One of the things I'll always remember from my time as principal of a socio-economically depressed school, was how many of the kindergarteners arrived lacking language. Our ESL (English as a Second Language) students were much more fluent, and had more language and language skills, than our EO (English Only) students.
It was as if the EO's were hearing language for the first time when they arrived at school.
How could that be, you ask?
Well, how is language acquired?
In these formative years, mostly though conversation.
So, it stands to reason, our EO's were engaged in conversation at a much lower rate than other kids.
Even if they had been raised in front of the TV, if they watched Sesame Street every now and then, they would have acquired some language.
And yet, they were beginning this academic marathon, already miles behind.
It was a common site around campus to see many of the moms walking their kids to school, which was great, but instead of chatting with their children, they were engrossed in cell phone conversations. So, they were talking, just not to their kids.
Of course, I'm painting with a broad brush, which I should not do, but this description could accurately describe over 90% of the EO kids.
Why is this gap so wide when we look at affluent students versus poor students?
I suppose part of the issue is, many poor parents are busy about the business of providing for their families, and thus are away from home a lot more, and are maybe too tired to engage their kids when they get home.
But that description did not hold true for the parents at this school. Most of them did not work because having a job would have interfered with their welfare stipend. (That, I might add, is a serious flaw in the system. Every able-bodied person should be required to work for any government support.).
So these folks had the time to invest in their kids, but for the most part, chose not to. Or maybe they just didn't understand the help they would be providing their kids simply by engaging them in conversation.
Anyway, reading this article linked below, took me back to that school and that neighborhood, where my desire to make a difference was far greater than any tangible success.
It takes more than hard work to make a positive impact on academic achievement because if it was just hard work, many of our failing schools would be successful.
No, it takes more. Much, much more.
I think it takes a shift in mindset. The kids have to come to school appreciating and valuing education, and that is learned at home. Whether parents can help their kids with schoolwork or not, is irrelevant. What matters most are the parents teaching their kids the importance of education. Until that happens, we'll only see random, isolated success stories in schools serving the poor.
In education, we talk a lot about collaboration, but the most important collaboration is between home and school, with everyone working on the same page, focused on the same goal.
Some would say I'm blaming the parents for the failure of schools. I disagree. I'm simply saying parents can no longer passively stand by while educators pull out every trick in the book to teach their kids. All of us, the school, the parents, and the kids, have to have a vested interest in a positive academic outcome. When this happens, the tide will turn and the chances of finding successful schools serving poor students will be the norm, rather than the exception.
Until then, we'll keep plowing along, hoping for the best.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/children_s_language_development_talk_and_listen_to_them_from_birth.single.html
