Shocking Statistics for Minority and Low Income Homeschooling

[Hunter]

I was skimming through the archives of a yahoo list, and found a link to this study than includes statistics for low income and minority students. I had no idea how much better low income and minority students do when homeschooled, compared to those that go to PS.

 

So often minority and low income moms, especially those with dismal educations of their own, and pennies to spend on curriculum, are encouraged to place their children in PS. It looks like the GREATEST gains are for the exact population that is most pressured to put their children in PS!

 

This certainly played out in my boys' education. I knew what they were getting at home was far superior to what THEY would have been getting at OUR local school.

[Greta]

Wow, this is very interesting! For some reason, the formatting is unclear for me, so it's a little hard to read. I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet. But one really fascinating thing is the page about the parents' educational level and how that affects test scores. Relatively little impact on homeschoolers, but huge impact for how kids fare in public schools! It's the opposite of what one might think. I wonder how reliable this data is. Not that I'm dismissing it, just trying to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. ;)

[MrsBanjoClown]

I think the deciding factor is parent involvement. I have taught in the ps for 10+ years, and what I saw was that in most cases, the kids who struggled (barring learning disabilities) were those that did not have parents that supported and encouraged their education. As sad as it is to say, I had kids whose parents told them at home that school was not important and that they didn't have to listen to their teachers. When the parents have a disrespectful attutude toward the teachers, the students pick that up and act in the same way. One of the main reasons I got out of teaching and decided to take my kids out of ps is that this attitude(school isn't important and teachers don't deserve respect) is getting more prevalent and I don't want my kids exposed to it. I know in some cases, it is not possible for the parent to be involved, but I am referring more to the attitude the parent has toward education in general.

[Leav97]

The statistics are interesting but without any controls on the homeschoolers that took the test, basically worthless. If ALL homeschoolers in a state took the ITBS one year the results would have meaning. Having homeschoolers self select to turn in results doesn't work.

[stripe]

I was reading Charles Murray's recent book about education (Real Education) and one of his claims ("truths") is that basically poor people are less intelligent and don't do well in school, etc etc, and that no matter what teachers do, they just won't get it. The rest of the book I found less infuriating. I have been pondering this in the two weeks since I read it. I am also about to start reading The Street Stops Here: A Year at a Catholic High School in Harlem, and the author points out that Catholic schools have a long tradition of educating kids from poor families.

 

I also remember reading in one of Diane Ravitch a statistic about black students who speak English at home vs those who speak another language at home. The latter group has much higher academic achievement. No clear reason was stated. I assumed the vast majority of them are children of immigrants (or immigrants themselves); by the way, there is such a profile in the movie "Pressure Cooker," which documents high school students in Philadelphia who are enrolled in a cooking class taught by a very tough! (African American woman) teacher named Wilma Stephenson. Fatoumata Dembeli went on to cooking school.

Edited June 14, 2012 by stripe

[swellmomma]

I think the combination of parental involvement and appropriate allocation of learning funds is what makes the difference. The parents that homeschool with things like low income and minority status etc are the ones that would be the most involved in ps. I know I was. Often the students are attending inner city schools, which do not have appropriate materials for everyone etc. They are the ones that show up to school hungry, etc. If they are not in an inner city school they have to deal with the teasing etc from the students in more affluent schools for being the kid that is poor etc. My kids were those kids. We have always been low income.

 

By keeping them home I can generally feed them more and better than when they were in ps. With all the restrictions on things like nuts in school and no access to microwaves for leftovers, it is hard to keep kids fed all day. By staying home we can eat left overs, and pb sandwiches, tuna and egg salad without worry about the mayo spoiling etc. Full bellies mean more learning.

 

By saving the $$ spent on school clothes, bus passes/transporation, extra fees that come up in class (field trips, year book, fundraising, picture day, book order forms etc) I can provide the books and experiences to teach them well. With so many good materials available for free Saving that money allows me to have internet to access them.

 

The inner city schools that many of those student would attend, are filled with drugs, negative attitudes, promiscuity, gangs etc. By homeschooling you eliminate a whole lot of grief and keep those kids focused on what it most important, getting an education and breaking the cycle of poverty etc.

 

Yes those parents would be the ones fully involved in the school but parental involvement only covers 1 part of the puzzle. To make sure a kid can break out of the situation, graduate, go onto college and be able to live a financially secure life the families that are low income, minority etc have to overcome more than a lack of parental involvement in the school.

 

This is even more so for kids with learning disabilities that are low income and/or minority. Guess how I know?

 

Being a low income homeschooler with kids with issues (though not a minority) I often face the attitude that I should put the kids into ps and get a better job. But the fact is if I want my kids to have a shot at a better life than me, homeschooling is the way to provide that (FTR even working f/t we would stay low income, my earning potential is very low so working 40 hrs a week would still mean we would low income)

 

those that don't take education seriously, and have the attitudes towards school and teachers that jpope mentioned would never think to homeschool, and if they did it would be just in label not in action. Those are the students that fair better in ps, some of them at least will take it upon themselves to get that education one way or another regardless of parental attitude/involvement.

Edited June 14, 2012 by swellmomma

[MrsBanjoClown]

 

The inner city schools than many of those student would attend, are filled with drugs, attitudes, promiscuity, gangs etc.

 

I think this is a huge issue as well. When a child grows up in the culture of drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, gang membership, etc., he/she believes this is just the way life is. Of course, this is not true for all kids in that situation. What I find intriguing are the kids who have an innate desire to rise above their situation and do better for themselves. Where does this desire/drive come from and how can we (or can we?) motivate other students in the same situations? I also remember teaching in a largely Hispanic high school in which a Hispanic male coach/teacher was considered to be a "sellout" by the students because he had gone to college and gotten a degree. He wanted to be a role model and encourage the kids that it could be done, but they wouldn't listen to him.

[Greta]

Having homeschoolers self select to turn in results doesn't work.

 

Ah, yes, I didn't realize that's how this was done. Thanks.

[butterflymommy]

This study includes asians as "minorities" which likely boosted up the minority score overall (since asians tend to outperform all other racial groups on standardized tests).

 

I remember when this study was first published and the group considered "minority" was a tiny fraction of the participants and were all lumped together as one group... so I'm afraid to say this statistic is probably close to meaningless, as much as I wish it could hold water.

[jennynd]

 

I also remember reading in one of Diane Ravitch a statistic about black students who speak English at home vs those who speak another language at home. The latter group has much higher academic achievement. No clear reason was stated..

 

 

Because those are not from US originally, and for those who are able to come to this country (legally) They are the top in their own country.

 

I have few black coworkers at my work. Most of them are from Jamaica, and they got their BS in their own country and have advanced degree in US and they are very strict with their children.

[butterflymommy]

I also remember reading in one of Diane Ravitch a statistic about black students who speak English at home vs those who speak another language at home. The latter group has much higher academic achievement. No clear reason was stated. I assumed the vast majority of them are children of immigrants (or immigrants themselves);

 

The only schools my kids have attended thus far have been majority black but consisting of different groups-- AA & African/ Caribbean immigrant families. I've seen this distinction firsthand. The children from immigrant families outperform their AA counterparts academically and in terms of behavior. I don't know why this is, either. One difference I've noted is that the immigrant children tend to come from very strict, conservative (often two parent) families whereas the AA students have overwhelmingly single mother families who are very lax (at least from the stories I hear second or third hand). IIRC the girl you mention from that docu lived with her dad and stepmom and the dad is very hardline conservative and doesn't even let her go to the prom.

 

It could also be that the families motivated enough to immigrate are going to motivated enough to push their kids in school... simple as that.

[stripe]

Because those are not from US originally, and for those who are able to come to this country (legally) They are the top in their own country.

 

I have few black coworkers at my work. Most of them are from Jamaica, and they got their BS in their own country and have advanced degree in US and they are very strict with their children.

;) I said something similar in the sentence after what you quoted:

"I assumed the vast majority of them are children of immigrants (or immigrants themselves)"

[Wordfairy]

I was skimming through the archives of a yahoo list, and found a link to this study than includes statistics for low income and minority students. I had no idea how much better low income and minority students do when homeschooled, compared to those that go to PS.

 

So often minority and low income moms, especially those with dismal educations of their own, and pennies to spend on curriculum, are encouraged to place their children in PS. It looks like the GREATEST gains are for the exact population that is most pressured to put their children in PS!

 

This certainly played out in my boys' education. I knew what they were getting at home was far superior to what THEY would have been getting at OUR local school.

 

You know the schools are bad when, your kid has trouble you go and talk to the teacher and she pretty much blows you off with a "Everything will work out." The condescension was just too much. Especially when at her previous school she was an excellent student. I had to reteach 3rd grade this year because of that. They were teaching her to take the SOL's not teach her the concepts to help her figure it out. Lord willing my boys will never have to deal with that insanity. I believe in strong public education but in some areas its just not working.

[Guest Pippi333]

Keep in mind, though - that these "findings" are based on standardized test scores...which are not a reliable indicator as to how well a child is being educated overall.

 

For example: My 2 nieces just spent the week with us from out-of-state. They are public-schooled, live below poverty level, and are raised by people who have no higher than an 8th grade education. Since their custodial grandparents are planning to move near us and are asking me to consider homeschooling my nieces beginning in the Fall, I spent time assessing where each of them are at in all subjects that we cover in our homeschool.

 

What I found was that they have been subjected to intense study only of subjects they are tested in at the end of each school year. They score high on their AIMS tests (standardized test for Arizona) in Math and Reading....however NEITHER one of them has read, or had read to them, ANY of the dozens of novels that they should have been exposed to by now; NEITHER one of them could name or identify even ONE continent on a world map (these are girls who are going into the 5th and 6th grades next year - who can't even point out where they themselves live on a map!); know nothing about the early explorers, the colonists, the American Revolution, or the founding fathers; and NEITHER one of them had a grasp of basic Science topics such as the layers, inhabitants or locations of rain forests, or different ways electricity is generated. Furthermore, neither girl has had ANY exposure to foreign languages.

 

So while they score higher than my own children on standardized tests (because I do not teach to the test....), their true overall level of education is seriously inferior to that of my kids. According to their standardized test results, one might assume they have received adequate education, but the opposite is actually true.

 

Not to say that the homeschoolers in this study are not receiving a great education...just pointing out an example of how using standardized test results as an indicator of true overall education content can be highly misleading. ;)

[Hunter]

Keep in mind, though - that these "findings" are based on standardized test scores...which are not a reliable indicator as to how well a child is being educated overall.

 

For example: My 2 nieces just spent the week with us from out-of-state. They are public-schooled, live below poverty level, and are raised by people who have no higher than an 8th grade education. Since their custodial grandparents are planning to move near us and are asking me to consider homeschooling my nieces beginning in the Fall, I spent time assessing where each of them are at in all subjects that we cover in our homeschool.

 

What I found was that they have been subjected to intense study only of subjects they are tested in at the end of each school year. They score high on their AIMS tests (standardized test for Arizona) in Math and Reading....however NEITHER one of them has read, or had read to them, ANY of the dozens of novels that they should have been exposed to by now; NEITHER one of them could name or identify even ONE continent on a world map (these are girls who are going into the 5th and 6th grades next year - who can't even point out where they themselves live on a map!); know nothing about the early explorers, the colonists, the American Revolution, or the founding fathers; and NEITHER one of them had a grasp of basic Science topics such as the layers, inhabitants or locations of rain forests, or different ways electricity is generated. Furthermore, neither girl has had ANY exposure to foreign languages.

 

So while they score higher than my own children on standardized tests (because I do not teach to the test....), their true overall level of education is seriously inferior to that of my kids. According to their standardized test results, one might assume they have received adequate education, but the opposite is actually true.

 

Not to say that the homeschoolers in this study are not receiving a great education...just pointing out an example of how using standardized test results as an indicator of true overall education content can be highly misleading. ;)

 

Believe me, I'm not a big testing fan! BUT, it's pretty hard for a student to fake high test scores. You are placing content above skills. Content IS important, but it's hard to measure without declaring a nation curriculum, which is something most homeschoolers are against. And skills are harder to teach, and more important in my opinion. Content is easy for a PS parent to teach through relaxing and fun enrichment activities. Few PS parents are prepared to teach skills. I'm always thankful when I hear of a PS that is focusing on skills, even if it means getting lean and mean in the content teaching. I'm ALL for that! :-)

 

Welcome to the forum Pippi! :-)

[Hunter]

The statistics are interesting but without any controls on the homeschoolers that took the test, basically worthless. If ALL homeschoolers in a state took the ITBS one year the results would have meaning. Having homeschoolers self select to turn in results doesn't work.

 

Do you know of any better studies?

[Hunter]

I think the combination of parental involvement and appropriate allocation of learning funds is what makes the difference. The parents that homeschool with things like low income and minority status etc are the ones that would be the most involved in ps. I know I was. Often the students are attending inner city schools, which do not have appropriate materials for everyone etc. They are the ones that show up to school hungry, etc. If they are not in an inner city school they have to deal with the teasing etc from the students in more affluent schools for being the kid that is poor etc. My kids were those kids. We have always been low income.

 

By keeping them home I can generally feed them more and better than when they were in ps. With all the restrictions on things like nuts in school and no access to microwaves for leftovers, it is hard to keep kids fed all day. By staying home we can eat left overs, and pb sandwiches, tuna and egg salad without worry about the mayo spoiling etc. Full bellies mean more learning.

 

By saving the $$ spent on school clothes, bus passes/transporation, extra fees that come up in class (field trips, year book, fundraising, picture day, book order forms etc) I can provide the books and experiences to teach them well. With so many good materials available for free Saving that money allows me to have internet to access them.

 

The inner city schools that many of those student would attend, are filled with drugs, negative attitudes, promiscuity, gangs etc. By homeschooling you eliminate a whole lot of grief and keep those kids focused on what it most important, getting an education and breaking the cycle of poverty etc.

 

Yes those parents would be the ones fully involved in the school but parental involvement only covers 1 part of the puzzle. To make sure a kid can break out of the situation, graduate, go onto college and be able to live a financially secure life the families that are low income, minority etc have to overcome more than a lack of parental involvement in the school.

 

This is even more so for kids with learning disabilities that are low income and/or minority. Guess how I know?

 

Being a low income homeschooler with kids with issues (though not a minority) I often face the attitude that I should put the kids into ps and get a better job. But the fact is if I want my kids to have a shot at a better life than me, homeschooling is the way to provide that (FTR even working f/t we would stay low income, my earning potential is very low so working 40 hrs a week would still mean we would low income)

 

those that don't take education seriously, and have the attitudes towards school and teachers that jpope mentioned would never think to homeschool, and if they did it would be just in label not in action. Those are the students that fair better in ps, some of them at least will take it upon themselves to get that education one way or another regardless of parental attitude/involvement.

 

I would love to know what the test scores look like for students placed BACK into school because a parent panics. One of the funniest things to me, was the higher my son tested, the greater the pressure people placed on me to put him back in school. HELLOOOO! his tests were LOW in school and HIGH at home :-0 I did finally cave in fear and try to put him back in school, but they wouldn't take him. They said they couldn't "accommodate" a child with test scored like his :-0

[serendipitous journey]

Have been following this conversation with interest.

