Devastating Critique of Obama's Race to the Top: You want better schools? Address poverty.

[Karmadillo]

The comments below come from Stephen Krashen. He wrote The Power of Reading (which advocates Voluntary Free Reading in schools since the best way to learn to read is to read). His comments on the Race to the Top point out the US is extremely competitive with the rest of the world when we're talking students from well-funded schools. It's only when we're talking kids from high poverty schools that we're not competitive. In Neo-Serfdom USA, it's not surprising that we have the highest percentage of child poverty of any industrialized country. The way to better public schools, it turns out, isn't charter schools or more testing (sorry, Arne & other privatization types). It's reducing poverty and making sure kids in high poverty districts have access to books. In the midst of a grinding recession, that would be a heckuva an issue for the Democratic Party to take up. Bailed out bankers might object, but more than a few voters might respond favorably.

http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/race_to_the_top/index.html

Global competitiveness

The major rationale for the RTTT is the claim that the US needs to improve its educational system drastically to keep up with the rest of the world, to be able to compete with other countries. In reality, the US is already very competitive: In fact, the US ranks first in the world (out of 134 countries) in "global competitiveness." (World Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum).

The STEM (Science, Technical, Engineering, and Mathematics) shortage

"... the impending shortage of scientists and engineers is one of the longest running hoaxes in the country" (Bracey, 2009).

One of the major priorities of the RTTT is to "Prepare more students for advanced study and careers in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics." There is no shortage of STEM-trained professionals, in fact, there is a surplus (Teitelbaum, 2007; Toppo and Vergano, 2009; Bracey, 2009). In addition, the US ranks at or near the top of the world on all categories related to STEM education and availability of expertise: According to the World Economic Federation, the US ranks 6th out of 134 countries in "availability of scientists & engineers," first in "quality of scientific research institutions" and first in "university-industry research collaboration."

Our schools are bad. Our students' scores on international tests are mediocre.

Students from well-funded schools who come from high-income families score outscore all or nearly all other countries on international tests. Only our children in high poverty schools score below the international average (Payne and Biddle, 1999; Bracey, 2009; Martin, 2009) The US has the highest percentage of children in poverty of all industrialized countries (25%, compared to Denmark's 3%). Our educational system has been successful; the problem is poverty.

THE TREATMENT: NATIONAL STANDARDS, NATIONAL TESTS

The Department of Education has made the standards movement its number one priority, has already planned to spend billions on the standards and has planned to spend much more on national tests.

The wrong priority

The first priority should not be new standards and tests but should be reducing poverty. As just noted, the US has the highest rate of child poverty of all industrialized countries. Poverty has a huge impact. Studies confirm that hunger, poor diet and lack of reading material seriously affect academic performance. When all our children have the advantages that children from high-income families have, our schools will be considered the best in the world.

A suggestion

A good start is strengthening school libraries in high poverty areas: Children in the deepest levels of poverty have the lowest reading test scores, and also have very little access to books in the home, in school, and in their communities. Study after study confirms that increased access to books results in more reading and more reading results in better literacy development (research reviewed in Krashen, 2004). A one-time investment in school libraries of about $26 million would generate enough money in the form of annual interest to make sure all children have access to books forever. (The current NCLB federal budget is $26 billion).

more that is worth your time to read...

[Dinger]

1. "Strengthening School Libraries In High Poverty Areas" Some Idiot Unrecs This

How fucking nuts.

[dkf]

3. +1

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Wingnut trolls

They unrec here and discuss it on their crappy sites :)

[Karmadillo]

33. .

nt

[apocalypsehow]

2. There is not *one* credible shred of evidence that "reducing poverty" makes for "better schools."

Not one.

Better parents make better schools, not wealthier ones.

[shopgreen]

5. Are you serious? Poverty is horrible. And there is a difference

between just say middle class and wealthy.

[Dinger]

8. Oh, I Get It. Reducing Poverty HURTS Schools.

Now I know, thanks to you.

[EFerrari]

9. Are you joking?

Try learning something on an empty stomach. Try.

[SharonAnn]

14. And try parenting when you're working 2 low-pay jobs, no benefits, one kid sick, utilities cut off

father doesn't pay child support, car problems but can't afford to get them fixed, can't get to work, lose your job, become homeless, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Right, fighting poverty couldn't possibly help parents be more involved parents. right.

[EFerrari]

18. Exactly. And been there, done that.

That's how my kids' dad got the nickname "sperm donor".

[Mr Generic Other]

25. and don't forget the nagging toothache.

there is absolutely no doubt that poverty affects learning.
and that the number of years of education one gets is correlated with one's economic status.
the studies are endless and they all agree about these things.
as the disparity in wealth increases in the US the success of working class children in schools goes down.
not a difficult equation.

[Oregone]

11. Holy fuck. Best satire of the new year!

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Reducing poverty increases achievement

The most significant factor in achievement is socioeconomic status.

That's education 101 :)

[madrchsod]

21. interesting......

i suppose it`s easy in your world to blame the parent or parents. but in the real world it`s far more complex.

[donco6]

23. Ha! There's tons of evidence that high poverty leads to poor schools.

Why wouldn't reducing poverty make them better?

