![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Making the GradePosted on Aug 6, 2007Students receive their final report cards for the school year in June. The level of anticipation is always intense as they wonder: Did I get that A, that B, that C? In short, did I pass? The level of anticipation is no different for teachers and school administrators at the beginning of a new school year—that’s the point at which they determine whether they have passed or failed in their attempt to educate their pupils. Books and workbooks are provided to students to help them achieve passing grades in their core subjects. Teachers instruct from the “core” academic curricula adopted by their districts. Through No Child Left Behind, states and districts that have school sites in underprivileged areas also grade these sites on whether or not they meet the needs of their socioeconomically disadvantaged students; however, there are no specific strategies provided in the regular “core” curriculum to address the special challenges faced by these pupils. How can teachers and school personnel “make the grade” without a workable curriculum? School districts that have attempted to train teachers in meeting the needs of students from poverty have focused primarily on issues of race and/or language competencies. In many states, there are certifications teachers must attain, which focus on cross-cultural language acquisition and design. While updated training and information in ELD (English language development) and cultural diversity are pertinent, diversity may not reside only in language levels and race; other factors also weigh heavily in determining the present and future productivity of our students nationwide. A form of cultural diversity which is often alluded to but rarely addressed in school systems is the diversity that exists within different socioeconomic class systems. Many of our “at risk” students stem from “generational poverty"-- a culture in and of itself. Former teacher and administrator Dr. Ruby K. Payne, author of “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” has identified specific characteristics exhibited by families that have endured several generations of poverty. The fates of these students depend upon the resources and relationships available to them. A teacher who understands the needs of students from a poverty culture can better address barriers to learning and provide the tools needed to exist within other class systems. This, in turn, would increase each child’s ability to move out of poverty and into a more productive and lucrative socioeconomic culture.
Strategies and programs that address the needs of impoverished students exist, yet our school systems tend to ignore these options in favor of quick fixes. Unless impoverished students can understand and work within an unfamiliar class system, they may not understand the value of the academic subjects they are taught or, once proficient in these subjects, understand how to apply them to a middle-class work force or to the pursuit of higher education.
Until we provide teachers and administrators with the strategic tools to help our students out of poverty, our public schools will continue to provide an education that gives little advantage to our poor and unwittingly sustains an overall system of institutional inequity. Previous item: Beyond Disaster Next item: Romney Steals the Spotlight Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Skruff, August 8, 2007 at 1:36 pm # 93138 by just saying on 8/08 at 9:41 am “We make special learning programs for second language learners, learning disorders,so.... why not for students that are poor?” Interesting you mention this. PL 94 142, now called IDEA specifically EXEMPTS poverty as a factor in learning disabilities. The word “specifically” here means that the law has a clause prohibiting using circumstances connected with a families poverty in any educational determination which might benefit the student.
By just saying, August 8, 2007 at 9:41 am # We make special learning programs for second language learners, learning disorders,so.... why not for students that are poor?
By Phx Teacher, August 7, 2007 at 11:14 am # I too, have studied Ruby Payne. You may discredit her, but she was the first to focus on money instead of race as a dividing factor in classifying students.
By Skruff, August 7, 2007 at 8:23 am # Years ago, when I was a child, my father brought me to a restaurant in New York City. I noticed that the menues had no prices listed. Being an inquisitive (and flinty cheap) boy I asked “Why are there no prices? Dad gave me the answer that I have remembered for over 50 years “If you have to know how much it costs, you shouldn’t be here.” I think of that situation every tiome we talk about US education. We fund education (in most places) by taxing “property” of citizens. Taxing property is also a good way to get it away from folks who have no influence, and into the hands of people who have money. SO at a grassroots level, the money spent on education is limited by local folks who do not want to be forced from their homes. A better way to fund education would have been to tax businesses which are the greatest benefitaries of an educated workforce. But now, with businesses going offshore and hiring illegal immigrants, that option appears to be off the table. But there is good news, one doesn’t need much education to take an order at Burger King, or to stock shelves at Walmart. My father also told me something else in that fancy restaurant back those years ago: You usually get what you pay for.
By Duane Campbell, August 6, 2007 at 9:20 pm # While I agree with much of your argument, your use of the over simplified work of Ruby Payne is a real problem.
By Phx Teacher, August 6, 2007 at 6:09 pm # Unfortunately, no one thinks of the questions the author mentions when funding programs geared towards our nations disadvantaged students. Before we contunue to shell out more money that we don’t have, we need to look at how the student will be affected in the long term, not just the standard quick fix curriculums that are typical of our school systems. We implement the same programs over and over, with a little different packaging with very little result.We need to stop, think, and redesign.
By James, August 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm # This article is a banal and lazy observation of the status quo. Perhaps the questions being asked at the end of this article merely add to furthering our “acknowledgment” of the situation? While this is fine and good, the author’s urge for real action contradicts her ending statements. What is being done now to address these current problems? In light of the need for serious change, perhaps our discussion should be directed at criticizing or praising the current mindset and philosophy of education in this country-rather than just acknowledging problems there too. Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article