Long article, rambles a little from time to time, but lots of interesting information. Affluence is seen as a predictor of student success, but it isn't actually about the money as it is about the attitudes that successful parents instill in their children about education (and the pressure they put on their children to succeed). Parents are more important than schools, but there’s a catch. by Daniel Gauss - VISIBLE Magazine
This may not be what you were going for, but I’d like to get your thoughts. Do you think parents should encourage their children to do well in school? How much is too much? Do you see a difference in a parent who simply drops their child off at school each day, but makes no effort to encourage their child’s success versus the parent who nudges their child to do better, get homework done, study, etc?
I taught for a year at a Title I school in the Appalachian foothills. There was a huge difference between students who had parents with high expectations and parents who just dropped off their kids. For one kid, in 7th grade, the big win was that he was finally able to write his name. Mom never showed up to anything. Kid had low IQ, but just over the line from where the school could do things for him without the parent on board, and the parent was never on board (she flat out told us one time to stop bothering her, once she got him on the bus he wasn't her responsibility), so we celebrated that in 7th grade he was able to finally write his name.
The Freakanomics guys found that just having books in the house was the best indicator of academic success of children. The kids didn’t even have to read them just being around them was sufficient. I think the presence of books indicates the parents value education, reading, and have enough disposable income to purchase books. Our kids are sponges and soak up what is important to us.
Will try to read this when I have time. In the meantime, I wonder how the author defines a good school. If it's just about test scores, then pffft. I also wonder if the author compared schools across the board (a mistake), or compared schools with similar demographics.
My brother-in-law was talking to someone high up in the Texas prison system. The guy told him that they look at third grade reading scores statewide to get an idea of the prison budget they will need in 10 years.
I haven’t read yet but this is very intuitive and consistent with various studies done that correlate student success in income and also show once you adjust for income demographics public and private schools get about the same results for any particular student.
Since you mentioned prisons, and I think this is relevant, I taught GED classes at a supermax prison in Virginia for a “term” (25 to life…jk.) Those dudes were uniformly under-educated and in many cases exceptionally low IQ. And of course, the worst of the worst regarding their crimes. But every.last.one of them was entirely bought in, and 100% passed. Their motivations were varied, one of them being that just being able to come to classes was quite the privilege. Otherwise they were 23/1 guys. I never had a second of trouble. I had to go to training to “teach” me not to grow overly fond of them. And every week we had a meeting in which admin reminded me of exactly why these guys are where they are. At the time I thought all that was crazy. These are murderers, rapists, etc. Yeah, I don’t think I’ll get to giggly over them. Lo and behold, that training turned out to be critical. I did indeed have a lot of positive feelings for these guys. I was able to keep the appropriate perspectives but I could definitely envision the dangers. Now I teach at a public school. I never say this to students, as it is a little harsh for a 15 year-old, but I am amazed at how often I think about the difference between some of the worst people on Earth and how hard they worked to attain an education and how most of my students act as if education is a boring inconvenience they are forced by The State to endure. As phil alluded to, I have parents who essentially project that same attitude. I haven’t run the numbers but my back-of-napkin estimate is that when I contact parents for classroom issues, 50% are my partners, 50% are my enemies. I was shocked to learn that so many parents will defend these kids to the death. They consider me an adversary. For background, I am a career switcher, not a life-long teacher. IMO that has been very beneficial as I have extensive “not school” experience (I try to avoid “real word”; school IS real world for the kids, and I believe even the terminology contributes to this “burden” idea so many have.) As part of that past experience, including graduating from a law school, I am outrageously detailed and documented. If you hear from me, I assure you I have all the “evidence” I need for a conviction, as well as every base covered on fairness, opportunity, alternatives, etc. I am prepared to defend my actions from every angle. I have written exactly ONE formal reprimand in 8 years. I only did that one because the kid made a brazen spectacle of cheating that forced my hand. I can’t let 34 other kids see that get the “grace” treatment. That kid went to Honor Council, and they agreed with my assessment. That kid’s parents wrote a scathing email to my AP. Again, I cannot tell you how outrageous you have to be to make me go formal like that. Literally ONE in, so far, thousands of students. If you consider student interactions, which will be in at least the millions, still ONE. I hope to never do another. Obviously I do all sorts of in situ disciplinary stuff, but only ever this single formal thing. Anyway, to bring it back to parents: when I have parents working with me, it’s practically 100% success, and I’m the best teacher ever, even though we started off bad. When parents are my adversary, it almost always ends with resentment and zero progress and I am an Indoctrination Demon. So even as a teacher, meaning it is in my interest to be the most important piece of the puzzle, it is in fact parents.
