Posted on 07/03/2002 8:11:34 AM PDT by summer
The NYT - Education
"Lessons" column
July 3, 2002
Failed Schools? The Meaning Is Unclear
By RICHARD ROTHSTEIN
THE Supreme Court ruled last week, in a case involving Cleveland schools, that public money in the form of vouchers could subsidize the tuition of students who choose to attend religious schools. It was only partly a legal judgment that such aid does not violate the separation of church and state. What propelled the court was also a policy conclusion that vouchers may be a way to rescue children from failing public schools.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that his majority ruling was "not an endorsement of religious schooling," but only a means "to assist poor children in failed schools." Justice David H. Souter, in dissent, acknowledged that if ever there was reason to support religious schools, Cleveland's failed public schools would provide it.
But nobody really knows how to identify failing schools, the justices included. Policy makers have been so anxious to punish school failure that they have worried too little about defining what failure is.
Typically, a failing school is deemed one with low scores. By this measure, Cleveland schools do fail, prompting parents to seek radical alternatives.
But while low scores can result from failed schools, they can also have other causes. Poor performance can also result from parents who do not read to young children or otherwise support learning at home. It can result from inadequate exposure to art and music. It can result from insecurity bred of violent surroundings, from emotional stress in broken families or from parents suffering severe economic hardship. In combination, these factors almost ensure failure.
How can policy makers distinguish schools that fail because of low expectations, poor teaching and disorderly classrooms from those that seem to fail because of social and economic pressure?
Cleveland vouchers highlight the problem. The State of Ohio commissioned studies to evaluate the program. If Cleveland schools were truly failing, then public school students who used vouchers at successful private schools should have higher scores than comparable students remaining in public schools.
But if voucher students did as poorly as comparable public school students, then Cleveland's public school "failure" is likely attributable less to what public schools do than to obstacles all schools, public and private, face in educating disadvantaged children.
The studies were conducted by Kim K. Metcalf of Indiana University, and reviewed by outside experts, including supporters and opponents of vouchers.
In his most recent report, Dr. Metcalf compared students who got vouchers with public school students who wanted vouchers but did not get them because there were too few to go around. The two groups had no significant differences in scores.
When voucher students were compared with public school students who did not apply for vouchers, voucher students did better in language arts (like grammar) but not in math or other reading skills. The voucher students' language scores were only slightly higher.
Susan Tave Zelman, Ohio's superintendent of public instruction, concluded: "We don't see anything one way or another from these studies on the academic results of vouchers. The lack of dramatic results is neither a negative nor positive judgment on the program."
Meanwhile, state test data show how complex definitions of failure can be. Cleveland, where 80 percent of students are from low-income families, certainly seems to be failing; most students are not proficient in most subjects.
Like many other urban areas, Cleveland is surrounded by suburbs with growing minority populations. Most people would think that these districts succeed because their overall scores are still above standard. But minority students' average scores are much lower, and the gap between white and black students in these "successful" districts is comparable to the gap in "failing" Cleveland schools.
Ohio permits Cleveland students to transfer not only to private schools, but also to public schools in these suburbs. But no suburb would take any Cleveland students. Officials at suburban schools that already had some poor students recognized that if they added too many more, their schools could be termed "failing" even if instruction remained adequate.
Of course, many Cleveland schools may fail because they do not rise to the challenge of educating disadvantaged students. Others may be more successful, although their test scores are still low. Roman Catholic schools in Cleveland, which accept most of the voucher students, may be in either category. We simply can't tell them apart because scores are low in both cases.
When Supreme Court justices thought they found a way for urban students to escape failing schools, they ventured into an area beyond their judicial expertise. They should not be blamed. The expertise is pretty scarce, no matter where you look.
E-mail: rrothstein@nytimes.com
--------------------------------------------------
Editorial in response to above column
by summer, a former Dem, now an independent and a FL certified teacher
Re: The NYT's Richard Rothstein -- "When Supreme Court justices thought they found a way for urban students to escape failing schools, they ventured into an area beyond their judicial expertise. They should not be blamed. The expertise is pretty scarce, no matter where you look."
Dear Mr. Rothstein:
I really wish the NYT would allow other people to write in the NYT Lessons column. Lately, whenever I read your work here, I get a migraine headache.
Speaking as a FL certified teacher who has taught in what was once an "F" rated FAILING inner city school, allow me to address your confusion over the "meaning" of "failing" as you claim to be all confused about it.
