The other day I read a book whose author is of the opinion that schools in majority low-income areas just cannot be helped. Instead, he touts socioeconomic integration of student populations such that there is at least a 50 percent representation of middle class families in each school. His thinking is that a critical mass of middle class families will create an environment that will inspire parent participation, discourage negative attitudes towards schooling as a necessity, and generally create a more pleasant environment for teachers and students to do the school thing.
In case you are wondering, yes, you're right. That whole train of thought is based on the premise that the not-wealthy make life difficult. The book, All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through Public School Choice by Richard Kahlenberg, goes on to say things like:
"In low-income schools, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching reports, parental involvement is often abysmally low: in one Los Angeles junior high school with an enrollment of eleven hundred, only a dozen parents showed up for a parent-teacher meeting; in New Orleans, where parents are required to pick up report cards, 70 percent remained unclaimed two months after parents were notified...in Montgomery County, Maryland, parents in wealthier schools demand additional conferences with teachers, whereas parents in poorer areas are often unwilling to attend conferences, so teachers must go to the children's homes if they wish to meet with parents."
Kahlenberg also talks about a 'hidden curriculum' in the classroom that exposes under-resourced children to vocabulary, cultures, destinations, and experiences they might not normally encounter. He is careful to stress that socioeconomic integration differs from racial integration (which, by the way was ruled unconstitutional by way of a June 2007 Supreme Court case in Kentucky) because under the racial plan, what often happened is that poor blacks and whites would wind up together, racially integrated but still in trouble.
'Tis no secret that the middle-class has been in flight from the disadvantaged for a long, long time, so what has convinced Mr. Kahlenberg that they will not fight vigorously to not have this kind of thing happen? Why testing, of course! He presents evidence indicating not only that scores of middle-income are unaffected, but that those of lower-income students increase. Then story could end there if testing were all that mattered, but let us not go there again.
IF this is really the remedy, what are the side effects? How would such mixings work in the trenches (i.e., the halls and bathrooms, where many an ego is often crushed within earshot of just the right audience)? If a school had a 50 percent middle class enrollment, what measures could be taken to ensure each class does as well? What about communities that have no middle class to put into the 50 percent slot?
While an interesting read, unfortunately All Together Now cannot be the last stop on this ride, for it would leave quite a bit more road to be traveled.
Stay tuned…
1 comment:
Why is it that in some lower income urban setting schools parents are MIA? Having children that have attended both a lower income urban school and a middle class suburbia school I have witnessed the difference. Parents are heavily involved in the latter schools. Also why is it that in some lower income urban setting schools the staff lumps all parents in one catergory, "Parents that give a darn whether their child goes to school, or does their homework, or feels the parent doesn't discipline their child. I myself live on a low income but am a parent that is extremely involved in my childrens lives. Education is very important to me and I "get involved" in their Education. I am disgusted by the schools attitudes towards parents and also disgusted by the number of parents that just don't care. Maybe the parents lack of involvement is due to the attitude of the staff. They figure why bother. Just some thoughts floating around in my head this a.m.
Post a Comment