Soaring Child Poverty in DC

[Anonymous]

what in the hell was that??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised to see that the total number of children ages 5 to 17 continues to decline in DC. Judging from posts here, you'd think DC had far more children now than in the past. There may be lots of kids in strollers, but their parents tend to move when they hit school age. DC seems more and more like Seattle: very friendly to singles and dogs, but not too many kids in middle school to be found.

This seems puzzling at first, but isn't if you think about it for more than a second. Poor people have many children. Affluent families have few children. DC's households are getting more affluent. That means there are fewer and fewer large households. Ten years ago, it was common to see 900 square foot rowhouses with extended families and a half dozen children. In another 10 or 20 years, we'll see family sizes trend towards the norm of an average of 1.5 kids per household.

The decline in children 5 to 17 is just another indicator that DC is healing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And there's that attitude again... I'm not making an extreme statement. Nor am I blaming teachers. I'm actually taking you at your word, and repeating to you what the logical extension of your position is.

You blame poverty for poor outcomes. I agree.

You then jump to attack DCPS for imposing a set of objective standards for teachers because it's unfair. After all, we can't expect teachers to get results when the real problem is poverty.

Let's unpack those two assertions: first, if teacher quality is irrelevant, let's get rid of highly trained (and paid) teachers until we lick this poverty problem. After all, it's just pearls before swine at this point. And we can sink the savings into poverty abatement programs.

Secondly, as you put it so eloquently "poverty - too scary and beyond the scope of DCPS". DCPS is designed to create and maintain a public primary education system. Read very carefully: DCPS CAN NOT UNILATERALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF REGIONAL OR NATIONAL POVERTY.

A few other things DCPS can't do:

- Cure cancer.
- End tribal infighting in sub-saharan Africa.
- Stabilize the Afghan tribal regions.
- Resolve the Israel/Palestine Question.
- Monetize cold fusion technology.

Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way, let's take a look at your solution to improving DCPS:

1) DCPS needs to fix the poverty issue.
2) [Whatever you follow with is completely irrelevant.]

And where's the part about opposing standards for teachers? except in your post, that is?

Notice that nothing in your list of things DCPS can't do relates to education. Poverty does. I don't expect any school system to overcome poverty. I do expect schools to recognize it as a problem that needs to be addressed for educational outcomes to improve.

I do expect school leaders to realize that teachers can't overcome poverty either and that youthful energy and determination, merit pay, evaluations, engaging lessons and strongly held beliefs aren't going to make a significant difference for kids until the effects of poverty are addressed.

Regarding cancer, There are highly trained people working on curing and treating cancer. They haven't been successful yet, but they aren't getting blamed for cancer deaths either. People realize cancer is very complicated and can't be cured overnight by determined amateurs claiming they have a miracle cure.

I'm not sure why the comparison between cancer researchers who are paid to cure cancer is apropos of teachers who are paid to educate children. I'm not a big fan of CAPS, but since it seems you're immune to logic:

THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IS NOT TO END POVERTY. THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.

Better?

[Anonymous]

I do expect school leaders to realize that teachers can't overcome poverty either and that youthful energy and determination, merit pay, evaluations, engaging lessons and strongly held beliefs aren't going to make a significant difference for kids until the effects of poverty are addressed.

Again. If highly trained career educators cannot teach poor kids, there's no point in paying a premium for highly trained career educators. Let's pay semi-volunteer teachers the minimum wage, and spend the difference on welfare programs.

If, on the other hand, there are highly trained, experienced teachers who feel they *can* actually make a significant difference in the education of poor children, let's hire those teachers.

You can't have it both ways: either expensive and highly trained professional teachers can make a difference, or they can't. If they can't, fire all of them. If they can, evaluate them.

It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Yep, we should either have highly-trained experienced doctors finding a cure for cancer, or pay semi-volunteers the minimum wage and spend the difference on hospice care.

It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

That "change" isn't working out so well for the District's children....hmmmm

[Anonymous]

I understand that THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.

Do you understand that THAT CAN'T HAPPEN AMONG POOR CHILDREN UNTIL POVERTY IS ADDRESSED?

And that TEACHERS CAN'T OVERCOME POVERTY ANY MORE THAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS CAN, SO SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS EFFECT ON THEIR STUDENTS?

That if you REFUSE TO SEE THAT, then you are HURTING CHILDREN while FEELING SUPERIOR and FEATHERING YOUR OWN NEST? assuming that you work for DCPS, that is.

And frankly, I don't hear parents defending DCPS leadership anymore. Even if they were once hopeful, they've seen that it's not been successful.

Unlike DCPS employees, parents' primary interest in DCPS is not collecting a paycheck or clinging to a failed ideology. Parents care about their kid's welfare first.

