If your child is reading on grade level or above and the rest of his or her class is reading below that level, does that environment affect your child's advancement? Most parents will answer "yes."
Deborah J. Smith, principal of Mitchell Elementary School in Charleston, recently made a cogent case in her op-ed for the benefits of neighborhood schools. Unfortunately, her case shows that those neighborhood schools benefit the most those students who are "under-resourced."
George Orwell must be smiling down on the latest jargon to avoid saying "poor."
As Smith writes,
"If a school population is composed mostly of children of poverty, it does not mean that they cannot learn. It just means we must build the background knowledge first. We do that by setting high expectations and teaching “bell to bell.” I see the teachers at Mitchell doing this daily. I see students who begin the year two years below grade level grow more than a year’s worth of knowledge."
"State tests are given on grade level, which means that even if a student has grown a year and a half, they will still be classified “not met” on the state exam requirements. Accountability is absolutely necessary when you measure the progress of a school, but you need to look at what you are measuring. When measuring growth, you will find that Mitchell is as effective as any Charleston County school — even those classified as magnet or choice."
The question Smith does not answer is whether the so-called "advanced" reader will see the same level of growth. Too many parents who desire an excellent education for their children have sat in classrooms as bored students while teachers presented material they already knew. Perhaps teaching has changed, but Smith will have a hard time convincing parents that it has changed that much.
Do some neighborhood schools such as Mitchell "offer sub-par educational opportunities" to "resourced" children?
That is the question that makes all the difference.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment