Part 2: Ravitch vs. Rhee -- To change the poverty rate, you're going to have to change education

Here's part 2 of breaking down Diane Ravitch's CNN article on Michelle Rhee. Part 1 is here. Part 3 will come tomorrow.

****

Ravitch:

Why are our international rankings low? Our test scores are dragged down by poverty. On the latest international test, called PISA, our schools with low poverty had scores higher than those of Japan, Finland, and other high-scoring nations. American schools in which as many as 25% of the students are poor had scores equivalent to the top-scoring nations.  As the poverty level in the school rises, the scores fall.

Rhee ignores the one statistic where the United States is number one. We have the highest child poverty rate of any advanced nation in the world. Nearly 25% of our children live in poverty.

This is a scandal. Family poverty is the most reliable predictor of low test scores. How can we compare ourselves to nations like Finland where less than 5% of the children live in poverty?

Rhee and her fellow reformers say that poverty is just an excuse, but it is not. 

Poverty is a harsh fact of life.

No doubt -- Poverty is a harsh fact of life. The poverty rate -- and the child poverty rate in particular -- in the U.S. is unconscionable and unacceptable.

OK, so what do we do about it?  

The problem is that Ravitch offers no solution to educating low-income children. Her ideas, stated further down in her article, deal with parents being better caregivers (outside of a teacher's sphere of influence) and opening a health clinic in each school (outside of a typical school budget's sphere of influence). Nothing about actually, you know, teaching them -- unless you believe that continuing to do what we've always done will result in change.

Decreasing poverty would help a lot; the problem is how best to do it. Declaring in an article that it would sure be great to have less poverty doesn't do much, though.  

Rhee (and I) believe public schools offer the most effective and sustainable solution to America's deplorable child poverty rate: closing the educational achievement gap. Rhee is quite specific: attract the most talented people in to education, pay the highest performers like they're game-changers, offer parents choice as to the best school for their children, and better use the resources we have to focus on results.  

Ravitch:

Children who are homeless, who have asthma, who have vision problems or hearing problems will have trouble concentrating on their studies. Children who have a toothache may not do well on testing day. Children who don’t see a doctor when they are sick will not be able to perform well on tests. Children who live in squalor will be distracted from their schoolwork.

Individually, these are true statements, but this misrepresents the reality of teaching low-income students. She makes it seem as if teachers like me are practicing our craft in a M*A*S*H unit. I have, indeed, taught students with health and/or home problems. I'm not minimizing their challenges or the unfairness of it all. 

However, most students who have health and/or home problems that prevent them from fully participating in class don't want their English teacher to make excuses for them -- they want me to teach! I never cease to be amazed at what kids are willing to do when they have a genuine learning opportunity.  

What I've learned is that most kids are quite resilient, especially since they know that an education is what's going to get them out of a troubled home. This is why educators simply must have the belief that all students can learn and achieve at high levels. If we don't believe that our students will be successful, who will?  

The teachers who have that belief and live it out can help students achieve significant academic gains. What Ravitch never explains is how the same student can score years below grade level for one year, then spend a year with an outstanding teacher and grow several years in skill level. The reason the student didn't score well one year isn't because he or she lived in squalor -- it's because he or she wasn't taught well.

I've spent seven years teaching low-income kids. The biggest influence on their ability to perform well on tests is the expectations placed on them. If they are treated and taught like they're capable students, they'll usually perform as such.

Ravitch: 

Of course, we should have great teachers in every classroom, but the negative rhetoric that now comes from Rhee and every media outlet and movies like “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ” are demoralizing teachers and causing many excellent teachers to leave the profession.

Ravitch has a misguided sense for when the phrase "negative rhetoric" is applicable. Rhee says over and over again in the CNN interview that excellent teachers should be paid much more and given the freedom to educate kids in the best way they know how. Among other things, Waiting for Superman celebrates many schools that are offering kids a great education. I'm just one public school teacher here, but those are things that make me want to stay in the profession.  

What Rhee and Waiting for Superman reserve their "negative rhetoric" for are public school systems that regularly deny opportunities for low-income kids to go to a great school. 

Ravitch, on the other hand, saves her "negative rhetoric" for those who are trying to do something to fundamentally change those failing systems. 

I'm curious as to what she would say to those students directly affected by the status quo in those same systems.

****

The final part will be up tomorrow.