"Failing" means that when I have a class of 4th graders, and they books written on a 4th grade level, these students can not read the book. Why? Because they are reading on a 1st grade level. Thus, a "failure" exists because if a student is in 4th grade, one might think 4th grade reading material is appropriate and one would be wrong.
In my university training as a teacher, I was always taught: you, the teacher, have to provide reading materials at WHATEVER LEVEL the student may be on.
Consequently, if I am a 4th grade teacher, then, I am to provide 1st grade reading material to 4th graders if that is their level, 2nd grade reading material if that is their level, 3rd grade reading material if that is their level, and so on.
Now, I realize, of course, that some students are behind, and some are ahead. But in a chronically "failing" school, a teacher finds the "4th grade" label on the classroom door to be a misnomer at best. The label should read: "OK YOU"VE BEEN SOCIALLY PROMOTED THIS FAR, SO WELCOME TO THIS ROOM."
And, frankly, THAT is a definition of a failing school.
You ask "why" are the students failing. Well, Mr. Rothstein, I suppose I could list for you 1 million reasons, but, when you are a teacher of these kids, you are very much aware the clock is ticking. If I spent all my time thinking about "how to define failure" as you do, and ALL the reasons they are failing, I would be contributing to their assured FAILURE again THIS year.
Each teacher has his or her own way of recognizing both the enormous obstacles existing in such a classroom, and, yet, trying to succeed ANYWAY.
In my teacher-training program, on the graduate level, I remember a 1st grade teacher who literally cried as she spoke of how the problems faced by her students forced HER to toughen up as a teacher. There was one little girl whose homelife was far worse than the rest of the students, without going into details here about the "reasons" why.
In tears, this teacher said to the class of teachers at college, that she realized this little adorable 6 year old girl always had an honest and heartbreaking "excuse" for NOT doing her homework. (And, yes in 1st grade, these students had HOMEWORK.) .
However, this teacher soon realized after the first few "excuses" there would only be excuses for the rest of the year -- and NO HOMEWORK DONE EVER.
So, "NO" was the new answer the teacher now gave to this child. NO, you MUST still do your homework, even if mommy is not around to help you, even if your brother ran away from home, even if your daddy is in jail, still, no matter what: You must do your homework.
The little girl cried when she heard this. The teacher in this class cried as she related this story. Yet, what happened was this: a new lesson emerged. And the new lesson taught to this 6 year old was this: YOU HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF-- EVEN IF YOU ARE ONLY SIX YEARS OLD. YOUR FUTURE IS THE FUTURE AT STAKE HERE. AND, I WILL HELP YOU BY NOT ACCEPTING ANY MORE OF YOUR EXCUSES EVER AGAIN. I EXPECT YOU CAN DO IT.
I will never forget that teacher. Because every teacher in the lecture hall knew what she was saying: you look into the eyes of a child with such a homelife and your first impulse is to hug the kid, and want to make school a better place than home -- not any "tougher. "
But, this is really the start of lowering expectations.
So, you have to always remember: if you really want to HELP such a student, then, you yourself have to literally GET TOUGH.
Consequently, Mr. Rothstein, the last sentence in your article absolutely infuriates me:
"They should not be blamed. The expertise is pretty scarce, no matter where you look."
If you are actually interested in "expertise" -- look straight into the eyes of that responsible 6 year old, who now turns in her homework, NO MATTER WHAT.
Try looking there. You might just learn something.
And let's face it -- that's what Rothstein's column is: propaganda. He knows exactly what a failing school is, and he also knows damn well the reason why. Thirty-plus years of dumbing-down, feel-good, everyone's-a-superstar social engineering has resulted in not just the students, but the schools themselves failing.
Part of him is still in denial, and he and his ild stand wide-eyed and dumbfounded now that they've been b!tch-slapped.
I'd pity him and his kind, if I didn't despise them so much.
That is a beautiful response that came straight from the heart, and the gut. Please do two things for yourself, for all those students, and even for the New York Times.
First, proof-read your piece with care. I'm sure you wrote this in a white heat. For instance, "they" should be "the" in the first sentence of graph three. While you're at it, eliminate the all-caps and use minimal italics where you really want to punch the point.
Second, submit your piece to the Times. It is against the grain of their corporate mantra, and publishing it might just embarrass them. Still, because it is so self-evidently real, they might just publish it.
With greatest respect,
Congressman Billybob
Click for: "Stupid is as Stupid Does, Even Among Federal Judges."
I wonder what Richard Rothstein would think of what goes on in a real inner city school.
I know that I was never that conservative until I saw what actually went on in a slum area, by living in one for a while. Sadly, those who live in the slums largely deserve to be there :-(.
D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.