Can I get an 'Amen Brother!'?
Please indulge my snarkiness for a moment, but why is it that nearly every piece of educational research I read makes me say 'Duh!'? I guess it's because I actually pay attention to wtf I see around me every day, rather than just cashing my check.
It's very true that teachers' influence can't remotely equal that of parents. I sometimes think, though, for kids who haven't got a good role model at home, a good teacher may be the next best thing.
It's true that teachers can be role models for students who haven't got good role models at home.
Unfortunately, some people want teachers to be saviors, missionaries and sacrificial lambs as well as role models.
Teachers can help students. But parents must be there too. And if parents cannot or are not there, then society must pick up the slack.
It does take a village to raise children. And there is more to the village than teachers and schools.
If students self-select and choose to involve themselves in after-school activities, I think that such activities can, potentially, enrich our students. However, when it's mandated, when all students are forced to stay for a longer school day, these additions, needless to say, will not be productive time. Time within the school building, doing test-prep, or some such supplemental 'engagement' does not equal enrichment.
Especially for ESL students, the end of the school day is welcome. Trying to understand a new language for six hours a day is exhausting. (I recently spent the summer in China studying Mandarin. I was overjoyed when class ended for the day--and I chose to be there. I was intrinsically motivated to study Chinese.) Many students are not motivated, for various reasons--they have learning issues and don't take to school work like their peers. The parents are not well-educated and cannot see the value of the work done at school. The family made need money , so the student has a job which robs her of homework and study time, as well as energy.
Why aren't these factors considered? One would think that universal healthcare would be a 'no-brainer', in the sense that it may, indirectly give students more study time (in that it would create less need in their families) and, hopefully , allow them and their families to access healthcare when they need it, as opposed to waiting until addressing medical issues can no longer be put off.
Also, I think we need to wean America of the Horatio Alger/I'm gonna win the lottery myth, which undermines the slow and steady economic progress that education can, in part, usually deliver. But we wouldn't need that myth if everyone had access to healthcare, adequate nutrition, and competently-run schools (as opposed to the myriad dysfunctional fiefdoms here in NYC).
It's goes beyond being a good role model.
Years ago, before "the standards", I was able to implement discipline through socialization skills. It took time and sweat, but by December, the kids were among the best-behaved in the school. We were able to enforce rules like take away gym and stay in class to finish their incomplete homework or not be able to go on a trip. To do so now is illegal.
What I found was the children appreciated the fact that someone cared enough to give up "prep" time to enforce the rules. They liked the consistency.
Today we no longer have the time to work on socialization. From day one it's hit the test prep books. And preps are forever being used for some admin paperwork. Every second is used up, but not always for the right reasons.
I think we would love to reach all those kids who have parents that should not be parents. But the stress level is so high, our energy to do so is drained.
Charter schools recognize the role of parents in their child's success. And if those parents don't step up, their kid is out of the program.
The mayor has chosen to pay students and parents for doing what they should be doing in the first place.
(Merit pay for parents??)
It would be so much easier to take the pressure off school test scores and find a new way to evaluate a student's success. And if that success comes from a child starting to love to read, or finally taking school seriously and applying themselves, that should be worth all the School Report Card As in the world.
Yet there are those who want merit pay based on scores. How many times have we seen scores inflated? How many times do we disagree with a standardized score whether it's too high or too low? Scores are phony. But an improvement in a student's attitude is not.
There should really be a requirement for becoming the Chancellor of NYC Schools: doing some sort of research paper in graduate school about education. There are so many publications that say what needs to be done in order to boost student achievement.
This article helps to reinforce the notion that merit pay, privatization of schools, incentive pay for students and punishing schools for low test scores doesn't do much in combating the achievement gap. It merely scares teachers and bribes citizens.
Hey RBE I guess we own the same high school ring. My tag is quite obvious I am surprised you've never commented on it. Since there are only two Jebbie high schools in Manhattan and no one could consider Regis being on the west side, it's good to meet another Son of Xavier.