 

I wanted to mention that the social science literature about the influences on a person's long-term success/behavior suggest that, in the long run, peers have a much stronger impact than parents. DH (a neuroscientist) and I think these studies aren't looking at the most relevant factors, and there are many caveats here, but still, an incredible amount of peer influence seems to actually exist.

 

Since I already notice many differences between Button's experience & behavior than that of his peers in the public schools here (these are very good schools, with a large proportion of nice kids, and Button's just finished 1st grade), I am wondering if a good chunk of the homeschooling effect could come from not just the improved academics, but the limited/supervised interaction with peers?

[Hunter]

Have been following this conversation with interest.

 

I wanted to mention that the social science literature about the influences on a person's long-term success/behavior suggest that, in the long run, peers have a much stronger impact than parents. DH (a neuroscientist) and I think these studies aren't looking at the most relevant factors, and there are many caveats here, but still, an incredible amount of peer influence seems to actually exist.

 

Since I already notice many differences between Button's experience & behavior than that of his peers in the public schools here (these are very good schools, with a large proportion of nice kids, and Button's just finished 1st grade), I am wondering if a good chunk of the homeschooling effect could come from not just the improved academics, but the limited/supervised interaction with peers?

 

I heard this saying a long time ago.

 

"Other children are like candy. Our children love them, but took much of a good thing will make them rotten."

[alpidarkomama]

I think the deciding factor is parent involvement. I have taught in the ps for 10+ years, and what I saw was that in most cases, the kids who struggled (barring learning disabilities) were those that did not have parents that supported and encouraged their education.

 

:iagree:

 

As a longtime former teacher, that's always my first thought. An involved parent (nearly always!) lead to an involved student. Period.

[ErinE]

I heard this saying a long time ago.

 

"Other children are like candy. Our children love them, but took much of a good thing will make them rotten."

 

This is a great quote.

[Superfly]

I think the deciding factor is parent involvement. I have taught in the ps for 10+ years, and what I saw was that in most cases, the kids who struggled (barring learning disabilities) were those that did not have parents that supported and encouraged their education. As sad as it is to say, I had kids whose parents told them at home that school was not important and that they didn't have to listen to their teachers. When the parents have a disrespectful attutude toward the teachers, the students pick that up and act in the same way. One of the main reasons I got out of teaching and decided to take my kids out of ps is that this attitude(school isn't important and teachers don't deserve respect) is getting more prevalent and I don't want my kids exposed to it. I know in some cases, it is not possible for the parent to be involved, but I am referring more to the attitude the parent has toward education in general.

 

 

I think another key factor is just the environmental difference. There are kinesthetic learners who physically cannot learn in the PS environment. For my DD, being forced into a seat all day took all her energy. She did not learning anything in PS. She would come home almost catatonic. She was being disciplined at school for not listening to the teacher. I was very involved (the teacher was very irritated by and unresponsive to this); it did not help at all. Really, there was nothing the teacher could have done in this situation other than separate the kids out by learning styles and teach according to their individual needs. There are factors in PS that no amount of parent involvement can correct.

 

Being a low income homeschooler with kids with issues (though not a minority) I often face the attitude that I should put the kids into ps and get a better job. But the fact is if I want my kids to have a shot at a better life than me, homeschooling is the way to provide that (FTR even working f/t we would stay low income, my earning potential is very low so working 40 hrs a week would still mean we would low income)

 

We are also low income plus I'm a minority, but we do not live in the city. The district we live in performs in the 98th percentile on standardized tests. That said, I still feel that my children are receiving a better education at home. Since we live in an suburban area, I often feel pressured to "just get a job and send them to school." The attitude is that I am damaging my kids by not having enough money to furnish them with the lifestyle of those around us. Personally, I think my time investment in their education will pay off far more than me working.

[Hunter]

 

 

We are also low income plus I'm a minority, but we do not live in the city. The district we live in performs in the 98th percentile on standardized tests. That said, I still feel that my children are receiving a better education at home. Since we live in an suburban area, I often feel pressured to "just get a job and send them to school." The attitude is that I am damaging my kids by not having enough money to furnish them with the lifestyle of those around us. Personally, I think my time investment in their education will pay off far more than me working.

 

Even when living in a high performing district, low-income/marginalized students still underperform badly. Marginalized parents have a LOT of trouble advocating for their children, when issues arise. My children attended PS in both higher and lower performing schools, and there were different issues, but always issues, that affected their basic education and their test scores.

[Dmmetler]

I'd like to see a comparison between low income homeschooled students and low income students in schools of choice, like charter schools, the Memphis Jubilee Schools (Catholic schools in minority, mostly Non-Catholic neighborhoods, re-opened by the diocese after receiving a HUGE grant to provide subsidized parochial education to these areas), Schools run by traditionally Black denominations (which usually are subsidized heavily by the community that attends the church for the children in the area, who, again, may not attend that church) and so on.

 

My guess is that the biggest difference is going to be parental choice-that if the parent makes a choice to find a better educational option, whether it's homeschooling or an Abeka school with 20 kids in the church basement or a charter in their area, those kids are likely going to perform higher than the typical student from a similar environment who doesn't have a parent who is willing to make the effort to choose.

