In my last post I gave a test. I pointed out that from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, the black-white gap in reading tests, IQ test scores and other sorts of test scores was fast closing. This progress ceased in the 1980s. The questions were: Why was the gap closing when it was? Why did such significant progress cease in the 1980s?
These questions have really not been researched and debated enough to have definitive answers. Nonetheless, I believe we know pretty well, in a "big picture" way, what the answers are. But before I give my answers, consider two salient (but not all that well-known) facts.
First, we all know that being poor puts a child "at risk" for reading failure. But the correlation between being poor and failing at early reading is not all that large. What is really large is the correlation between pooling poor kids in school and early reading failure and a subsequent lack of school success (see: Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1998). If you are one of a few poor kids in a classroom, chances are that you will be all right. If you are one of many, you're in big trouble. Ceasing to pool poor children in poor schools would do as much or more for reading scores than any specific instructional intervention. In fact, high levels of poverty in a school are a better predictor of children who will have reading problems than is a lack of early phonemic awareness, a variable that has been the focus of much early reading research and policy.
The second fact is related to the first: Family, community and school factors beyond instructional methods contribute more to school failure or success than do specific methods (however efficacious some of them may otherwise be), a fact which has been known for nearly three decades (see Pearson, P. David. "The first-grade studies: A personal reflection," Reading Research Quarterly 32.4: 428-432, 1997). School instructional methods do, most certainly, influence school success, but they are less influential than home and community factors. Paying attention to the first while ignoring the second is a recipe for failure. One very important home factor is how much adults talk to children, not just how much they read to them (see: Hart, T., & Risely, B. Meaningful Differences in the Early Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore: Brookes, 1995).
The black-white gap was closing because, thanks in part to Johnson's War on Poverty, segregation was decreasing in the United States. The progress stopped because neo-liberal approaches to policy focused on school and market variables and not any longer on social and civil variables. Segregation increased. Today, many policy makers and educators do not see pooling or unpooling poverty as "reading variables" like phonemic awareness or comprehension strategies. But the truth of the matter -- and it is an expensive truth to ignore -- is that school is not separate from society, and that ceasing to pool poverty is the key variable to undoing the black-white gap, as well as the gap between rich and poor children more generally.
Jack Jennings: Long-Term Gains In Minority Education: An Overlooked Success?
Integrating schools really doesn't get much attention today, amongst liberal or conservative "reformers." I think it is due to the fact there aren't many good solutions to solve this problem. Parents want to send their kids to good schools, whether they are of the public, private or charter variety. Yes, the very existence on non-public schools hurt public schools, but there is very little that can be done that would have popular support.
That is why I keep bringing up the idea of creating a "culture of education." This culture would consider all aspects of a child's life, from the family and community (as the author mentioned) to government and school. If all of these social and cultural factors are emphasized, the child -- even if poor -- can thrive in school. Poverty is a loaded word, because it is not just social and cultural, it is economic, which makes it such an intractable problem. A "culture of education" is not about economics; it refers just to the social and cultural aspect. This means that nurturing a culture of education is a "relatively" cheaper solution (though not easy). It simply requires the collective commitment to make education first in a child's life, not sports, entertainment, etc. That is the real challenge.
http://TheEducatedSociety.com/
This is somewhat akin to the data today coming from international assessment data. Countries that are performing well can and do apply varying and sometimes "opposing" methods. Some have national standards, others (Finland) offer mimimal guidelines and afford teachers professional latitude in designing and teaching their curriculum. There is not a single approach that is a "best practice."
Finally, our public schools are embedded in our culture, they are part of the culture. When the culture and the society in which it is placed "succeeds," we will see evidence in our schools, and vice versa.
As far as teaching reading, we know there is much more than simply competently teaching the skills that are the ingredients of reading. Children must see the value and pleasure in reading, they must WANT to read. Consistently access to books and other reading material proves to be an important factor in the development of readers. Again, it is an aspect of the culture.
"He liked to point out that methodologÂy was not found to be the most important factor, but teacher commitment and belief was stronger. Teachers who cared, who believed in what they were doing, no matter the method per se, were successfulÂ. "
Ridiculous!!!!