Education Week: Missing: A National Education Policy for Low-Income Families

Education Week: Missing: A National Education Policy for Low-Income Families

As a young staffer for the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, I remember distinctly an exchange that the senator had with President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration officials, when the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act was being debated in the Senate education committee in 1965. Sen. Kennedy peppered them with questions about why poor parents were not given more power to hold school districts accountable for the federal money they were receiving under the ESEA's Title I. He contended that parents in the South Bronx should have the same clout over education decisions as the parents in Westchester County, an affluent community just north of New York City.
In promoting federal mechanisms that evened the playing field in the early years of the ESEA, Robert Kennedy saw the role of parents as one of mobilizing, organizing, and changing the power relationships to ensure that federal funding would be used to desegregate the schools as well as build demand for improved student performance. That discussion raised some of the first questions about the relationships between instructional quality, assessment data, and the use of that information by low-income parents to demand improved public schools—an issue we continue to grapple with today. In essence, the legislation dramatically changed the relationship that low-income parents had with school officials.
But there were many school districts that either resented the federal parent requirements or that were threatened by the increase in parent participation. They staged mass resistance against parent organizing and, during the 1980 ESEA reauthorization process, persuaded Congress to gut the core of the parent-involvement provisions. That significant shift sent a national message that administrator control was more important than collaboration or shared decisionmaking, and that parental involvement would now be voluntary and not protected by federal law.
Today, the rhetoric of family engagement has overshadowed any serious policymaking. We have shifted from an ESEA that was primarily community-based and into building relationships to one that is highly school- and test-based, and inhumanly technocratic. And while the U.S. Department of Education talks a good game, charter schools, teacher evaluation, and competitive grants like Race to the Top have trumped family engagement as national priorities. Curiously, instead of building on the new research that demonstrates the importance of linking families to school transformation, the Education Department has actually diminished family provisions. It eliminated statewide Parent Information and Resource Centers, failed to monitor the family provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act (the current version of the ESEA), and emasculated the parents'-right-to-know provision of NCLB, which endowed parents with the right to inquire about the qualifications of their children's teachers. All of those are tools to support low-income families.
When asked at a National Press Club presentation last year how he would grade the Education Department's family-engagement policies, Secretary Arne Duncan gave his agency a D. The department has not been a safe haven for low-income parents, and Congress and the Obama administration have largely been unable to incorporate the family evidence we have into the policies we need.
For many state and local leaders in family engagement, Congress and the Education Department have become irrelevant forces in helping to level the playing field in the balance of power and school-family collaboration, as well as in helping to build demand for schools that are responsive to the particular needs of low-income parents. This unfortunate void leaves low-income parents to fend for themselves and build from the ground up—school by school and district by district. And here is some advice: Don't expect your federal government to help in this process. Parental choice, market models, and rhetoric do not substitute for family mobilization, advocacy, or organizing.
We know sound family policies work. They help grow district capacity, teacher and administrator professional development, community engagement, integration of services, funding, best practices, communications, and respect for voices and needs. When coordinated, these elements build a seamless link between school and family, increasing student success and performance.
If we give up on our families, we give up on our community. If we lose our community, we lose our democracy. If we lose our democracy, we lose the public. And if we lose the public, we lose public education. The stakes are too high for our national policymakers to ignore what makes sense.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Missouri Schools - The Washington Post

Missouri Schools - The Washington Post Some schools brag about their high passing rates on AP or IB, meaning the percentage of test-takers who scored 3, 4 or 5 on the 5-point AP exam or 4, 5, 6 or 7 on the 7-point IB exam. Passing scores make students eligible for credit at many colleges and universities. I decided not to count passing rates in this way because I found that many high schools kept those rates artificially high by allowing only top students to take the courses. AP, IB and AICE are important because they give average students a chance to experience the trauma of heavy college reading lists and long, analytical college examinations. Research has found that even low-performing students who got a 2 on an AP test did significantly better in college than similar students who did not take AP. On the list, we also give readers a sense of how well each school’s students are doing on the tests by posting the Equity and Excellence rate, which is the percentage of all graduating s...
Read more

My Letter Requesting To Become A Board Member

Sherri R. Tucker 1200 SE London Way Lee’s Summit, MO   64081 816-554-3017 autism@kc.rr.com Lee’s Summit R-7 School District C/o Linda Ismert, Board Secretary Stansberry Leadership Center 301 NE Tudor Road Lee’s Summit, MO   64086 Ms Ismert I would like to submit my name for the position on the Lee’s Summit R-7 School Board.   As you know, I have expressed an interest in being on the school board in the past.   On my first attempt I only lost by 2% which would indicate that the voters have an interest in me being on the board as well.   I would think that the voters’ wishes would be taken into consideration. I have a strong relationship with many of the districts’ families and I can help to bridge the gap between them and the district.   I understand the commitment to the time and energy required each week for meetings, phone calls, conversations, visits to schools, and professional development seminars and workshops.   I already do that with the f...
Read more

School Board Candidates

I am attempting to find information on the school board candidates.  It has been much easier in the past.  This year it has been more difficult.  Susan D. Coffman Susan Coffman has served as the Outreach Program Coordinator and Finance Officer for Lee’s Summit CARES since 2008. She has been a mayor-appointed representative to the Human Services Advisory Board, facilitated alcohol retailer trainings, organized the annual Holly Festival with the DARE program, managed bookkeeping and accounting, and served as the community liaison between LS CARES and local business, universities and the cities.  Coffman’s financial background includes work as a customer support specialist at Jack Henry & Associates Inc. for 11 years and assistant vice president and customer support specialist at Merchants Bank for 17 years.  Her community activities include serving on the Human Services Advisory Board, Paradise Park Advisory Board, Lee’s Summit Social Services Board, form...
Read more