Conservatives are always talking about the need to keep high expectations for inner-city youth. "High expectations" is a talisman that gets waved so that poor school districts don't get funds for desperately needed infrastructural improvements, to ignore the gaping funding disparities (made all the worse that -- by any measure -- poor students require more public funding to have an equal educational opportunity compared to wealthy students), to excuse the huge gaps in academic and extra-curricular offerings compared to what's available in suburban districts, and to side-step the horrifying obstacles that stand between these students and the American dream.
There is something to be said for high expectations, in tandem with creating an "enabling environment" so that the reasonable student has a reasonable chance at success. It's when "high expectations" gets deployed as a replacement for reform -- so that failure becomes the fault of the student no matter what odds they were up against -- that it begins to get twisted.
But the worst part about the "high expectations" mantra is that it's hard to believe there is any there behind it. When Bill O'Reilly is astounded by an episode of suburban schoolkids misbehaving, and remarks "this isn't ... the inner city; you would think that these kids would have some kind of a values system," he is betraying what he really thinks: Bad behavior is expected in the inner-city, because those kids lack "values" (value?).
If conservatives are going to offer naught but high expectations for the inner-city, the least they could do is actually hold those expectations. But they don't. Because it's just rhetoric designed to stymie the urgent reforms every educational expert agrees are necessary for inner city kids to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
What an odd twist of the high expectation argument.
What is really meant is that schools in poor/minority neighborhoods should hold their students to the same standards as students in the suburban/whiter schools.
If students in the suburbans are expected to do homework, show up to class, listen, and behave, then the same should be expected of children in the inner city.
How much money does it take to obtain a decent level of behavior? How much money does it take for schools to punish students who misbehave?
What is really missed is that schools can decide that graduating everyone is important or that educating students who want to learn is important. However, they cannot really obtain both. The inner city schools have decided that getting as many kids through is more important than if anyone really learns.
How much money does it take to obtain a decent level of behavior? How much money does it take for schools to punish students who misbehave?
As has been shown by the experience of NYC schools that convert to "small schools," it does take more money to have better behaved students, because it requires more teachers and other staff, and literally a different structure for the school.
As for punishing students who misbehave, if the goal is to widen the school-to-prison pipeline even further, then sure, it doesn't take much money -- just pay for hundreds of police department employees and dozens of metal detectors in schools, have kids arrested for fake crimes like cussing at teachers and start their criminal records early.
Schools don't get to decide "that graduating everyone is important or that educating students who want to learn is important." They get to figure out whether minimizing the number of drop outs or maximizing test scores will cause the least amount of penalty from NCLB.
PG,
Most urban school boards decided long ago to maximize the number of graduates and to give up actually teaching children. They inflated grades and lower standards so that a high school diploma from a public school in a place like DC is irrelevant.
Also, lower teacher/student ratios have not been shown to improve performance. The small school movement has the huge hidden agenda of creating more high paid administration jobs instead of teaching jobs. also, since smaller schools usually exist inside larger schools, they do nothing to improve student behavior.
Of course, the rich elite know what it takes to really educate students: no tolerance for trouble makers, high stakes testing, high standards, and teachers educated in their subjects. Of course, I have always found it odd that inner city public schools are almost the opposites of urban prep schools.
Inside of throwing money at the problem, why can't the public schools decide to imitate the private schools instead of imitating day care centers.
"also, since smaller schools usually exist inside larger schools, they do nothing to improve student behavior."
Do you have a source for this claim? I did research on policing in New York City schools last summer, and while smaller schools have mixed results with regard to academic achievement, they almost always improve student behavior.
If we're going to increase the money going to urban schools, can we see that a free market in elementary and secondary education operates, so those funds will be efficiently allocated to schools who are doing their job?
That would alleviate some of the problems to which superdestroyer alludes.
The elephant in the room being ignored is that parents make a big difference in schools and kids performance. In Illinois there are laws placing limits on the "spread" between the richest and poorest school budgets. In one rich neighborhood I understand this is "gotten around" by parents of kids in those schools forming associations, using their own money to provide services for the school freeing that they feel are missing.
