5
Fixing our schools in a weak economy
Susan Eaton
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
KAI RYSSDAL: Like so many presidents before him, President Obama has talked a lot about the importance of education. He's talked about the need for arts in schools. The need for teacher training. Good ideas, but ones that cost money -- money that we're in short supply of these days.
Harvard researcher Susan Eaton's most recent book is called "The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial." We got her on the line to talk about education, the Obama administration, and the economy. Welcome to the program.
SUSAN EATON: Hi, great to be here.
RYSSDAL: You, in the course of writing your book, spent a lot of time in and out of public school classrooms in the United States. What's your take on the biggest problems that are out there?
EATON: Well, I think that the biggest problem is the fact that huge shares of our children in the United States -- disproportionately, children of color; Latino and African American children -- are simply not connected to mainstream opportunities. And our schools are really . . . have not, at least in the last eight years or so -- and probably even more than that -- been trying to connect them to those opportunities.
RYSSDAL: But it does, in a lot of measure, come down to money. Doesn't it?
EATON: Yes. And absolutely. And I think a lot of things that would go a very far way in helping children who aren't connected to opportunity be connected would absolutely cost quite a bit of money and would require us to make some choices about what our priorities are. And one of those things is certainly preschool. However, it's also shown by studies by economists, not just by educators but by economists, that there's huge payoff over the long run. But there's also things that schools can do, policies that can be changed and reoriented that wouldn't cost an enormous amount of more money.
RYSSDAL: What might some of those be, then?
EATON: Over the last eight years, it seems to me, that public schools -- especially schools that enroll disproportionate shares of children of color -- have become more exclusionary and less inclusive. And one example is through what's often referred to as "zero-tolerance" discipline policies. And these are policies that rely heavily on suspending and expelling kids for what are often minor infractions. And what has been shown time and time again by research is that these policies of suspension and expulsion lead directly to dropping out. And then dropping out is quite directly related to incarceration. I think that this is one thing that we could look at that would be very easy to find alternatives to suspension and expulsion.
And then, secondly, if you look at the curriculum in public schools, kids in poor schools are far less likely to receive civics education. They're far less likely to engage in the types of activities that would help them prepare for democratic decision-making, and for being citizens, and for being full participants in a democracy. And that, I think, is pretty telling when you look at public schools at a whole. And that's something that we could certainly work on and work towards, and that does not cost very much money.
RYSSDAL: Do you worry that the debate over public education in this country at the highest levels is going to be circumscribed because of the financial crisis and the state of the economy? I mean, if there's not money to do some of these things, how disheartening is it to talk about them?
EATON: I . . . No, I don't. I think that the discourse is going to improve. And with education, money has always been tight. That's not a surprise. Even with President Obama, nobody expects the spigots to start flowing for education, especially education for poor kids. Yes, there will be less money and there will need to be cutbacks. And that will effect neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage and the schools that enroll kids from those neighborhoods far more profoundly than any other neighborhood. But I do see the rhetoric shifting. And I do see people within public education -- teachers, administrators, students -- feeling a lot more hopeful. And again, not all of these things require money. In some respects they require a reorientation.
RYSSDAL: Susan Eaton's the research director at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School. Her book about public education in urban environments is called "The Children in Room E4." Susan, thanks a lot for your time.
EATON: Thank you so much.
Susan Eaton is right on target.
In the past I have been invited by public schools in Houston to teach Robert's Rules of Order from the 4th grade through high school. There have been children in "Gifted and Talented Programs" and in inner city schools made up of children from a variety of backgrounds.
The class has always been well recieved. This subject should be a part of the curriculum for all students but it isn't. Excuses include "we don't have time," "it's not important," and "we have to focus on The Test."
I contacted the University of Houston Education Department because when I taught it in a high school (and Robert's is addressed in the last chapter...that they never get to...of the Language Arts book) I found out that the Speech teachers did not know how to teach this subject. It is not covered in the Education Department curriculum. It is taught in the Speech Department but only to upper division speech majors.
I have a curriculum that was developed with the assistance of certified teachers. I want to share this information with others. I have taught this class through the program I've run for the last 29 years, Leisure Learning Unlimited. My students have been from as wide a range of organizations as the Houston Clowns Council and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union. This subject needs to be taught in an age appropriate way from kindergarten though high school. The establishment of student governments with ambassadors reaching out to students in all the grades of the school needs to be included .
By the time children graduate from high school they would be ready to be fully engaged in their communities and to help make this world a better place.
I listened closely to Ms. Eaton's comments, but did not hear her mention the unprecedented emphasis on testing that public schools have labored under for the past eight years. As a veteran elementary school teacher with twenty six years of experience, I can easily explain why students don't receive instruction in civics. At least three principals in recent memory have directed me to skip science and social studies instruction, and instead focus strictly on reading and math. Why? Because reading and math are the subjects that are heavily tested, at the elementary level, under No Child Left Behind. In an effort to jack up test scores, and to avoid significant federal and state penalties, we are teaching to the tests. The poorer the neighborhood, the more restrictions are placed on teachers regarding what they are allowed to teach. I don't think it is possible to separate the current state of public education from the ongoing pressures of high-stakes testing. Whenever I hear a politician or a researcher say that schools aren't meeting the needs of kids, I wince inwardly. On one hand, I know this is true; on the other hand, I see hard-working, dedicated teachers all around me who are simply following orders to focus on raising test scores. There can't be any meaningful dialogue today about public education without addressing the far-reaching effects of this obsession with standardized testing.
This is a very important area for discussion. We MUST do more to help men and women to form much better, permanent households--family dissolution is a contributor to problems with a VAST MAJORITY of disruptive kids--and there is not enough parental modeling of connection to mainstream opportunities and the related access to them. The sooner we address this the better. In my inner city school, I work very aggressively to get as many adult family members to our student conference nights, and I use the principles of smartmarriages.com with both the parents and the kids--that is, specific learning of relationship skills-without iatrogenic labeling
My wife works as a school social worker in inner city schools. The kids that are disruptive often come from families w/ criminal, drug, alcohol abuse and sometimes gang histories. The district has many kids that are homeless yet few of these are disruptive. When kids are removed for disruption, it is for the benefit of the class and often, with additional resources for the disruptive child, for the disruptive child too. I wish researchers would stop talking about the "poor" and address the real issues of these kids coming from the addicted and criminal subcultures.
As a teacher with 34 years of experience, my guess is that the "zero tolerance" discipline policies Ms Eaton cites are the only recourse that schools have when it comes to dealing with disruptive students. It's interesting to note that Ms Eaton reports that there is a link between the school suspensions that are a result of policies and future incarceration. Does it seem logical that students suspended for "minor infractions" would later commit crimes that land them in jail?
Whenever "improving our schools" is discussed, the worst case scenarios are always mentioned. What is implied in these discussion is that if only teachers would teach (that is, do the jobs for which they are paid,) our problems would be solved. We need to acknowledge the fact that teachers alone can not solve the problems posed by low achieving schools. The homes, neighborhoods, cities, counties and states in which the children who attend these schools live share that responsibility. Would lower class sizes result in fewer discipline problems and, therefore, more time spent on task? Would programs that reach out to the community to become more involved in their children's' education be beneficial? Do the teachers in these classrooms need more support and training to deal with the unique problems they face in their classrooms than what the average teacher receives?
It is wonderful that children in our country have a right to free and public education. However, with any right there comes a responsibility - the responsibility to pay for the kind of education we desire for our children. Until we find a way to fund schools that does not rest solely on the backs of the taxpayers, we will not see improvement. This is where state and federal government needs to step up and pay for the kind of schools they are demanding.
