By Levi Anthony - Posted 8/17/2011
In the current issue of the Nation, Dana Goldstein has an interesting article in which she explores the issue of whether or not teachers alone can overcome the effects of poverty in the classroom. Many of the current reformers downplay the role poverty plays in the performance of students. If you bring this up they often say this is just an excuse for bad teaching.
From Steven Brill’s new book,Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools, she quotes:
Most pernicious is Brill’s repeated claim that the effects of poverty can be not only mitigated but completely beaten back by good teachers. “A snowballing network of education reformers across the country…were producing data about how teaching counted more than anything else,” Brill writes in the book’s opening pages. Later, he devotes a chapter to economists Thomas Kane and Douglas Staiger, whose work on value-added teacher evaluation has powerfully influenced Bill Gates’s education philanthropy. “It wasn’t that poverty or other factors didn’t affect student performance,” Brill summarizes. “Rather, it was that teacher effectiveness could overcome those disadvantages.She correctly points out what many reformers don’t want to deal with:
In fact, the work of the many researchers Brill approvingly cites-including Kane, Staiger and Stanford’s Eric Hanushek-shows that while teaching is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement, family and neighborhood characteristics matter more. The research consensus has been clear and unchanging for more than a decade: at most, teaching accounts for about 15 percent of student achievement outcomes, while socioeconomic factors account for about 60 percent.”
. . . But because we know, without a doubt, that family poverty exerts a crushing influence over children’s lives, it is no small thing when standards-and-accountability education reformers repeat, ad nauseam, that poverty can be totally “overcome” by dedicated teachers. Of course, we all know people who grew up poor and went on to lead successful, financially remunerative lives. Many of them feel grateful to educators who eased their paths. But the fact remains that in the United States in 2011, beating the odds of poverty has become far less likely than ever, and teacher quality has less to do with it than does economic inequality-a dearth of good jobs, affordable housing, healthcare, childcare and higher education.
Acknowledging connections between the economy, poverty, health and brain function is not an attempt to “excuse” failing school bureaucracies and classroom teachers; rather, it is a necessary prerequisite for authentic school reform, which must be based on a realistic assessment of the whole child-not just a child’s test scores.And why they prefer not to see this connection?
If the United States could somehow guarantee poor people a fair shot at the American dream through shifting education policies alone, then perhaps we wouldn’t have to feel so damn bad about inequality-about low tax rates and loopholes that benefit the superrich and prevent us from expanding access to childcare and food stamps; about private primary and secondary schools that cost as much annually as an Ivy League college, and provide similar benefits; about moving to a different neighborhood, or to the suburbs, to avoid sending our children to school with kids who are not like them.
Read the whole thing here.
This is one of the absolute best sites I've found online, and I say that as a teacher who has spent countless hours looking for kid-friendly material on the net. I have no idea how you found the time and energy to put it together, but you have my admiration! - Andrew Cowells, Concord Jr. High