Money DOES make a huge difference. Obviously how the money is spent matters, but it’s not “throwing money at things” to spend money on essentials that make learning possible.
It’s ensuring students don’t have to learn in rooms so cold they must keep their coats on, rooms without black mold or leaks in the ceiling, where no English textbook teaches the sentence “The tallest buildings in NYC are the Twin Towers”. No textbooks that have been patched and taped over for years but are falling apart to the point students cannot use them to learn from or where both presidents listed at the end are from the 90s. It means schools so overcrowded lunch starts at 9:40am, elementary or middle school classrooms with more than 30 kids in them. Teachers where the pay scale tops out at 61k after 30 years experience, 63k if you get a Master’s along the way, or even teachers who have to work as Lyft/Uber drivers because their salary is well below that.
Money would fix all that. Students wouldn’t all become great students but they’d all have a decent chance at learning and teachers at teaching to maximum ability.
Making sure the falling apart schools/textbooks and impoverished teachers becomes impossible is a concrete step.
Sure, we need to fix “low expectations”, but as a short-term solution, let us make sure the conditions in which all students learn are at least decent and conducive to actual learning.
BTW, the workshop you’re discussing isn’t what you’re supposed to teach students, but rather trying to have supposedly middle class teachers shift perspectives as to what non middle class students may experience as the norm, so that teachers stop projecting what they know as what their students assume, and work from there. Obviously this could turn into guilt trips, and decentering can be used terribly by terrible educators. I’ve seen absolutely dreadful workshops, too. I’d say wasting money on junk workshops is rage-inducing in some districts.
(I found that one interesting. It doesn’t change any ambition I have but it helps you think differently if you’re middle/upper middle class – just like it would have helped if districts hadn’t assumed all kids had internet at home, or how AP assumed kids would take their May tests on their laptops at home rather than in the McDonald’s/school parking lot.)
A problem with the workshop in my opinion is that it seems to ignore the fact many new teachers are not middle/upper middle class anymore, at least not in areas where you make much less than nurses and are recognized much less.
Low expectations may come from many origins: teachers not being overachievers themselves or not knowing better or being too tired. They may also come from being browbeaten after having high expectations and seeing they didn’t match students’ efforts or achievements. If teachers teach something and 90% is going way over the head of their students, they recalibrate.
You cannot start the PreK program as if all kids were gifted, because that supposes arborescent thinking which few of them have. You can start the program by thinking these kids are smart and they will learn, which is different.
Not thinking “everyone is gifted” when they’re not (unless we’re in Lake Wobegone) doesn’t mean you can’t have clear expectations that by the end of … all or almost all PreK students -for instance- will recognize their name wherever it’s written, put on their own coat and zip it themselves, recognize small/big/bigger sizes, be able to sit still for 5mn while listening to a story, know how to hold a crayon, have completed an entire painting from start to finish - for instance.
Most teachers I know are dedicated and want the best for kids, whatever they know it to be. They’re also often overworked, not paid nor respected enough. There are certainly teachers whose core expectation is low but blaming teachers or workshops doesn’t seem right to me.
It’s a huge problem. It can be tackled in many different ways. But money cannot be left out of the equation.
I wouldn’t put much faith in comparing whole countries to each other educationally. We’ve had foreign exchange students from many different countries and one assumes they send top students, not those lower in their ranks. “Their” top students and “our” top students tend to be equally capable. Whether “they” are ahead of ours or not depends upon how good their school was in their country - just as it seems to for top kids here. You can’t know what you haven’t been exposed to. I’ve had to fill in gaps, “You never studied the Solar System?” or “You didn’t get to Trig functions?” I’ve also heard amazement at “you sit apart from each other for tests? In my school we sat next to someone and everyone had an understanding of ‘you study these chapters and I’ll study those.’” We even had everybody’s (I know of) least favorite - the daughter of a gov’t official who only came to this country, “So I can be fluent in the language. I don’t need to learn anything.” Her focus was partying.
Don’t think all of ours have been bad. We’ve had terrific exchange students too - all but the one were excellent to work with. I can come up with a couple of our top students that were not quite as loved by teachers at our school too. Long ago I came to the conclusion that kids are kids (and people are people) everywhere.
When it comes to low expectations for lower SES students, often the family needs to be fixed first. It’s difficult to encourage a kid to learn about X when their mom/dad/whoever tells them, “You don’t need to know about that.” I introduced some juniors/seniors to a video series on the brain when I was out once (left it for the sub) and one young lady asked where she could find more. I showed her. The next day I asked how she liked them and she sadly told me, "I love them, but my dad walked in when I was watching the first one and asked, “What are you watching that s__t for?” so I turned it off.
My son worked at a summer camp for inner city disadvantaged kids during one of his college years. He came home afterward very burned out and deeply affected. One experience he related was telling a youngster, “You’re very good at math. That can take you places!” (short version) The kid’s reply? “Dude, that works for you in your neighborhood. In mine, if I do well in school I’ll get shot. I’m only here for one week, so I can do things here, but afterward I gotta go home.” He told me many kids from his group left in tears. He had given them a safe week (or two - can’t remember how long each group stayed), but then they had to go home.
