

True. And I had a friendly Nigerian salesman tell me the reason (because there is, of course, only one) why it's great my kids are bilingual is that I can tell them in their other language to behave or I'll beat them when they get home, which, if I told them in English, would cause outrage, because, you know these Americans, chuckle, chuckle. Aside from the obvious causes of disgust, I did not like the idea that one's second language becomes only the means to transmit threats! What a bad legacy.

 

But I do think there is something positive about immigrants in terms of their willingness and ability to address certain things that get them out of poverty, at least in the next generation (doesn't Gladwell look at this with regard to European Jewish immgrants in NYC in one of his books), and another thing I was thinking about last night was when I was in high school, kids of immigrants or kids who were immigrants themselves tended to have a more concrete plan, whereas kids of nice, successful non-immigrants tended to want to just do typical behaviors that correlate with success. So it's the difference between going to college to study medicine or to become a lawyer, and going to college because that's what we do, and then that degree does not end up necessarily getting any sort of job, as we see in today's difficult times. There was no plan, and there was no perceived need for a plan. And this is among those who work reasonably hard, not those who are illiterate and don't want a job.

 

I hope I did not imply in my previous post that there is something fundamentally wrong with African American students compared to African students. But the idea that it is either their culture or their genes that is making them where they are is simplistic. For one thing, they don't live in a vaccuum - no one does.

 

I also think life at the very bottom of the economic spectrum often does not make sense in the way we think it will. So for example, it is often economically superior to be on welfare because it can come with food, housing, and cash assistance, not to mention medical coverage. And a mother who's at home will have less need for childcare. But if she goes to find a job, her safety net is taken away, and she is at a horrible paying job, which is often not steady, where the corporation deliberately avoids giving her benefits(keeping her at 39 hrs per week, for example), and now she has childcare expenses! It's not easy. And company's know how to play the game, and workers do not win. I do also think we have to at least consider that, in some cases and ways, society's low expectations or racist thoughts about certain groups does impact their lives; it is not as if it's always some fanatastically even playing field. I remember reading articles about how white hs teachers (who are mostly female) in the UK reported being afraid of their black, male students, who were often like twice their size. Apparently also there's the problem of behaving in certain ways to avoid being called racist. So the classroom is often a place where our complicated racial issues get played out in strange ways.

[Spock]

I think "the lack of language skills" is an excuse. You lack language skills if you don't care to learn. That simple. I have a good friend who started school without knowing a single word in English (her parents were Chinese immigrants and didn't speak English at all) and graduated the top of her high school to go on to University of Chicago. I know lots of immigrants like this. If they can learn, anybody can learn, especially when you are young. I started college at the age of 18 with very little knowledge of the language, yet graduated valedictorian, and there isn't anything special about me.

Honestly, I am soooo tired of hearing "poor kids, their parents don't speak English."

 

Lack of language skills doesn't apply only to second language learners. I have known many, many low income people who speak only English, but speak it very poorly--low vocabulary, unclear sentence structure, poor grammar, etc. A child cannot learn better language than what he/she is exposed to. (And of course, whatever factors lead to the parent not learning to speak/think well are probably present for the child, too, whether nutrition, intelligence level, the same lack of exposure to rich language, or something else.)

 

However, I attend a Spanish language church and have known many, many children who start kindergarten knowing little to no English. Many/most of these children have had parents who speak very little English. By the end of kindergarten, they all speak English easily. By the end of 2nd grade, they all prefer English to Spanish. Some of them even claim not to speak/understand Spanish.

[Ester Maria]

It's not about poverty or socio-economic status; it's about either culture or heredity. The former is a politically acceptable way to frame the discussion: the latter is unmentionable.

Yes, unfortunately, we can't force people to value what they don't value (education). We can try to cultivate an appreciation in parents - encourage them in encouraging their own children - but fundamentally we can't control their behavior. We CAN provide a public education to these kids that lays a foundation for furture opportunity. This means emphasizing literacy, numeracy, and the development of disciplined habits.

:iagree:

Nailed it.

I think "the lack of language skills" is an excuse. You lack language skills if you don't care to learn. That simple. I have a good friend who started school without knowing a single word in English (her parents were Chinese immigrants and didn't speak English at all) and graduated the top of her high school to go on to University of Chicago. I know lots of immigrants like this. If they can learn, anybody can learn, especially when you are young. I started college at the age of 18 with very little knowledge of the language, yet graduated valedictorian, and there isn't anything special about me.

Honestly, I am soooo tired of hearing "poor kids, their parents don't speak English."

In principle I agree with this, but there are still a few factors to keep in mind. Language issues are very different in a situation in which there is a small number of children with the lack of language skills - think one child per class unit - in a good, cohesive educational structure which forces them to develop language skills in a "sink or swim" fashion. Such a small number of children is very easily assimilated into the environment. The problems arise when you lack that critical majority of children being from literate, education-focused homes, with at least solid if not excellent language skills, and so forth. Schools which not only lack critical majority, but actually have a minority of children who come from cultured backgrounds are a different beast, because children do not have enough models to learn from in the first place. Teachers can only do so much, the principal roles of language imitation are the peers, not the adults. Thus a child grows up culturally impoverished and does NOT develop adequate language skills.

