Poverty and diversity don’t preclude academic excellence
DIANA CIESLAK
Is it fair to rank the academic performance of our state’s public schools without regard to ethnic and economic differences?
On May 6th, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation introduced the Report Card on Washington State’s Elementary Schools 2009. This is the first in a series of annual, objective reports based on data kept by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The report allows parents and educators to see, in general, how individual schools are doing compared with the rest of the state.
In follow-up coverage of the release, an Associated Press article pointed out that “this (report card) ranks schools by test scores without making any allowances for poverty or diversity.” This statement is reflective of a commonly held assumption that students who come from difficult economic situations and multiethnic environments aren’t capable of performing at the same academic level as their more affluent peers. This is discrimination thinly disguised as compassion.
The Report Card intentionally ranks schools without regard to poverty or diversity. The data indicate that many low income schools and schools with ethnically diverse student populations do perform below the state average. But it does not indicate that they have to.
Across the state of Washington, poor and diverse schools are exceeding expectations. For example, in Seattle, John Muir and Maple elementary schools both serve student populations of more than 75 percent minority students and more than 60 percent low income students. At Maple, more than 30 percent of students are bilingual, speaking more than 15 languages. Yet on the 2008 WASL, both schools beat the state average. These “Cinderella schools” defy stereotypes and beat the odds.
When school officials are asked how they account for their success, many common threads emerged: highly qualified staff, professional development, outstanding school leadership, emphasis on academics, staff collaboration and individual attention to the needs of each student.
That’s the kind of dedication to excellence that made Maple a 2006 NCLB Blue Ribbon winner and that made the librarian at John Muir smile with pride when he told me about his fourth-graders taking second place in the 2008 Global Reading Challenge.
That’s not to say their job is easy. It’s hard work to ensure student achievement when children are hungry or speak a different language than their teachers and classmates. Yet the data tell us that these challenges do not have to lead to poor academic performance.
Muir and Maple prove it.
Blaming low test scores principally on poverty and diversity means crucial stumbling blocks are being overlooked. There are reasons within a school’s control that can account for low performance: perhaps poor school leadership, unqualified teachers, a weak curriculum, inadequate time on task or the politics of schools dwarfing the attention the children need. But too often we are too hung up on our faulty assumptions to treat these underlying issues.
For example, how do we explain Valley Academy’s (Wenatchee) 3.0 (out of 10) and steady downward trend over the last five years? With less than 25 percent of students coming from low income families and almost uniform student ethnicity, we can assume only that other factors are causing their decline.
Grading schools on a curve based on poverty and diversity is, at best, mild prejudice. Underprivileged schools deserve the respect of standard expectations. By maintaining that standard, the Report Card proves that achievement is possible. Should the soft bigotry of low expectations be permitted to hold them back?
Diana Cieslak is the director of the School Report Card Project at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
