The Root Causes for an Underachieving Public Education System

                For a while, I have been thinking about what are the root causes of our underachieving public schools and can they be fixed?  With all the reforms that have taken place in public education over the decades, why do these reforms produce results that cannot be sustained overtime or results that produce a modicum of success? 

It must be stated that the root causes are systemic, which will make them harder to fix.  The first root cause is our country’s undervalue of education.  It is well known and documented that countries in Europe and Asia consider their public educational system a national priority.  In Europe and Asia, teachers are valued and respected for the role they play in preparing the next generation to become productive members of society.  Students are provided with clear pathways to employment via apprenticeships or higher education via college preparatory track.  In the US, public education is not a national priority.  Teachers are not valued or respected, the US does not have a national apprenticeship program and the pathway to higher education is through graduation, not a national college prep curriculum.  In Europe and Asia, public education adapts to the changes and needs of the economy,while public education in the US is slow to adapt and at times, resistant to change.

The second root cause is the role of the teachers union.  Throughout the history of public education in the US, the teachers union has been perceived as either a positive agent of change, or a hindrance to change.  However, with the problems in the economy and the mediocrity of the public education system, unions have come under scrutiny.  While concessions were being made by the federal and state government and other unions, the refusal of teachers unions to accept changes to collective bargaining and accept a payroll freeze, many have begun to question the viability or need for a teachers union. 

Current perceptions of teachers unions are they protect and reward teachers who produce mediocre students that are jeopardizing the America’s position as leader of the global economy.  Teachers unions have also been perceived as being out of touch with the changes and demands of the workforce.  They have been criticized for fighting against changes to the work day, tenure and teacher evaluations.  The scrutiny teachers unions are under is similar to what the auto workers union went through several years ago when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. 

The final root cause is the affects of poverty.  Poverty continues to be a destabilizing entity in our society.  The affects of poverty are well documented, but for education, the affects are devastating.  Schools whose mission is to educate, have become social service centers to children who come from unstable environments.  Schools have to educate children who are hungry, homeless, abused (victim or witness), frustrated and angry.  In some instances before a school can educate, a school will have to rebuild a child’s self-esteem and confidence so the child can begin to learn. 

                Until we seriously address the root causes of our underachieving public school system, our country will continue to underachieve.  We can no longer continue to implement reforms that cannot be sustained and produce mediocre results.  It is time for our country to make education a national priority and to genuinely consider a national educational model that develops clear pathways for employment and higher education.  It is time for our country to consider how to better prepare and evaluate teachers and how to make teaching a respected and sought after profession.  Lastly, it is time to renew the war on poverty with the singular intensity and funding that occurred with the war on terror.  

The Promise Neighborhood

                With the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone, the federal government awarded 21 planning grants of $500,000 across the country.  The grants were part of the government’s Promise Neighborhood initiative.   The purpose of the grant was to bring together the resources of all the agencies and organizations that provide services for children and families in order to make services more efficient and to close procedural gaps which delay services to children and families.  The grant is supposed to be the conduit for collaboration, coordination, better communication and identifying areas of need to develop better “wraparound services[i]”

                Promise Neighborhoods seek to replicate the “cradle-through-college-career” approach that was first developed by the Harlem Children’s Zone.  The approach was to aggressively address and dismantle the barriers in a child’s life that affected learning.  By removing or greatly diminishing barriers, it allowed families to focus on their child’s education.  The Promise Neighborhood belief is

“when families spend so much time trying to make ends meet,

they rarely focus on improving their situation[ii].”

By supporting families from the time of conception, barriers such as the access to health care are removed and the child is less likely to suffer from lack of prenatal care.  As the child grows, having the supports in place to address potential educational and social service needs could lessen the impact on learning when the need occurs.

The Promise Neighborhood initiative is attempting to implement the idea that it “takes a whole village to raise a child.”  While the end product is to help children graduate from high school, enroll and graduate from a post-secondary education program and become adults that contribute to society, the family unit is stabilized and strengthened.  By focusing on children, the whole family is helped.

We know the needs of families in economically distressed neighborhoods.  If the Promise Neighborhood grants can replicate what the Harlem Children’s Zone has done to stabilize and strengthen families, children across the country will be able to focus on being children and their education.  If a family is struggling with stable employment, the resources of the Promise Neighborhood would connect the parent(s) with an agency that assists adults with training and finding stable employment.  If a family is struggling with childcare for younger non-school age siblings, Promise Neighborhood resources would assists the family with finding affordable childcare. 

