SA's exclusionary approach would be acceptable if they were private schools funded by private dollars. Instead they are de-facto private schools funded by public taxpayer dollars. Charters like SA or KIPP not only siphon away human resources from true public schools (engaged and supportive parents; compliant and cooperative children), but they also misdirect taxpayer dollars in order to maintain the separate and unequal system. So charters benefit the children that survive all the self-selecting, those that won the "parent lottery" but they have a decidedly negative impact on the majority of poor students excluded by all the hoops that they make parents (and students) jump through. And let's not forget that Eva Moskowitz spent the last decade touting her SA charter test score success over struggling public schools, pretending that the playing field was level. And pretending that she did not contribute to the inequality.
7
I do not think it is misleading or false for SA or other charter schools to credit themselves for their student's performance because it is the school that holds parents accountable for being involved with their children and it is the school that enforces that accountability. When the charter schools combine a high quality structured school/classroom experience for students combined with a program of rigorous parental involvement, the students are successful.
5
the conclusion matches the experience I had interviewing for a teacher position at a local private preschool. They pride themselves on the fact that their preschoolers feed into the local charter schools and excel. When I mentioned the difference in children they accept she freely admitted that no its the parents they select. They must show that they value their childs' education, which means basically following similar demands presented in the review. Those parents who don't value education (she mentions immigrants here) need to go elsewhere. I believe that parents need to be supportive of their children's education and be involved in their success. I do not believe they need to punish themselves and their families financial or emotional health to do it.
2
We should encourage every mechanism that maximizes the benefits of parental dedication, because there has never been a society or a culture that flourished because of weak family structure. Giving children who have been raised well good educations is the best guarantee that the society they are in will progress economically overall. That will lead to more aggregate welfare than a society that disincentives good parenting to limit inequality of outcomes.
I suspect most readers will react negatively to or ignore is that SA requires some students repeat a grade or two. As a long-time public school teacher, I can say that this is rarely done because it would supposedly harm a child. So much for a developmentally appropriate eduction. The alternative is that struggling students are reminded day after day, year after year that they are failures as they fall further behind every year. Ultimately, many of these students drop out of school or misbehave to avoid the boredom, frustration, and embarrassment of daily life in the classroom.
Fortunately, I repeated the third grade. Yes, I was upset, even hurt. But I was not developmentally ready to go to the fourth grade. During my second third grade year I found that I could be successful. And that has made all the difference.
3
@Tony Turbeville
All the research I've read says that, on the average, repeating a grade does not help children. In my experience, repeating kindergarten or staying in preschool would be good for a lot of kids, but after that, it's a wash at best.
1
@J S: it’s the “research” that doesn’t wash against real-life experiences like Tony’s and many others’. I come from a family of public school teacher, all of whom bemoaned the damage done by promoting kids who weren’t ready for the next level class.
1
Access to education should be equal, but education can not be equal. Parents who care will get their children a better education than the miserable and inadequate one that is offered in the New York City public schools, which is threatened to become even more inadequate under incompetent ideologues such as DeBlasio and Carranza. Children of parents who don't care about education and who don't have the money for private schools will have a short end of the stick unless they are brilliant or somehow find a good mentor. Such is life, and dumb down everyone, to eliminate successful schools such as Success Academy and enrichment programs in public schools or specialized high schools, is a travesty committed against education, against our children, against their future. Political correctness is an ideology; that has no place is education, poetry and calculus do.
2
I find it strange that Dale Russakoff and I can read the same book and come to completely opposite conclusions. Yes, the parents who apply to Success Academy are more engaged than the average parent. And yes, Success Academy weeds out low-performing students and doesn't 'back fill' after grade 4. Both these factors boost average test scores and so introduces a bias when comparing Success Academy with public schools.
But the academic performance of Success Academy is so extreme that such factors simply cannot be the whole story. A large part of Success Academy's success is clearly the high standards and rigorous quality control - for students, parents and teachers - described in the book.
3
@Mark McLaren
You listed every reason why it's true then you said, "And I don't believe it!"
1
My city has two charters that have the best scores in the district, and they definitely cherry pick in order to do it. Just like the article says, parents must have the means and bandwidth to keep their kids there. The successful kids are born on third base, but the parents and schools take the credit for getting to home plate.
In many cases the schools review incoming applications from less than stellar kids and accept them only if parents agree to let the student move back one or two grades, so "they will be able to succeed." Of course this means most of the kids are not enrolled. The schools have a low percentage of subsidized lunch students, IEP students, or special needs students. Also, the school's rules are so strict that children who have ADD/ADHD or similar, who are slightly rebellious, or who are going through family traumas often withdraw or are kicked out.
8
@wts
If the parents won't do what you want, kick the kid out.
If the kid won't do what you want, kick the kid out.
If you can't kick the kid out, pressure, threaten, and abuse them out.
That is the charter school manifesto.
3
I used to work for SA. They most definitely pushed out low performing and troublesome kids. You should talk to the school psychologists, they are the lynch pin in the whole operation. They threaten to hold kids back or the parents can send their kids elsewhere.
11
Wow. It saddens me that a country as advanced as the US just throws kids under the bus like this. What about all the kids whose parents can't (immigrants who can't read English to their children) or won't (neglectful for whatever reason) help them with schooling? Isn't it better for our society as a whole to educate all students well? How come our schools rely so heavily on parent involvement? A decent education should be available to all students. Is that so hard?
5
"Some charter school critics dub this argument 'the lifeboat theory of education reform,' in that the majority of children are left to sink on the big ship. With this morally disturbing conclusion to his unsparingly honest book, Pondiscio implicates all of us in the unforgivable neglect of children and education in our poorest communities."
So the proper moral choice is for everyone to go down with the ship?
6
@Brian
The proper moral choice is to build more seaworthy ships, especially for those of us who don't have the means for private yachts. Spoiler alert: it will be expensive.
5
Is it Success Academy who determines whether the parents will commit or not? That’s not Success Academy’s job. In any imaginable school system a child with two committed parents will have an advantage. Any exclusive school where the parent doesn’t show for a mandatory pre-enrollment session will likely rescind their offer. The parents who chose to not “commit” to reading six books a week make their choices and the kids suffer. This is not fair to the kid, but it’s not the school’s fault.
Kids can’t pick their parents. This is not fair.
Success Academy pushes their kids and their parents and gets results. Others have sat by watching generations of kid get the shaft waiting for the “perfect” school system to pop into existence. Ms Moskowitz has shown that there was an untapped pool of thousands of committed, caring parents willing to do anything to give their child an advantage. If that meant changing their work schedules (as in the article highlighting a bus driver who was willing to take a less profitable route) these parents were in areas with ZERO good public school options. Success Academy and others have given these parents a way out for which they are willing to sacrifice.