 

One even sees that in international schools abroad, something I took a careful look at - it is really crucial to have a core / majority, and a big majority, of children who speak the language of instruction as a primary language, on a good level. IOW, if you have 90% of Anglos in an international school abroad, the rest 10% will ultimately be fine, because they will have to cope linguistically. In international schools abroad you typically have kids of highly educated background, children of diplomats, internationally raised children, etc., so the critical linguistic majority typically exists even if less children are, strictly speaking, native speakers (but they grew up with English nonetheless, their parents work in highly demanding / intellectual jobs in English, etc.). The problem is when you start lacking that critical majority of kids - and that is the situation you can see in "X language medium" schools, which are overpopulated with non-native speakers who are learning the language as they learn the content, who are often "falsely fluent" (i.e. they know the content, can reproduce, but lack more sophisticated language skills), and those schools almost never have the quality of actual X schools, linguistically. You simply cannot have a majority of falsely proficient kids and expect it to turn out fine. I know people who pulled their kids out of "French", "Italian", etc. schools abroad with the majority of non-proficient speakers for this exact reason. When the local population starts dominating those schools, when many (rather than few) kids you take in are not "X-languaged and X-cultured" and from such families, things can go very wrong. It has NEVER been a problem to assimilate a kid or two in a class, but when the "others" constitute a huge minority - or even start outnumbering the native speakers - the quality of education as such goes down, not ONLY of "X language and literature" school subject. Because you cannot allow for certain nuances and sophistication of language, and therefore not of thought, etc. And then there are social issues - the "stigma" of speaking local language goes down, so kids start using local language as a means of communication while the language of instruction is only the language of instruction (and not the language of the whole culture of school), etc. I know many people who taught in such schools abroad and while nobody will say it so openly not to be accused of being a "separatist", it does matter if you have too many "others" in what is supposed to be a different language medium school.

 

Now, back to our original discussion, what happens in practice in many of the failing schools is that you have a similar situation. You have huge numbers of culturally impoverished kids who are "falsely proficient" (and, in the US, many of whom are falsely literate, i.e. functionally illiterate), EVEN if it is their first language, and you simply cannot expect the situation to reverse overnight, no matter WHAT you do. A generational "jump" needs to take place there - and, keeping Stacy's posts in mind, a possibility of such a "jump" en masse is very questionable anyway. So it may as well happen that many of those kids, without other role models at home and proper support, are having a really hard time succeeding.

 

Other role models if we talk about immigrants? Well, yes. Many skilled immigrants write impeccable English, hardly distinguishable from that of a native speaker, in spite of their often noticeable accents. Even if they come with a lack of high level English literacy, they can pass down on their kids another language and literacy which, if done at a high level, can fuel much of the more complex cognitive work (sophistication in thought as one has the language to navigate it, etc.) and then polishing their English skills when they are older is a lot easier since they have a model to look up to, they know what they need in English since they have it in their first language (this is also the case with children who immigrate at a school age). When you do not really know what do you need in the first place, nor how to get there, and when you lack both a family culture and a community support, it can be a challenge.

 

Not an excuse, though. It may be hard, but hey, people do hard things all the time because they are valuable. It is primarily, as some have pointed out before, the question of the value placed on education in home culture.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Ester Maria

[zaichiki]

But I see the flip side: *mental illness is more common in immigrants*. African refuges are disproportionally represented in our mental hospital. Ditto Russians and citizens of the old USSR.

 

That's something new for me.

But... thinking about some of the experiences dh's family has survived in Russia... and thinking about some of the horrific things happening in many areas of Africa today... I wonder about the type of mental illness these immigrants have and if any of it could be related to PTSD.

 

Can you expound on this a bit?

[kalanamak]

 

Can you expound on this a bit?

 

I have often asked if people who have mental disorders are more likely to emigrate or whether it is the stress of moving that tips the balance for people who would have been "ok" if they'd stayed home. I don't know the answer. I have certainly met patients who felt the KGB was following them and controlling their mind, and who have moved here. Now the CIA is following them and controlling their mind.

 

I've also met young adults whose mother realized she had a sick child and used the internet to become a mail order bride in the hopes the USA could cure what Russia could not.

 

I've also met a mail order bride whose family was not a big tie back home because it was riddled with mental illness. The stress of moving is not their friend. Sometimes, I suspect, families have banded together to pay someone's fare, just to get rid of them. Or perhaps when families get over here, they no longer have the social pressure to hang on to their difficult family members and divorce them or kick them out, feeling confident they won't starve in the street in the USA (and they won't have the whole small town back home's approbation for doing so.)

 

And to answer your question: PTSD I've not seen in this population, and I bet I've had about 150 inpatients who came to the US after age 14.

