In a recent article in the Washington Post, "Low-income students in Montgomery County performed better when they attended affluent elementary schools instead of ones with higher concentrations of poverty, according to a new study that suggests economic integration is a powerful but neglected school-reform tool."
As I read the article, I thought about the concept. I am not surprised that putting kids in a "richer" school helped them do better. What I had to really think about is why? Why do I put my kids at Lovinggood instead of a lower socioeconomic school. (trying to not to name a school and make anyone mad!) The obvious reason is the test scores are better at Lovinggood but it goes deeper than that.
First, the students behave differently. When I go to Lovinggood and watch class change it amazes me. Sure, the kids talk, kid around, and horseplay some, but it is so unlike what I am used to teaching in a Title One school. There is no cursing, no obvious threats to others, no talk of sex or loud sexual comments, and most interestingly, not the same clothes. Now you ask, what do the clothes have to do with it? Well, at my former school I was the morning dress code inspector. I stood right where the kids entered and made sure no one was too far out of dress code. Not a day went by that I didn't have to comment on short skirts, ripped jeans with too much showing, shirts with inappropriate words/pictures (drugs, alcohol, or sex), or tops that were way to tight or low cut. I see none of this at Lovinggood. Maybe they have weeded them out, but I don't even see borderline dress issues. What is this a deeper reflection of?
"Researchers say that poor schools often struggle because they tend to attract rotating staffs of less-experienced teachers and administrators, among other problems. Schools with lower levels of poverty have a range of benefits that include more stable staffs, fewer discipline problems and more support from volunteers. Parents who have one job instead of three also have an easier time being involved. And expectations are usually higher."
So poor schools have more discipline problems. Why? Is it the poverty itself or something more? Interesting question...
I do agree that poor schools have greater staff turnover, check how many teachers leave a school in south Cobb versus a school like Still Elementary which has almost no turnover. Why do teachers leave faster at the lower socioeconomic schools? Is the stress greater? Is it harder to teach? Is there less support from parents and administrators? Are the kids' problems, attention and learning needs greater making the job harder? Or is it that seniority means you get a chance to transfer out of these schools to a so called "good" school? I think probably a combination of all these is to blame.
The article goes on to discuss that our current trend in school reform is to try to "fix" low socioeconomic schools but what if the cure is to bus those students to higher economic schools? Mix it up so that all the poor kids aren't clustered at a couple of schools but spread out at all the schools making them a small percentage of the school populations? Busing has a nasty history and I am not sure you can ever look at busing without the old stigma coming into play. The other problem with this plan is parents. Think back to the nasty fight when they were trying to draw the district lines between McEachern and Hillgrove. That fight was between the haves and the have nots. How willing are the more well to do students' parents to having the "poor" kids bussed into their schools? Not very, I think.
So what is the answer? I don't assume that I have it, but I am interested in this research and would like to see if it can be replicated in other areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment