S/O Low expectations: why I have 'dumbed down' certain classes

[jld]

Yes; all you have to do is read a book like Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities or School of Dreams by Edward Humes, and you'll find this is exactly the case. Really wealthy public schools are pretty well private schools in operation. In our city, the VERY wealthy (white) suburb five miles from me has its own library system in which our city cards are not valid; their public high school asked for and received an exemption from all curricular requirements the other city schools have to abide by. The PTA at that school got together and bought a city block of million-dollar houses, bulldozed them, and built a football field -- yes, you read correctly. The school district said it couldn't even afford to maintain it, so the PTA raised more money and hires two full-time maintenance people and pays the water bills.

 

Meanwhile, the school three blocks from my house, an elementary school, tries hard every year to raise money to buy each child two paperback readers. They haven't reached their goal yet. The playground has not one blade of grass, not a solitary one. The principal was fired a number of years ago when the school was declared failing. The population: mostly Hispanic working class.

 

And technically these schools are in the same system.

 

Then there really are two Americas, just like John Edwards used to say. Why, oh why, do we tolerate this?????

[jld]

If education is valued by parents, teachers, and students, the schools tend to do well. In the district I work in now, education might be valued by some, but not the majority. The teachers are mostly local and have never seen what a top school can do. Therefore, they think what they see here is normal and fine. Ditto that for the majority of the parents. I'm a transplant. Had I grown up here and attended this school I probably wouldn't be complaining and my kids would likely have stayed in school like their peers. When one doesn't see/experience the difference one doesn't really comprehend that there is a difference.

 

 

 

This is so true, creekland. Before I met my dh, there were ideas I had just not been exposed to, even in college (or I just tuned them out, as I didn't have anything to relate them to), that I believe are true now, but didn't seem true to me then. But being married to a foreigner, and living in foreign countries, has just brought me so much more understanding of the different possibilities in life. If I had spent my whole life in rural Indiana, where I started, I just don't think I would see things the same way.

 

And I think I still have plenty of blind spots.;)

[regentrude]

Really wealthy public schools are pretty well private schools in operation. In our city, the VERY wealthy (white) suburb five miles from me has its own library system in which our city cards are not valid; their public high school asked for and received an exemption from all curricular requirements the other city schools have to abide by. The PTA at that school got together and bought a city block of million-dollar houses, bulldozed them, and built a football field -- yes, you read correctly. The school district said it couldn't even afford to maintain it, so the PTA raised more money and hires two full-time maintenance people and pays the water bills.

 

I do not think, however, that the quality of an education is dependent on the equipment of the school. Yes, it is nice to have a good school library and computers and smartboards in classrooms - but it is perfectly possible to receive a great education without all these material extras.

 

I was very surprised when we lived in Germany last year and my kids went to school there. They had been in public school in the US, not in a stinking rich district, but a reasonable one, and we were used to computers and school library. In DD's German school, there was no school library, no classroom computers, no smartboards- but she learned a LOT more than in her 6th grade class here. (For example, the students used antiquated technology such as transparencies and an overhead projector to give presentations - but in her local public school in the US, they never had a presentation assignment at all.) And she had a French teacher who was actually fluent in the language she taught- even though there were no language classrooms with audio equipment.

I think the main difference between succeeding and failing schools is in the parent population, not in the material riches of the school. As is demonstrated by a lot of homeschooling parents who manage to educate their children on a very small budget.

[jld]

I think the main difference between succeeding and failing schools is in the parent population, not in the material riches of the school. As is demonstrated by a lot of homeschooling parents who manage to educate their children on a very small budget.

 

Very good point, regentrude.

[Capt_Uhura]

The teachers are mostly local and have never seen what a top school can do. Therefore, they think what they see here is normal and fine. Ditto that for the majority of the parents. I'm a transplant. Had I grown up here and attended this school I probably wouldn't be complaining and my kids would likely have stayed in school like their peers. When one doesn't see/experience the difference one doesn't really comprehend that there is a difference.

 

The kids in this school aren't any different (in potential ability) from those of anywhere else. They just aren't motivated to learn or be all that they can be IMO.

 

Ah, this is something I've been discussing with friends for some time. Most here think my district is the best in the area. There are few HSers here b/c the school system is so good. But when I talk to friends in other states about the level their kids are at, are the level of critical thinking, engagement, love of learning...my district comes up short. I try to explain to people that I'm not educating my child to be successful in this small town....I'm educating them to be successful no matter where they are. Our library often fails to get funded each year but many, many people fight to get a new football field. In one sad quote, a parent spoke about the school and academics and then ended with, "But more importantly, we are poised to take the championship in football once again!" Yes you read that right "But more importantly...." One school, in order to cut spending, fired the school librarian. Teachers will now be responsible for shelving books. To me, that shows what they value the most.

