SAVE THE CHILDREN

Every now and then, someone will take a critical potshot at Ruby Payne, whose “Framework for Understanding Poverty” and interactive professional development workshops are enormously popular with schools trying to engender “cultural competence”—which might be loosely defined as the ability of middle-class teachers to understand and deal effectively with children of poverty and their families. 

Payne takes considerable heat from those who see her work as supported by shabby and unscholarly research. She’s been accused of blindly accepting reproduction of the hidden principles of classism in the (dysfunctional) education system; her training has been characterized as perpetuating a deficit model, where children of poverty need to recognize and absorb the hidden rules of middle-class values and schooling in order to learn and succeed.

I’ve sat through a couple of Ruby Payne trainings, and I didn’t get that impression—her material is mostly about re-framing teacher thinking (including the injection of some compassion), and an assortment of strategies that many teachers I know find helpful. Some of Ruby’s tips may be grating or simplistic—but I have never heard Ruby Payne suggest that the only way to save inner city kids from certain doom is to remove them from their homes and put them in a boarding school.

Tom Friedman, now the respected oracle on educating in the flat world, wrote a near-potboiler op-ed in the NY Times, about the new SEED charter boarding school in Baltimore, and the recent drawing held to determine which 80 lucky sixth graders will move into the SEED dormitories come fall, leaving more than 200 unfortunate lottery losers stuck with their lousy schools, neighborhoods and family life. Friedman portrays the scene as something like the last airlift out of Saigon—families screaming with joy, children weeping in anguish, counselors begging “please save this child.”

Friedman even describes illiterate, crack-addled parents requesting help from the SEED staff in filling out application forms—suggesting this is proof that even parents in the worst circumstances know best about their children’s educational needs. You have to wonder—is hoping to have your child selected for a full ride in boarding school a better strategy than, say, volunteering in your child’s school library, or attending parent-teacher conferences?

There is a subtle conflation of pathos and judgment here, about who is best positioned or able to help disadvantaged children reach their full potential. This is not a critique of either boarding schools or charter schools, both of which are viable and useful choices, with great potential in providing a quality education to all children.

My first thought, however, in reading the piece, was of the Indian School era, a century ago, where tribal children were placed in boarding schools, away from their homes and families, to “civilize” them. Some of them acclimated well, adopting European cultural norms. Others eventually returned to their homes, miserable and belonging to no group.

Is this how we “save” kids in urban schools—one at a time, taking them away from their neighborhoods, and only if their lucky number is drawn? Many of the comments on Friedman’s piece centered on how to fund more programs like the SEED school. If this is the answer to crumbling social structures and failing schools, then the ideal of democratic equality demands we provide an education like this for every family who wants it—the upfront investment would be paid back in human productivity and social capital.

I don’t believe this is the One Great Solution to dysfunctional urban schools, however. It’s dramatic and makes for good copy, but even Friedman muses that there’s “something wrong” with a random drawing to rescue children, if that’s what it amounts to. And who are “we” anyway, to be deciding what’s best for other people's children, in Baltimore?

More than 100 years ago, W.E.B. Du Bois, in The Souls of Black Folk, told the story of John, who found himself stranded between Jim Crow, his educational achievement in a white-dominated world, and the good people who raised him to better himself. Du Bois’ tale did not end well. It’s depressing to think we haven’t got a better story to tell today.

Image: gipsy/rghtiulescu/morguefile

Comments

[Bob Heiny]

Disappointing or challenging for teachers to create a better way? I vote with my priorities for the second option.

[Michaele Sommerville]

It's my father's generation that endured BIA Schools away from home- he is Eskimo, and found out quickly that in order to be deemed a "success" at school, he had to allow himself to be "whitewashed." He and his classmates were punished for speaking their language, punished for requesting indigenous foods, punished when they requested to be sent home to help family during hunting season. Living a subsistence lifestyle, every family member was needed to go on the hunt to provide food for the season or year.

Many students "successful" or not, went home to find themselves too white for their own villages, and too brown for the big cities. An entire culture was "improved" from the inside and the outside, disregarding native ways of knowing, family ties, cultural beliefs, and community needs.

How can this type of model ever be considered a good thing?.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Thanks for reading, Bob. I'm not certain that teachers have the political capital to create better ways, in the current climate. In fact, I'm not sure at all what the solution to the problem of failing schools is--I am only commenting here on what seems like a great rush of enthusiasm for something that made me feel profoundly uncomfortable.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Michaele--thanks for your very personal and important comments. I was stunned at the widespread acceptance, even fervor, for the idea that it was a good thing to host a competition for boarding school slots, to save inner city kids from their otherwise hopeless futures.

It seemed to be more a comment on how miserably we have failed, as a society, to build safe communities and a decent job market for all citizens. The conditions and motives underlying the "need" for the lottery and this school were virtually unexamined. And the cultural chutzpah inherent in assuming that one group of people could make best decisions about another group of people blew me away.

Your heartfelt remarks are valuable in this discussion. BTW, I hung out in your KDG room today--red!--and it's gorgeous.

Nancy

[Bob Heiny]

I accept your point, Nancy. I, too, have had a deep discomfort for forty plus years with the phrase "disadvantaged children" since special ed professor Jim Gallagher asked me to come up with a reference that distinguishes affects of cultural variations on school achievement. I could not come up with a better phrase. Still can't. I think that advanced electronic technologies make such discussions unnecessary.

[Michaele Sommerville]

Hi Nancy, thanks for stopping by my blog, and glad you enjoyed it!

I forgot to mention (probably didn't actually *need* to after you read my comment) that I too have a problem when outsiders looking in decide to intervene haphazardly to "save" children, one or two at a time, instead of doing all they can to improve the environment as a whole in a respectful, appropriate, and sensitive way. So often we see or hear of "token" successes that are paraded around that serve as testament and endorsement of the process, ignoring the suffering of the others. Unbeknownst to many, even the "tokens" suffer immeasurably.

[J.M. Holland]

"is hoping to have your child selected for a full ride in boarding school a better strategy than, say, volunteering in your child’s school library, or attending parent-teacher conferences?"

I think one point is that parents may not know what is best for their kids or how to get it or have the resources to get what's best but they still want the best for the child.

I struggle with this type of issue with the parents I work with in Head Start but, these parents get home visits from parent visitors who help them set goals (like getting off drugs) and work towards them which can help empower a family. Then when students leave Head Start we take all of the supports away. No wonder there is fade in impact of Head Start services. It is not just about the classroom or the student it is about the family.

Great post, I really appreciate your bringing in the Indian schools and Dubois, wonderful word weaving.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Hey John.

Thanks for your comments. Like Michaele's, they carry a lot of credibility. As I was writing, I kept thinking--how did we get to a point where parents are hoping their children will be "lucky" enough to leave home to live in a boarding school?

I read a nasty little piece today on how the positive effects of a good pre-school experience for disadvantaged children fade as children get older, around 4th grade, when their test scores look the same as kids who didn't go to pre-school. The writer said that investing in pre-school (one of Obama's big policy goals) was obviously a waste of resources, since the effect didn't last. It was like a knife in my heart-- like saying why bother to clean your house because it will only get dirty again? We provide programming for Head Start parents, even though the supports may go away, because it's the right thing to do: help while we can.

Thanks for dropping by.