[lea1]

I think this is a huge issue as well. When a child grows up in the culture of drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, gang membership, etc., he/she believes this is just the way life is. Of course, this is not true for all kids in that situation. What I find intriguing are the kids who have an innate desire to rise above their situation and do better for themselves. Where does this desire/drive come from and how can we (or can we?) motivate other students in the same situations? I also remember teaching in a largely Hispanic high school in which a Hispanic male coach/teacher was considered to be a "sellout" by the students because he had gone to college and gotten a degree. He wanted to be a role model and encourage the kids that it could be done, but they wouldn't listen to him.

 

The desire to rise above probably comes from various places. For me, it was from my mom. I could not count how many times when I was growing up that she told me she wished she had listened to her mother and gone to college and how her mother tried to tell her. My parents divorced when I was in 1st grade (I was the youngest of 5 kids - my three brothers went to live with my dad and my sister and I lived with our mom). My father has a college and my mom does not. My three brothers, who lived with my dad, didn't go to college but my sister and I, who lived with our mom, did go to college. I don't think my father drilled that into my brothers like my mom did to us. And we saw her working hard, six days a week, 9 hours a day, just to make barely above minimum wage with no insurance. Good grades were important to my mom, even though she worked full time and did not have time to participate in school (room mom, field trips, etc.).

[Hunter]

I'd like to see a comparison between low income homeschooled students and low income students in schools of choice, like charter schools, the Memphis Jubilee Schools (Catholic schools in minority, mostly Non-Catholic neighborhoods, re-opened by the diocese after receiving a HUGE grant to provide subsidized parochial education to these areas), Schools run by traditionally Black denominations (which usually are subsidized heavily by the community that attends the church for the children in the area, who, again, may not attend that church) and so on.

 

My guess is that the biggest difference is going to be parental choice-that if the parent makes a choice to find a better educational option, whether it's homeschooling or an Abeka school with 20 kids in the church basement or a charter in their area, those kids are likely going to perform higher than the typical student from a similar environment who doesn't have a parent who is willing to make the effort to choose.

 

My boys attended a charter school for awhile. It was worse than PS. That's when I gave up and brought them home. School choice works SOMETIMES, but it's not proving to be as successful as everyone hoped. Again, especially for the marginalized students.

[Hunter]

I think the combination of parental involvement and appropriate allocation of learning funds is what makes the difference. The parents that homeschool with things like low income and minority status etc are the ones that would be the most involved in ps. I know I was. Often the students are attending inner city schools, which do not have appropriate materials for everyone etc. They are the ones that show up to school hungry, etc. If they are not in an inner city school they have to deal with the teasing etc from the students in more affluent schools for being the kid that is poor etc. My kids were those kids. We have always been low income.

 

By keeping them home I can generally feed them more and better than when they were in ps. With all the restrictions on things like nuts in school and no access to microwaves for leftovers, it is hard to keep kids fed all day. By staying home we can eat left overs, and pb sandwiches, tuna and egg salad without worry about the mayo spoiling etc. Full bellies mean more learning.

 

By saving the $$ spent on school clothes, bus passes/transporation, extra fees that come up in class (field trips, year book, fundraising, picture day, book order forms etc) I can provide the books and experiences to teach them well. With so many good materials available for free Saving that money allows me to have internet to access them.

 

The inner city schools that many of those student would attend, are filled with drugs, negative attitudes, promiscuity, gangs etc. By homeschooling you eliminate a whole lot of grief and keep those kids focused on what it most important, getting an education and breaking the cycle of poverty etc.

 

Yes those parents would be the ones fully involved in the school but parental involvement only covers 1 part of the puzzle. To make sure a kid can break out of the situation, graduate, go onto college and be able to live a financially secure life the families that are low income, minority etc have to overcome more than a lack of parental involvement in the school.

 

This is even more so for kids with learning disabilities that are low income and/or minority. Guess how I know?

 

Being a low income homeschooler with kids with issues (though not a minority) I often face the attitude that I should put the kids into ps and get a better job. But the fact is if I want my kids to have a shot at a better life than me, homeschooling is the way to provide that (FTR even working f/t we would stay low income, my earning potential is very low so working 40 hrs a week would still mean we would low income)

 

those that don't take education seriously, and have the attitudes towards school and teachers that jpope mentioned would never think to homeschool, and if they did it would be just in label not in action. Those are the students that fair better in ps, some of them at least will take it upon themselves to get that education one way or another regardless of parental attitude/involvement.

 

School choice doesn't rectify any of the above.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Hunter

[jenbrdsly]

I was reading Charles Murray's recent book about education (Real Education) and one of his claims ("truths") is that basically poor people are less intelligent and don't do well in school, etc etc, and that no matter what teachers do, they just won't get it. The rest of the book I found less infuriating. I have been pondering this in the two weeks since I read it. I am also about to start reading The Street Stops Here: A Year at a Catholic High School in Harlem, and the author points out that Catholic schools have a long tradition of educating kids from poor families.