As to your post, you are touching the third rail of education. Today no one dares do what Coleman did 40 years ago, identify the home as predictive agent in scholastic success. It was not politically correct then and most certainly is not correct now.
As to the solution, most people I've been around in the NYC schools have always sen a longer day as an answer. The extra time dedicated to social activities, meals, and other social work activities.
Of course this is what some see as the true job of government. Don't strenghten the family, diminish its role. I know that I do have some hope. I left my JHS in western queens in 02 for D25. At that time my school was populated with one parent families and those sibling groups with different surnames for each kid. It was depressing. I returned four years later, disallusioned with northeast queens. I found the student population changed. Many more immigrants and most of them represented by two parents at open school. They still have needs, but I am more confident that success for them is possible if we are allowed to teach.
It is of interest that Michael Winerip wrote the article and it was buried in a regional edition of the Times that does not really hit NYC. Since the implications are the trashing of just about every word out of BloomKlein's phony reformist mouths, it deserved to be front page news.
Can't be true. The DOE has stated that when students are poor learners, it's the teacher's fault, not the parents.
Such propaganda. I hope Kleinberg uses their statistics to set this straight.
Volunteer! Parent involvement can be volunteering at child’s school for an afternoon to help get back on track. It is not easy job. need to be planed., have to Talk with child about plan.
Some children will be excited that mom and dad want to help out. Some children are comfortable when parent involvement sticks to parent teacher conferences and family nights.
More schools are willing to introduce a volunteer requirement as part of their important programs. Parent involvement is directly attached to student performance and schools are encouraging this method.
Parents go to volunteer to spend extra time with their children or become acquainted with teachers and classmates. Some parents want to help improve opportunities for education, some want to become knowledgeable about teaching methods and some want to familiarize themselves.
xkaydet65,
You got me. We would own the same high school ring if I actually knew where my high school ring was!
"The reason why this study is important is because it emphasizes something educators already know - our classrooms and our schools do not exist in vacuums. Our students come to us with lives and backgrounds that are far more influential upon their academic potentials and performances than whatever I do for 45 minutes a day, 183 days a year.
This means that if we really want to address the achievement gap in education, we have to look outside the school system for some of the solutions to the education problem."
Is that what the study means? If those who really want to address the achievement gap have to look outside the school system, why do we even have schools? That's a serious question. If socialization predicts educational success or failure and future economic situation as the research shows, what are schools doing?
Schools exist in an environment, not a vacuum, just like every teacher knows, but you walk into any classroom in North America and it looks pretty much the same as any other classroom in North America. The teacher's methods and the curriculum are pretty much the same across this vast land with its multiplicity of languages, cultures and communities. The environments are different. The methods work in some environment and not in others.
There's the problem. All the research shows this to be the case. The solution could be experimenting with method and curriculum. Imagine for a second that teachers don't know everything, and I'd bet that the majority of teachers in communities with the lowest success with the common curriculum drive in from outside those communities, meaning they don't really "know" who they're teaching. Teachers in these communities need to become learners. Teachers need to become experiment, and really what have you go to lose? The kids are failing anyway. Get the kids talking, you'll need to learn their language, and then with you at the helm you've got a learning environment.
It's not that easy. Most experiments fail. But things aren't working right now inside the school. Schools in different communities should look, learn and sound different because they are.
Thanks for a very thought-provoking and intelligent post. I agree with you that schools should look and sound different, and that they ought to meet the needs of the populations they serve. I also believe that the next best thing for a kid with indifferent parents is a good teacher.
I don't agree that teaching is all the same, as great teachers I've seen have different, albeit effective approaches. I think good teachers need to think on their feet, and be ready to adapt. It's tougher now, with all the emphasis on testing.
Have you read Teacher Man, by Frank McCourt? You may enjoy it, and I think you'd see at least one example of someone who was a great teacher. There are great teachers around, even if they haven't written best-selling books. I know a few of them.
And there are an awful lot of good teachers too. Some districts, those I'd emulate, use them exclusively.
Commenting by HaloScan