[choirfarm]

It is funny because I was thinking about posting about this very subject. I was wondering how you break the cycle.. Much like America, our town is made up of the haves and the have nots and the gap is widening greatly. Honestly, I think it all comes down to family culture/involvement. 60 percent of the kids in our rural town are on free lunch. We have 59 % white, 22 % black 18% Hispanic and 1 % Asian.

 

It comes down to parental involvement. Now this was a around 10 years ago that my boys were in ps ( 1st - 3rd for oldest) You could request teachers at that time ( 3 possible, 2 for definitely not) As a result, I could see a BIG difference in the classes. The classes were still ethnically differce and we did have some Hispanic students whose paretns only spoke English, BUT... all the parents in my boy's class were involved. You would see every single parent involved during field trips and open houses. There were 2 or 3 teachers like that in the grade. Then there were 4 or 5 that were spotty and then the bottom 3 or so that had NO parents attending. At the award ceremonies, those top 3 classes received all the commended awards for TAKS, bottom classes none. When the superintendent changed a couple of years ago, he did away with that. You can't request anymore. Increasingly, "involved" parents are choosing homeschool or more likely private school for their children.

 

So now here is the delimna: the involved parents are fleeing (I'm one of them) so there are no role models. And how do you change a parental culture? The involved parents are doing whatever they need to to get the best education, but most are just floating. They don't even realize they need to do anything. They think that if they just send a kid to school that is enough ( and some of them don't even do that!).

 

But then I was wondering about what makes parental involvement. I'm thinking of Ben Carson's mom ( Gifted Hands guy). She is a single, black mom living in the projects and SHE makes the decision to turn off the tv and make them read a couple of books a week at th elibrary and write a report for her. She was depressed as well. How did she do that and why when there are so many parents in the projects who have given up???? What made the difference?

 

I don't know.

[Stacy in NJ]

Statistically there are three simple rules that determine success in life. If you follow these rules your chance of moving into the middle class in America are greatly increased.

 

1. Have a two parent household

2. Don't get pregnant or get someone pregnant in high school

3. Complete high school - don't drop out

 

If you possess the self discipline to follow these rules, it's likely that you possess the self discipline necessary to succeed in many other endeavors.

 

In the US we have a culture problem. Our underclass, our most vulnerable class, was profoundly and negatively affected by the destruction of social mores beginning in the '60's. Unfortunately, we reward with subsidies self-destructive behaviors and we're dishonest about the causes of poverty in the our century. Poverty in our time is caused by social disintegration - not racism, discrimination, or capitalism. Politically, it is almost impossible to approach these issues with anything like honesty. First because people don't like to hear that their own behavior is the cause of their circumstances. Secondly, because we have hundreds of thousands of people employed in a system that is self-perpetuating and self-interested. This system says constantly that we need to do more. Spend more money, offer more services, employee more folks in this system. We never acknowledge that the system never succeeds at its goals and always begs for more.

[butterflymommy]

So now here is the delimna: the involved parents are fleeing (I'm one of them) so there are no role models.

 

My sister lives in a small rural town that, until the past 20 years or so, had an excellent public school. As more families began homeschooling the quality of the public school went downhill, which in turn made even more parents consider homeschooling. This is a very small town-- about 1500 people-- but there are at least 40 homeschooling families. When so many involved parents vote with their feet, it creates a cascade effect of lower performance as the students propping up the school disappear.

 

But then I was wondering about what makes parental involvement. I'm thinking of Ben Carson's mom ( Gifted Hands guy). She is a single, black mom living in the projects and SHE makes the decision to turn off the tv and make them read a couple of books a week at th elibrary and write a report for her. She was depressed as well. How did she do that and why when there are so many parents in the projects who have given up???? What made the difference?

My husband grew up in the projects. His mother scraped every cent she could to put her kids in catholic school (it was cheaper back then)-- she also bartered cleaning services for tutoring. Once a week, she brought them to the public library. She forbid them from "hanging out" on the streets. They did watch TV-- DH learned to speak english without an accent by mimicking Peter Jennings.

 

I've asked my husband what made his mom different-- he says he doesn't know, other than that she was an enterprising sort of person and valued education. I don't think she herself had an education beyond 6th grade or so.

 

She wasn't a single mom though-- I think Stacy is right about 2 parent families being so import for social stability. In some segments of society, though, 2 parent families are practically extinct.

[stripe]

Statistically there are three simple rules that determine success in life. If you follow these rules your chance of moving into the middle class in America are greatly increased.

 

1. Have a two parent household

2. Don't get pregnant or get someone pregnant in high school

3. Complete high school - don't drop out

 

If you possess the self discipline to follow these rules, it's likely that you possess the self discipline necessary to succeed in many other endeavors.

How does a child's self-discipline affect whether their parents live together or got married before their birth?

 

It is worth noting that there are many issues for which there are broad ethnic differences, such as in health care. Yes, some of these issues may be linked to, say, diet and exercise, but others are not so clear. And when poor and uninsured people's health has been shown to be greatly worse than the insured, so this is not simply the case of "brush your teeth and eat your veges, and you'll be perfectly healthy," especially when there are no dentists in your neighborhood and no grocery stores selling vegetables.

[butterflymommy]

How does a child's self-discipline affect whether their parents live together or got married before their birth?

 

I think she meant a person shouldn't procreate outside of a two parent set up, not that a child should be able to control what his parents do.

[EmilyK]

I think about this issue a lot, especially after having my kids in our local elementary school for their early elementary years. It was a wonderful school for diversity and learning how to get along with other kids. My kids got so much out of it socially and emotionally. It just wasn't very academically challenging.

 

Although I hear what you are saying about single parenting, that's not something that is always in someone's control. I think convincing people to delay having children until they can make better choices about life partners and be more economically secure is a better way to go than railing again single parents.

 

The older I get, the more I feel at a loss about this issue. My volunteer work in schools and early childhood literacy over the last 30 years, plus my kids' experiences, has left me very discouraged, and feeling that things are getting worse, rather than better.

[silliness7]

Yes, unfortunately, we can't force people to value what they don't value (education). We can try to cultivate an appreciation in parents - encourage them in encouraging their own children - but fundamentally we can't control their behavior. We CAN provide a public education to these kids that lays a foundation for furture opportunity. This means emphasizing literacy, numeracy, and the development of disciplined habits.

 

I, for one, wish schools would focus like a lazer beam on basic literacy and numeracy. Any adult who can read at a reasonable level and possesses basic number competency can self-educate and even get access to community college or alternative education pathways.

 

That's the crux of the problem, imo. There are people who don't value education. In certain pockets of people this is not an aberration but the norm. It seems that not valuing education *is* one of the values.

 

You can find this attitude among people with all different skin colors. I don't think it's a skin color issue. It's a culture issue. To find this attitude among the wealthy or even the middle class is almost always an aberration. This mindset does seem to be limited to the poorer set. However, raising the poor up with hand-outs does not eliminate the mindset. Likewise there are plenty of poor people who *don't* have this mindset. It's not hard to see that if you don't value education you're not likely to get out of poverty. It's a vicious cycle. Although attacking the poverty is a humane thing to do and *can* help those to better themselves who are desiring to, it will not have the same results for those who don't value education.

 

I do not know how to eliminate the negative attitude towards education. Education doesn't do it. Money doesn't do it. Sometimes it seems the harder you try to push education the harder some will dig in their heels and refuse to avail themselves of one.

[Homeschoolnewbe]

Which is race.

 

Middle class African-American students score one standard deviation below middle class white students and two deviations below middle class Jewish and Asian students on IQ and standardized tests. It's not about poverty or socio-economic status; it's about either culture or heredity. The former is a politically acceptable way to frame the discussion: the latter is unmentionable.

 

This is why I homeschool. I read the homeschooling studies that said all homeschoolers scored equally as well on standardized achievement tests regardless of race. I WILL NOT/would NOT allow my children to score one standard deviation below anyone else for any reason.

 

It is a quesition of culture and not race. I value education and will not tolerate anything less than accomplishment. Others simply do not and expect less than they should. Simple as that. If it was genetic, then Africans whom all African Americans share a genetic link would have the same intellectual problems-immigrant or not. What is not shared is a cultural understanding of the importance of education and expecting the best. I would also like to add that there is a mind-set of not valuing the quality of education you are able to access for free in America.

[Roadrunner]

Yes, it is a question of culture and not race, but that culture is more prevalent among certain ethnic groups than others. Or maybe poverty is more prevalent among certain ethinic groups and certain countries more than others and that culture goes with poverty. Hard to say what causes what.

Ester Maria has it right. What she is describing is absolutely true. However, I am finding that when those conditions aren't there, things aren't better either. Take the school my kids attend. We must live in one of the least diverse school districts (especially for CA). My 1st grader's class has 19 kids. Three of them are hispanic, the rest white. I would say socio-economic makeup of the school is also not very diverse. I volunteer in my son's classroom. On a typical spelling test (I have graded those many times), the vast majority of kids will get a perfect score. Only two kids consistently make mistakes (usually 8 or 7 out of ten is wrong). Do you want to take a guess who those kids are? Both are minotiry kids. However the third hispanic kid is very strong academically and he is the only one in that group that comes from a solidly middle class family (we are friends). There is no reason for those two kids to consistently make mistakes on tests (easy words - way, day, make.....etc). Both of those kids get pulled out on a daily basis and get individual tutoring. Both of those kids also speak Eglish quite well. The only thing that can explain their performance is a complete lack of caring for academics. I just don't get it. at all.

This seems to be the a typical situation in our school. I don't have any personal experience with schools that are very diverse.

[EmilyK]

I agree it is due to cultural issues, including lack of valuing education. What to do?

 

Where I live, there's a good organization that teaches people parent-to-parent how to be more effective parents in their kids' education. Simple things, like opening the backpack to see if there is homework, notes from school etc. When I would volunteer there were some kids who never seemed like they had an adult who looked in there.

 

Even parents who are illiterate can be taught to look at books with their kids, listen to them read, etc.