What’s the per pupil spend in the districts you are describing?
I know the training is for teachers. I don’t blame the teachers for how they have been trained or bad policy. That’s on administration and policy makers. The problem is after that training, which is based on stereotypes, you have middle class teachers doing things like not giving kids homework or not recommending kids for advanced classes just because they are poor. How are those kids supposed to compete down the road against higher-SES kids who are getting to practice skills via homework and being pushed up into higher levels?
Look up Duke Project Bright Idea. Look at HCZ.
Who should be accountable for Qualified low-SES students disproportionately by significant margins not being recommended by teachers for advanced math for example while less qualified higher-SES students were recommended? Who should be accountable for a top scoring math student being in a remedial math track? Who should be accountable for spending $1M+ on a remedial reading program for high school kids that looked like something a first grader might enjoy and where the outcome was no improvement? None of that is related to lack of funding.
FWIW I would prefer to focus on how these types of issues can be fixed.
An extreme example of this is the HS student from Baltimore who was told he couldn’t graduate because he had a .13 GPA. The school kept advancing him to the next grade. He missed or was tardy 272 days his first 3 years. His mother was livid. What makes it even more egregious is that he was in the 50th percentile of his HS class. I don’t know this for a fact but I suspect it wasn’t school funding that caused this. The one I feel the most sorry for is the lone students who might have actually valued an education but were stuck in a system who dealt with a culture who simply didn’t care and wanted to get by. TO is irrelevant to these students. Learning to value education is much more important.
We live in MA and our kids attended a highly ranked public school that was VERY well funded. Despite this, the teaching staff and common core kept the middle as the high point (or goal).
There are many highly educated people in MA. Yet, many allow their kids to be kept back by Common Core. It’s very common for parents who want their kids to go into STEM fields to take math outside the classroom. This means that parents who can afford 5K/kid for Russian math or other programs continue to progress and the rest are left behind until they get to 10th grade and can take AP’s if available.
Outside the US, merit is often determined by testing. In India, the UK and elsewhere, tests are taken seriously and they can determine future trajectory. In the US, most gifted/talented education has been eliminated and not many schools offer advanced courses. (This is partly based on funding and partly based on parents who don’t want their kids to compete/be leveled).
In MA, many kids from high SES areas attend private schools making the gap even wider. I would imagine that many of the privates have scores that are equal to other countries in math.
I went to a school like that and got a decent education. It’s not about fancy buildings, it’s about having a solid and basic education. Solid in the sense that the basics are taught and money isn’t spent on things which don’t matter. And there’s a whole lot of programs that have nothing to do with learning the three R’s these days. You can use old books, with tape. No harm at all. But if the teacher doesn’t teach fractions, you’re really out of luck.
This can be seen if you visit low income nations where school is taught by a single teacher often outside or in building with lots of issues. Yet, kids still learn. Why? They value education and so do their parents. They see education as the path forward. You should visit a really low income school and see what is being done. Often it’s amazing esp in charter schools.
No, I’m sorry it doesn’t fix things at all. You can have fancy white boards but kids who are truant every day. You can have lots of social problems that kids bring with them to school. For example, gangs. Do you think kids can learn in a school where their is a gang problem? Throw all the money you want at that.
I have a good friend that works for one of the top 20 largest public school districts in the US. He and I have often discussed the issues within this school district and he indicated that schools located in the lower income areas receive more money than the schools in the higher income zones yet perform much worse. It is very difficult to get teachers to remain in the lower income schools for very long so many, if not most, of the teachers tend to be the least experienced. He said while more money does not seem to help, he felt strongly that if you took it away it would hurt - I am not sure if that is true?
Additionally, he indicated the school district recently received a very, very significant amount of money related to the Covid bills and that many within the school admin are concerned that once the amounts are known the county will reduce funding. One of the uses of the funds will be to get kids to go to summer school to begin chipping away at the loss of learning over the past year. While I am sure that will help a few kids, I do not think it will make much of a difference and I am sure massive amounts will be spent.
Not sure what the answer is but the kids that were behind fell further behind and there seem to be few ideas on how to help. Test optional might mask part of the problem though…
Individual experiences are not generalizable to the population level.
The assumption that all that’s needed is reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic is, I would argue, not just wrongheaded but dangerous. There is also a need for the fine arts, so-called “vocational” education, critical thinking, science, algorithmic processing, history, and so on and on. The question of what to focus on in education is complex and difficult, but clearly shouldn’t be based in a “three R’s” model.
It is often the case (not just in schools) that going below some minimum amount of money is very detrimental, but adding more money beyond that gives diminishing returns.
Of course, there is also spending efficiency – although a school can be short of money and not be using its money efficiently.
Also, schools in low SES areas tend to have more problems to deal with, and less in the way of parents with money taking up the slack (at least for their own kids), so their money has to stretch over more problems to solve (someone above mentioned gangs as an example – does the school have to spend more on security as a result?).