Having parents willing to sacrifice is unfair. I’m afraid any educational reform won’t change that. The charters are serving folks who’ve been ignored for far too long.
13
The whole issue misses a big point. Notice that NO ONE talks about the need for middle class or upper class schools to be "improved." That's because the parents at those schools demand something of both their educators and their kids (for the most part).
Indeed, when looking at small school systems vs large school systems, small being where all the kids in town go to one or at most two schools, all the kids in a small system always do better (with the caveat that the town is not dead-broke so has a decent school). The larger a system gets the more likely it is to have a disparity between schools in richer and poorer parts of the city.
The reason is that in a small town the poorer kids benefit from the demand of the middle-class and upper class kids parents that the school be good, and that their kids work at it. That all rubs off on the poorer kids, both in financial benefits of parents demands for a good school, and being with other kids who have the demands of their parents to do well in school.
In a large system the solutions are parent education - teaching parents how to help their kids, and spending money on "after school" tutoring or reading sessions for all the kids. Essentially making the school day longer, and even more days per year, to pick up the slack a parent may not be able to fill (for instance if they are working 2 or 3 jobs, illness, other problems at home).
13
@Joe Rock bottoming
And yet when Biden tried to articulate this, he got attacked,
People would be surprised how many kids start school without basic prior knowledge or vocabulary. There are no discussions or conversations at home.
3
A sobering look at our flawed education system. Kudos to Robert Pondiscio for printing the truth. The actions the school takes to get high scoring students may be questionable, but the students-and parents- have little choice. Some will succeed, but at the expense of others.
3
@carolz: It's not at the expense of others. Success Academy doesn't hurt any other children. It just helps children whose parents can do the work, just as test prep for poor Chinese children helps them get into good high schools. The existence of those test prep schools doesn't keep other children from going to them - what it does is keep children who aren't willing to put in the time from getting into the good high schools while being lazy.
1
I've been a teacher at an elite public high school for nearly 15 years and nothing in this article is remotely surprising. Yes, actively involved parents typically lead to better performing students (although over involvement does have its own set of consequences). Yes, family structure and support can be the antidote to poverty. Yes, fear is a powerful external motivator. Yes, you can test prep virtually any student to a much improved grade. Unfortunately, evaluating the success of an educational system, a school, or a student by test scores always misses the most important aspects of education. Can the student think critically? Has the school fostered a love of learning? Can the student apply what they have learned outside the confines of a multiple choice test? Test scores are a cheap and easy, yet ultimately ineffective, means of classifying students and rating teachers.
28
@some girl How do you measure critical thinking?
2
@David
Through discussions.....
Through critical thinking exercises
Through their essays
Through problem solving real life situations
Through reading
Through current events
Give them open ended questions
Give them a math problem that involves multiple strategies
So many ways to measure!
10
@David It is much harder to do so, and takes longer. That is the point or some girl's post: everyone loves the objective, easily measurable results, such as test scores, but the reality is there is often so much more to a person, and to their success than test scores. Many people are very successful who never did well on standardized tests, or who just never got the correct prep work. Indeed, how do you measure critical thinking? It might take a life time.... The schools that do teach it well often don't rely on test prep and scores. How do you foster a love of learning? By ramming months of test prep down the student's throats?
8
"Children shouldn't be penalized or disadvantaged for the actions or inactions of their parents."
This is an amazing statement. There are no limitations or qualifiers to the morality prescribed. Of course all children are affected by every decision that their parents make from the everyday to the important. Name me an adult who does not wish that their parents had done something differently and feels, truly feels, that their life would not have turned out better if something were not done or left undone.
The view that "their are mistakes and then there are mistakes" is exactly the point. Who preempts God to decide which mistakes are morally abhorrent and demand government intervention. Spend some time in the agonizing situations that foster children have to face to get some perspective on this.
Of course children are affected by their parent's/parents' decisions. Whether the influences balance benefits with penalties or disadvantages is highly subjective and I doubt that D. Russkoff if he has children wants his every decision evaluated for its penalty component.
There is a parental selections element here but that is not the only element present. For an unknown if interesting number of parents there is also a Challenge element to see if they can raise to the bar. For a similar number there is a "parental training" element.
We cannot force parents to be trained There is no licensing requirement to become a parent. These schools provide an opportunity for such training.
6
The concept of berating children for doing poorly is so far outdated it is really considered child abuse these days.
A recent article in the NYT on training rats to play hide an seek had the much better answer- playing with the rats once they found their hidden person. Really, the reward for "finding" was tickling the rats. And the rats would do it over and over just for that.
Another example...Cadaver-searching dogs are rewarded when a body is found by breaking out their favorite play toy.
Behavior conditioning shows that rewards are ALWAYS more effective than punishments.
Seems these people could bring their game into the 21st century.
5
But are students there getting a good education, which about a lot more than test scores? Are students engaged in meaningful learning? Are they doing any project based learning or character development or building global competency? Probably not if they spend months on mind-numbing test prep.
3
If, after attending school all day for five days a week, children need to be educated by their parents, wouldn't it be best, whenever possible, to home school them?
1
“Decades of research have shown that engaged parents and a stable family are far more important than schools and teachers to a child’s academic achievement.”
Really? Doesn’t that mean de Blasio’s plan to eliminate segregation in NYC’s school system by removing academic and behavioral standards is backwards because it ignores this very fact?
And why is it when anyone suggests that parental involvement MIGHT be more important to a child’s success than whatever plans the mayor and chancellor dream up, he or she is dismissed as a Trump-loving racist?
11
@Scott "And why is it when anyone suggests that parental involvement MIGHT be more important to a child’s success than whatever plans the mayor and chancellor dream up, he or she is dismissed as a Trump-loving racist?" NEVER heard that. Did you make it up?
This line
"Decades of research have shown that engaged parents and a stable family are far more important than schools and teachers to a child’s academic achievement."
Says it all - at all income levels. A lot of very expensive private schools are well drugged up dumping grounds for parents who don't want to be involved.
My children went to a public school system with most children from very motivated, and well educated, households. They all did very well.
Hard to understand why you would want to deny the option of choice to parents who are prepared to do the right thing by their children.
10
A school that demands parent involvement - what a concept! I do think that the Success schools could do (and they may already) would be to have parent workshops for interested parents to set out the requirements and help the parents problem solve how best the parents could make the schedule, reading requirements and other requirements work. Learning takes time and effort. And parent support.
8
As a career public school employee (and union member), across multiple school districts, I have actually valued the contribution of many public charters. They have brought some new ideas to the discussion that are worth analyzing. Highly committed parents select to enter the lottery, and/or those parents keep their end of the contract once the child is enrolled. Must being "highly committed" be a precondition? What if there could be an on-boarding process, a way to train parents of admitted students over a period of several months, so that parents could get guidance on creating new routines and structures at home an in their lives. Lessons learned from a successful charter school implementation of this process could be adapted for public schools more generally. Public schools can't and won't turn away students sent their way, and we need to focus on solutions and not get stuck on what we think we can't do. Plus, maybe we can get some inspiration from charters, where there are resources for testing out new ideas.