[Guest]

I think the main difference between succeeding and failing schools is in the parent population, not in the material riches of the school. As is demonstrated by a lot of homeschooling parents who manage to educate their children on a very small budget.

 

I completely agree with you that not much is needed for a really great education. But it's hard to beat owning at least one or two books of your own.

 

The parents at the poor school in my neighborhood try desperately hard to fund raise each year for two paperbacks per child. They really want those books for all the kids, so they get to take home their own books. I dare say they put in just as much work as the rich parents who bought up the city block. The problem is that many of them work in minimum wage jobs, have substandard or no health insurance, and simply have no money to spare. A further and quite complex problem is that some of them work two jobs, came from substandard schools themselves, and have little time or know-how to help their kids -- particularly with the way that pedagogical and curricular trends come and go and the district switches from program to program for reading and math. Our local library has cut its hours dramatically and I have looked -- there is no material on homeschooling on its shelves. It's dirty, homeless people sleep there in corners and on the chairs and in cold weather the librarians don't have the heart to turn them out... it's not an ideal environment into which to bring little kids anyway.

 

That's just my little corner. SWB just wrote a couple of posts about the Williamsburg library system shutting out people outside the city limits from access. Other people wrote in that they pay sums from $60 to more a year for library cards. There are a whole lot of people in this country to whom that is an insurmountable barrier to "free" access to books. In Arizona there are currently lawsuits pending against schools in which rats run around even during the day, and the district is not able to offer young children a rat-free or disease-free environment in which to learn. Guess what population has brought these lawsuits, and guess how long the district manages to keep the cases wound up in the court system while not having to do anything about the actual problem.

 

Parents in wealthy school districts may come across as more dedicated and more invested in their children's educations, but I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think they have the money, the know-how, the ability to take time off work, the connections, the self-confidence to approach teachers and actually make demands. They're savvy, in other words, in a way that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants working minimum wage physical labor jobs are not. I think that many people living near or beneath the poverty line see education as crucial for their own kids to escape the cycle of poverty. But I don't think they know how to do that, and they don't get enough help. The big cities and mixed immigrant populations make it harder for them to have cohesive communities that help each other, and everyone is out at work during the day (or night as well). Southern California is physically spread out with a paltry public transit system; if you don't own a car, you'd be hard put to get to school on parent evenings -- more so if you're a single mother who needs a babysitter plus has to be wary of her physical safety in the mile walk from the bus to the school after dark.

 

Look how many women on these boards ask for help with things as simple as reading with their children, or doing basic math. And they are literate, have the ability to stay home (even if it's a financial strain, as it is for most of us I think), have access to a computer and the internet, know where to ask for help. Imagine the greater need, and lesser scope or knowledge, of people who may not be fully literate in English, who work one or more jobs, who don't own computers, who may find it an enormous problem even to physically get all their children to a library.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of parents who don't really invest much time or thought in their kids' schooling. I just think the whole issue is more complicated and explosively political than is generally admitted by people high up in educational circles. But then I live in a city with an enormous, diverse immigrant population and a highly visible, shockingly large rich-poor divide.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Guest

[jld]

Thank you so much for your post, KA. I think most of us do take literacy for granted.

 

I can't imagine what an uphill climb those immigrants and their families have. My goodness. Probably most of us, if we looked back a few generations at our own families, would see similar struggles.

 

I suppose the people in the wealthy school district just don't even think of those poor families, except as a source of cheap labor? I don't know.

 

From what I've been reading about Finland and how it cares for and educates its youth, it does seem like a big difference between us and them is that they really try to see that everyone gets an equal chance at education. I guess they feel they need to nurture everyone so that together everyone can build wealth for the nation. I don't think the philosophy is quite the same in America.

 

Once again, thanks for offering your perspective.:)

[regentrude]

A further and quite complex problem is that some of them work two jobs, came from substandard schools themselves, and have little time or know-how to help their kids.... I think that many people living near or beneath the poverty line see education as crucial for their own kids to escape the cycle of poverty. But I don't think they know how to do that, and they don't get enough help.

 

I completely agree. Please note that I said "parent population" - not parental love or care or interest.

[Guest]

One conversation that was very eye-opening for me occurred a while back in the comments section following a New York Times op-ed piece about poverty and nutrition. Readers of the Times wrote in comments such as: why can't "these people" just go out and buy a 50 pound bag of beans and a 50 pound bag of rice? They could feed their kids very well on this. I quite enjoy a walk to the store after a day's work; it clears my head. There's no reason they can't do this. My mother (or my grandmother) was poor and yet we kids always had clean clothes and healthy food; I don't understand why people can't do this today.