Could you unpack this a bit? Given the evidence upthread that students admitted to TO colleges who don’t submit test scores succeed at effectively the same rate as those who submitted scores, I don’t see the logic.
For some subjects one can do this. However, it’s kinda moot at this point because many (most?) schools are transitioning to online texts - meaning those without a reliable internet connection are left behind. Kids are being given Ipads or similar, but they’re pretty useless without a connection. At our school, this predated Covid. I can only imagine Covid has enhanced it.
In terms of school funding national averages, high poverty school districts tend to have lower funding than low poverty school districts, and >75% minority school districts tend to have lower funding than >75% white districts, although these can obviously vary in different states and regions.
I might argue they simply have less in the way of parenting. Kids tend to emulate what they live and experience. The largest difference between the wealthy and middle class might be money but assuming they both come from intact families who instill education (and respect for authority) as values both can do well academically. I’m sure there are opportunities afforded wealthier families but all in all academically the offerings are usually pretty similar. The difference in many cases for inner city schools is the lack of values which lead someone to value education. Money won’t make up for values. You just can’t spend enough to change that. Those come from within.
How does this tie in with this subject. In my opinion being TO will not really benefit the average middle class student. If anything it takes away an objective standard in which they can compare well to their wealthier counterparts. Perhaps it makes them feel they have a greater opportunity but I don’t think it changes much.
The students who could possibly benefit the most, those from low SES families, could probably benefit more from top schools investing in city schools to figure out a way to get their students interested in learning. They would then have an interest in finding the best and preparing others for different opportunities either in college or other paths.
In conclusion the way I see it, while testing may not be perfect or even necessary, being TO doesn’t really offer students a greater opportunity to attend a top school.
The single most important factor in the quality of education for my kids, I found, is the teacher. They have had fantastic teachers in some classes, and we did not have to intervene at all. They also had teachers who frankly were lacking. It’s a lottery in our school district, who would get the good teacher. This is where money can help. Make teacher salary competitive to attract and retain the best people and train them well to teach a specific subject, at a national level not only in rich school districts with ‘educational foundations’ where parents are asked to donate thousands of $ every year.
Our fantastic Physics C teacher went to another school district for a higher salary. They pulled a middle school teacher to teach Physics C for the first time when my kid was taking it. She did not have a clue. Kids stopped going to class even before the pandemic.
The other gripe I have is with the curriculum/textbooks. The elementary math textbooks have shiny pictures and real-world examples, and the important concepts are barely mentioned. My D learned geometry from a book like that and was completely confused. For my S, however, they gave us an old textbook that was out of print. It cost $300 to replace as you could no longer order it on Amazon. No pictures, just theorems and problems but so much clearer.
Lastly, the way elementary and middle school math is taught in our schools is confusing. The curriculum is a mile long and an inch deep. Some concepts are introduced very early in a very superficial way to make them “fun”. Kids are taught several ways to do long division when one is sufficient. There is not enough mental math and word problems. Arithmetic is not fun, you teach the basics and move on to problems about trains leaving from opposite stations, or swimming pools being filled and drained at the same time (I loved these problems as a kid). Just my 2c
Actually, it was an entire school and the people who graduated wouldn’t fit into your mold of how to work with low income SES populations. A large part of the issue is those who novel ideas have either never taught or never learned in such a place. So they place resources in areas which aren’t needed. Did you know that it took generations to figure out that school lunch and breakfast would make such a huge impact?
You can build on basics. But, unfortunately, if kids are passed along from grade to grade there are some areas which are difficult to plug. I’d suggest talking to someone who teaches in a low income public school or someone who learned in one-with open ears-you might change your thinking about the solutions.
What are your solutions for teaching critical thinking, science etc if the basics aren’t met. No one said those areas aren’t important, at least I didn’t. But the basics aren’t even being addressed and haven’t been for decades.
That is very true right now. In “Covid times” anyone without an internet connection is not going to have access to learn. This is also true in rural areas with poor connections.
I’m curious what you think my “mold of how to work with low income SES populations” is, since you state that your data wouldn’t match with my ideas. Given that I haven’t really offered solutions to the problems discussed in this subthread (as opposed to arguing against some proposed solutions), mainly because I don’t know how to solve the problem, I wouldn’t mind being informed what’s in my brain that I myself am unaware of.
You imply that I didn’t attend school in low SES surroundings. I am curious why you would think that (not least because you’d be wrong).
Not every low SES school has the same set of issues. Teaching a classroom of first graders where English is not spoken in the home, but the parent or parents are literate in their own language (and may be college graduates themselves, even if now working in low wage service jobs), is a very different challenge from teaching first graders where English is the primary language but whose parents never graduated from high school, may not be able to read past a 6th grade level, have not provided a language-rich environment as the child began to speak, etc.
The challenges are different and so the solutions are different. It’s painful to read some of these one size fits all posts when the problems in K-12 education are so complex.