I have a friend who is a college provost, formerly a professor of literature. He teaches once a week in the prison near his campus to keep himself grounded. He says those classes are where he has had some of the most amazing experiences he has had with literature. I totally agree with you on the parents. If I can win over the parents, the student is going to succeed. If I can keep them neutral, I have a chance to contribute to the student's success. If they become adversaries, that student is going to make very little progress. In the process of my masters thesis I did a bunch of statistical analysis on the factors related to student success. 60-80% of the variation in student achievement is associated with factors outside the schools. All the standard stuff, race, gender, family structure, socio-economic status. Of the remaining variation, the variation we can attribute to what is happening inside the school, about 60-70% is peer effects. The school itself accounts for very little of the variation in student achievement. And the teachers themselves even less. The measurable characteristics of teachers were something like 3%. I try not to think about those numbers too much when I'm in the classroom
What I would say is that, in poor neighborhoods, the school has to provide the discipline that the parents are not providing, in addition to getting the parents to buy into the value of an education. My wife taught at a school in a bad part of town--poverty and drug abuse was rampant in the neighborhood. Even the police were scared of being in this elementary school. One new policeman was visiting the school as part of the "Dare" program, and the school had a lock-down because the crazy neighbor was in the parking lot with a machete shouting threats, and the policeman did not know what to do until a teacher yelled at him to go arrest the guy. Surprisingly, about 25 years ago, this elementary school was an "A" school. The principal was a brilliant lady with a Ph.D. who set up an excellent discipline program and maintained high expectations for the teachers. Unfortunately, she retired, and they brought in new principals, every 2-3 years. Each principal weakened the discipline program, and lowered expectations, and was then fired. The principals were lazy and unmotivated compared to the brilliant lady, and they tried to get away with whatever they could to make their lives easier. This was not a large city, so the number of candidates for principal was already limited. The school board limited it further by insisting that the principal for this school in a predominantly black neighborhood be black. The school board also did little to develop the abilities and skills of their principals and assistant principals, so quality varied quite a bit. Each principal reduced the grade of the school by one letter grade. When it was a "D" school, they brought in an angry lady who removed the discipline program entirely, and blamed and abused the teachers, who started quitting. One of my wife's first graders was unable to focus in class because he was being bullied by a fifth grader on the bus, and the principal refused to intervene, saying "the school buses are not my concern." My wife left along with half of the staff as the school dropped to an "F" school. My take is: a) We don't pay teachers enough. We pay school board members too much. (Ever notice the nicest building in any school system is the administration building? Ever notice that there is no shortage of secretaries in the admin building, but there is a shortage of secretaries in every school?) b) We don't have effective discipline programs in schools. In too many schools, the inmates run the asylum, too much deference is often given to the star football players, administrators are afraid of lawsuits, etc. c) College education majors don't learn nearly enough practical information about being a teacher. (I used to have to provide my wife with the correct response to a smart-assed child who was talking back to her disrespectfully.) d) We should provide financial incentive for teachers (especially at the high school level) to continue their education during the summer months to get a degree in the subject they are teaching. Most teachers just have a degree in "education", not a degree in math, science, English, etc. to go with it. They learn from the textbook along with the kids. High school kids should be taught by someone with some expertise in the subject. e) Administrators (i.e., principals) who are excellent should be retained as consultants when they get close to retirement to advise and evaluate younger principals, especially at difficult schools.
Great, so you have no problem with school choice, because it isn't a misallocation of good funds for bad and it puts power in the hands of the taxpayer not the government. Cheers!!
