Subject: Deep Roots

Posted by Bill Rathborne on 12/28/2010
In Reply To:Deep Roots Posted by Pedro D. Almaguer Prado on 12/27/2010

Message:

Pedro,

Unfortunately, I don't have the talents, natural or otherwise, to create a "diagram" of any value.

However, I see not one "elephant" between a generic teacher and generic student, but a singular "elephant", unique to each teacher-student relationship.

That is why for a student who comes to school from a highly supportive family has a very tiny, or no, elephant, between him/her and the teacher, and a child who comes from a very dysfunctional/abusive family, one mired in poverty, or from a non-English speaking background, is living with circumstances that even the most talented teachers will struggle to overcome.

My "diagram" would have "a student" in the middle with all their individual "intelligences", inherent genetic capabilities, and intrinsic interests and motivations recognized. Surrounding that student would be as "inputs" and influences, school, media, peers, family, and probably a lot, lot more. Think of that infamous "Afghanistan" military diagram!!

If studies have shown that family influences account for approximately 60% of a child's success in school, then the high-leverage point would be obvious. However, this is one child at a time, not an "average" stereotype. However, the high-leverage point must be dealt with, if it constitutes an "elephant", in order to improve the situation, one child at a time.

Now, whether the resources required to deal with a strongly negative situation in the home - and peer groups may well represent another "elephant" - is assigned to the school system, or some other "system", is a political/administrative decision, but if that elephant is there it has to be dealt with, or nothing will change.

In any case I would not put the education system at the centre of a diagram, but the student/child.

The Province of Ontario, where I live, recently did very well in the international assessments of student performance. The PISA results and comments indicate that supplemental resources - per student - are essential whether attempting to address a "cultural elephant", or other factors - one student at a time.
http://www.pearsonfoundation.org/oecd/canada.html

It appears that the overall system is seriously under-resourced in the US. However, there also seems to be a well orchestrated effort to sabotage the system by interests that see economic opportunity, rather than an overriding concern with the quality of education. If - big if? - that is true, then the PR campaign scapegoating teachers is simply a very effective tool used to sway public opinion. Given the ease with which the PR/spin mechanisms work, particularly when backed by millions of dollars, the handwriting may well be on the wall.

However, I would not anticipate that it will result in any of the breathless claims of "improved international competitiveness" that are utilized. This is about moving billions of dollars into private, for-profit hands, and crushing unions as a side benefit.

The growing economic divide, and the increasing number of influential/wealthy individuals who opt for private schools, places the "public" system in a place of last resort, rather than the great equalizer it was once thought to be. The "problems" are far more sweeping and societal/economic than just the education-system.

A well designed "diagram" that proved that, would never see the light of day.

Bill