From
"Oregon small schools">
For small schools Instead, their statistics look a lot like results from the lumbering, impersonal high schools they are supposed to replace. Lots of students quit, and most of the graduates aren't ready for the rigors of college.
You seem to have given the perfect example of what happens when the switch to small schools happens with insufficient funding.
Top-notch schools typically require top-notch principals. But school districts cannot afford to pay multiple principals at one high school the same high salary as they pay the principal of a big high school.
Just as I said in my first comment on this thread, it takes more money.
PG,
More money or different methods.
My kids spent their first few years of school in a private Montessori school. Tuition/budget per kid was half that of the public schools for an arguably better education.
If one were to open schools to be provided state subsidy based on results to supplement parental tuition ... your "more money" mantra would likely evaporate.
Mark,
Are you claiming that simply using the Montessori method in public schools would allow them to reduce their per-child expenditure from the current level?
I'm guessing you don't agree with what I thought was a common-sense point made in David's post: "by any measure -- poor students require more public funding to have an equal educational opportunity compared to wealthy students." Which is odd, because I figured from your parental involvement comment that you did understand why poor students need more funding -- i.e., that they have less educational support at home and therefore need more of it at school.
superdestroyer's point was the more honest one: under the idea that we must educate students cheaply, we have to be OK with not educating lots of them at all. For example, how many students in your kids' Montessori school had special needs, whether physical, mental or emotional?
PG,
Actually, I'm claiming that there is a lot of waste in public school methods and administration.
It depends on how you define "special needs". None of the kids I saw when I volunteered were grossly handicapped, although many were specifically in a private school because their parents thought they'd have difficulty adjusting to a public school setting because of various physical, emotional, and cultural issues.
I don't think any amount of funding is going to overcome parental disinterest in supporting a child's education and it's folly to try (to make them "equal").
"Special needs" = lacking in a capability that schools expect students to enter having. For example, did any of the students not speak English as a first language? Did any of them require therapy for emotional and behavioral problems? Were any dyslexic or speech-impaired? I attended private school for nursery through 5th grade and there definitely were no non-English speakers in my school, and if there were kids with any other serious difficulties, they managed to cover it so well their peers didn't know. Private schools are small and generally not geared toward kids who are outside the mainstream in a way that strongly affects their ability to learn. (Paradoxically, I did find a sectarian private school more congenial than public with regard to being a religious and racial minority, but these weren't really factors in my overall learning.)
I don't think any amount of funding is going to overcome parental disinterest in supporting a child's education and it's folly to try (to make them "equal").
I'm happy to ditch equal and just go for basic competency. Obviously no child is going to receive exactly the same education as another; their own interests will take them down different paths. However, I think a capitalist, supposedly meritocratic society owes every child a fair start by providing a basic education.
Something I've noticed with many conservatives is that they see children as a kind of possession of their parents: if the parents want to take good care of that possession, that's fine; if the parents are unwilling or unable to, too bad if it ends up broken. I think kids are 1) human beings in themselves, and 2) potentially valuable resources to our society. It is a shame to waste resources, and that's what we do when we decide that if a child's parents aren't willing or able to "support" her education, no one else should bother supporting it either.
if a child's parents aren't willing or able to "support" her education, no one else should bother supporting it either.
It's not a matter of whether the rest of us bother to support such a child. The issue is that, if the child has not received emotional, material and intellectual support from the parents, it's difficult for a school, or any other outside institution, to make up for that. It's not, as I see it, that we shouldn't try, but that difficulty needs to be taken into account.
that difficulty needs to be taken into account.
Certainly it needs to be taken into account, which circles back to the initial point: kids who are receiving less support of various kinds from their parents need to receive more support from their schools and communities. If Mom can't be home to watch the kid do his homework, there needs to be an after-school program for him to attend. (I'm currently working part-time for one such, and although it's run in a fairly shoe string manner -- they don't turn on the lights in the room where I work until the sun is going down, to save on electricity -- it still doesn't have much money to spare and is selective about the kids it accepts because it can't afford to have more.)
Post a Comment