End poverty to improve education
Posted by John, December 5th, 2013 - under Poverty, Public education.
Tags: Education
This article by David Sirota first appeared in an American publication, In These Times. Although it talks about the US, the educational crisis has hit Australia too with conservatives in both major parties blaming teachers, the curriculum or too much money for falling standards. As the article argues ‘if we were serious about education, then our education discussion wouldn’t be focused on demonizing teachers and coming up with radical schemes to undermine traditional public schools. It would instead be focused on mounting a new war on poverty and thus directly addressing the biggest education problem of all.’
Google the phrase “education crisis” and you’ll be hit with a glut of articles, blog posts and think tank reports claiming the entire American school system is facing an emergency. Much of this agitprop additionally asserts that teachers unions are the primary cause of the alleged problem. Not surprisingly, the fabulists pushing these narratives are often backed by anti-public school conservatives and anti-union plutocrats. But a little-noticed study released last week provides yet more confirmation that neither the “education crisis” meme or the “evil teachers’ union” narrative is accurate.
Before looking at that study, consider some of the ways we already know that the dominant storyline about education is, indeed, baseless propaganda.
As I’ve reported before, we know that American public school students from wealthy districts generate some of the best test scores in the world. This proves that the education system’s problems are not universal–the crisis is isolated primarily in the parts of the system that operate in high poverty areas. It also proves that while the structure of the traditional public school system is hardly perfect, it is not the big problem in America’s K-12 education system. If it was the problem, then traditional public schools in rich neighborhoods would not perform as well as they do.
Similarly, we know that many of the high-performing public schools in America’s wealthy locales are unionized. We also know that one of the best school systems in the world—Finland’s—is fully unionized. These facts prove that teachers’ unions are not the root cause of the education problem, either. After all, if unions were the problem, then unionized public schools in wealthy areas and Finland would be failing.
So what is the problem? That brings us to the new study from the Southern Education Foundation. Cross-referencing and education data, researchers found that that a majority of all public school students in one third of America’s states now come from low-income families.
How much does this have to do with educational outcomes? A lot. Social science research over the last few decades has shown that two thirds of student achievement is a product of out-of-school factors–and among the most powerful of those is economic status. That’s hardly shocking: kids who experience destitution and all the problems that come with it have enough trouble just surviving, much less succeeding in school.
All of this leads to an obvious conclusion: If America was serious about fixing the troubled parts of its education system, then we would be having a fundamentally different conversation.
We wouldn’t be talking about budget austerity—we would be talking about raising public revenues to fund special tutoring, child care, basic health programs and other so-called wrap-around services at low-income schools.
We wouldn’t only be looking to make sure that schools in high-poverty districts finally receive the same amount of public money as schools in wealthy neighborhoods—we would make sure high-poverty districts actually receive more funds than rich districts because combating poverty is such a resource-intensive endeavor.
More broadly, we wouldn’t be discussing cuts to social safety net programs—we would instead be working to expand those programs and, further, to challenge both parties’ anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-austerity agenda that has increased poverty and economic inequality.
In short, if we were serious about education, then our education discussion wouldn’t be focused on demonizing teachers and coming up with radical schemes to undermine traditional public schools. It would instead be focused on mounting a new war on poverty and thus directly addressing the biggest education problem of all.
Advertisement
Comments
Comment from John Turner
Time December 6, 2013 at 9:01 am
The best way to quickly lift the performance of all children, and particularly those in disadvantaged and dysfunctional families, is to have them involved in Socratic discussion of open ended, philosophical, questions for one hour per week at least as early as feasible in their school life. The ethics classes in NSW schools do that but only for those students opted out of religious instruction classes and where volunteers are available. A report on the outcome of a trial at Clackmannanshire, Scotland is available at OLO.
http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc
In Quebec, Canada, at least, there is a compulsory subject, religion and ethics. The RC Church lost an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court to have the parental right to opt children out of such classes. The court appeared to decide that each student had the right to know what outside ‘cultural’ pressures influenced the behaviour of his or her peers. That disappointed, at least, Professor Frank Brennan
Comment from anne
Time December 6, 2013 at 9:12 am
all the evidence concurs with these conclusions; obviously gonski is correct & equally obvious is the conclusion is that a better educated population is more productive. how is it that investment in education of the poorest is seen politically as ineffective economic management?
Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 6, 2013 at 6:55 pm
Sorry, I can’t agree with some of this.
My 21 year old son attended schools in above average areas and most of the students were fairly illiterate and innumerate. This was largely due to lack of discipline, poor curricula, low teaching standards, too many fad subjects, too much red tape and paperwork, disinterested parents, teachers/students forced to do fundraising in class time, and lack of access to separate TAFE colleges for non-academic students (who became disruptive).
At the beginning of the high school year, only around 50% of the students had all of the necessary requisites to start the school year. This had less to do with poverty and more to do with parental irresponsibility (selfish).
A lot of today’s young teachers cannot spell or calculate anything themselves. Because they have been raised and educated in a society which has no respect for anyone, they have none either, and do not teach any to their students. Some teachers of varying ages undermine the school rules instead of supporting them.
Under a National Party government, lower socioeconomic schools got extra help with resources, and money was not squandered by giving it out to elite private schools.
My 39 and 38 year old sons attended a very low socio-economic primary school and a very good high school during this time. The results for intelligent students attending high schools in both areas were approximately equal.
Today the standards are much lower in both areas, with a marked downturn in the lower socioeconomic areas, which is partly driven by drugs, alcohol and racial issues, together with excessive demand for scarce public housing and the loss of extra educational support from government.
Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Sorry, I also forgot to mention that the vast majority of parents are against their children doing homework. A lot of parents just want to live their own separate working lives without doing very much for their own children. This of course is driven by the Child Care Centre system which does most things for babies and children in their care. Many parents drop young babies off still wearing a sodden night time nappy. This is what happens when the government expects all of the parents to work.
Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 7, 2013 at 8:06 am
When most of the parents are working, there is also little after school supervision, especially of high school students. This leaves them in a situation where they can do drugs, alcohol, sex, robberies and vandalism which all have emotional, legal and financial consequences to both teenagers and the society.
High school teachers also quite legitimately complain that their students are doing too much part-time work and that it interferes with their school results.
There are also high levels of truancy associated with disinterested parents, or parents who just aren’t there at times when their children are supposed to leave for school. Going back to a Single Parents’ Pension would help to reduce this.
I would extend the school day to 6.00 p.m. for all students whose parents are not available to supervise them after school, during which time they could do homework, coffee shop, sports, debating and music practice etc.
This would reduce the incidence of many costly problems, improve educational outcomes and provide more work for adults (preferably full-time or job sharing).
Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 7, 2013 at 8:26 am
When my 21 year old son was in high school, I was asked to complete a survey on the performance of various high school departments (score out of 10).
Here are the scores I gave them.
Computer/Technology: 8
Performing Arts: 8
Graphics/Art: 8
Social Sciences: 6
English: 6
Other Languages: 7
Science: 3
Maths: 0 (too much process work stymies thought processes of brighter students).
Some teachers also allowed students to use MP3 players in the classroom, even though it was against the school rules.
When a relief teacher in Maths chose to keep Year 8 students in after school, all of the kids from the richest area bailed out of the windows.
Teachers have also told me that primary school students in rich areas do not co-operate or learn very much because they are much too spoiled and empowered by parents.
This was certainly borne out by NAPLAN results in my Queensland state electorate, where above average primary schools outperformed the school in the super-rich area teachers were complaining about.
Some teachers also want to educate students in single sex schools, because of the huge distraction posed by the presence of opposite sex students.
At most high schools, a love-in goes on throughout school breaks, which teachers feel powerless to curtail. This is driven by very early Sex Education by the Family Planning Association and various media inputs.
Now students want to fight and argue over who stole their boyfriend or girlfriend and there are huge problems with unplanned pregnancies and promiscuous behaviour.
The lunch hour is also filled with brawling among the students, with other students egging them on. This is in a fairly high performing high school.