[Anonymous]

ahhh, if only that were true, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in. unfortunately, there are many parents out there who don't truly care about their childrens' welfare, or at least not to the point to do anything about it. too many just want to have them and then let everyone else take care of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, we should either have highly-trained experienced doctors finding a cure for cancer, or pay semi-volunteers the minimum wage and spend the difference on hospice care.

It's that simple.

Bravo -- however this won't get through to highly indoctrinated school leaders who are blinded by their own self-importance and misguided sense of mission.

It might get through to some who are starting to see cracks in the ideology -- like the data isn't exactly living up to expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ahhh, if only that were true, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in. unfortunately, there are many parents out there who don't truly care about their childrens' welfare, or at least not to the point to do anything about it. too many just want to have them and then let everyone else take care of them.

The current education reform climate exasperates the problem of disengaged parents and communities. Excessive school choice sends the message: If there are problems, don't try to help - just leave. Now, the battle being waged is on teachers (bc school choice didn't work), and it sends another powerful message: If students aren't performing up to expectations, it is simply the teachers' fault; parents and community members need not worry, we will punish our teachers for being so terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ahhh, if only that were true, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in. unfortunately, there are many parents out there who don't truly care about their childrens' welfare, or at least not to the point to do anything about it. too many just want to have them and then let everyone else take care of them.

Yes, This is the case for some parents. I was referring to the ones who frequent DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ahhh, if only that were true, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in. unfortunately, there are many parents out there who don't truly care about their childrens' welfare, or at least not to the point to do anything about it. too many just want to have them and then let everyone else take care of them.

The current education reform climate exasperates the problem of disengaged parents and communities. Excessive school choice sends the message: If there are problems, don't try to help - just leave. Now, the battle being waged is on teachers (bc school choice didn't work), and it sends another powerful message: If students aren't performing up to expectations, it is simply the teachers' fault; parents and community members need not worry, we will punish our teachers for being so terrible.

Yes - and school leaders are somehow off the hook for all this -- up to now, at least. Their plan to fix the schools via miracle teachers clearly hasn't worked. They have no other tricks up their sleeves - that is clear.

There aren't any tricks, really. They were counting on the teacher solution - fire the bad ones, pay the good ones extra (once identifying them with a very special and expensive evaluation tool) and all will be fine. Schools can't overcome poverty, but school teachers can -- what a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This seems puzzling at first, but isn't if you think about it for more than a second. Poor people have many children. Affluent families have few children. DC's households are getting more affluent. That means there are fewer and fewer large households. Ten years ago, it was common to see 900 square foot rowhouses with extended families and a half dozen children. In another 10 or 20 years, we'll see family sizes trend towards the norm of an average of 1.5 kids per household.

The decline in children 5 to 17 is just another indicator that DC is healing.

The "quality over quantity" argument would hold more water if the poverty rate in DC were not increasing at the same time. You have a hypothesis, but not evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised to see that the total number of children ages 5 to 17 continues to decline in DC. Judging from posts here, you'd think DC had far more children now than in the past. There may be lots of kids in strollers, but their parents tend to move when they hit school age. DC seems more and more like Seattle: very friendly to singles and dogs, but not too many kids in middle school to be found.

Ward 3 under-18 population is up over 15% from 2000 census to 2010 census. I'm going to guess and say that maybe ward 3 is over-represented on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that THE ROLE OF SCHOOLS IS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.

Do you understand that THAT CAN'T HAPPEN AMONG POOR CHILDREN UNTIL POVERTY IS ADDRESSED?

And that TEACHERS CAN'T OVERCOME POVERTY ANY MORE THAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS CAN, SO SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS EFFECT ON THEIR STUDENTS?

That if you REFUSE TO SEE THAT, then you are HURTING CHILDREN while FEELING SUPERIOR and FEATHERING YOUR OWN NEST? assuming that you work for DCPS, that is.

And frankly, I don't hear parents defending DCPS leadership anymore. Even if they were once hopeful, they've seen that it's not been successful.

Unlike DCPS employees, parents' primary interest in DCPS is not collecting a paycheck or clinging to a failed ideology. Parents care about their kid's welfare first.

Really?! So the argument here is that poor kids can't learn from good teachers OR excel in school via self-motivation? Should we just throw in the towel, then?! While child poverty has been associated with lower academic achievement, I would ask you to please cite one study that shows that all children living in poverty are under-performing. Teachers SHOULD take responsibility for all of their students, regardless of socio-economic status. It is an educator's ethical responsibility to take each student as a whole child (family situation, socio-economic status, culture, customs, and background included) and discover the genius within. Obviously teachers can't save the world, but to infer that a child is simply uneducable because he/she is poor is giving up, and it's just plain insulting. If a teacher doesn't believe in his/her under-served/privileged student, who will??