10
@sf These are productive ideas. Even if we couldn't "train" all parents to be critically engaged in their children's education, schools could identify which children do not have a supported learning environment at home and give them some extra resources.
3
By setting requirements that single parent families or families where both parents work cannot meet, the school most certainly selects who attends.
In contrast, when my school started the IB diploma program, we made sure that transportation WAS available to all students within the district who wanted the program. If students could not afford the exams, the parents group and the district made sure they could sit the exams.
Our IB students earned the diploma at a rate above the international average. In other words, elitist schools such as the one featured here are most certainly not the only or even the best path to academic success.
10
The lesson here is that success is correlated with parents and iron discipline, not teachers or curriculum. And for the purposes of elementary school, success is measured only by standardized test scores. While it is likely the case that students who start out poorly on standardized tests of reading and math will have a difficult time catching up, it is not demonstrated that these high early test scores predict success in higher education or life.
3
I spent much of my childhood in a neighborhood where few kids had any college aspirations. Though my family had no more money than my friends, my father had gone to college and I was expected to go as well.
My parents had their own demons, and made many grave mistakes because of them. However, books were all over our house, and my father was never stingy with his time when it came to supporting my interests.
When I attended an Ivy for college, I soon learned that there were other poor kids around me, all with similar stories: education was a big deal in their homes. Once Chinese friend told me that education wasn't the most important topic at the dinner table, it was the only topic.
Sure, I've seen plenty of examples where the pressure to succeed in school is taken too far. But I've yet to meet an academically successful person who does not have some story to tell about an adult in their young life that was a strong mentor and advocate.
I've given a lot of thought to this over the years, and I've come to conclude that, without a home environment that continually fosters learning, academic excellence is beyond the reach of all but the most ambitious students.
21
So if parent engagement is the key, the answer for public schools is to take that variable away by running boarding schools where all children are provided with a 24/7 support network throughout the educational “work week.” Of course, most parents would not allow this; but I suspect it would provide fairly impressive results for children from single parent or dysfunctional households where the challenge of child rearing is simply overwhelming regardless of intentions.
1
@D. Smith "So if parent engagement is the key, the answer for public schools is to take that variable away by running boarding schools.." kind of extreme, but on the right track. At the very least a longer school day (Now about 6 hours) with activities that are not rote but are actually engaging - reading, writing, music, etc. Keep the kids at school as long as possible. Add more days to the year. That picks up the slack for parents that cannot be engaged that way - say working multiple jobs, long hours, away from home a lot, illness, etc. Would the right wingers go for paying more taxes to do this? not likely.
2
Test scores don't necessarily equate to a good education. We all know that. They do, however, equate to opportunities for a good education later in life.
My mother did not have a college education and we (plus two brothers) were below the poverty line in Florida. I helped raise our own three kids in solidly middle income but struggled to make ends meet while providing opportunities for our children to grow while attending good public schools.
Even in a "good" public school system, in a middle class community, there students that excel and those that don't. Parental involvement plays a big part. That's especially true for one of our children with a learning disability.
We definitely sacrificed so our kids had a good education (and are doing well now as young adults). We could have made different choices, lived in a different place, worked different jobs.
How, exactly, do you want me to feel about the students that did not do well in school - and who likely had more limited options after high school? I certainly wish every one would excel. If I can't drive, do I move within walking distance of the school? If I don't have enough books, do I look for programs that give or lend them? If my job won't let me attend one single orientation program, do I change jobs or look for other solutions?
We're responsible for the choices we make. Period.
2
Doesn't ANY school that has any distinguishing characteristic in some sense "cherry picks" its parents, since parents are attracted to schools that have characteristics that they like?
For example, some schools emphasize music. They attract parents who think music is important. This is a self-selected sample, not representative of the general population.
The same goes for schools that emphasize sports, or that emphasize a certain teaching philosophy.
Success Academy emphasizes high scores on state tests (by unabashedly teaching to the test), strict discipline, lots of hard work and parental involvement.
My child got into Success Academy but in the end we chose a different school, We self-selected out when we realized that the Success Academy philosophy wasn't what we were looking for.
2
Interesting findings. My teacher's education had a course called schooling in society. We discussed and debated a lot of different issues students and schools face. One thing we noted as a common theme which ran through our discussions was that the vast majority of the time, no matter what the issue discussed, a stable home, and positive and active parental involvement in the child's education led to better outcomes for the student (no matter the socio-economic differences). Children who are read to for at least 30 minutes a night have earlier emerging literacy skills and better literacy outcomes in later grades. Literacy knowledge is at the heart of all curriculum. So it's not surprising that charter schools may not be cherry-picking students, but are cherry-picking parents. Which makes their results rather misleading.
8
I've been teaching mostly social studies and language arts to students in grades 6-12 in public school classrooms for over 35 years. Most any teacher I’ve talked with will tell you the author’s conclusion is largely correct. The simple fact that the parents at these charter schools have to follow their protocols combined with the possibility that their children can be expelled means you have a situation very different from a public school which has to accommodate everyone.
Another factor seldom discussed in education is parental competency. Two years ago I found myself in a meeting with the principal, a guidance counselor, a mom, and her eighth grade daughter. This was about a month into the school year. The mom never called me first to discuss anything. If she had, she’d have learned the presentations in my class weren’t required, were pass/fail, could be done privately in my room during lunch, and were only a student standing up to explain a sketch they’d drawn to answer an assigned question.
Mom opened the meeting with: “Why does (child’s name) have to do presentations, anyways? It’s not like she’s ever going to be president or anything.” This was followed with her swearing and calling me names. Remember, the child was there for this.
It’s easy to forget that many of those people we try to avoid in our daily lives have kids, and those kids need to go to school somewhere.
Sometimes being involved isn't enough.
14
@Upwind "Another factor seldom discussed in education is parental competency"
an understatement!
3
@Upwind Thank you for 35 years of service to our children and nation!
What a great statement: "It’s easy to forget that many of those people we try to avoid in our daily lives have kids, and those kids need to go to school somewhere." I would add that they just don't need to go to school, they need a reasonable chance at an education that will allow them to be productive members of our society.
Of course the "selective" schools can achieve better scores than those who serve a percentage of special needs, learning disabilities, truants, pregnant, English as a second language, emotionally disturbed, foster children etc. Yet everyone of those children deserve a reasonable chance at an education, and our society is much better off if we can provide it.