 

There are nonprofits, libraries, etc doing this kind of work. I think there are parents who would like to make a change but need some help forming new habits, and explicit instruction in doing things that seem obvious to me but aren't for them.

 

It is too much to load this all on the schools who only have kids for certain times. How can they completely catch up for the different experiences the first 5 years, over the summers, etc? Where my kids went to school, the pressure this created on schools meant they never wanted to do anything except work on the kids most at risk. Worthy, but I thought they could and should try to address everyone's needs.

 

I'm not sure if it is this way everywhere, but in my city, the official story goes something like this: Outcomes are different for kids of different levels of family income and race (the achievement gap). If schools were doing what they should, and there wasn't some racism or classism going on, then that would not exist. High school graduation rates, test scores, etc, should all be evenly spread among income levels and racial and ethnic groups. If it doesn't work out that way, it is 1) evidence of racism and classism, and 2) we need to focus all our energies on the lowest-achieving students. As a corollary, any difference in discipline rates among different groups is also seen as discriminatory. I think this is absurd, and I'm a liberal.

 

For the record, I'm positive there's no IQ/race correlation -- I think that's just a red herring.

[choirfarm]

I see an element of truth to this viewpoint. Consider what happens to children of the educated middle class. The elect get the slots in the honors/ap classes (or in elementary the hidden track of classes that teach all the grade level objectives) while the nonelect are in classes that will not cover all the course objectives. Jay Matthews' book Class Struggle is very good description of the rationing and withholding of education that occurs in suburban schools in the NE. If the school was doing what it was supposed to be doing - i.e. teaching the grade level standards to ALL children, rather than picking who gets left out, public school would have an entirely different outcome. I don't call the picking racism or classism, but cronyism.It is no accident that the elect are always the teacher's children and the politician's children and the prominent business people's children. There are equally intelligent children whose parents are of a different political party or are just new to the area, but they will not be in the classes with the competent teachers...those seats are filled with the elect. No new sections will be opened. If it weren't for private schools and talent search providers, these children of college educated parents wouldn't have a chance at a real education.

 

I don't view the answer as focusing all our energy on the lowest performers. That's been done here. All that means is the the nonelect middle class children are ignored, while the teachers do what they can with those who attend infrequently and ensure that no one is offered anything harder than the most unprepared child in the class is ready for. If it weren't for nclb, our district would just hand out diplomas for attendance.

 

I'm sure our district had cronyism. All the rich or educated kids were in certain classes. HOWEVER, there were not enough REALLY GOOD teachers to do around. So what do you do with 10 teachers: 3 are AWESOME, 5 are fine, and 3 are AWEFUL.

[Ester Maria]

There is no reason for those two kids to consistently make mistakes on tests (easy words - way, day, make.....etc). Both of those kids get pulled out on a daily basis and get individual tutoring. Both of those kids also speak Eglish quite well. The only thing that can explain their performance is a complete lack of caring for academics. I just don't get it. at all.

Either that, either the kids are simply not as bright. I know, it is a sacrilege to say that out loud because the politically correct mantra is that "everyone is intelligent in their own way", but it is a factual statement that there are differences between people in terms of both intellectual capacities and perservance / self-discipline, both of which are needed to succeed in learning, and even more so if one does not have adequate support at home.

 

Which reminds me of something that was brought up earlier, and that was the case of Ben Carson. I read Gifted Hands with my kids, and what strikes me about his case was that his mother was really a tiger mother in many aspects and he was as a child of a constitution to respect her (e.g. remember the part where she tells him he cannot go out to play until he learns his multiplication tables, and even though he could have gone because she was not home when he was back from school, he still did not go?). Between limiting his TV time, requesting from him to read, his gradual improvement all across the board as a result of having discovered academic interests (which he managed to discover in the first place because he was made to read), and the turning of his learning from learning for the sake of his mother / competing with other kids into learning for the sake of his own improvement, his mother had typical strategies of many wealthy and successful people. She may have lived in a physical reality of poverty, but her mentality was not such. She had an emotional, but also an intellectual support in her religion (did she not greatly improve her reading as a result of studying Bible or something like that?), as well as great desire to self-improve and setting up higher goals than mediocrity. So, for her son to grow up with such a person, it was a completely different thing than growing up with somebody with a mentality of helplesness, mediocrity, etc.

 

Now, I do think that people only exceptionally have such a mentality if they are in poor conditions - I think that rare are individuals who can transcend their current reality completely on their own, out of an impetus which is somewhere inside them. For most, I think, it is a generational effort, just like rising out of poverty or rising intellectually is a generational effort, since cultural-cognitive 'damage', although not very palpable, is still present in such groups. Basically what we have in Carson's case is an extreme jump within two generations (his mother and his) for a process which would normally take double as many.

