Are U.S. Schools and Education Policy Failing the Poor?

In her review of Stop High-Stakes Testing: An Appeal to America's Conscience by Dale D. Johnson et al., Luanna Meyer questions the premise that anyone can achieve "the American dream" through education. Specifically, she argues that the United States’ system of public schools and universities does not equal the playing field among the rich and the poor, and, in fact, public schools are just another place that allows poor children to fail. The book authors and reviewer alike sharply criticize the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), arguing that holding schools accountable via student test scores, without addressing fundamental issues of poverty, disparities in health care access, racism, funding inequities, etc., will only reflect what is already known—that children from middle-class and wealthy families will outperform poor children on standardized tests.

Should, as the book authors suggest, the NCLB be repealed and all forms of public school accountability based on testing be discontinued? What are the benefits, if any, of retaining NCLB? What are alternative approaches to school accountability that do not ignore historical, cultural, and societal inequities? On what basis should schools be held accountable, i.e., on math, science, and reading only or expanded to other subjects such as arts, music, critical thinking, etc.?

Read the Review

Waking Up From the American Dream: Beyond Metaphors
By Luanna H. Meyer
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2009 Vol 54(11)

Comments

[Bill Hosmer]

This is interesting.

I agree with some of the suggestions. However, my experience working in education in the PreK-12 sector is it comes down to two key factors that are difficult if not impossible to change: (1) the family/home environment, and (2) money/funding. Until we can solve these critical issues, educational "progress" will be slow and difficult.

Secondly, America's schools do not support "gifted" programs as they should. Only a handful of states have programs that are funded. Aren’t these the leaders of tomorrow? Again, it comes down to money plain and simple. As psychologists, we can find out how children learn, what the “best” ways to teach and learn are but the critical areas really boil down to are the family environment and funding. As a school psychologist, I have seen an almost “abnormal” increase in rather horrendous “outside-the-school” issues that students are exposed to and bring in with them to school. I have spoken to child mental health agencies that have experienced the same thing. Something is dreadfully wrong here and it is not about just learning better learning and teaching strategies. It is about “social change”. Until then, things will get worse. Just look at the trajectory of how things have been even in the last 10-years. Have you ever heard of a school shooting up until 10-11 years ago? Perhaps rarely if any. Shopping Mall shootings? Elderly housing shootings? Again, it is time for social change.

Yet, as things seem to be getting worse as time goes on we just seem to look the other way; raise standards, require every teacher to take a battery of licensing tests, become “Highly Qualified”, require (some states) master’s degrees, etc. Still, we seem to be falling further and further behind more quickly then we did years ago.

Why is this? The family environment and funding. As researchers and practitioners, knowing this, why not do something about it? Let’s collect data on the “increases” of child protective services calls within the last 20-30 years, the nature of these calls, divorce rates, drug/alcohol abuse in families, abuse towards children, poverty levels, etc., etc. Here is where it is at folks. Think “social change” and let us make it everyone’s mission than maybe then, student progress can move forward.

FUTURE-How else are things going to change? Online/distance learning schools/education. Its coming, rather, its here. In many ways, this could be a wonderful aspect to education. For instance, with the “right” curriculum and instruction software programs student progress could be monitored on a daily basis where trends could be monitored and remediated much sooner. The curriculum could be more engaged and sped up or slowed down when needed. It would also be “easier” to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses through the same software program right through the curriculum and have the software adjust accordingly. With the visual and 3D technology available, I believe education could be taken to the next level through technology very easily.

Technology could also be the “great equalizer” that could be available to all students. Granted, some schools and teachers are “more effective” than others. Well, with “good” software programs that could be mass distributed we would not have to be as concerned about GOING to a certain school because it is “better.” Any school district could offer a “Cadillac” program to their students no matter what socioeconomic or location they are from/in. If most of the students eventually “stay-at-home” for the majority of their education (i.e., they will have to come to school for special/related services), then whose issue will it be then?

College/university education? Same thing-distance education. It is coming rapidly and this is a good thing. An evaluation in education if you will. Some distance learning colleges work on the “Master Teacher/Professor” philosophy. Hence, if one teaches “Educational Psychology,” the university would seek out those “top notch/leaders” within the field of educational psychology to develop the syllabus. Then, a professor would carry out the syllabus to the class. Due keep in mind, the professor would still have some flexibility in teaching, it is just that the “leaders” in that do main are developing the syllabus.

I will now get off of my soapbox. Thanks for listening.