STORY TIME: During the 4th marking period this year, a student walked into my class who was on my roster, but I had only seen sparingly. I asked him where he’s been and he said, “I’ve been going through a lot.” I asked him to elaborate because I wanted to understand more precisely what he was grappling with so that possibly I, or the school, might be able to help relieve some of his burden. He went on to explain, “I’m taking care of my little brother and sisters at night while my mom is at work and sometimes I have to stay up late and can’t get to sleep. And when I do, and finally wake up, I’m already really late to school and I miss, like, my first two periods - like everyday.”
This was not the first instance of students stepping up to perform adult roles within their households I’d heard this year. Another student who is extremely bright and has a pleasant disposition had a transcript that was, in no way, indicative of her intellect or her potential. Upon seeing her transcript I asked, “What the hell is this? What were you doing to have a transcript that looks like this?” Her response, like the gentleman referenced above, “Benson, I’m basically kinda raising my two little sisters. My mom is at work all the time and I gotta pick them up from school when I get outta here, make sure they get to school in the morning, and I’m working too on top of all that… I’m just exhausted sometimes and I’m always late to my classes in the morning. But I know I gotta do better.” The young lady believes it is she that has to do better.
In my twenty years in Camden public schools, I, like many other urban educators around the country, have seen students trying to juggle adult responsibilities like caring for younger siblings, providing physical and financial support for ailing parents and grandparents, and even missing school to attend important meetings with familial elders to provide translation services. I, like many other educators here, have seen students arrive at school after walking miles through snow, rain, heat, and others arrive at school in cabs or Lyft, all in effort to fulfill their goal of graduating high school (and hopefully continue some form of education beyond the 12th grade). Still, there is and has been for decades, oft-repeated phraseology pertaining to urban students’ educational achievement like, “No Excuses” (a phrase obliviously emblazoned at center court in one of Camden’s renaissance schools), “zip code should not determine one’s destiny”, and that urban students simply need “grit” to succeed. Not only are such assertions objectively and provably false, as evidenced by empirical research in study, after study, after study, after study, after study spanning decades, they are unfortunately repeated with such frequency, the general public, seem to internalize these myths as if sheer repetition and intuition makes the aforementioned myths true. Some within education policy and professionals within education-consultancy-sphere obtusely dismiss even acknowledging that negative non-school connected realities compromise students’ academic outcomes despite vast research reliably connecting academic performance of schools and individual students to their respective socioeconomic environments.
Factually, there are many explanations as to why some students achieve more than others pertaining to academic outputs that have very little to do with what takes place in schools day to day - or their desire to achieve. Contrary to what is commonly communicated by lawmakers and school reformists to the broader public who are largely ignorant to the complexity of educating children, particularly children in urban environments, the schools that are labeled “failing” actually do a far better job at increasing student learning (“impact”) during the school year than they are given credit for. However, thanks to well funded campaigns of misinformation directed at the public spanning decades, people arrive at conclusions about the efficacy of schooling environments based on the qualitative metrics of students often misjudging how effective “failing schools” are at educating students, and ignoring all the real world forces our students are pushing against to pursue their education. (Numbers, alone, never convey the full story.)
Additionally, research also suggests measured “academic” disparities (for whatever they’re worth because they, too, are ripe for manipulation) exist even before students in urban districts arrive in school as kindergarteners. Typically, by the age of five fewer than ½ of poor students are “ready” for kindergarten compared to ¾ of children from middle and upper-class households, resulting in a twenty-seven percent point gap in achievement from the start of their education experience. (So that I’m clear, I am in now way suggesting lower income students are not learning academic material prior to kindergarten, only that in what is assessed, deficiencies are exhibited. Again, be discerning what such “assessments” are worth, and what “deficiencies” truly means in practice. Point of fact, I put little stock in both assessments and labeled “deficiencies” for lower income children, but for how urban schools are attacked, both matter.) Yet, policymakers’ and media outlets’ preoccupation with improving “failing schools” and labeling our students pejoratively, they rarely attempt to identify, much less address surrounding factors and social contexts wherein schools labeled “failing” are situated. Lance Fusarelli, education professor at NC State, argues that the sustained decay and systemic divestment of large urban areas has more impact on educational outcomes, than all reforms and curriculum changes over the past thirty years.
Diving a little deeper, research indicates performance on “standardized” assessments and educational attainment can be predicted with a high degree of certainty based on zip code to the extent zip codes are a reliable indicator of household economics, and reliable work schedules of parents. Communities that are affluent, have schools that perform better quantitatively compared to lower SES zip codes despite the fact that all public school educators possess the same certification and meet the same standard of content mastery and academic proficiency to earn their certification. This is not a phenomenon unique to the United States, but globally, more affluent communities “outperform” communities experiencing greater economic stress.
Not only that, research indicates that children in households where parents work non-traditional shifts (2nd and 3rd shift), exhibit worse behaviors and academic performance in school as elementary students compared to other students; and, as high school students, are more prone to risky behaviors, and in some instances have to perform parental duties in the home for younger siblings (as referenced above). Further, parents working non-traditional hours who are parenting younger children, most often have to rely on their immediate network to provide childcare primarily for safety supervision, not academic support and again, placing poorer students at a disadvantage when compared to peers whose realities are more mainstream. And, it should come as no surprise, the constituency who disproportionately work in 2nd and 3rd shift hourly employment, is women of color - many of whom are mothers who are working to support their families. (Before the “where are the fathers crowd” chime in with reflexive prejudicial assumptions, the answer is far more likely than not: working as well. Whether residing in the home or not, the vast majority of fathers are working and are actively involved in the lives of their children. Problems for children in school arise when both parents’ working-class incomes may not be sufficient to support their families alone, thereby forcing those parents to spend more hours at work and less with their child which negatively impacts their child’s academic performance and outcomes. To be sure, this is not a matter of parents “not caring” about their child’s education, or schools not working hard enough to educate students, but much more of a byproduct of predatory economics and negligent legislation forcing working parents to, justifiably, prioritize household finances to provide for their homes above providing academic support for children.)
The centering of schools as the initiator and site of societal problem solving, however, is at-best grossly incorrect, and at worst a deliberate attempt to redirect public attention away from a much larger and harder pill to swallow; that our society is patently unjust and preserving inequality and limiting access to societal progress is the goal as has been for decades. Despite education research that is readily available and accessible proving otherwise, public education is still identified as both the initiator of problems and the site for solutions for whatever ails urban America. (It is neither. Schools have never been equipped to cure systemic racial, nor economic inequities that have been sustained through legislation for centuries. Casting schools as both the blame and solution is a deliberate misdirection intended to direct focus away from lawmakers and wealthy ideologues who benefit from societal inequity.)
Students not performing well on tests, or graduating on par with more affluent communities? Blame the schools. (It’s really economics.)
Not enough employment opportunities out there? Blame the schools. (It’s really economics.)
Difficulty finding a job paying a liveable wage for parents? Blame the schools. (It’s really economics.)
The Truth:
- Zip code both impacts and reliably predicts childhood academic and occupational potential
- There are valid explanations for comparative deficits that exist in school and student academic performance that have nothing to do with students’ intellectual ability, capacity, or potential; or teachers’ willingness or commitment to teach students
- “Grit” is finite and has its limits
Still, the aforementioned truths are too often disregarded in favor of collective acceptance of empty platitudes that ignore the complexity of lives our students live outside of school as if it does not impact their performance in school, the grit our students routinely exhibit in pursuit of academic achievement, and in the process ignores that which can reliably improve academic outcomes for students - improving the economic realities of their parents. The forwarding of the education mythologies has to stop so true solutions can be achieved.
