Soaring Child Poverty in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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??

No - that's your argument -- that anyone who mentions the role of childhood poverty is throwing in the towel. It's your excuse for not listening and going into the reform diatribe in which you come out caring about all children and anyone who comments on poverty is a dolt.

Yes - of course teachers should take responsibility for all their students, but what does that mean? making them all learn at high levels all the time? impossible - all kids aren't alike, irrespective of poverty level. It's a total abnegation of responsibility to heap an impossible burden on one piece of the education equation.

Thanks for laying out your thoughts though -- it helps to see the depths of your indoctrination.

Nobody but you is inferring that poor children are ineducable -- it's the trick of people like you to shut out anything that doesn't fit in your narrow, indoctrinated view of education. I hope there are not too many people like that left at DCPS.

[Anonymous]

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??


No - that's your argument -- that anyone who mentions the role of childhood poverty is throwing in the towel. It's your excuse for not listening and going into the reform diatribe in which you come out caring about all children and anyone who comments on poverty is a dolt.

Yes - of course teachers should take responsibility for all their students, but what does that mean? making them all learn at high levels all the time? impossible - all kids aren't alike, irrespective of poverty level. It's a total abnegation of responsibility to heap an impossible burden on one piece of the education equation.

Thanks for laying out your thoughts though -- it helps to see the depths of your indoctrination.

Nobody but you is inferring that poor children are ineducable -- it's the trick of people like you to shut out anything that doesn't fit in your narrow, indoctrinated view of education. I hope there are not too many people like that left at DCPS.

1. Of course poverty has to be mentioned - that is part of recognizing and valuing who the child is walking through the classroom door.
2. No, not all children will perform across the board at "high levels" (whatever that means...), but each child does have some inner genius waiting to be discovered. Perhaps he is an exceptional painter, or she is a whiz at mechanics, or has a real knack for geography or .... (hopefully you get my point). Whatever a child's strength may be, it is a teacher's responsibility to help nurture that genius and encourage the child toward success.
3. Exactly - all kids are not alike (not all rich children are high achievers, and not all poor children are low achievers). Thank you for echoing my point. We can't pigeon-hole a child because of where they come from any better than we can "track" a child based on a single assessment.
4. How easy for you to comment on my "indoctrination" on an anonymous forum. Need I remind you that you don't know any more about my background or experience than I do about yours, so please refrain from trying to read between the lines or putting words into my mouth. I don't play "tricks", as you say, I just have more faith in children's potential than you care to express.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

[Anonymous]

The reality is that Poverty is the 800 pound gorilla in education. It has numerous effects that can not be discounted but it is also why society has to figure out how better the options for these kids. It is easy to say to teachers, teach the child let society deal with the economics, but it is a lot harder when you face it day in day out. I know teachers that have been overwhelmed by the poverty of their students and have become more social workers than teachers, they are human. But before you judge, spend a week in these classrooms.

[Anonymous]

I't quite easy to comment on indoctrination and narrow thinking when it's so clear in a person's writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I't quite easy to comment on indoctrination and narrow thinking when it's so clear in a person's writing.

Finally something we can all agree on.

[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.

Great, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether poor children can be taught anything, or whether having a good teacher or bad teacher makes any difference. I say it does. You say it doesn't. But if you're correct, it's time to shit-can all professional teachers, and just open their positions up to anyone with a high-school degree at minimum wage.

If teachers can't make a difference without eliminating poverty, there's no point in paying them the premium we do. Our education system isn't a jobs-program for adults, it's a system for teaching our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're misunderstanding what the "poverty rate" tells us. It's misleading as an indicator. Poor people have many kids. Wealthy people don't. We should be looking at median household income as an indicator of demographic change. That continues to increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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??

No - that's your argument -- that anyone who mentions the role of childhood poverty is throwing in the towel. It's your excuse for not listening and going into the reform diatribe in which you come out caring about all children and anyone who comments on poverty is a dolt.

Yes - of course teachers should take responsibility for all their students, but what does that mean? making them all learn at high levels all the time? impossible - all kids aren't alike, irrespective of poverty level. It's a total abnegation of responsibility to heap an impossible burden on one piece of the education equation.

Thanks for laying out your thoughts though -- it helps to see the depths of your indoctrination.

Nobody but you is inferring that poor children are ineducable -- it's the trick of people like you to shut out anything that doesn't fit in your narrow, indoctrinated view of education. I hope there are not too many people like that left at DCPS.

Blah, blah, blah. Yet another dodge.

Any time anyone mentions holding teachers to any kind of standard, you come back with platitudes about teachers should "take responsibility fr their students" but that should never in any case be held accountable, even in part, for their learning.

Everyone understands that poverty has a negative effect on learning. Everyone understands that teachers aren't the only piece of the puzzle. But everyone but you seems to understand that there are good teachers and bad teachers. And that it's the responsibility of a school district to ensure that good teachers are rewarded, and ineffective teachers are encouraged to go do something else.