[EmilyK]

I see an element of truth to this viewpoint. Consider what happens to children of the educated middle class. The elect get the slots in the honors/ap classes (or in elementary the hidden track of classes that teach all the grade level objectives) while the nonelect are in classes that will not cover all the course objectives. Jay Matthews' book Class Struggle is very good description of the rationing and withholding of education that occurs in suburban schools in the NE. If the school was doing what it was supposed to be doing - i.e. teaching the grade level standards to ALL children, rather than picking who gets left out, public school would have an entirely different outcome. I don't call the picking racism or classism, but cronyism.It is no accident that the elect are always the teacher's children and the politician's children and the prominent business people's children. There are equally intelligent children whose parents are of a different political party or are just new to the area, but they will not be in the classes with the competent teachers...those seats are filled with the elect. No new sections will be opened. If it weren't for private schools and talent search providers, these children of college educated parents wouldn't have a chance at a real education.

 

I don't view the answer as focusing all our energy on the lowest performers. That's been done here. All that means is the the nonelect middle class children are ignored, while the teachers do what they can with those who attend infrequently and ensure that no one is offered anything harder than the most unprepared child in the class is ready for. If it weren't for nclb, our district would just hand out diplomas for attendance.

 

Yes, I hear what you are saying. Those sort of issues aren't present here and so I think I tune out a bit when I hear critiques of that sort of system. Here the principal bent over backwards to assign the kids without regard to parental requests and the like. I think that was typical across the city (Portland). We really don't have academic elite schools in the city and they're clamping down on any sort of transfers. So (for good or bad) there really isn't a way for connected or motivated parents to get their child into a "better" school or teaching situation. Thanks for the reminder about the problems -- I've seen mostly the downside of that. Here they've dismantled the science and vocational school that students had previously had to apply to. The school's still there but without that requirement there aren't enough kids who want the more rigorous vocational or science classes. I view it as too bad because that school was a ticket out of poverty for motivated kids in the past. But I guess you've articulated the downside that has led to the change.

[Homeschoolnewbe]

Either that, either the kids are simply not as bright. I know, it is a sacrilege to say that out loud because the politically correct mantra is that "everyone is intelligent in their own way", but it is a factual statement that there are differences between people in terms of both intellectual capacities and perservance / self-discipline, both of which are needed to succeed in learning, and even more so if one does not have adequate support at home.

 

Which reminds me of something that was brought up earlier, and that was the case of Ben Carson. I read Gifted Hands with my kids, and what strikes me about his case was that his mother was really a tiger mother in many aspects and he was as a child of a constitution to respect her (e.g. remember the part where she tells him he cannot go out to play until he learns his multiplication tables......

I just cannot let you say those kids were just not as bright. When you have no idea of their true ability. And the additional Hispanic child in that class was doing better who came from a middle class home. I have to ask you; what makes a mom a tiger mom? She knows her children can achieve and will not settle for less than what she knows they are capable of producing. I put to you that if those kids had a tiger mom they would never fail another spelling test. Educational priorities began in the home which your example of Ben Carson shows. Was he smarter than those 2 failing Hispanic children? I don't think so... I think he had a mother that said, you will succeed or else. I'm not sure if anyone is a fan of the Suzuki music method. In his books he says, "Talent is a product of practice. Your ability to practice and work hard creates achievement."

[regentrude]

She knows her children can achieve and will not settle for less than what she knows they are capable of producing.....I put to you that if those kids had a tiger mom they would never fail another spelling test. Educational priorities began in the home

 

You are contradicting yourself in the above.

There are student who will not ever manage to achieve good test results because they are not capable of producing this kind of work - not even if they have a tiger mom breathing down their neck. Pretending that everybody is equally capable does not make it so.

 

My parents value education - but no teacher in the world can teach my brother to spell, or read. He simply does not possess the intellectual capability to do so.

[Ester Maria]

I just cannot let you say those kids were just not as bright. When you have no idea of their true ability.

Are you claiming that it is not a possibility that some people are simply not as bright as other people? Not as quick in understanding things, needing a lot more effort to master what comes more naturally to others? 'cause all my life I have been witnessing such scenes. People are not the same. People are products of a myriad of arbitrary factors which make differences - factors such as socioeconomic background or family culture life, but also factors such as innate learning capacities, intellectual skills, etc. It may certainly happen that two kids who are failing, regardless of their ethnic origin, may simply be one of those kids, who are not as bright / as quick / as competent / as skillful as others. It does not "reflect" badly on their ethnicity and correlation is not a causation. There are many other Hispanic kids who are very bright and very capable, and many white kids who are not. Those are just facts of life, people are not the same.

 

As regards true ability, I refuse to operate with a concept of "potential". I am not interested in potential, because it is intangible and cannot be measured or compared, and it is a fluffy concept anyway - I am interested in achievement. Now, that is something that can be objectified to a certain extent, because different achievements in the same learning situation can be compared.

Children who are underachieving can do so because of a myriad possible reasons, typically because of a mix of reasons (taken from all those arbitrary differences among people). But it does not change the fact that they are underachieving. If language is not a barrier, other issues are at hand there - and then we come to factors such as socioeconomic background, how bright and adaptable the child is, etc.

