What's a High Needs School?

 What's a High Needs School?

Since I entered teaching, I've worked in what are classified as urban, "high needs" schools.  Lately I've been asking myself, what exactly does that mean?  

The high need schools in which I've built my teaching practice serve student populations that receive universal free lunch from the government.  This means that 100% of their families live (or at least report income) at the poverty line.  I researched the federal guidelines for this designation, and found that for a single parent and one child, it is $14,570 per year.  And for a household of 5 this means $25,790 annually.  

In New York City, those figures make for staggeringly difficult conditions for raising a family.  These numbers reflect "the struggle," a concept that never really goes away.  This is where students grow up exposed to or experiencing the various symptoms of poverty--poor or unstable housing, violence, crime, poor health and nutrition, depression--all of which are competing factors in a child's ability to focus in school. I do believe strongly that any child can succeed academically given the right opportunity, but the stress level alone associated with many of these issues makes it much more difficult.  

What confuses me at the moment is why there are so many schools that serve 100% children of the poor.  It would be one thing if most of the city was poor, but that is not the case.  It would be one thing if some districts were poor and others wealthy, but that is not the case either.  Districts tend to be spread across several neighborhoods of varying economic levels.  So why is it that one handful of schools is charged with educating children who struggle getting their basic needs met, and other schools serve mostly middle class children who mostly come to school well-provided for? Why do so many poor students in New York City find themselves in classes made up of exclusively other students facing similar economic situations? What message does that send? 

In today's education scene, key players seem comfortable looking in the windows of high needs schools and questioning or making suggestions as to how they are funded, staffed, supported, and held accountable (all of which are valid points of discussion).  But what about the frame itself for this picture?  Aren't we looking at the old ill of segregation and failing to confront it?  

In New York City, students have to apply to schools, starting in elementary, and most schools screen their students.  "Better" schools have good reputations, get "better" applicant pools, and can choose from the most prepared students (using academic, discipline and attendance records).  Schools with poorer reputations end up with students that the better schools didn't choose.  It is not a coincidence that those students tend live at the poverty line and receive free lunch.  

Great work happens inside high need schools.  Committed teachers, students and school leaders regularly transcend the expectations society has of them, putting the dream of educational opportunity for all into action.  At the same time, in many such schools, we are overwhelmed by the level of need, both academically, socially and psychologically.  There are many children who get "left behind"--not by hard-working teachers, guidance counselors and administrators doing their best every day--but by a system that is still separate and unequal.  And no matter how much we test students and hold teachers and principals accountable for the results, we're missing something if we don't also deal with the segregation in our schools that perpetuates and even intensifies long-standing inequalities inside our nation.   

[image credit (border added): 

bluesoul.wordpress.com/ 2008/11/27/urban-vector/]

Comments

[Sam]

You know this is one that I feel passionately about, Ariel, and I certainly agree with you. Just a small note of correction, though--just because free lunch is universally available doesn't mean all families meet the poverty threshold. I've looked at some free and reduced price lunch data, and most schools in high poverty areas don't actually reach 100%. For instance, the school I taught at in the South Bronx had about 80% free and reduced price eligible students.

Still, your point is well-taken.

[Ariel]

Thank you for the correction, Sam. I was wondering about that. I recall being given specific percentages for both schools I've worked in verbally by my principals. In East Harlem, for example, I remember the number at my school was very nearly 100%--98 or 99%. In Brooklyn, the number at my school was a bit lower--in the 80's or low 90's. I tried to find this information online about the schools, but could not.

[TeachMoore]

Don't know whether you and Sam are just talking about NYC, but there are schools in this country that are 100% free and reduced lunch eligible students -- and I've taught at some of them.

Thank you, Ariel, for saying something that needs to be said out loud right now. The economic segregation of students in our public schools is real, and it is not unconnected to the issue of which schools are chronically underresourced, understaffed (e.g., staffed with less qualified, less prepared staff) and which ones are perpetually lower performing on key indicators. Thank God we are able to help some of our students overcome these obstacles and succeed anyway, but that should not excuse the continuing inequities.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Great question, Ariel.

What worries me most about the Blueprint for re-authorizing ESEA is the fact that the "lowest" 5 to 10% of public schools will be subject to harsh turnaround plans, while the other 90% will be more or less off the hook. And since poverty is concentrated in those schools, it's easy to see schools where teachers are doing good work as "failures."

I live on the outer edge of the Detroit suburbs, where it starts to get rural. A few years ago, we built a new, additional elementary school to accommodate growth. While the school was being constructed, a 200-acre farm was converted to a mobile home community in the district--600 families moved in w/in a few months. When the attendance boundaries were re-drawn, they bussed the trailer park kids right past the new school, to the oldest elementary in the district.

Here's the best part of the story. In the first year, that old school (which was the only "economically diverse" school in the district, with about 20% Free & Reduced) had the highest test scores. I taught there for one year and it was a delightful place--the teachers who were attracted there tended to be veterans who were not fooled by the shiny new building.

[Ariel Sacks]

Nancy, that is a great story and one that affirms that skilled teachers can educate any students. Unfortunately, in my experience, and as Renee points out, most high needs schools in New York City end up taking on more than their share of brand new teachers who may or may not have adequate preparation (due to high turnover and inability to attract more experienced teachers). Nothing wrong with new teachers, who have a lot to offer any school community--but you need a balance. In a tough environment with little to no support, I've seen many new teachers completely overwhelmed, with no one to turn to because everyone, including administrators, is scrambling to get by themselves. Some even are pushed to the point of quitting in the middle of the year.

We've all heard these stories and know what a harrowing experience this can be for a new teacher. What we often forget is that this is happening far too often in high need schools that serve real children. And the children know, on some level, exactly what's going on while they get left behind by a system that allows the inequality to persist.

[Vendita Giubotti Belstaff]

Good stuff as per usual, thanks. I do hope this kind of thing gets more exposure.