Of course, when anyone brings that up, you just start yelling about how DCPS needs to end world poverty before even one poor child can learn. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that Poverty is the 800 pound gorilla in education. It has numerous effects that can not be discounted but it is also why society has to figure out how better the options for these kids. It is easy to say to teachers, teach the child let society deal with the economics, but it is a lot harder when you face it day in day out. I know teachers that have been overwhelmed by the poverty of their students and have become more social workers than teachers, they are human. But before you judge, spend a week in these classrooms.

I'm curious: Do you believe that some teachers are better than others? Do you have any kids? Have you ever lobbied to get them in one classroom over another?

[Anonymous]

Of course I believe that some teachers are better than others. (FYI, not the PP)

But I don't think the reason for such ongoing poor performance in DC is because there are so many bad teachers who need to leave. Nor do I think that replacing them with "good" teachers (assuming they can be accurately identified) is going to make a significant dent in achievement, without attending to underlying problems.

Theoretically, improved teaching could make no dent at all if conditions were such that the good teachers couldn't teach effectively (e.g., school and neighborhood violence, inadequate supplies, broken-down building, a poor principal, poor attendance, unsupportive parents, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that Poverty is the 800 pound gorilla in education. It has numerous effects that can not be discounted but it is also why society has to figure out how better the options for these kids. It is easy to say to teachers, teach the child let society deal with the economics, but it is a lot harder when you face it day in day out. I know teachers that have been overwhelmed by the poverty of their students and have become more social workers than teachers, they are human. But before you judge, spend a week in these classrooms.

I'm curious: Do you believe that some teachers are better than others? Do you have any kids? Have you ever lobbied to get them in one classroom over another?

I am the original poster and yes and yes. If I had my druthers teachers would have to do rounds in both poor and well off schools. Too often teachers in poor schools have a hard time seeing what is possible because they are mired in kids starting at low levels. This was my point about them becoming social workers. But teachers in well off schools may not have to streach themselves as much because they have so much parental support. However I don't think it is about how good or bad most teacher are, I think that people work in a context situation that makes the better or worse. It is hard to work in a high poverty situation, I don't think most people should do it day in and day out because of how it erodes your expectations. This is not the case for everyone, their are exceptions, Rafe Esquith being one of them but these exceptions more often prove the rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether poor children can be taught anything, or whether having a good teacher or bad teacher makes any difference. I say it does. You say it doesn't. But if you're correct, it's time to shit-can all professional teachers, and just open their positions up to anyone with a high-school degree at minimum wage.

If teachers can't make a difference without eliminating poverty, there's no point in paying them the premium we do. Our education system isn't a jobs-program for adults, it's a system for teaching our children.

There’s no need to agree to disagree - I agree that poor kids can be taught and that teacher quality has an effect on learning. I also agree that poverty does not need to be “eliminated” before kids can learn. I do think it needs to be addressed, though.

Here's the difference --I don't put success in improving kids’ academic achievement completely on the backs of teachers. I realize that factors beyond the control of teachers make a huge difference and I fear the attitude that getting the most qualified teachers (if that can even be accomplished) will solve the underachievement problem we have here in DC with some children – overwhelmingly those who are poor.

I also agree heartily that education system is not a jobs program for adults and feel that DCPS focusing primarily on teachers is keeping the people who hire, fire and evaluate teachers very busily employed. Unfortunately, it’s not helping kids who need help the most.

[Anonymous]

Poverty and education are not mutually exclusive categories. Schools are not only about education, no matter what some people want to believe. This is especially true in poor neighborhoods.

The best thinking about poverty and education seems to come out of comprehensive thinking about these issues, not these ridiculous, shouting posts. See, Harlem Children's Zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poverty and education are not mutually exclusive categories. Schools are not only about education, no matter what some people want to believe. This is especially true in poor neighborhoods.

The best thinking about poverty and education seems to come out of comprehensive thinking about these issues, not these ridiculous, shouting posts. See, Harlem Children's Zone.

Well said -- thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course I believe that some teachers are better than others. (FYI, not the PP)

But I don't think the reason for such ongoing poor performance in DC is because there are so many bad teachers who need to leave. Nor do I think that replacing them with "good" teachers (assuming they can be accurately identified) is going to make a significant dent in achievement, without attending to underlying problems.

Theoretically, improved teaching could make no dent at all if conditions were such that the good teachers couldn't teach effectively (e.g., school and neighborhood violence, inadequate supplies, broken-down building, a poor principal, poor attendance, unsupportive parents, etc.)

How many is "so many"? Any?

So you concede that there are good/effective teachers, and there are bad/ineffective teachers. But then you go on to argue that, if replacing every bad/ineffective teacher with a good/effective teacher were possible, then it would have no impact whatsoever on achievement. In that case, the opposite must also be true: replacing experienced teachers with inexperienced chair-warmers must not matter either.

I love how you list a long litany of factors that everyone else agrees should be attended to as well (get rid of poor principals, make sure supplies are adequate, make schools safe, fix the facilities, etc, etc...) We want to address all those problems as well. But strangely enough, you seem to think only the teaching component should be ignored. Wonder why that is?