 

Well, as it turns out, there are plenty of reasons. Imagine two kinds of households living at or under the poverty level: one a single mother with small children, and the other older people with the beginnings of diabetes or arthritis. Each of these families are being asked to walk blocks to a market or take a bus (no car with handy trunk) in all weathers, and half the year in darkness (assuming the people work and shop in the evening at least some of the time). In most cases poverty-level jobs are physical labor -- cleaning, waitressing, free-lance construction -- and they've already spent all day on their feet, not at the desk job that makes an evening stroll (though a safe neighborhood) such a pleasure for the Times reader. The single mother has to either find a babysitter or try to corral small children along city streets. Then she's supposed to haul 100 pounds of food home while herding kids. The elderly people are supposed to do this while struggling on icy streets, or in 90 degree weather. As a crowning touch, all of them are likely to be walking through dangerous areas.

 

Back at home, the Times readers helpfully suggest, pull out your slow cookers; if you have two, you can cook two different meals at the same time! Then you freeze most of it for future meals! It's all so easy!

 

There was a total lack of understanding of the appliances people are likely to have or not have, a total lack of understanding that not everyone has a crockpot stashed under their counter or even a big roomy freezer for storing extra meals.

 

There was a lot of snotty commenting about how "these people" have fancy brand-name sneakers and televisions and cell phones but they don't have proper cooking equipment; and how in their mother's or grandmother's time the women managed to cook wonderful fresh meals for their families.

 

Readers of the Times are supposed to be thoughtful people; but there was an absolutely flabbergasting lack of thought about how times might have changed since the good old days, how many more women stayed home full time before the 1960s, about the conditions of rental properties in big cities today, about the lack of space for kids to do anything outdoors in safety and what connection that just might have to the "need" to have a television in a poor neighborhood.

 

I was just amazed. I think a lot of similar assumptions can get in the way of how we think about education -- despite the fact that, sadly, there are indeed a lot of teachers like creekland describes, and that yes, you can educate children well without a lot of money; there are still other factors that are hugely important and which form nearly insurmountable obstacles for a lot of people who desperately want their children to escape the kind of lives they themselves have lead, and who see education as being key to this. I also think that most of us, including myself, have no real understanding of how beaten down people can get, how drained of hope, and how bleak, spiritually and emotionally, a life of poverty in the inner city can be today. I just don't want to think of people as necessarily unmotivated or uninterested when there are so many other factors I can only rarely get a true glimpse of.

 

Regentrude, I just saw your post -- and you're perfectly right, I was mixing what you said with other comments about lack of motivation. But I also think that it's horrifyingly easy for middle to upper class Americans to make that slip from "parent population" to implications about people's relative values or how hard they try. One thing I notice is that the work of wealthy PTA's is so visible; the work of the parents down the street I only know about because I went to the school back when dd was kindergarten age and was told about it, so I know what to look for now and where to look to see it. If I hadn't had that first-person exposure to the school, I would be inclined to write off the parents as not invested.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Guest

[creekland]

Ah, this is something I've been discussing with friends for some time. Most here think my district is the best in the area. There are few HSers here b/c the school system is so good. But when I talk to friends in other states about the level their kids are at, are the level of critical thinking, engagement, love of learning...my district comes up short. I try to explain to people that I'm not educating my child to be successful in this small town....I'm educating them to be successful no matter where they are.

 

This is exactly the way our school district is. Everyone around thinks they are great, and you know what? They are good at producing success in this small town.

 

When we went in to talk with the middle school principal as my oldest entered middle school, he flat out told us, "Public school is not here to educate the academically talented child. They will do well wherever they go with whatever system they have. Public school is here to educate the average child. Around here, the average child works at ____________, joins the military, or goes to community college." Our school district prepares students for that quite well. But I want mine to be able to do more if they choose to and they'd be at quite a disadvantage heading out to do more if they hadn't covered the material needed to get ready for it. There are a few that try each year - and return talking about how difficult it is. My oldest has gone out and returned saying it was fine and he feels well-prepared.

 

Everyone criticizes NCLB (myself too in areas), but NCLB has forced our school district to make some good changes in an effort to improve. My youngest is in the first class to "see" some of these changes. For instance, 9th graders no longer take Geometry or Alg 2 with 12th grade slackers who don't want to be there. Quite honestly, yes, it makes a difference. Our district is making changes to supplement math for all students, and you know what? Scores are going up. Ditto that for English/Reading. They are soon to do the same for science. The kids have been capable all along. They just didn't have the materials to do so.