2
I don't understand the reasoning of the lifeboat theory of education reform. By its logic, we shouldn't have high school chemistry classes since not all students have the aptitude to study chemistry. Devoting resources to chemistry labs, teachers and equipment discriminates against students who don't take the class. Why have dance class since that discriminates against students with no sense of rhythm.
4
After reading these comments, I'm saddened that fellow progressives would recommend closing charters like Success. Apparently, these progressives would rather have a system where 100% of underserved students are left to the overwhelmed public-school system, rather than giving at least some of them a top-notch education in a setting requiring hard work, perseverance, and civil behavior.
4
@George Rising Pondiscio himself defends Success despite the shortcomings mentioned, precisely for the reason you outline. In my reading of other comments, I did not get the sense that most wanted to close Success. It is perhaps the lesser of two evils. I did get the sense that people very strongly identified with the statement that parental involvement is key to student success. The solution we are actually looking for does not exist within Success or within the public school system, and it demands either parental involvement or a support network that reduces reliance on parents unwilling or unable to participate actively in their children's education.
3
@George Rising "After reading these comments, I'm saddened that fellow progressives would recommend closing charters like Success. "
I haven't seen any comments to close the schools. It seems most just want it be to more common knowledge that these schools are not like the usual schools and that the reasons they may do better (not always the case) are clearly expressed. There is no mystery to why kids with demanding parents do better in school.
Success Academy has figure out what works in a difficult set of circumstances: challenging parents and elevating their engagement. It works best when self-selection and culling skew the population, but that shouldn't deflect our focus from the fact that it works. How should society challenge the rest of the parents and elevate their engagement?
4
What is objectionable about the Success model is that it equates "interest" and "performance" with a type of discipline that involves shaming of both parents and children. Wealthier parents can pay others to be "interested" in their children. Do we know if poor parents who "fail" in the Success model have the ability or the resources to be "interested" and involved? Has anyone studied this?
We have perfectly good examples of schools that "engage" parents without having to turn them into "parent police." Schools that provide before and after school programs and a range of social services, like healthcare for the whole family, food security and counseling that includes tutoring for children and parenting classes for adults have shown a high level of engagement by parents, children and the community at large. They also have successful academic programs. So why not do this more broadly? You guessed it -- it takes money.
4
@historyprof it’s worse than that. My friend left finance and joined the masters/teaching program, then was teaching in the Bronx.
That school was not meeting basic needs of education, let alone community needs. She was forced to teach a specific curriculum even though more than half of her kids needed far more remedial teaching than test prep.
The management of the school is an utter disaster. Money won’t fix that. NYC does not have money problems, it has management and accountability problems. She wasn’t allowed to give these kids what they need.
4
In the public school my wife taught at a significant number of parents were more concerned about their kid getting on a certain sports team, taking the kids out of school to go on sports trips and generally not asking their kids to do any homework (too hard!) because it got in the way of sports practice. This mainly because the kids liked sports better than school and the parents were too weak to insist on the school over sports. They take the easy route. but for the kids it is putting them in danger of not having what they need to get by in the world. Here comes more fast food workers!
8
Cherry picking of the involved parents leaves the regular public schools with fewer able parents who can volunteer as "room mother" or "library helper" or PTA activist. My children were bussed to an inner-city school G&T magnet classroom. There were three magnet classrooms and 20+ regular classrooms. The PTA was 90% magnet parents.
2
@Semi-retired "Cherry picking of the involved parents leaves the regular public schools with fewer able parents who can volunteer as "room mother" or "library helper" or PTA activist"
Reminds me of the school in Georgia where one, and only one parent showed up for a PTA meeting, and the administrators tried to talk her into being the PTA president!
While it is easy to blame teachers and/or curriculum when schools don't meet our expectations, the real reason as this proves is parents. Committed parents equals good schools. It's that simple.
8
As a former urban public school teacher, I knew this many years ago - that not all pools of children are equally prepared to succeed at school.
With that knowledge, we should stop punishing, chastising, and humiliating schools and teachers in that are under-performing.
The “bad teachers” and “bad schools” myths have got to stop. It’s conservative rhetoric designed to break unions, cut taxes, defund schools, and to ultimately privatize education.
Everything is connected. People need good jobs, economic/physical security, healthy food, affordable healthcare, dignity and so on in order to be good parents. How many children growing up in homes without these things do well in school? Unsurprisingly, very few.
13
It goes against our liberal grains to acknowledge the fact, found decade after decade, that two-parent families who themselves are organized and methodical produce children who excel.
To criticize parents who do not engage in these systematic actions that help their children is seen, by too many people, as "blaming the victim," "insensitive to cultural differences," or as "not welcoming diversity."
When you become a parent you have made an agreement to make a commitment to that child. A full commitment. A day after day after day commitment.
And then, as is reflective of the irony of life, those children usually go off and marry and and have families of their own, and someone else gets to enjoy the benefits of all of your work.
1
In a way some public school districts play the same game. Having a magnet school to which parents have to apply eliminates children whose families are not involved in their education. These children still need to be educated and may find a public school and teachers that understand and support them. I think such children would be destroyed at Success Academy.
I imagine it is mainly what is going on at home, and not at school, that permits this small set of kids to score so well. But fixing what goes on at home is not something governments can easily do.
2
"Children shouldn’t be penalized or disadvantaged for the actions or inactions of their parents.”
However, what measures could effectively be taken in a free society where almost anyone can have children and is free to raise them as they wish? This article makes clear the primacy of the parent's comitted attitudes in education. Without that the school's job is nearly impossible Is this the third rail of eduction politics?
2
The Success Academy schools are subsidized by money from the city. This is money that could have been used to improve conditions at schools that have to accept students from single parent families. Those single parents are paying taxes that help fund the Success Academy. Seems unfair.
6
Despite my skepticism toward the charter school movement, I have to admit that Success Academy is doing something innovative, and worth replicating: insisting that it is *only* a school.
Its teachers are asked to teach, and nothing else. They are not asked to double up and do the (uncompensated) work of social workers, psychiatrists, police officers, clergy, etc. Likewise, budget is used for teaching, and nothing else. Not for community centers, or sports programs, or after-school day care, etc.
Success Academy teaches well because it pushes back against the mission creep that bogs down many public school systems. It understands that the purpose of a school is not to solve every social problem in the neighborhood, but simply to teach.
3
In order to make definite conclusion, the author should compare the score of students with involved parents from the poor schools to those in Success. That should show how much school is important. But even then, the question remains: what should we do with children whose parents less than perfect? Should we just ignore them?
2
Good review of what sounds like a good book, worthy of the better-schools-book shelf with John Holt, James Herndon, George Leonard from long ago and so many since then. But the not-so-fast message is hard to get through the hype. The simplest way to "improve" a school is this: get the "worst" students to stay home on test day or don't admit them in the first place. Happens over and over again, place to place, year to year. Hype obscures the work of really good teachers and administrators who achieve modest success against the odds.
5
Any of us over 50 recognize that the education of our kids is dependent on parents. When we were kids, parents, white, black, poor or rich were more likely to be engaged in their kids' education, even though they generally had much larger families. So, the obvious answer to the education challenge is to answer why parents are less engaged. Throwing money at schools is a waste. Success Academy may be cherry picking fits parents. Or maybe they're offering a program any parent who chooses to can access. It's time to get back to basic values of personal responsibility. In the long run, that's what will help kids.
2
Those of us who teach in urban public schools have known all along about this. I taught in a high school that was not a charter but was a special school within a larger high school, an academy.
When it was first created parents needed to attend meetings and fill out extra paperwork. This created a self selected grouping and the original high school's students that remained performed worse on assessments.
Our school took the cream and left the rest. After the DOE began emphasizing charter schools instead of academies, schools like mine were unable to skim. Test scores declined and incidents increased. But not before destroying the old original school.
If the nytimes didn't have such a love fest for Bloomberg and his policies this book would be 10 years old.
2
Stable, two parent families who care about their children's education produce good students? Why has this incredible insight been suppressed?
2
Do these charter school kids have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning? Because that last part about "...justice for all" would seem not to apply to schools where students are chosen - or rejected - based on their parents' involvement or insufficient following of arbitrary "rules," and can be forced out because of learning disabilities or other problems. Some "success."
Scarsdale & Chappaqua, sure those parents are invested in their kids' schooling, but a big chunk of it is the ability to pay sky-high school taxes to pay for the best facilities & teachers & programs. If urban public schools had the financial resources of suburban public schools, they'd have "success" too.
1
@Anonymouse Not really so. I taught for decades, in both affluent neighborhoods and ghettos. The biggest deciding factor in the success of the children was the attitude/involvement of the parents. I can't even list how much I spent on food, clothing, coats, shoes, school supplies for the poor kids over the years. That's how poor some of the schools were. The children who were most successful were the ones whose parents did their best to be involved, and supported my efforts in the classroom. In an affluent school, when I finally got a parent in to discuss her child's poor behavior, she saw nothing wrong with it and proceeded to tell me that the neighborhood kids just didn't like him. One kid threw mud at him as he was rushing into the house to get away, and it covered the foyer of her home. I asked if she made him clean it up. "Well no," she stated. I told the maid to do it.
Why should good, motivated parents be condemned to send their child to a non-performing school, as so many people seem to comment about?
Demanding is not a bad thing....the world is going to be very demanding when these kids grow up, they should learn that it’s not the end of the world to have to work hard and sacrifice.
The public school system and its management of low income schools is a mess. No one should condemn parents and kids to attend them until it’s fixed, which frankly will take ages, if ever.
2
This article confirms my father's adage - "Children have to be wise in their choice of parents."
7
“Children shouldn’t be penalized or disadvantaged for the actions or inactions of their parents”
This quote from the article implies it's bad to demand that the parents of children at the Success Academy work harder to help their children learn than some parents are willing or able to do. But demanding that parents work harder to help their kids not only helps their kids learn more, it increases the average wellbeing of children in general. That is a good thing. Societies that emphasize equality over average wellbeing tend to produce lower levels of average wellbeing.
I have noticed multiple article in the NYTimes snipping at the amazing success of the Success Academy, If the NYTimes actually was concerned with lifting up the average learning of New York's blacks and Hispanic students, it should spend more time praising what the Success Academy has done, including, in particular, its forcing of parents to help their children work hard and well in school. The Success Academy’s formula may not work for all children, but it should be praised for how much it helps the children for which its formula does work.
2
I resent the assumption that parents who cannot meet all of Successes "requirements" are unengaged. Many of the people labeled this way are working two and three jobs they are struggling with language and cultural barriers. They love their kids as much as other parents. They want them to succeed as much if not more, but Ms Moskowitz and her ilk can only show them the back of their hand while still taking the tax money these people sweat and slave for.
9
@Fred Simkin this, yes, a hundred fold. I just finished a 40 year career of teaching children in 'Title One' schools, and I can tell you many examples of parents, grandparents, ESL families. single parents, homeless parents who indeed valued education and cared about how their children do at school. These kids did succeed because whoever was raising them cared. They deserve as many resources that we can give them to make it easier for more to do the same
“Of course it’s unfair. Children shouldn’t be penalized or disadvantaged for the actions or inactions of their parents.”
Children being rewarded or punished for the qualities, actions, and decisions of their parents is the entire basis of our society. Moskowitz is just showing poor parents how they can do what rich parents have done for centuries, if they are interested in doing so.
2
@kas
I disagree, because few rich families would turn their children over to such harsh treatment-- that is reserved for the poor who have tacitly accepted that this school is their one chance to make it.
And few would accept a situation so barren as to offer no transport options and no after school program whatever. Come ON. The school knows very well that these are working parents-- but it's 'take it or leave it, losers.' Sounds like Betsy "I have 12 large yachts" DeVos to me.
6
The tone of this piece suggests that Success Academy fails, or at least cannot rightfully claim success, because it requires extensive commitment from parents. Granted, that fact diminishes the impact the program can have because it limits enrollment to students who have committed parents. Yet clearly it does offer those parents a choice that otherwise would not exist.
The larger question, which the piece implicitly asks, is how does a school system create success for every student, including ones with non-committed parents. The only possible answer to that is that the system would need to reach into the community, and by extension into the home life, of every child and either buoy up the level of parent commitment, or replace or supplement it with some sort of surrogate parenting entity. That would be intrusive to a degree that most Americans would find inappropriate, and would be exponentially more expensive.
And yet, to do nothing condemns those children, whose parents can’t or won’t commit to providing the support that all children need, to a lifetime of negative consequences.
Clearly, Success Academy is working within the constraints of the system to help in a way it can, but it is not the ultimate solution. American capitalism, for all its strengths, rewards success and punishes failure, often tending to leave the losers behind. It should be no surprise that capitalism applied to schools is no different.
42
@Marshall Doris
That’s a great summation of the dilemma that I also saw in Mr. Pondiscio’s findings.
One partial solution could be to see who of the “non-committed” parents really do want to be committed, but are too stretched financially and/or time wise to do so. Better social support could move these parents into the “committed” camp.
But I think some parents just don’t care (a spectrum that extends into actual child abuse and neglect). No easy answers there.
4
@Marshall Doris
If an educational system can be developed that overcomes the deleterious effect of disengaged parenting on students then public school woes will be solved everywhere. Parent involvement have always been the critical piece over which educators have little to no control yet is a primary component of student achievement.