I have to ask you; what makes a mom a tiger mom? She knows her children can achieve and will not settle for less than what she knows they are capable of producing. I put to you that if those kids had a tiger mom they would never fail another spelling test. Educational priorities began in the home which your example of Ben Carson shows. Was he smarter than those 2 failing Hispanic children? I don't think so... I think he had a mother that said, you will succeed or else. I'm not sure if anyone is a fan of the Suzuki music method. In his books he says, "Talent is a product of practice. Your ability to practice and work hard creates achievement."

I do not think we can measure "potential". We can only talk about realizations, and circumstances which brought about the realization of that potential. But you always have that fundamental correlation - causation problem. Success is a product of many factors; wealthy kids from academic homes also flunk schools, in spite of the fact they were quite literally "invested into" since they were born, so how does explain that? Not all types of parenting work on all kids, how does one explain that?

 

My explanation is that, in addition to the very real socioeconomic and cultural differences among people (which I absolutely agree are a HUGE factor, as attested by many cases), there are also very real factors which pertain to one's personal disposition / core personality / intellectual capacities. People are not "responsible" for those either - we are largely a product of our early upbringing and our genetics - but they are a factor, and quite often they are that factor which will make the difference between two seemingly equal cases as regards socioeconomic and cultural background. All those stories of multiple kids raised in same homes who turned out very different, or of only one child out of a family of seven rising out of poverty, and alike, attest to that too. Surroundings are not everything. They determine the "battlefield", so to speak, but people still "fight" with their particular dispositions, being unique individuals also genetically and mentally. If it were not so, nobody could ever rise out of poverty nor not succeed if they were born in an academic family - and there are such cases.

[Homeschoolnewbe]

@regentrude

Granted. But can we say that about these children? How about all impoverished children? All minorities too? If these children are not in an autism spectrum then I think it's safe to say they are capable of more, and more importantly, for it to be expected.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Homeschoolnewbe
Clarified post this was in response to.

[beaners]

I see an element of truth to this viewpoint. Consider what happens to children of the educated middle class. The elect get the slots in the honors/ap classes (or in elementary the hidden track of classes that teach all the grade level objectives) while the nonelect are in classes that will not cover all the course objectives. Jay Matthews' book Class Struggle is very good description of the rationing and withholding of education that occurs in suburban schools in the NE. If the school was doing what it was supposed to be doing - i.e. teaching the grade level standards to ALL children, rather than picking who gets left out, public school would have an entirely different outcome. I don't call the picking racism or classism, but cronyism.It is no accident that the elect are always the teacher's children and the politician's children and the prominent business people's children. There are equally intelligent children whose parents are of a different political party or are just new to the area, but they will not be in the classes with the competent teachers...those seats are filled with the elect. No new sections will be opened. If it weren't for private schools and talent search providers, these children of college educated parents wouldn't have a chance at a real education.

 

I don't view the answer as focusing all our energy on the lowest performers. That's been done here. All that means is the the nonelect middle class children are ignored, while the teachers do what they can with those who attend infrequently and ensure that no one is offered anything harder than the most unprepared child in the class is ready for. If it weren't for nclb, our district would just hand out diplomas for attendance.

 

 

I didn't see this play out as you have described in the school I attended near Syracuse, NY. It was a good school, and there was a bit of cronyism. Despite that, I never saw talented students miss out on the better classes. My family certainly wasn't in the inner circle, and only a few of my friends were. We were still in honors and AP classes. Actually, I was amazed by how many of the "average" students had parents working on law or medicine who did not place importance on academic achievement or education.

 

I saw a lot more of the cronyism at play in the selection of sports teams than I did in the academic arena. Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I received the impression that I went to a fairly average good suburban school when I started meeting people in college.

[MBM]

Actually, I was amazed by how many of the "average" students had parents working on law or medicine who did not place importance on academic achievement or education.

 

Same here. I live in a very well-to-do suburb of Chicago, and I'm amazed that many parents do not place much importance on academics. Sports rule. That's been our experience in this suburb.

 

As far as class and learning are concerned, I'd say it's a complicated matter that's not easily explained by one factor alone. A culture of learning matters, but so many other factors can influence that.

[regentrude]

@regentrude

Granted. But can we say that about these children? How about all impoverished children? All minorities too? If these children are not in an autism spectrum then I think it's safe to say they are capable of more, and more importantly, for it to be expected.

 

EsterMaria never said these kids were not bright; she conceded that either they/their families did not care about education or that they were not as bright. She did not assume, she mentioned different possibilities that could explain the outcome.

 

I did not see any statement about "all" children - just the mention that, possibly, the explanation in this particular case, was inherent ability, if not a socioeconomic or cultural situation.

 

Btw, there are plenty of other reasons for low performance than being on the autism spectrum (and some autistic students actually perform quite well)

Edited December 27, 2011 by regentrude

[Homeschoolnewbe]

As far as class and learning are concerned, I'd say it's a complicated matter that's not easily explained by one factor alone. A culture of learning matters, but so many other factors can influence that.