And there may be no evidence because, to my knowledge, it's never happened.

[ThomCat]

26. There is vast amounts of evidence

that increasing poverty reduces learning and the quality of the schools.

It is also well documented that the #1 issue parents fight over is money, and that poverty creates massive stresses upon families.

So reducing poverty would improve schools and education, and it would improve family situations and the ability of families to find the time and resources to help their children learn.

[TheKentuckian]

27. wish I could unrec your post

Do you think poverty is beneficial to learning or anything else of good use?

[Odin2005]

30. Try parenting when both parents have to work 16hrs/day, you dumbass

[haele]

31. Parents in poverty have a harder time being "better parents" than wealthier ones -

Modern poverty in the US breeds despair and hopelessness and a sense of victimization that makes for poor parenting.
In my day and my parent's day, the story of the "Noble Poor family" that hung together and strove for a better life had some basis in fact because in most communities, as long as someone in the family could work or attempted to work, people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and possibly a hand up when they needed it. One person working as a general handyman or mechanic, or waitress or cashier, could almost keep a family together with just a bit more help. Poor families growing up rural could always have food and necessities available because they could still be self-sufficient with a garden patch, a cow, a couple chickens and perhaps a sheep or two - or that their better-off neighbors with the same would share for labor as needed.

Modern poverty is a family killer. Modern poverty requires that for a family to get assistance, there either needs to be a single working parent or both parents must be working at several menial labor jobs that still don't make enough to have ends meet before they can get assistance. Modern poverty doesn't care how many hours a child has with his or her parents.

Alleviating poverty, allowing families to live in a reasonably comfortable manner on one job instead of having to take three or four low wage part-time jobs for the roof over their heads and food on the shelves, or be forced to give up assistance too soon because of a "War on Welfare" goes a long way to help parents take a greater interest in their child's academics than being left with only three or four hours a week interaction where they can only threaten the kids if they don't do their homework.

You can only ask someone to constantly make due with less so they could be the bottom line on a corporate balance sheet for so long before they need to realize some reward for their sacrifice. And they're constantly barraged with the social messages that being poor is the bottom of the trash heap, and you're only worth what you have the buying power for. Poor parents give up in greater numbers than their middle class counterparts, because they know they're disposable and any pride of self-sufficiency is not there. And they pass that on to their kids.

We're no longer a country of Citizens, we're Consumers. And until that "meme" changes, the majority of poor people are not going to be getting enough self-respect to think of themselves and their children other than as animals to be used or disposed of once their usefulness ends.
Honestly, if you put yourself in their real shoes (not the "well, if I were poor, I'd do this" shoes), why should a parent be concerned about educating children to get ahead if the parent can't see there's anything other than menial labor out there for the child to strive for? A few parents might, but most would just want their children to be happy, and if the children don't develop a notion to "get above themselves", they'll be happy working at Walmart or fast food joints where they could at least hang out with their friends and other family members. Where they won't despise their mom and dad for being poor and not giving them what they think they deserve as they grow older.

Jobs; the ability to for a child to gain a good, middle-class, wage-and-benefits you can raise a family on jobs, are what changes poor parents from being educationally un-motivated to motivated. And those are what's sorely lacking in this country.

Haele

[Luminous Animal]

36. I think you've glamorized poverty. It has alway been a brutal exhistance...

in the U.S. Quite simply we have always believed that poor people deserve to suffer even while we promote a capitalist system, a system of competition that ensures that there will be losers. Every competition must have losers.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Actually, there is. Reducing poverty makes better students and thus...

better schools. Apparently, you have no clue what debilitating effect chronic hunger can wreck on a mind. I know, because my siblings and I suffered through several years of chronic hunger and illnesses due to poverty. Myself? I lost much of second grade due to excruciatingly painful earaches which ultimately led me to the emergency room and in the hospital near death. My brother became 70% deaf in his left ear due to an untreated ear infection. He spent 6 years of school barely able to hear what was going on. The three of us went to school many days with no breakfast and no lunch. (Our rural catholic school had no government subsidized lunch program - no cafeteria at all.) I spent much of the morning's instruction plotting how I was going bargain for other kid's food. From about ages 6-12, I would have beaten the crap out of anyone for food.

[murphyj87]

4. Even at it's best..

American education seems to end at the US border. In Canadian schools we learned about the US and Britain almost as much as we learned about Canada. Compared to my American cousins, I always had a far broader view of the world and a far larger body of knowledge to draw on in all fields.

[Oregone]

13. And mostly only the positive aspects are covered

My history book never talked much about the lost wars or now public covert ops that just caused bloody revolutions.

[sandnsea]

6. So pick a county and apply for a grant

Prove that more books is the answer. That's the entire premise of race to the top. Find the answers through proof that they work, not conjecture.

But at least you're not quoting wsws so that's an improvement over your usual Obamabash of the day.

[Hardrada]

7. Your "contribution" is duly noted.

[Karmadillo]

10. Thanks. It's not my usual Obamabash of the day without your knee-jerk defense. Proof

is already established. It wouldn't take much money from bailouts for the wealthy or wars of empire to act on it. It would fit better with all that "hope and change" stuff, too.

http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/case_for_libraries/index.html

The Case For Libraries and Librarians

Invited Paper, Submitted to the Obama-Biden Education Policy Working Group, December, 2008
Stephen Krashen

"When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself." (Isaac Asimov, from his autobiography I Asimov)

The case for libraries is very strong.

Research shows that better public and school libraries are related to better reading achievement. The reason for this is obvious: Children become better readers by reading more (Krashen, 2004), and the library is a major source of books for children. 1

Better Libraries > Better Reading Achievement

Study after study has shown that library quality (number of books available or books per student) is related to reading achievement at the state level (Lance, 1994), national level (McQuillan, 1998), and international level (Elley, 1992; Krashen, Lee and McQuillan, 2008), even when researchers control for the effects of poverty.

The library is especially important for children of poverty, because they have very little access to books at home (Feitelson and Goldstein, 1986), at school, and in their communities. The library is often their only source of books. Unfortunately, children of poverty are the least likely to have access to quality libraries (Smith, Constantino, and Krashen, 1996; De Loreto and Tse, 1999; Duke, 2000; Neuman and Celano, 2001).

Librarians

Providing access to books is necessary but is not sufficient: Not all children who have access to libraries take full advantage of them (Peck, 2000, Celano and Neuman, 2008). Keith Curry Lance's studies confirm that the presence of librarians and overall staffing contributes to reading achievement independent of other measures of library quality. The most obvious way librarians contribute is helping children find books, in addition to selecting books and other materials for the library, and collaborating with teachers. 2

Children of poverty are less likely to attend schools that have libraries with credentialed librarians (Celano and Neuman, 2001).

If America can increase funding for libraries and librarians, I can only think that America has found one important way to rebuild itself.

[sandnsea]

22. Primary Princess

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4758646

[donco6]

24. Back to the usual dodge.

Typical.

[Karmadillo]

29. Sad. One year in and you're reduced to refighting the primaries. But back to the topic at hand,

why is the Obama Administration avoiding the proven solution of improving education by addressing poverty? Why this emphasis on charter schools and testing and closing down public schools? What's so bad about making sure poor kids have access to books and libraries and well-trained librarians? If we have trillions for bankers and trillions for the Forever War, surely we can look under the sofa cushions and find the $26 million the OP says would be necessary to ensure books are available for all schoolkids. Becoming a corporate-friendly party doesn't have to mean ignoring the needs of its traditional constituencies.

[Jamastiene]

12. Reading truly is fundamental.

I would not trade the ability to read for anything.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. AMEN!

Enthusiastically rec'ed

[Starry Messenger]

19. k & r

& bookmarking.

[DKRC]

20. Book by Lisa Dodson addresses this also

The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy It was published just last month. Dodson did 8 years of research all across the country.
I'm about two thirds the way through it. I recommend it to everyone.

K&R

[Karmadillo]

32. "I pad their paychecks because you can't live on what they make."

So says a supervisor of a fast food pizza place quoted on the book's page at Amazon. Thanks for posting this. It sounds great.

[DKRC]

34. Excellent book

Almost done with it.
As bad as things are, it gives me some comfort to know that people are listening to their conscience & doing the right thing for those around them. That so many of us need their help is appalling.

[druidity33]

28. i have a couple of doubts

I grew up in a suburban middle-class/wealthy area (Long Island) and went to a well funded Public School. I had access to all sorts of experiences/classes/materials that rural and inner city schools don't often have. At the time i knew quite a few people attending private schools and i have to say, they never seemed to have to work hard to get much better grades than everyone else. And the colleges they wanted to go to were pretty much assured since elementary school. I don't think those kids were any smarter than the ones i knew who grew up in the Bronx (in fact i'd say they were dumber about a lot... future R's if you get my drift).

I guess i'm not exactly sure what i'm trying to say here. Maybe just the idea that the US's educational system "is great" in the schools where there is no/very little Poverty just strikes me as suspicious. Yes, i do believe that tackling poverty would definitely improve the efforts at educating our children. But i think it's also important to consider that rich kids are graded differently than poor kids. I also believe that there is a lurker in the shadows that has not been brought to the light in regards to educating our children. The soul-sucking Gogglebox. The Television/Video games. Learning in the presence of a TV is a hazard at best. Yet, as a society, we encourage disassociation, disconnecting, etc. by applauding its use of "educational programming".

Poverty is a wicked complicated issue. The role of Education is intertwined. Either one would be just as big as Health Care, if there were a Legislative agenda. I actually wish Edwards still had a voice in Politics because i think this is the issue he's passionate about. I think the recommendations this article/report makes are good ones. We SHOULD make sure the libraries at poorer schools have the books the kids need. We SHOULD make sure every kid is getting fed every day. But what i'd love to see is someone (or some group) come up with a plan that addresses the systemic issues of Poverty and Education.

Of course that's wishful thinking, i know. I'd also like to see us address the systemic problems within our Financial System, our oil dependency, our drug laws, our prison system, etc...

Thanks for the thoughtful OP.

K&R