HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary - Aug 28, 2004 - Printable Version
- 13 Million Left Behind
by Mark Faulk
This is an article about education, or more specifically, about the failure of our educational system to lift up those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. So, let's start by discussing an area where millions have been left behind, an area that many believe has nothing to do with education. Let's talk about poverty. In 2000, the poverty rate for people under the age of eighteen dropped to 16.2 percent, the lowest poverty rate for children since 1979. Since then, the poverty rate for children has risen every year, and according to figures released on August 26, hit 17.6 percent last year, with almost 13 million children now living in poverty.
What does this have to do with education? Hundreds of studies have shown that children living in poverty generally achieve at lower levels than children of middle and upper classes. Although the "No Child Left Behind" act acknowledges this connection between socioeconomic conditions and the ability to learn, the steady rise in the poverty levels under President Bush makes one question this administration's commitment to education. Maybe now would be a good time to ask: "Is our children learning?"
It's just one of many Catch-22 situations involving the poor and education: the only way to lift the majority of poor Americans out of poverty is through a better education, but as long as they're poor, their education will suffer in comparison to those who are economically better off than they are. Therefore, they will always remain poor and undereducated. In other words, at least when it comes to those living in poverty, our children isn't learning.
One year ago, my "best friend's daughter" (as in, "I know a guy"), we'll call her "Ms. Landers", began her career by taking a job teaching fifth grade in the Dallas area, in a school where over 90% of all the students live in poverty. This is what was she was offered as a first-year teaching assignment: a class filled with children (almost every one of them living in poverty) who had been through five teachers the prior year, and who tested out as a class at the second grade level at the beginning of the year.
From my point of view, it seemed to be the most challenging first year teaching assignment in the history of the teaching profession (Granted, I might be just a bit biased in my point of view. It was, after all, my "best friend's daughter".) It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the other teachers had a pool to see how long she would last. Why on earth would any school district put a twenty-two year old first year teacher in a classroom that even the most seasoned and accomplished veterans of the chalkboard would be hesitant to take on?
As it turns out, that is exactly the reason she was assigned to that particular class. Because of the laws that evaluate all Texas teachers based on students' test scores, the vast majority of the "most seasoned and accomplished" teachers want nothing to do with the students who need them the most - the ones who either live in poor, underprivileged neighborhoods, have learning disabilities (but disabilities that aren't pronounced enough to land them in special classrooms), or who the system has failed. In other words, the ones who test lower on standardized tests, and therefore, lower the evaluation ratings of the teachers themselves. And who can blame them, since their "test scores" as a teacher are directly correlated to the test scores of those they teach. Teach the "best and the brightest", and you're automatically one of the best and the brightest teachers.
That brings us to another one of those Catch-22 scenarios I mentioned earlier: If students' test scores are too low, the teachers with the most experience (and therefore the most seniority) don't want to teach them, so they end up with the teachers who have little or no experience, teachers like Ms. Landers. It's all part of of the "No Child Left Behind" concept, Texas style. As a teacher, do you want a good evaluation? Then don't take on the students who do poorly on the standardized tests. Leave those kids to the teachers who have little or no experience, and who usually aren't ready to handle the most challenging classroom situations. Leave those kids to Ms. Landers.
And how did Ms. Landers fare with her "To Sir With Love" fifth grade class? She worked her ass off, she tried teaching techniques that many in the Dallas School District would consider "outside the box", she encouraged, she yelled, she cajoled, she implored, she even begged on occasion, but in the end, she gained the respect of her students, their parents (or more often, their "parent"), and of the other teachers in the school. And her students learned. Their test scores improved, and everyone was happy.
Well, almost everyone. Although their test scores did indeed improve, they still tested below the average test scores for other students in the state (you know, the ones who had high test scores to begin with). And unfortunately, this isn't about improving lives, or helping kids become better students, it's about one thing, and one thing only - test scores. It's not even about improving test scores, it's simply about test scores.
So, Ms. Landers won the respect of everyone at her school, but her evaluation wasn't based on that, or the fact that she had improved the lives and, yes, even the test scores, of her students. Her evaluation showed one thing (Has everyone figured out what that one thing is yet? I hope so, they'll be a test on this later). It showed that her students' test scores were below the state average. And her reward for all her hard work and perseverance? Next week, after beginning the school year teaching fourth grade, she will be transferred to a kindergarten class in a classroom the size of a janitor's closet, teaching an age group she has never taught, isn't trained to teach, and has absolutely no desire to teach. An age group that isn't old enough to be included in the all-important "standardized testing" category. All because she accepted a challenge that no one else wanted.
And the next time a teacher is asked to take on the challenge of teaching a group of kids that are "low performers"? All they'll have to do is take a look down the hall and see how the system has rewarded Ms. Landers, and the decision should be a no-brainer. And what about the thirteen million children living in poverty, the ones who really need our "best and our brightest"? They'll end up with the teachers who have the least amount of training and experience, and unfortunately, in most cases, those teachers won't turn out to be as gifted and dedicated as Ms. Landers. And once again, those thirteen million children will be left behind.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).