5
@Marshall Doris "how does a school system create success for every student, including ones with non-committed parents" yes, the conundrum...And the answer to that seems to be keeping kids at school for as long as possible, as many days as possible with as many teachers as possible. Essentially making the school a real surrogate for parents. The kids get read to daily, pushed a bit, read on their own. Make the school day 12 hours, not 6. The obstacle? Money. For teachers, etc.
2
One of the richest men in Oregon bought a shuttered private school and turned it into a charter school in Gresham. First day went well, all downhill and shattered dreams from there.
Loren Parks, the secretive, mega-wealthy conservative owner (and sexual weirdo in the name of science) couldn't figure out how to run a school and closed it down.
Over Winter Break. Then called cops to evict angry parents from the school.
Merry Christmas, kids!
10
@Sid Leader So an anecdote equals data now? Have you looked at overall stats?
@Sid Leader and your comment has what to do with article other than showing us your political leanings?
UuThis strikes at the heart of the inequity of many charter schools— as soon as you introduce an application requirement, it is no longer equal opportunity! Add in hours, transportation,special needs, and parental expectations and it is no longer a true public school, and should never get public tax money!
24
@Ginger G&T and specialized schools have applications and they get tax money. What's the difference?
@Ginger But there is an application, or registration requirement at the public schools where I live. In fact, you have to show up to register your child even if you live in the neighborhood. The real question is, do all parents have access to information about their school options? Can the schools help arrange transportation and after school care? In my opinion, if parents can't fill out and submit a form there are likely many other issues going on that even a public school, with all its social services and outreach, can address.
@Ginger
I don't agree. It is equal opportunity who those who choose to avail themselves of it. much worse examples of inequality in our capitalist system. As long as taxpayers pay no more per child for these schools, they are a useful alternative to take the pressure off other pubic schools.
Also read Education and the Commercial Mindset by veteran public school teacher, Sam Abrams. Its ambit is wide: for profit schools, charter schools, schools in Finland compared with those in other Scandinavian countries. It has been endorsed by Diane Ravitch, the late Harold Levy, and other distinguished educators. It has been ignored by Chester Finn and Betsy de Vos.
8
The only "fair", but let's say... impractical solution would be to assign kids to schools completely at random. Not based on parental motivation, not based on location, no tests, no income, nothing. Any non-random selection criterion can and will be gamed by parents with motivation and resources to self-segregate into schools where the other parents are similarly motivated and resourceful.
8
How does a "two-income" family deal with a school day that ends at 12:30 on Wednesdays, and 3:45 other days (and offers no after-school program)?
"Special needs" appears to be a euphemism for "disruptive, far outside the range of normal childhood behavior". Such children should not be in regular classrooms; they should not be "mainstreamed", because their presence interferes with other children's right to an education. Nor should be children with mental or other disabilities. "Special needs" means they have needs that cannot be met in regular classrooms. That's why most states have special schools for the deaf and blind.
15
@Jonathan Katz
That must bewhy I had a couple of deaf kids, with interpreters in my HS Physics class. In point of fact, the public HS where I taught was the school for HS deaf students as well as special needs students. Oh - and before you think it was the dumping ground, it was, and still is, the districts IB diploma program school.
@Jonathan Katz you obviously know nothing about people with special education - about their needs, and the range of success they have managed to acheive despite their situation. I can name you many kids who were incredibly disruptive, who never qualified for specil education. Oh and btw, there is a law called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which requires these children to be given a free and appropriate education. 'Appropriate' is the key word and that depends on the child's needs and how learning can be adapted for them to be successful. I suggest you read up or better yet go visit schools where these kids thrive both in the mainstream and in special classes.
“If you demand that engaged and committed parents send their children to school with the children of disengaged and uncommitted parents, then you are obligated to explain why this standard applies to low-income black and brown parents — and only to them,” Pondiscio writes.
Disengaged parents exist all along the income spectrum, but are concentrated in lower income communities largely because they are stretched for time.
The way to address the underlying problems is to pay people a living wage and spread funding fairly among all public school districts.
50
@nom de guerre My kids goes to school with the children of plenty of disengaged and uncommitted parents. One kids parents evidently left her here with the nanny and went off to a new assignment in Zurich. Other parents have no idea who their kid's friends are and that they are engaging in risky behavior. Then there is the kid who brought a screwdriver to class in a thermos - cause you are never to young to start having cocktails in the morning. These kids will be fine - financially anyway - given the school costs as much as most colleges. Low income parents, in my opinion, at least have an excuse for bring disengaged.
4
@nom de guerre
Why isn't funding spread out that way?? Terrible system.
1
A child a child of neglect, abuse or trauma in the home, can't cut it in this school system. It's not 'just' about income level, it's an undemocratic and elite system. Now we know more about how privilege is created.
17
Braco! Parental Support- what a profound idea - parents that read to their children, get them to bed on time, make sure they're well fed and well prepared - give them hugs. The real question is how to get more parents involved. There's the rub.
33
@CWB
I'll bet you don't know that single income famies most often cannot meet the requirements for a Success school.
Of course, by setting policies that are impossible for single parent families or families where both parents work and cannot take off mid-day to pick up their kid, the school selects who can even apply.
6
@CWB - should be Bravo!
This sniping at people who go out there and improve the world is unseemly.
14
@David
When there are winners and losers, it isn’t improving the world. It’s just the same old game.
2
@David
Well, Moskowitz is paid total of $782,000 annually. That seems a bit unseemly as well.
8
Don't let Mayor De Blasio involved in this or he will just mess it all up.
10
The recent parental college scandal shows that parents can go too far to support their children's education, but committed parents are more likely to raise disciplined, committed children. Those children populate the best schools and then the best jobs. Obviously wealthy, 2 parent families can do this more readily than other groups, but this is the key. Desultory doesn't work for raising children. Good schools and good parents produce good outcomes. Schools alone are less likely to succeed.
48
"Decades of research have shown that engaged parents and a stable family are far more important than schools and teachers to a child’s academic achievement."
That's it in a nutshell. We see it all the time - the children of parents who are engaged and demanding generally do better in school. And reading is paramount - parents reading to their young kids DAILY and the kids reading DAILY all kinds of things.
Indeed, I would say my success in work is largely based on reading everything in sight when I was growing up. Hundreds of books, fiction and non-fiction, hundreds of magazines, daily newspaper front to back. I did not do great in school - B or C student, and often disinterested in many of the subjects, yet when it came to work I read everything available about my job and applied it to the work, and my supervisors and later executives found me to the the source of information for just about everything pertaining to the job. I was asked to advance - I was not ambitious, just fortunate that others pushed me up the ladder, and that I took advantage of many opportunities that presented themselves, or I went looking for when things got boring, ending at a high position. Looking back I don't think I had a "career," at least none that I planned out. I just see it as taking on a variety of interesting jobs.