 

Now, the bar is VERY low and there are issues of expecting ALL kids to meet the bar in ALL situations, but overall, it's helping our school IMO as before the powers that be simply didn't care so much. There was even one year that the powers that be flat out lied to reporters - inflating our SAT scores to make them appear to be the 2nd best in the area. In reality, we were the second worst. The reporter didn't do their job by asking a reputable source and no one cared to lose their job (myself included) by exposing it.

 

We do not have the inner city issues mentioned above. Yes, there are some parents that struggle, but care, but honestly, they are the vast minority. We've had a parent request that their child get money to go on a field trip free (cost $5) while they were in the Bahamas on vacation (yes, this really happened and yes, the school had to let the kid go free since the parent requested it and the kid was on the free lunch program).

 

The vast majority of the parents don't care and just let the school take care of educating their kids. For those who are failing, the teachers must contact the parents any way they can. Teachers phone, e-mail, and sometimes stop by the house (or have guidance do that) and many parents do not care to respond back. Some respond back openly admitting they don't care. Some care, but can't control their kids even if they wanted to. Kids can drop out of school at 17 with their parents permission. Many parents willingly sign for them. Many parents sign excuses for absences when we KNOW there was nothing actually wrong with junior, but the school can't do anything about it unless the absence is more than 3 days in a row for which the school can request a doctor's note.

 

Then there's the other side. The parents do care. If junior gets a failing grade and can't play a sport or something the parents call and are furious. The admin ALWAYS sides with the parents/students and requests that the TEACHER do something about it. One teacher I know gave extra assignments (extra credit) and offered to let the student retake a test plus a couple of quizzes. The student turned in the assignments 80% undone saying he didn't have time (he and his friends went to Baltimore to have fun that weekend - NOT school or sport related). He failed the test with a lower grade than he had the first time. Ditto that with one of the quizzes. He never took the other. And it was the teachers fault. She didn't do enough to help him out. Tutoring was available essentially every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon, but he never showed up except for one afternoon after the request for accommodations. And it was the teacher's fault. She would not change his grade and received a lot of heat over it. Remember, she'd contacted his parents back when he got close to failing, but it was still all her fault. I'd have to double check, but I believe the admin changed the grade so he could play. Last I heard that was the plan (spring of last year - baseball playoffs).

 

Yes, there can be a lot of aspects to failing, poverty, and poor schools, but it's not always due to not having enough money or opportunity. Our school has computers in essentially every classroom. We have smart boards. We have a library with access to ANY book in a library in the state of PA for free. The teachers generally know their material. PA has a lot of "safety nets" for kids in poverty that are used a bit in our district (some are abused a bit). We don't have rats in our schools nor poor facilities in general. We have very little major crime anywhere in our area (a big "plus" with being rural IMO). Many of the "poor" kids actually get more for Christmas than the "average" kids as there are several organizations that give them gifts (they brag about how much they got).

 

IMO kids have so much they just don't appreciate it. They expect it all for little or no effort and have no desire to learn about the world outside their own little circle. In one history class I was covering the class was supposed to be discussing the beginnings of communism. Not a single kid in the whole class could tell me the name of a communist country today. Nor did they care. When I started to explain how communism worked in some countries (gov't owns everything, etc), they didn't believe me. "No way! How would anyone let that happen? I'd take my gun and shoot them if they tried that here." These were juniors. I'd like to think they can name some communist countries now, but honestly? They probably have long since forgotten. It's not important (to them). They have cell phones, TVs, the internet, cars, parties, girlfriends/boyfriends, and more all of which is more meaningful to them than what may be happening in another country.

 

My dream exchange program would be to take these kids to a third world area for 2 - 3 months without money and have them see what much of the world has for contrast. Then let them return and see if there's a difference.

 

I fully realize that big city issues can be or are different. But that's not our issue. Our issue is a lack of care from students, and usually, parents.

 

I used to laugh when Leno would get his people on the street who couldn't answer the most basic of questions. I used to think those were all staged. Now I know they aren't. I could do the same in my high school if I asked the right students (and there are several to choose from).

[Capt_Uhura]

You also have to look at the culture. My friend's mom used to teach in a larger hispanic community down in Texas. It wasn't that the parents didn't value education, on the contrary, they valued it highly and left their country to have their kids educated here. They felt like the teachers and schools knew better than they did and they wouldn't risk teaching their kids anything in case they taught them incorrect information. From the outside, it seemed like these kids were neglected b/c they didn't know the simplest of information that you would think most kids picked up by being around loving and caring adults.