 

:iagree:

[butterflymommy]

I didn't see this play out as you have described in the school I attended near Syracuse, NY. It was a good school, and there was a bit of cronyism. Despite that, I never saw talented students miss out on the better classes. My family certainly wasn't in the inner circle, and only a few of my friends were. We were still in honors and AP classes.

 

 

I haven't seen much cronyism either. In NYC the most exclusive high schools are admission by a standardized test score and that one score alone (the SHSAT). It doesn't matter who you know or who recommends you. AP program admissions are based on grades, standardized tests, and recommendations.

[cathmom]

Of course, Maria Montessori got fabulous results with such children. She was given children who were thought to be impossible to educate and got them ready to pass the national tests. She worked with slum children whose parents were out earning what little they could and educated them, and in many cases had them reading quite early. If I were a gazillionaire, I would pay for more people to be trained as Montessori teachers and set up Montessori schools in low-income areas.

[justamouse]

Of course, Maria Montessori got fabulous results with such children. She was given children who were thought to be impossible to educate and got them ready to pass the national tests. She worked with slum children whose parents were out earning what little they could and educated them, and in many cases had them reading quite early. If I were a gazillionaire, I would pay for more people to be trained as Montessori teachers and set up Montessori schools in low-income areas.

 

You and me, both. I was awed once I started reading her works.

 

But to the OP. I think I started to formulate my opinions on this when I was a Big Sister.

 

The problems are so vast, so deep within generations that it takes a *lot* to overcome them. Not only are you talking about educational capabilities, educational/ family environment, but emotional intelligence, which a lack of can hamper all of it. From being a Big Sister, I learned that if a family doesn't teach emotional intelligence, along with having a value for education, many of those kids will still be stuck in the great divide.

 

And, one of the reasons I think Maria Montessori's ideas worked because they taught emotional intelligence--or, it let a child's emotional intelligence emerge and not train it to those generational habits that held them back. Maria had a deep respect for children and I think that was one reason they were able to overcome many hurdles.

 

there was an article in the NJ papers about this subject today.

 

AP: What's the state of public education in New Jersey? How do we compare to other states?

 

 

Cerf: We compare very well from an aggregate perspective if you take the NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. New Jersey typically ranks within the top two to four in each of the four major categories.

 

 

It's a reflection of a very evolved, very developed, very successful education system in the main. The dissonance in that is if you get beneath the numbers, beneath the aggregates, you'll see that we have one of the largest achievement gaps in the nation.

 

 

One of the things that just gets my blood boiling a little bit on this is our achievement gaps in the schools, measured pretty any way you want to measure it, racially, ethnically or by poverty ... they're really jarring. The NJEA just put out a press release which I will tell you I find as offensive as anything I have seen in my long career in education, basically going, 'What's the big deal? It's not that bad.'

 

 

AP: Their argument was essentially that the gap is so large because the best-performing kids do so well.

 

 

Cerf: They had two arguments. The other one is: Our black kids are doing better than their black kids. ... Both of those are not helpful and indeed, I think, quite destructive arguments. To say that we have a large achievement gap because the top of the state is so high basically assumes that the poor black kids don't belong at the same strata. That seems to me to be really offensive to me to say we shouldn't actually expect the kids in Newark and Camden to be performing at the same level as the kids in Bergenfield.

 

 

The second argument is, again, the African-American kids here are doing better than the African-American kids in New Orleans. ... Does that mean that as a class, poor kids or kids of color, we want to see who wins the contest in that class? No. It's not that all. It's about: Can we give every kid an equal opportunity in education regardless of birth circumstances?

 

[butterflymommy]

Another problem with the projects crowd is that they have every incentive not to do well financially (which will inhibit academic drive). Because once you start earning above X amount you will lose your subsidy or the apartment altogether. Family members have killed each other over these apartments-- the desire to hold onto cheap rent in an expensive city shouldn't be underestimated.

 

It takes a tremendous strength of character to rise above it and forge out on your own. My husband calls the projects prisons of mind, because people develop a mindset not to succeed-- because once you do succeed, the safety net disappears.

[zaichiki]

I'm not sure if anyone is a fan of the Suzuki music method. In his books he says, "Talent is a product of practice. Your ability to practice and work hard creates achievement."

 

But of course there are individiual differences. Any Suzuki teacher worth his/her salt will also admit that there are kids who will practice 30 minutes a day and still be working on their Twinkles after 6 months, whereas others who practice for 30 minutes a day are nearing the end of book 1 in that same time frame. I have these differences within my own family. In this case it's not IQ, but there *are* factors beyond practice time that contribute to talent. There are also differences in IQ to take into consideration in the classroom. And, all things being equal (which of course they rarely are), the kid with the higher IQ will have an advantage.

[Homeschoolnewbe]

Okay, I just believe too much emphasis is placed on percieved natural talent and IQ. I just do. If your child has any ability, they should be expected to achieve whether it is piano or multiplication tables. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but its just how I see things. IQ and the presence or lack of percieved natural talent can become a crutch, positive or negative, affecting expectations.