iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Michael Rebell
 
GET UPDATES FROM Jessica Wolff
 

U.S. Schools Have a Poverty Crisis, Not an Education Crisis

Posted: 02/ 1/2012 3:16 pm

In the 10 years since enacting the No Child Left Behind Act, we have made very little progress toward our national goal of closing the achievement gap between students from low-income families and their better-off peers. Implicitly acknowledging this lack of progress, President Obama announced last fall that his administration would grant states waivers that would, among other things, give them more time to meet the law's goals. More time won't help, however, unless the Obama administration and Congress acknowledge the most glaring flaw in NCLB and the educational policies of most states -- their failure to recognize and mitigate the enormous impact of poverty on the chances for the school success of millions of American schoolchildren.

In America, we don't have an education crisis; rather we have a poverty crisis. The latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores indicate that American schools that serve few low-income students rank higher than the world's top-scoring advanced industrial countries. But when they are averaged with the scores of schools with high poverty rates, the United States sinks to the middle of the pack. At nearly 22 percent and rising, the child-poverty rate in the United States is the highest among wealthy nations in the world. (Poverty rates in Denmark and in Finland, top global performers on the PISA exams, are below 5 percent). In New York City, the child-poverty rate rose to over 30 percent in 2010. Like other aspects of the inequitable U.S. distribution of wealth, our child poverty crisis seems to fall within a national blind spot.

Childhood poverty has a profound impact on learning. Achievement gaps for disadvantaged children begin before they start school and widen throughout their school careers. But research shows that change is possible.

Most non-poor students in this country come to school equipped with the basics for success. They arrive with the preschool experiences they need to be ready for grade-level work; their health and mental-health needs are largely being met; they enjoy a range of both academic and nonacademic learning experiences beyond the school day that complement what they learn in class; and they receive the family support that ensures they are motivated and prepared to learn during the school day. Children raised in poverty cannot count on these advantages. As a result, too many are unprepared, inattentive, or chronically absent.

We can and we must respond on a broad, systemic basis to the socioeconomic factors that impede learning. For the past three years, working with a statewide task force of experts and advocates in a variety of fields and a team of seven education economists, the Campaign for Educational Equity has examined the legal, economic, and policy issues associated with providing a broad range of comprehensive services to low-income students. Last fall, we issued five white papers that demonstrate how impediments to school success that are caused by poverty can be overcome on a large scale. These papers conclude that:

  • In addition to in-school resources to meet their learning needs, disadvantaged students are entitled to relevant services in the areas of early-childhood education, expanded out-of-school time learning, health care, and family engagement and support.
  • Access to these comprehensive educational services is a legal right that must be made available to all disadvantaged children, not merely to some and only when political trends and budget cycles coincide.
  • Each state needs to create a policy infrastructure for fulfilling this right by crafting standards, parallel to K-12 education standards, for early childhood, expanded learning time, health care and health education, and family engagement.
  • States can provide these comprehensive services for a reasonable price. We estimate it would cost approximately 4,200 annually per disadvantaged student (above current educational costs) over the 18.5 years from birth through high school to provide the full array. Moreover, the economic and social benefits to providing them would, in time, return more than double the value of the investments made.

We cannot continue to bemoan mediocre national scores and ignore the real story of disparate achievement. A growing body of research and a number of demonstration projects around the country indicate that America will attain its goals of equity and excellence in education only through a concerted effort to eliminate the substantial socioeconomic barriers that limit school success for many students.

We have the tools and knowledge needed, but implementation of the full program that we envision would take a decade or more. That means getting started now with a focused agenda to meet the comprehensive educational needs of all our children.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:44 PM on 02/11/2012
You have to look back a whole lot more than 10 years to see anything different than the current situation. How about way back to the early 60's before Progressive education was in vogue.It has been virtually the same for the past 40-50 years in terms of the gap between the disadvantaged and the middle-upper class students. What we have done whether it is Headstart or NCLB, it has NOT worked. We need to help the family from birth BEFORE the child gets to school. It's too late by then.
11:27 PM on 02/05/2012
In our school district there are many programs that attempt to provide nutrition, better teachers and more resources to those lower performing schools. The counter point is that by directing a larger percentage of the district’s finite resources to the underachieving takes away an equitable distribution from those higher performing students and schools. It is important to establish a supplemental funding base to ensure districts are not obliged to further create systems where those who achieve are penalized by having resources redirected to those who do not achieve. In my view poverty is a critical factor as is the condition of the facilities learning is to take place. Both require resources beyond many school district’s ability to generate and manage. Bright flight is not a credible means for closing the achievement gap. We need to take care not to discourage achievers from remaining part of the system by redirecting resources based on their achievement.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
perlin
09:36 PM on 02/01/2012
Obama's RTTT calls for more testing than NCLB. RTTT places the solo responsibility of tests scores on teachers and ignores the impact of poverty on students' learning. It seems to me that "the poverty" is a taboo word for Obama's administration.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
perlin
09:13 PM on 02/01/2012
It it much easier to attack the teachers than the poverty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
calamityjohn
09:03 PM on 02/01/2012
thank you for a post willing to address the true underlying issue .. I get tired of reading all the "Education Reform" posts that start with very qualified sentence: "the number one SCHOOL BASED factor of student performance is the teacher"
06:43 PM on 02/01/2012
An investment in early childhood is crucial. Students from homes with a college grad have a far greater vocabulary than those without, esp those in poverty.
04:30 PM on 02/01/2012
I don't think you are going to get any states signing up to such expensive mandates / rights anytime soon. Their school and social service budgets are all shrinking, not growing. That said, intervention in the pre-school years is clearly justified by the data. I would suggest trying out pilot projects focused upon:

Education of pregnant women and infant care providers concerning supportive parenting practices.

Infant play groups that also support and educate mothers and child care providers.

Nursery / young child play groups / structured environments to challenge children and support and educate mothers and child care providers.

I would expect that the framework for such programs would be supplied by social service groups and religious institutions - who all have mandates in this area.

Given the catastrophic funding situation, I am focusing upon using limited funds to enable parents and existing caretakers to do a better job, not trying to replace them with state run institutions.