Superintendent Barresi certainly enjoys benefits from being
the incumbent in a large group of candidates currently running for her
position. She has friends on the editorial board at Daily Oklahoman who regularly supports her positions against all
comers.
She can also submit opinion
pieces and be assured of considerable inches in the prime-time Sunday edition.
She took advantage of those benefits this week and published
an opinion piece designed to head off criticism of her beloved A-F school
grades that dramatically illustrate that schools of children in poverty do not
fare well…that her beloved A-F really carefully measures the economic status of
the parents whose kids attend school. Even the headline, “Poverty not an excuse…”
attacks the educators by implication.
Her big opening sounds promising:
“Does poverty have a significant impact on a child’s academic
performance? Of course.
Are such problems a considerable obstacle for a student to
overcome? Absolutely.
Is poverty, then, good enough of a reason to hold these
children to low expectations that essentially relegate them to a lesser
education?
No way!”
Look at the two first statements. She seems to agree
with critics. But, it's that insincere smile to get close enough to shove her shiv between our ribs with the next two sentences. Nicely played. Surprises no one. We knew it was coming and have made plans to deflect the blade
She’s implying that educators regularly and systematically
have low expectations for our students.
What ‘relegates’ poor kids to a ‘lesser education?’ She
wants us to believe it’s the educators who work in the schools. Could it be the
highest percentage of
cuts to education in the country? Could it be bigger classrooms, fewer
counselors, fewer librarians? What about less money to replace aging computer
labs? What about no money for school libraries to buy new titles? How are
educators responsible for any of these real outcomes?
Our policy makers in Oklahoma have turned their backs on our
children, at the same time blaming the woes of the schools on the dedicated
professionals who do the work. Our policy makers spend valuable resources on a
testing climate that helps no one but the testing corporations, and has been
proven to be detrimental to real intellectual growth in our kids.
Our policy makers have tricked the public into voting
for measures that will severely damage schools in the future. Corporate tax
cuts and credits also cut available funds to schools. The picture will get
bleaker very quickly.
Three statements in Superintendent Barresi’s editorial raised
my English-teacher ire…
“It would be folly to deny
the effects of poverty, but that
should not, and cannot, allow for its acceptance. Poverty is a factor, not an
excuse.”
And
“Schools alone can’t
break the cycle of poverty, but
providing a solid education for children in poverty can be a huge step toward
giving them a pathway to a different future.”
And, only because I know
she doesn’t mean a word of this statement, I’m adding it:
“It will take a
tremendous effort, but Oklahoma educators
are more than up to the task.”
One description of the conjunction 'but' is adversative...what a wonderful word. What a true word in this case. That ‘but’ takes away
everything in the clause it follows – its purpose is to slap us with the fact
she’s right, and we’re wrong… with that one little word, she implies we DO
accept poverty…we DO use it as an excuse. We DON’T support breaking the cycle
of poverty.
Think of how we use the
word ‘but’ – “He’s such a nice boy, but dumb…She’s so sweet, but ugly.” It
negates everything…it contrasts, it sets up the real truth in the statement,
after a positive beginning. It’s the snark that says, “You didn’t really
believe me before, did you?”
So, two statements that
are serious slaps at educators, and we’re supposed to believe her last “but”
statement at face value, “but Oklahoma educators are more than up to the task?”
Ironically, we are, but she doesn’t believe it. This is her pretense to play
nice, to show her total support of Oklahoma educators. Educators she hopes will
vote for her, right after she gently withdraws the blade between our ribs and pats the bleeding wound. If educators DO vote for her, they deserve this continued abuse. Unfortunately, the rest of us suffer too.
And then there’s: “This
is a matter of civil rights.” Many conservative pundits use that phrase, trying
to co-opt the civil rights struggle for their own purpose. They want to provide
vouchers and charter schools as ways to address inequity.
How about funding
schools? Hiring and retaining dedicated career teachers? Assuring library books
and working technology in every school?
Yes, equity in education
IS a civil rights issue. Here are some ugly facts missing from this
fluff-piece: 21,000
children in Oklahoma are homeless. Also, In Oklahoma, 24% of our children come to us from poor families. According to
a very
recent study, 85% of variability in school
performance is attributable to economic well being of students’ families. Oklahoma
schools did not fare any better. The Center
for Public Education has combined 19 research studies on
class size, and has concluded lowering class size leads to higher achievement,
especially in early grades, with an experienced teacher.
No matter how great, teachers cannot
combat these realities in the classroom. We need politicians brave enough to do
the right thing. If our policy makers were serious about tackling poverty in
our schools as the new civil rights issue, let them start here, not on the friendly
pages of the DOK
“It would be folly to deny the effects of poverty,” but politicians
will continue to ignore and deny in their quest to blame educators.
“It will take a tremendous effort,” but educators will stand
alone in this battle.
“Schools alone can’t break the cycle of poverty,” but educators
will be charged to do just that, and blamed when we cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment