Inner city schools are not failing their students

[nearwildheaven]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What evidence do you have that we’ve got declining results in education? Because I think you’re wrong, when you account for graduation rates and basic skills mastery of ALL students.

No you’re not. Student achievement is strongly correlated with student background. A five-year-old who has read the Hobbit with her parents and who can count to three hundred and who regularly sends letters to cousins has no more merit than a five-year-old who can’t identify basic colors or write her name; she just has a much less academic background. Your plan is to condemn the second child based on her parents, and that’s terrible.

It also sounds to me like the Hobbit reader has a very high IQ, and the other child might be mentally retarded.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

. . . and banning private schools from charging tuitions . . .

Doesn’t that amount to shutting them down?

[Stringbean]

@MandaJo

I don’t see any evidence that the student “couldn’t” understand why. I see evidence that she didn’t. “Don’t understand right now” always looks like “can’t ever understand”, but there is truly no way to tell the difference.

You would not believe the dumbbutt students I have seen grow into capable learners over the years. It’s not something that’s really obvious to fellow students–the perspective is all off because you only see the kid in class, you only hear what says, you never seen the scope of his work–but from the point of view of a teacher, stupid kids can and do turn into smart kids, and they do so more often, more quickly, and to a greater degree when they work really really hard with a talented teacher who knows how to elicit that drive to work and to show a student how and where to apply that effort.

So kids who were irritated with the slow kids in class go off in life vaguely scornful of the slow kids, and never realize that any number of the people they know and respect as adults WERE that kid, in a different class.

But teachers, or at leas this teacher, see the changes and the progress and we think “If only I had more time. If I could work with this kid alone for an hour once a week, if I could let that one read to me for an hour, if I could if I could if I could . . .” We know we could help more kids be more knowledgeable, more capable, more competent their whole lives if we just had a little more time. And we feel guilty as hell that we can’t manage it. So when people come along and suggest just . . .writing those kids off . . it’s horrific. It’s like telling doctors not to not treat cancer patients if they didn’t respond to the first round of treatment, even though there is plenty of research that shows those people may well still be saved.

You will never find a man more profoundly grateful to the unappreciated value of great teachers. I would be nothing without those who have taught me.

That being said, all teachers must understand their limits. You cannot take on guilt for the lack of basic comprehension skills of your students. That is unfair to you. And ultimately, is in unfair to neglect the smarter kids in class to try and work miracles. If that sounds vaguely scornful, then I do not apologize. I respect nothing more than those who work hard to maximize their abilities. I do not, however, wish to worship mediocrity.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

Doesn’t that amount to shutting them down?

Not really if there have benefactors or is funded by an organization such as a church.

[MandaJo]

@Stringbean

You will never find a man more profoundly grateful to the unappreciated value of great teachers. I would be nothing without those who have taught me.

That being said, all teachers must understand their limits. You cannot take on guilt for the lack of basic comprehension skills of your students. That is unfair to you. And ultimately, is in unfair to neglect the smarter kids in class to try and work miracles. If that sounds vaguely scornful, then I do not apologize. I respect nothing more than those who work hard to maximize their abilities. I do not, however, wish to worship mediocrity.

So how do you suggest a “great teacher” preemptively tell the difference between the “mediocre” ones that can’t be taught, and the “smart” ones that are currently “nothing” but can be moved to greatness? Because I gotta tell you, I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I can’t tell in September which ones will have mastered the material by May. There’s some that shock me every single time.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Stringbean

That being said, all teachers must understand their limits.

In addition to what Manda Jo said, with all due respect, what makes you think you understand my limits better than I do? What is your experience with pedagogy that makes you so confident in your disagreement with folks who have been teaching for many years?

Certainly you might have been a bright student; join the club. Certainly you might have been annoyed by teachers who devoted too much attention to struggling students instead of to advanced students; again, join the club. I’d like to reorganize education to offer more equal attention to all students, and I advocate for that in different forms in my district and state.

But I also know that my favorite students are struggling students, and I tell every student on the first day of school that I expect them to be struggling students–I don’t want anyone taking an easy ride in my class. It’s when a student struggles in their ZPD that they make real growth. Their job is to struggle. My job is to teach them in their ZPD.

I take great exception to the idea that I shouldn’t do so with students at the lower end of the academic spectrum.

[Cheesesteak]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Personally I lean toward a radical shifting of pedagogy: rather than lumping all the nine-year-olds in one room regardless of aptitude, I’d much rather lump all the kids working on double-digit addition in one room regardless of age. There’s a very useful pedagogical concept called the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD): it’s the area of knowledge that a student can work on but only alongside a master of the material. If you don’t know how to add single-digit numbers, double-digit numbers are currently outside your ZPD, and if you already know how to add 2-digit numbers, adding them together is also outside your ZPD.

Is this an argument for leaving more kids back a grade?

It seems to me that if economically disadvantaged kids start off school behind their more advantaged peers, they actually have to learn more in the same timeframe just to catch up. If you can accelerate their learning, wouldn’t the more advantaged kids use those techniques to accelerate their own learning? Maybe what they need is more time, an extra year to work, getting their ZPD back in line with the expectations for their grade level.

We have wealthy folks holding their kids back for Kindergarten, under the impression that the extra year of development will give them an advantage. This is difficult for the poor to do, as it requires an additional year of paid daycare, but perhaps the same concept would work for the poor, if they didn’t have to pay for the extra year directly, but got it as a function of being held back a grade.

One side thought, as well… We have thousands of inner city/poor schools in the nation. Are there any examples of these schools “succeeding”? By that I mean, taking all comers, just like a public school, no self selection bias or tracking, and producing graduates with skills comparable to those from a wealthier school? Not just graduates that are better prepared than another inner city school. No 10% improvement that still leaves a huge gap with wealthier districts, I’m talking near enough to par that you’re not embarrassing yourself to make the comparison.