 

I also remember reading in one of Diane Ravitch a statistic about black students who speak English at home vs those who speak another language at home. The latter group has much higher academic achievement. No clear reason was stated. I assumed the vast majority of them are children of immigrants (or immigrants themselves); by the way, there is such a profile in the movie "Pressure Cooker," which documents high school students in Philadelphia who are enrolled in a cooking class taught by a very tough! (African American woman) teacher named Wilma Stephenson. Fatoumata Dembeli went on to cooking school.

 

 

Okay, you have given me some books to read. Here's one for you.

Have you read The Social Animal? Half-way through it there is a section about the research into poverty/education. One of the things they found was that in lower income homes there was less talking. The kids were also left on their own a whole bunch more. This was really interesting to me, in light of the "free-range kids" movement in upper middle class houses.

 

So if you took that research and applied it to homeschoolers, then it is likely lower income homeschooler families would be naturally talking to their children more, engaging them in dialogue, and keeping them busy. It would make sense that they would do better. But the self-selection is the real ticket, because the less engaged families might be sending their kids to school.

[Spy Car]

The statistics are interesting but without any controls on the homeschoolers that took the test, basically worthless. If ALL homeschoolers in a state took the ITBS one year the results would have meaning. Having homeschoolers self select to turn in results doesn't work.

 

:iagree:

 

It is a fifteen year old "study" based on a very flawed method of using self-surveys. The results make me highly skeptical, and the fact that the HDSLA is involved in promoting it doesn't help the credibility issue.

 

Bill

[Deee]

For me, Jen has identified the real elephant in the room: you can throw a whole lot of money and effort at the school system without touching one of the fundamental differences: lower SE families generally do not have the same level of conversation in the home or exposure to the same experiences.. I am well aware that this is a thumping great generalisation and makes me sound a bit of an elitist, but it is true in my experience. I grew up in a very working class neighbourhood, with a classically educated, middle class mother and a poorly educated but very bright father who was injured in a work accident when I was 10. We lived below the poverty line from that time. I went to a Catholic systemic school (low school fees, not part of the private school network, mostly working class families). I went on to do a science degree at one of the best (and snobbiest) universities in Australia. I was surrounded by well-healed private school kids. My family was different from some of my friends in that we had lots of books and I read constantly, but when I got to uni I was struck by how very different my social groups were from the wealthier kids, and that key difference wasn't just in the trips to opera, the ballet and Europe: it was in the things that were discussed and the way these discussions progressed. I see it in my own family now. My mother's family are mostly university educated. The conversation covers foreign affairs, arts, music, religion, philosophy, politics, the environment, etc and the children are all exposed to this. They drink it up and are encouraged to participate from a young age. My husband is the first member of his family to go to uni. His family discuss sport, fashion, movies and TV shows. The conversation is generally at a teenage level and is frequently inane. If we brought up philosophy or art we would be considered odd or "up ourselves." The kids from a family where this is the norm, and where TV makes up the bulk of the background noise in the house, are light years behind kids from well-educated families and they WILL struggle to catch up, not just educationally but socially as well. I know I did.

 

Of course, money isn't really the deciding factor in the above equation. You can be poor and well informed, or the reverse. Australia is in the middle of a huge resources boom. University graduates are being paid a fraction of the wages of plumbers, electricians, builders and mining workers. Fluoro is the new three piece suit. So we are seeing very well financed families with very low levels of education. These kids will have their paths smoothed by money, but they'll still struggle to mix it with kids who can hold their own in an educated debate. I am buoyed by this idea, because my husband and I have both left our science jobs behind us and are living below the poverty line ourselves:001_huh:

D

[stripe]

Okay, you have given me some books to read. Here's one for you.

Have you read The Social Animal? Half-way through it there is a section about the research into poverty/education. One of the things they found was that in lower income homes there was less talking. The kids were also left on their own a whole bunch more. This was really interesting to me, in light of the "free-range kids" movement in upper middle class houses.

I haven't read this book (thanks for the recommendation!) but I have heard this research.

 

I have a couple thoughts based on this and Deee's comment

For me, Jen has identified the real elephant in the room: you can throw a whole lot of money and effort at the school system without touching one of the fundamental differences: lower SE families generally do not have the same level of conversation in the home or exposure to the same experiences.

If this is so, then why does research show that black children who speak another language at home, do better academically than black children who speak English at home? I have a hard time believing, based on personal experience, that black African immigrants spend a lot of time chit-chatting with their kids or stroking their egos. This is not a slam on anyone. For one thing, in the families I know with two African parents, usually each parent has two jobs, so the parents are rarely home.

 

I also think it's worth looking at the types of activities Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children's Zone are doing in order to change the environment (and I saw an interview with a woman recently somewhere on the site who was an immigrant, and worked specifically with other African immigrants, about the effect it had on her and the types of things she talks to other mothers about). They do teach about alternative punishments to beatings/spankings, for example, as well as the importance of talking to one's kids. According to their website, they spend about $5000 per child (annually?). What's interesting to me is the range of activities they've identified as important to personal and community health, not just one thing in a vacuum. I think there are a lot of very loving, well intentioned parents who just don't know what to do, and some groups of people (including some members here) are very personally offended by anyone suggesting parents don't always know best, but honestly, the reason some things are "common sense" (like, what makes a healthy meal or basic first aid procedures or to wash your hands after using the toilet) is often because someone explained this to you! Some people do need this type of help. It's not usurping their parental rights.