26
"While he does not believe Success cherry-picks students for high performance, as critics often charge, he demonstrates convincingly that what the network does cherry-pick is parents, to strategic effect. Decades of research have shown that engaged parents and a stable family are far more important than schools and teachers to a child’s academic achievement."
>>
Cherry-picking parents *is* cherry-picking students. My local district does this same thing, and charter school leaders love to crow about their "successes." I'm sure there are individual kids who are helped by this approach, but if the goal of public school is an educated population, I'm not sure allowing these "choice" schools (my local district's euphemism of, ahem, choice) to capture the kids whose parents are most involved and most willing to support schools and jump through hoops in the process is in the community's best interests.
44
After having taught for decades in public elementary and high schools, I am stunned at the profound ignorance of a kindergarten teacher berating a four or five year old child for daydreaming and even expecting a coherent book report from the child. Kindergarten is for creative play in which words and numbers are learned indirectly and for learning essential social skills, such as paying attention, sharing, taking one's turn, playing nicely, apologizing if one has hurt someone else, learning to accept a sincere apology, accepting differences and practicing kindness towards others. Children learn more in a warm and caring environment and particularly from the examples of teachers and parents.
126
@James, Toronto, CANADA
Yep. Finnish students (perennially near the top of the international PISA test) don't typically learn to read until after kindergarten (6/7 years). Germany is the same. Children are, of course, read to and exposed to books during this time.
35
@Brian Finland is overwhelmingly white. The white students in the U.S. do better on PISA than students in Finland.
@James, Toronto, CANADA I used to teach at a Success Academy location in the Bronx (not the same school profiled in by Pondiscio). I was an "associate teacher" training under a classroom's "lead teacher", and I witnessed teachers scolding students for what would appear to an outsider as nothing -- forgot to put their name on a paper, missed an "easy" question on a test (in first grade!), etc. But at SA, these were huge infractions. Nevermind what happened if a child did something that actually merited a consequence (such as enacting violence against another child or speaking inappropriately). The teachers who yelled at or harshly punished kids weren't bad people. In my experience, they never genuinely wanted to punish them. They did so because they were instructed to by the assistant principal, who was instructed by the principal to do so, who was instructed by managing directors to do so, who were instructed by Eva Moskowitz herself to do so. The ethos of zero-tolerance was pushed from the top down. I left the organization as soon as I could find another job in the city.
6
What if this book is more an indictment of the fact that teachers shouldn't alone be held accountable for student results? Rather it supports the argument that parental support is a MUST in order to create the largest chance of success for the students. Whether or not that is possible for all parents due to IRL issues is not the point ... rather we shuld be leaning towards helping parents to reach that point instead where they CAN be available to help their children succeed.
98
@Jeff Hsi Isn't that what Joe Biden was saying in the last debate - and got slammed for - that some parents need help in learning what to do in raising their children.
2
@Jeff Hsi The positive results of parental involvement are well-known. But a huge number of incompetent teachers in schools does nothing to improve matters. Not even 0.1% of teachers were fired for incompetence in NYC in 2015-2016, yet only 1/3rd of graduates from a teacher prep program are able to get a teaching job. Fixing this obvious failure should be the number one priority.
My gold standard for a newspaper or magazine article is whether it offers me something I don't already know. I have always assumed that parochial and charter schools had an advantage because they could pick and choose their students. Now I learn that some charter schools are picking and choosing the parents of their students. Cherry picking is cherry picking. If anything, book author Pondiscio and article writer Russakoff show us that we should devote more support to public schools.
67
"he demonstrates convincingly that what the network does cherry-pick is parents, to strategic effect. Decades of research have shown that engaged parents and a stable family are far more important than schools and teachers to a child’s academic achievement. Children in such families, regardless of income, already have won what Pondiscio calls the “parent lottery,” well before winning the lottery for admission to Success."
Pretty much says it all about the whole concept of failing schools versus successful ones, doesn't it?
99
@Middleman MD no a failing school probably has long standing mechanisms to thwart parental engagement. How and why this happens is something that needs clarification.
Sometimes reality bites. Of course it’s not fair, but then name an aspect of our system that is. Reading this after an article on luxury parking reminds me (well, I really didn’t need reminding) that we’re two separate societies, with the separation growing wider every year. On one side a car driver accepts less lucrative routes to keep his kid enrolled in Success Academy. On the other, a young mogul’s au pair drives the children to their private school with a 50k tuition, which is the more convenient because the family condo provides on site valet parking. The parking space was a reasonable $250,000 (cash only please) plus a nominal $250 monthly fee. Who could criticize this? Clearly, only Those radical far left socialists Mitch has been warning us about!
51
The most important factors in a child's success is related to their parents' views on the importance of education- their parents education-level and income.
12
I wish more people understood the complexity and the tenacity of the problems faced by our nation's most vulnerable citizens and how much it has to do with malfeasance in testing, textbooks, technology, security, and funding. Schools have become a location for many people to get rich without doing one darn thing to make the school experience equitable or meaningful. We all need to care about ALL of our children.
16
@SHK. See George Bush and ReadingFirst!
2
Once again, a miracle worker who doesn’t have to follow the rules that apply to the rest of the world. Cherry picking parents. Love it.
22
The long term effects of this harsh treatment of children is still unknown. The standardized test craze may not be looked at too kindly bu a more enlightened future.
8
We hear so much about Success Academy success in state tests. How are these kids doing on the SHSAT? Are they gaining admission to NYC's elite HS? How are they doing in college? The criticism of Success Academy is that these kids are only learning how to take one test and not being taught how to think critically. The Times showed us the school in Texas that could get their kids into elite colleges, but the vast majority couldn't stay there. That school literally taught to only one test, the ACT and faked the rest. This is the question I would like answered about Success Acaademy.
69
@LS
This is the right question to ask. I worked at SA for a minute in 2014. They were just opening up their high school and wanted all the kids funneled into it. Why not the established, competitive high schools that already exist? The answer is because SA does not teach nuance. It doesn't teach critical thinking. It teaches you how to take those state tests so it can claim everyone gets a 4. That's it.
8
@LS
Are you referring to Landry College Prep?
That school is in Louisiana.
3
"Children shouldn’t be penalized or disadvantaged for the actions or inactions of their parents.”
Especially since for many working poor parents, the flexibility to pick up children in the mid-afternoon or attend mandatory "dress rehearsals" is not a question of choice.
41
Please explain the conclusion regarding how we’re all implicated in the neglect of children in our poorest communities.
11
@GC
Everyone in society has a responsibility to other members in that society, particularly to vulnerable members such as children and the elderly who are dependent on us for minimum standards of care. If altruistic arguments don't sway your thinking, consider it from a selfish point of view. If you don't pay taxes for public education and social services for children, you will very probably end up having to pay even more for police, the justice system and prisons.
