Enfant terrible edublogger Alexander Russo strikes a measured and reasonable tone, rewarding us with a terrific piece at scholastic.com arguing against efforts to introduce a range of health and human services into schools (think “Broader, Bolder“). Such efforts “may stretch schools’ abilities to make a real difference,” he cautions, “and may take you and your team’s eyes off quality classroom instruction and academic improvement.”
There’s no doubt that students’ home lives play an important role in their school success. The question is whether schools are really the best vehicle through which to address deeper social issues such as poverty, lack of childcare or health insurance, inadequate access to transportation, and adult illiteracy. My view is that they’re not. Let schools try and do what they are supposed to do. If more is needed—few argue that it isn’t—let’s address those problems separately and head-on, rather than making them something schools have to do.
“Schools can’t fix poverty,” he concludes. “And that’s OK.”
Even if you like the Broader, Bolder approach, it’s going to be tough to make the case that schools are well-positioned to do more as long as questions exist about how well they execute their primary function. And accountability hawks across the political spectrum question whether such an approach is really a way to deflect a focus on results.
I’m okay with schools not trying to fix poverty — as long as the accountability hawks don’t expect schools to erase the effects of poverty.
I think there’s a strong argument that schools will be most effective if the focus on education, and on the ability of good education to counter-act the effects of poverty.
In order for schools to be able to do that in an accountability focused world, the accountability structure needs to recognize that they effects of poverty on student achievement are real. Just pretending that poverty is a problem that kids leave at the classroom door doesn’t help either schools or students.
I take exception with accountability hawks across the political spectrum when they argue that people who have dedicated their lives to poor children are trying to deflect attention away from “results.”
I understand hardball politics, but those so-called “reformers” can’t claim the high road. If they had evidence on their side, they wouldn’t have to attack the sincerity and the integrity of educators and education experts.
If you believe that accountability should be the driving force of reform, or you support NCLB, then make your arguments. What is so awful about a debate using evidence?