 

Secondly, your point about free range kids is thought-provoking. I want to think about that some more! Does it matter what environment the kid is in? I mean, if the kid could wander into a crack house, that's dangerous, but if the freedom leads to playing with an old rope and building a swing in the tree (an example in Ken Robinson's creativity book), those are totally different, aren't they?

[stripe]

So I've been thinking about this some more and I have the following concerns:

* I don't believe all poor people should be lumped into one group

* I don't believe we should rush to separate ourselves from "the poor," a group assumed to have certain traits such as lower educational levels or lazy behaviors, especially given that the poverty rate is on the rise. (In 2010, 15% of people in the US lived below the poverty level; given that the number of poor senior citizens continues to go down, that means the number of everyone else is going up.)

* I question extrapolating some study about certain mothers' talking habits into all mothers' talking habits. As I recall, the study involved certain mothers on welfare and certain mothers with a college degree. Well, not all poor women are on welfare, especially nowadays when most states have "term limits" on receiving such benefits. Also there are things I wonder about -- are the women they chose on welfare the same age as the college educated ones? Older mothers may behave differently than younger ones. Are they in single parent households vs with two parents in them -- just based on household income required to receive welfare, it is less likely that there is another working parent in the home -- it seems like this could impact mother/child dynamics in some way. But my real point is, to judge all poor families based on some study of mothers on welfare seems misguided. I think we need to proceed with caution.

* The other thing, relating to free range type behaviors, is that at least among those receiving housing assistance, there has been a documented increase in problems since moving away from "the projects" and into Section 8, where people are moved into middle class housing. The projects provided a community where other adults looked out for kids and helped steer them away from trouble.

[Dmmetler]

My boys attended a charter school for awhile. It was worse than PS. That's when I gave up and brought them home. School choice works SOMETIMES, but it's not proving to be as successful as everyone hoped. Again, especially for the marginalized students.

 

 

I wasn't thinking so much of the difference in school as that parents who are motivated enough to make an effort to find and get their child to a different kind of school are also likely to be the kind of parents who don't assume that the school is the end-all and be-all of their child's education. I taught in an inner city school that held an optional program designed for students who were behind in reading, and most of our neighborhood kids came from two HUD-funded housing projects. Despite the optional students being specifically selected because they were BEHIND academically (and since almost all of them were coming from schools with a similar population to mine to start with, being behind academically enough to be noticeable in those schools meant that they were really, really struggling), those tended to be the kids who, especially after they'd been with us for a few years, were at the top of the class academically, were more involved in co-curricular activities, had better behavior, and so on. And invariably, you could look at the families and see the difference. The optional students were the ones with at least one adult in their life who really didn't want their child to fall through the cracks and were bound and determined to plug those cracks-via the optional program, via a charter school, via finding a private school that had scholarship money, via after-school programs, via being involved in church, SOMETHING. I could easily see those families choosing to homeschool, or to do a virtual charter program from home if one were available. I can't see the families for whom our school was the default and who never looked any farther doing so.

[jenbrdsly]

For me, Jen has identified the real elephant in the room: you can throw a whole lot of money and effort at the school system without touching one of the fundamental differences: lower SE families generally do not have the same level of conversation in the home or exposure to the same experiences.. I am well aware that this is a thumping great generalisation and makes me sound a bit of an elitist, but it is true in my experience. I grew up in a very working class neighbourhood, with a classically educated, middle class mother and a poorly educated but very bright father who was injured in a work accident when I was 10. We lived below the poverty line from that time. I went to a Catholic systemic school (low school fees, not part of the private school network, mostly working class families). I went on to do a science degree at one of the best (and snobbiest) universities in Australia. I was surrounded by well-healed private school kids. My family was different from some of my friends in that we had lots of books and I read constantly, but when I got to uni I was struck by how very different my social groups were from the wealthier kids, and that key difference wasn't just in the trips to opera, the ballet and Europe: it was in the things that were discussed and the way these discussions progressed. I see it in my own family now. My mother's family are mostly university educated. The conversation covers foreign affairs, arts, music, religion, philosophy, politics, the environment, etc and the children are all exposed to this. They drink it up and are encouraged to participate from a young age. My husband is the first member of his family to go to uni. His family discuss sport, fashion, movies and TV shows. The conversation is generally at a teenage level and is frequently inane. If we brought up philosophy or art we would be considered odd or "up ourselves." The kids from a family where this is the norm, and where TV makes up the bulk of the background noise in the house, are light years behind kids from well-educated families and they WILL struggle to catch up, not just educationally but socially as well. I know I did.

 

Of course, money isn't really the deciding factor in the above equation. You can be poor and well informed, or the reverse. Australia is in the middle of a huge resources boom. University graduates are being paid a fraction of the wages of plumbers, electricians, builders and mining workers. Fluoro is the new three piece suit. So we are seeing very well financed families with very low levels of education. These kids will have their paths smoothed by money, but they'll still struggle to mix it with kids who can hold their own in an educated debate. I am buoyed by this idea, because my husband and I have both left our science jobs behind us and are living below the poverty line ourselves:001_huh:

D

 

 

Where I live (Washington State) the average teacher makes about $55,000 a year (with a graduate degree) but the average garbage truck driver makes well over $60,000. I have close relatives who are in each field. The household conversations are very different.

[Pen]

...Fluoro is the new three piece suit. ...

D

 

I know this must be a little OT, but what is Fluoro?

[Deee]

Sorry - I'm speaking Australian! Fluoro = fluorescent, as in high visibility workwear. Its the new blue collar. Everyone seems to be wearing fluoro yellow these days (like a bad '80's disco)

D

[stripe]

Where I live (Washington State) the average teacher makes about $55,000 a year (with a graduate degree) but the average garbage truck driver makes well over $60,000. I have close relatives who are in each field. The household conversations are very different.

That's a fair observation. About those people.

 

It's not fair to say teachers are intellectual and talk about the ballet, whereas garbage truck drivers just talk about beer and have burping competitions.

 

In The Well Trained Mind, SWB/JW talk about the importance of a classical education for everyone, including garbage truck drivers.

 

My husband has met a lot of people with MBAs who have decided to become truck drivers because of the money. I think they make more money than garbage truck drivers. In fact, he says he hasn't met a truck driver lately who doesn't have a college degree.

 

On this forum, there have been plenty of posts claiming that the young ladies in the education departments at colleges are some of the dumbest students, etc. I never subscribed to those view, but then I've got more than one relative who is or was a teacher, including elementary school teaching! ;) So we can't have it both ways -- teachers are both dolts and intellectually high and mighty -- unless we're willing to crack out of the stereotypes and see that, yes, people do come in all ways.

 

The workers who paint my mother's house for her all, she reports, have advanced work in her academic field, and sit around discussing such matters regularly.

 

I know of at least one mechanic with a PhD in philosophy (talk here).

 

I also think it's important to realize the rich don't have a monopoly on creative expression. Besides what's now acknowledged as "high art" (which mostly was created by poor people ;) ), there is a rich tradition of folk art and music as well. In fact, I find conversations about art with poor artists to be infinitely richer than conversations with snooty rich people about their opinions about others' art.

 

That being said, does education have a transformative effect? Certainly yes. But the idea that there is ONE ideal for education, and that only some smarmy rich people have the right way, just bothers me. I think it's very easy for these conversations to go south pretty quickly. We make a lot of assumptions and attempt to divide people neatly, and it just doesn't always happen. Some people are smart and like to talk about intellectual matters. Some people are kind of dim. Some people are poorly educated but curious. Some people are smart but only in one area. Some people are smart but don't like to lecture others. Some people are rich. Some people are poor. Some people used to be rich. Some people used to be poor. Some people live on the street. Some people live in a house. Some people are homeless AND college students. (And about 20% of the homeless have some college experience.)

 

I thought this painting by Palmer Hayden would be right just about now: The Janitor Who Paints. The painter in the picture is a man who worked as a janitor to support himself.

 

[Hunter]

I've been homeless twice due to fleeing my domestic abuse situation. I've had some pretty intellectual conversations in the shelters :-)

 

All over the city interns need an audience to play grownup on, so host writing and art classes for the homeless and poor and disabled and elderly. The groups are well attended when the "children" actually know something the AVERAGE homeless person doesn't.

[jenbrdsly]

I wasn't trying to sound elitist! I was only reflecting on the fact that here in my state education level does not necessarily translate into earning more money. That's what the poster from Australia said was happening.

But it is true in my family that one group of relatives listens to Radio Disney in the car and spends a bunch of money on their fancy trucks, while the other family is learning Spanish in their spare time and saving money for college.

It is wrong to generalize. But as a former PS teacher, I am sad to say there is some truth to some teachers not really understanding math themselves, or not being as advanced intellectually as I would hope. In CA I knew teachers who tried over and over again to pass teacher credentialing tests like the CBEST (incredibly easy), and the MSAT (really difficult).

I am still a huge supporter of public schools however.

[jenbrdsly]

Sorry to post twice, I just had one more thing to add! :)

I think they major key to all of this for me is that in the education level and intellectual curiosity of your parents have such a huge effect on children. It doesn't matter if you are on food stamps, or if your dad is making $98,000 a year driving the recycling truck.

When I was little my parents could not help me with math at all beyond 7th grade. My best friend's dad could help her all the way through Calculus. Guess who got the higher math score on the SAT?

When I went to a fancy-pants college, I was around kids who had been to prep schools, boarding schools, Africa, China, tutors... etc. They had educational advantages that I did not.

I think one of the great things about TheWTM is that it helps give ordinary parents ideas for how they can improve their children's educations at home, without a bunch of money. That's the goal of my blog too. I have right there on my front page: "Helping you ensure that your child's is academically advantaged regardless of age, ability, or socio-economic level."

But the thing is, it's not about how much money or education you have. It's about how hard you as a parent are willing to work to expose your kids to more. That quality has nothing to do with your tax-bracket.