Whatever the need of a family are, healthcare, housing, GED, etc, Promise Neighborhood resources will be at a family’s disposal to support and remove barriers that affect a child’s learning. Hopefully this will be the initiative that transforms income distressed neighborhoods and stabilizes families.

---

[i] Relph, Azriel, Lui, Richard (10/25/11). An Outside-In Effort to Help the Poor Achieve. www.msnbc.com/id/45022229/ns/today-education_nation

[ii] ibid

Putting an End to the IQ Debate

                There has been a recent breakthrough in IQ research.  For a long time, the accepted and controversial belief that IQ was fixed and could never change has dominated the fields of neuroscience, child development, assessment, and the education of minorities.  However, a recent study at University College in London found that significant changes in IQ can occur in the adolescence and teenage years[i].

                The University College study tested 33 British adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 years old.  The students were tested and four years later were given the same test.  The results of the study found that some teens improved their IQ scores by as much as 20 points. This was a surprise to the research team because they expected a change of a few points they were not expecting a significant rise in scores among some of the participants.  According to Lead Researcher Cathy Price:

                                “We were very surprised…we had individuals that changed

                                from being on the 50^th percentile with an IQ of 100 all the way

                                up to being in the top 3^rd percentile, with an IQ of 127[ii]

                To confirm their findings, researchers used brain scans to confirm the significant rise in scores was not a mistake.  Comparing brain scans from age 12 and age 16, the researchers were able to see which different parts of the brain changed as a result of the changes in IQ.

                Although the study did not explain the causes for the increase in IQ score, its results have re-affirmed a long dismissed idea that IQ is not fixed.  Proponents of this belief argue that a child’s home and educational environment influences IQ.  They further argue that changes to those environments could lead to increased scores. 

                The University College study provides a compelling argument for reform in public school educational assessment.  The ideology of fixed IQ is woven in the fabric of public education.  This ideology has been used by school psychologist, teachers and administrators to permanently label and direct the educational path of students whose IQ score falls below a certain number.  Once the student has been labeled with a disability and placed on the educational path, the expectation level among school staff is based on a deficit model and a generalized biased that ignores a student’s individuality.  The student becomes viewed in by the lens of their disability.  The findings of the University College study should finally put an end to the IQ debate and begin the discussion on how to reform the educational assessment of students in public education. 

Now that we know IQ can be increased, there needs to be a change in the ideology in public education that reflects a student-centered approach whereby school staff focus educational programming on increasing IQ scores among students’ with low IQ.  By changing the expectation level, and generalized biased among school staff, the lens of their disability becomes a lens of availability that provides greater inclusion, opportunity and access that was once never considered.

---

[i] www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/10/20/141511314/iq-isnt-set-in-stone-suggests-stud....

[ii] ibid

Diversity and its Impact on the SAT

            A recent report by the College Board found that scores on the critical reading section on the SAT exam fell by 3 points to its lowest point on record, while combined reading and math scores fell to its lowest point since 1995[i].

            The report claims the reason for the drop in scores is due to the growing diversity of the test taking pool.  According to the College Board, the growing diversity in the test taking pool primarily by Latinos whose native language is not English and an increase among African-American students due outreach efforts has led to the decrease in scores. 

            Increased diversity cannot be completely blamed on low test scores.  While it is convenient to blame increased participation of minorities and English Language Learners for the decline in overall scores, there are other reasons to consider. 

            Critics of the SAT have long claimed the test is biased against minorities.  They argue the test content was developed for students who come from upper and middle class backgrounds.  Critics argue that knowing there is a great chasm between affluent and poor districts, the test places students from poorer districts at a disadvantage because they may not have been exposed or properly prepared by their schools.  Since colleges and universities place a heavy emphasis on SAT scores, students from poorer districts are limited to where they can apply. 

            Critics also claimed the ability of upper and middle class families to pay for test preparation services, provides an unfair advantage over families who cannot afford to pay for test preparation services.  Providing students who can afford it with strategies on how to do well on the test provides a false portrayal to colleges and universities of a student’s academic ability because their scores are inflated. 

If the College Board is going to stick with their poorly construed explanation for the drop in overall test scores, then the solution for the College Board is to make the test more accessible to the increasing minority pool.  The College Board has not adapted test to address the needs of English Language Learners and other minorities.  The test does not consider language adaptations or cultural situations when test questions and scenarios are being developed. 

By not acting on the results of their study, the College Board has acknowledged minorities will be used as the scapegoat for the shortcomings of the SAT.  Scapegoating minorities deflects the attention away from a test that is considered by many to be culturally biased and unfair because for a fee, a student can be taught how to do well on the test.

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/2102-201_162-20106069 . SAT Reading Scores Fall to record low