eduskeptic

In a previous post, 11.29.08, “Starting with Pre-School”, I wrote about the Rand Corporation study that is widely misused and misquoted to support the idea that universal preschool for all children is the best thing that could happen to education.  The preschool for all group likes to say that the study proves that pre-school keeps children in school, and later, out of jail, with no drug use, and better jobs held by all.  It simply doesn’t say that.  Read the post for more on this issue.  What it does say is that for disadvantaged children, pre-school may do some good.  In the Technology and Learning online magazine, (you may have to peruse the archives, but it was a very recent one), there is an interesting e-book titled “Using Technology to Improve the Graduation Rate.” In the introduction, it states “..students living in low-income families were four times more likely to drop out of high school in any given year­—in this case, between 2005 and 2006—than those living in high-income families.”  It does not define “low-income”, but the Rand report, which preceeds this report by a few years, says the same thing, using “disadvantaged” and “low-income” as elements in future school and life problems.  The statistics quoted in the report are not at all comforting, or supportive, of whatever we have been doing to prevent academic and life problems for the young people of our nation. Here is a complete quote from the Introduction:

“The report’s analysis shows that only about one-half (52 percent) of students in the school systems of the 50 largest cities complete high school with a diploma. That rate is well below the national graduation rate of 70 percent, and even falls short of the average for urban districts across the country (60 percent). Only six of these 50 principal districts reach or exceed the national average. In the most extreme cases (Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, and Indianapolis), fewer than 35 percent of students graduate with a diploma.”

“Essentially, students in these cities are at risk for failure in school and thus in the job market. At-risk students are those who do not experience success in school and are potential dropouts. They are usually low academic achievers who exhibit low self-esteem, and disproportionate numbers of them are males and minorities. Generally they are from low socioeconomic status families. An array of problems prevents them from participating successfully in school. For example, they have a minimal identification with the school and have disciplinary and truancy problems that lead to credit problems. As they experience failure and fall behind their peers, school becomes a negative environment that reinforces their low self-esteem.”

The idea that we should pour money into preschool education for every child in the United States starts to fall apart when real data emerges.  Once again I must say that preschool is not a bad thing.  It can be quite nice for young children.  As a predictor for future success it just doesn’t work, unless we are speaking of young children who are members of low income or otherwise disadvantaged families.  I don’t necessarily equate low income with disadvantaged though.  My family, many years ago when we were all very much younger and the children were very young, qualified in every way as low income.  We simply didn’t have much, and though I worked all the time, the money wasn’t very good.  We were not “disadvantaged” in the classical sense at all.  We simply made do with not much.  We took very good care of our family.  My wife, myself and our children are all university graduates (California State University Fullerton, California State University Sacramento, University of California Davis, Univeristy of California Berkeley).  My children had very minimal preschool experiences (a day or two a week, for a short period of time), all paid for by us.  Perhaps the definition needs to be refined.  What seems to emerge in the studies that I have read is that a combination of low-income and dysfunction within the family hurts everyone involved.  A child who lives in a nightmare world of (take your pick) drug addition, criminal behaviors, violent behaviors, absent parent(s), gangs, and so on, generally cannot compete very well within the school system.  In a study I read some years back, and I’ll have to see if I can find it, the environment that a child lived in “won” over 90+% of the time.  That is to say that a child who comes into my classroom for 5-6 hours per day, and goes home to complete dysfunctional chaos for the other 18-19 hours, will likely side with the chaos as normal, and my classroom as an aberration.  Whatever behaviors the child experiences in the home are very difficult to overcome.

Instead of attempting to fund preschool for every child, our laws should be writen to mandate the opportunity for preschool for those who are most likely to benefit from the experience: low income, low socioeconomic status, or just plain dysfunctional.  Further, we should be pumping money into those families who are at risk, wherever and whoever they are.  Without an opportunity for families to eat well, work well, function well, our efforts to make things better for the children of those families will most likely be unproductive.  The root of the problem of children growing up into dysfunctional adults is not a lack of preschool.  It lies directly within the family unit and the society that family lives in.

Education is, if one is to believe the rhetoric, a very high priority for this nation.  This message goes out from city, county, state, and national offices.  Admirable.  One must first define “education” though, as education occurs every second of every day.  The education mentioned by the various governments is the institutional variety, that which occurs in public classrooms.  It is said, quite often, that we need to place the highest priority on education.  Not surprisingly, every priority has defenders.  Health, education, welfare are all intertwined, and have all been national priorities at one time or another.  The test of whether education, or anything else, is actually a real priority comes when there isn’t quite enough money or time, or both, to go around.  Now is one of those times.  Part of the federal stimulus package  is for education ($100 billion +).  Arne Duncan, President Obama’s Education Secretary, has a big job on his hands.  He has to see that this money is well spent by the states.  In California, as in other states, the budget is a bit difficult just now.  School districts around the state are in the process of passing out pink slips by the hundreds, which equals thousands when all the districts are counted (according to the California Teachers Association, 25,000).  The districts probably don’t have much choice, as March 15th is the date that they must notify credentialed staff that they may not have a job next for the next school year.  School districts around the state are still in the process of allocating funds, figuring out what to cut.  Mostly, the cuts will be painful.  Some, in this state and in other states, probably should have been made long ago.  What is important is that the cuts be made as far away from the classroom as possible.  What is probably real is that a large number of good, young teachers will lose their jobs, class sizes will go up, and test scores will go down.  A district in the Sacramento area has issued close to 400 pink slips.  This is just one district in one small part of the state.  They went all the way back to 2001 and have notified the teachers hired since then that they may be out of work in June.  By May 15, some of these teachers will still have jobs, and, sadly, some will not, May 15 being the day that the pink slips become real.  This is not putting education in a high priority status.  It is giving lip service to the idea and failing to back it up with actions.  The federal stimulus package has given California money for education.  The state, in turn, is working out the details for how the money will trickle down to the districts.  The districts have a rough idea about how much they are going to receive.  Still, the pink slips go out, the morale tanks, and the newer teachers have now been put in a position of figuring out what they will do for work when June arrives.  They are expected, however, to somehow stay focused on their classrooms.  Quite hard to do I think.  Mortgages, health insurance, car payments, food are now viewed in a different light.  One of the big disconnects in this scenario, and it is a big one, is that the people who are in charge of issuing the pink slips are not in danger of losing anything.  They also don’t teach anyone, and rarely visit a classroom.  Their jobs, perks, and benefits are all secure.  The entire layoff procedure is a piece of business for them.  It’s not that they should be in the classrooms.  Their jobs are, after all, different.  They should, however, be far more connected to the damage done to education when they okay hundreds of pink slips.  Some jobs will be saved by older teachers retiring, others by leaves of absences for various reasons.  The disticts should focus on how they can keep as many teachers as possible, instead of figuring out how many pink slips to issue.  Education needs these good, talented young teachers to lead us forward.  Without them, we stagnate, and that is not a good thing to have happen, now or ever.  Some of these good young teachers will abandon the field for good, feeling, rightfully I think, let down by the the very people who claim that education has just got to be a very high priority for this nation.   It is an easy thing to say, especially by government and administrators who will continue to have jobs when June rolls around.  Education as a priority?  Prove it, Mr. President, Ms. Superintendent.  Talk is, as always, very, very cheap.