Anyone trying to break up a fight is told to mind his/her own business for fear of becoming a victim him/herself.
Principals are also expected to run their schools on a shoestring budget. Families in which both parents are working outside the home and paying taxes resent being asked to provide additional financial assistance (understandable, I think).
Undisciplined students in the modern society also abuse and wear out various school resources more quickly (books, sports equipment, computers, desks, chairs etc).
Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 7, 2013 at 8:28 am
Because there is little community spirit, lots of high school students do not patronise their school tuckshops. Instead they can be found paying for pizzas over the front fence and reheating pies they bought at the supermarket in Home Economics kitchens. This of course creates a fundraising shortfall and increased electricity bills.
One solution might be for parents to arrange a credit with the school tuckshop, which would also improve students’ diets and reduce the ability to purchase alcohol/drugs.
Comment from Jolly
Time December 9, 2013 at 12:56 pm
The issue here is not really about funding. It has more to do with school leadership. quality teachers, curriculum, motivation and most importantly, parents’ attitude towards schooling.
If funding is the main criteria (as often suggested by some) why do some students from the same “poorly funded” school do exceeding well? Some children of tram drivers, taxi drivers, cleaners, non-professional construction workers, factory workers, etc, top state awards yearly. The differentiating factor is the home background: not wealth but with parents (and their children) focused on their child’s performance at school. Undisciplined, uncaring and whining parents unwittingly nurture undisciplined, uncaring students (home role modeling). Their wild, undisciplined children are unable to focus in class, become disruptive and have a total disregard for teachers or classroom rules; a simple reflection of the home situation. Some parents whine about homework and their children echo their parents’ sentiments and refuse to do home work or engage in any home study.
If we are serious about education, we need to also look at the best possible ways of educating some parents about “parenting skills”. In this case blaming funding, or teachers for poor performance are counter productive to say the least.
Teacher quality is all about allocating trained and qualified teachers to teach subjects within their teaching field; i.e. subject specialist to teach their majors for which they are trained (4 years) to teach. What erodes quality learning & teaching is teachers ‘forced’ to teach subjects they are not trained to teach; Biology teachers teaching Physics, PE teachers teaching Math, Art teachers teaching Language, primary trained teachers teaching in secondary schools (mainly in some Catholic schools). This is where school leadership fails not only their students but the community and the nation as well.
In our country the obsession is with sports of all sorts. Some school principals are obsessed with sports that they go out of their way to entice sport talents to enroll at their school. Who cares about academic talent? Some schools ( & teachers’ unions) dislike international exams that measure student performance on a global scale simply because schools’ weaknesses (including school leadership & teacher apathy) are exposed.
Grand school halls, gyms, auditoriums, computer labs do nothing except to provide a false sense of quality education; more a marketing ploy to prey on ignorant parents or to appease concerned parents that the school is being progressive. Nothing more than pure bull dust!!
Make school leadership (including faculty heads) accountable for student performance. Ensure teacher quality is NEVER compromised (teaching within their field/s). Need to constantly monitor curriculum content and its coverage at every level. Facilitate school- home partnership and line of communication (including courses on parenting skills). Have a long term consistent learning policy and monitor its development at every stage.
Funding???? Funding is a red herring and the least important of the lot. I’ll take ATTITUDE over funding any time.
Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 10, 2013 at 7:56 am
Students have also been known to excel at school even if they come from difficult, unsupportive and poverty stricken backgrounds. This is mostly due to self-motivation, intellectual capacity and supportive, encouraging teachers.
At the above average public high school I attended, a boy and I took out 3 major academic awards. Both of us were children of waterside workers.
The government (both major parties) only want to make funding a big issue so they can allow their corporate mates to take over and rob the community blind.
Those in the know are well aware that Australian schools are being deliberately sent backwards so people from other nations can take the best jobs, and corporates can use the bulk of Australian workers as underpaid slaves.
Pingback from End poverty to improve education | OzHouse
Time December 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
[…] Dec 05 2013 by admin […]