26
@GC Wherever school choice is allowed, voters and taxpayers are allowing resources to be diverted from public schools. Rather than investing time and money into a public school system that can be improved for all, parents who have the resources -- financial or otherwise -- remove their children from public schools, leaving others' children to do the best they can with a shrinking pool of resources. We are implicated when we allow this.
6
@GC "Please explain the conclusion regarding how we’re all implicated in the neglect of children in our poorest communities."
I would answer that if parents, for whatever reason, can't take responsibility for supporting their kids then schools can do it IF they are funded to be able to keep kids in school longer during the day (for reading to and reading by the kids, other educational activities) and more days per year (no long vacation). That means funding for more teachers to cover a longer day, and paying more to be "parents" as well as teachers.
1
Having taught in the NY public school in the S. Bronx no less-- where a completely useable and good America (John Hopkins) reading program was axed after the third year-- at which point in time the teachers had the equipment and had become proficient in teaching according to the program in favor of some New Zealand nonsense -- when I cam to the "parents must read six books a week" to their children -- yup - that'll do it. (Only question here is is there a list of preferred books to be read to the children? ) Even in rich communities children's education is neglected (my grand niece and nephew in suburban Kg and 1st grade... have never done a journal nor a book report. Journal writing is mandatory from Pre-K on in NYC public schools - unless that has changed.. as were book reports (I sent home one book per child per week. Book Report is one sentence and a picture in early elementary -- spelled however. But IMO real educational reform would be starting foreign languages early -- in Germany, English in third for fun. from 4th on to learn it, and in 5th Spanish or French.
Mofel lessons videoed should be up online and not standards-- which present as philosophical values but the actual skills a child is being taught at various levels - a national curriculum (fun - now what do we do with creationism?) for pre-K thru college IMO -- "the same page" needs to be there for parents, educators, and the students themselves to consult. (Repetition is often how we learn.)
3
Here is a sure-fire way to increase a young child's probability of success in learning and school which works regardless of the parent's income level.
Get rid of the TV. Have them do their HW or read library books in their spare time. That's it.
34
@kj Sounds like a recipe for pure misery.
@Andymac
Yes - and get to bed on time and eat well.
1
Parents who care should be allowed to do the best they can for their children. And if that means a parent is willing to sacrifice some income to give his or her child a better shot at life, that should be honored!
The public schools are an abysmal failure, and no amount of money or anything else will fix them. Between the uncaring, indifferent parents, the unionized teaches, the corrupt, bloated administration, and the unwillingness of the politicians to stand up for the children, there's no hope for them.
Let's give the families who care a chance to do better.
Bravo, Success Academy!
31
@spindizzy Wow, and you think constantly criticizing public school teachers, forcing them to teach to a test is going to improve education. No one wants to be in a profession that is belittled. Too bad all your energy goes into denigration.
11
@spindizzy
Blanket statements condemning all public schools are a sign of ignorance and little else. Are some of them failing? Yes. Are most of them doing so? Of course not.
14
@Nathan Howard:
The point is, are you in favour of giving children a chance to succeed, or not? Not all will take advantage of that chance, but is that any reason to deny it to those will? Surely not.
Perhaps you can tell me why American students do so poorly on TIMSS and PISA, even though the US spends far more per student than any other country? These are normalized so that the data across countries can be compared.
The author of this article states that: "Some charter school critics dub this argument “the lifeboat theory of education reform."
The only rational conclusion that one can reach in response to that argument is that those "charter school critics" advocate that all life boats need to be destroyed! A truly Luddite response from those responsible for the abject failure of the educational industrial complex to educate low income minorities.
13
@Hayekian von Mises " A truly Luddite response from those responsible for the abject failure of the educational industrial complex to educate low income minorities."
The real problem with the "educational industrial complex" is that NOT ENOUGH money is spent. The solution of low income minorities is MORE hours per day and MORE days per year. That would partially solve the lack of parental ability to work with their kids (for whatever reason - working 2 or 3 jobs, other problems at home, etc). But, do you think the right wingers are going to agree to pay more taxes to keep low income kids in school longer, hire more teachers etc? not a chance, They can barely countenance ANY money spent on anyone who is not their own kid.
2
Exactly. I wrote an article about this some time ago positing that the children whose parents could fill out the forms to get them into public charters benefitted while children whose parents couldn't or didn't have the time - and who were much more in need of special attention - were left behind.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2018/10/neighborhood-schools-and-public-charter.html
8
@Dorothy Reik
I read your article and found it to be a purely emotional and, frequently tedious, political screed unsupported by any evidence.
It fails to take into account the broad range of intellectual abilities in children. To condemn a child with immense intellectual capacity to a one-size-fits-all, assembly line classroom, filled with the ill-prepared children of uncaring parents simply to satisfy the egalitarian impulses of you and your fellow travelers is unconscionable!
Mao and his cohorts already attempted this with all too predictable results.
I personally attended a parochial grade school in which I never experienced a classroom with less than 50 other students. It was, by any estimation, a lower, lower, middle class community where it was very common for both parents to work full time jobs (careers were not extant in our neighborhood). Yet over 65% went on to college with 6 or 7 whose net worth clearly exceeds more than a few million dollars.
The American public education system has been captured by a cadre of intellectual dilettantes whose appetite for novelty over substance is exceeded only by those purveyors of "late-night TV," miracle diets. The children of these neighborhoods cannot stand any more "help" from the well-meaning but clueless. Please stop now before another child is condemned to a life of illiteracy.
Someday, hopefully very soon, we will acknowledge the insanity of equating good test scores with a good education. Our fixation on test scores is damaging children and sucking out from them the joy of learning. Save the children - from us.
44
This is not quite accurate. Success, in order to be real, must be clearly defined, then monitored and documented. If not, how does anyone know that it has happened. The issues with testing are more complex than the word itself expresses. This is why “assessment” is better, though even it doesn’t fully express the whole of the issue.
Learning happens in a student’s head. It is invisible to everyone, even in some ways to the student. Therefore, the job of determining whether learning has occurred or not requires some means of making that learning tangible, such as examining responses to a multiple choice question. Beyond that, communicating the results to others requires utilizing some language that expresses the tangible result in a manner that accurately expresses it.
Authentic assessment is a term that many educators have turned toward to deal with this predicament of creating systems that monitor student progress. Any assessment relies on the quality of the instrument that is used. Accountability systems depend on multiple factors, most crucially, does an assessment actually measure what it is attempting to measure. The ultimate use of assessment is to inform further instruction. Without data, a teacher is flying blind and cannot know if learning occurred and where to proceed next.
Monitoring student learning requires ongoing and constant assessment. The quality of these assessments is a critical factor, but no school can or should simply ignore the issue.
2