“The sky is falling.” And
as usual, it is falling on schoolchildren. Recent headlines place the academic
performance of US students near the bottom of the world. These reports are
partially true, but problems with our education system are exaggerated for some
groups of students and underreported for others. Consider that:
           • Countries
we are often compared to, including Sweden,
Finland, Denmark,
and Germany,
have a relatively flat distribution of income compared to us. They have largely
succeeded in creating “middle class” cultures and schools through income
distribution and social programs.
           • Unlike
many countries, we test all our
students. Now, under No Child Left Behind, we expect them all to graduate
having taken advanced courses.
           • 2003’s
Progress in International Reading and Literacy study found that American
students attending schools with fewer than 25 percent of their students in
poverty finished first in the world in literacy, handily beating the top-scoring country, Sweden.
           • That same
study found that American students in schools with 25-50 poverty rates attained
scores that, had those students constituted a nation, would have ranked fourth
in the world.
           Unfortunately
this good news involves only about half of America’s
students. For the rest, the results are dismal. Students from high-poverty
schools consistently score well below international standards, a result that
has held steady for as long as international comparisons have been compiled.
Children from households in concentrated poverty — defined as an income of
$18,850 per year for a family of four —can rarely compete against their peers
in the United States
or the world. Achievement in the RochesterCitySchool District
mirrors these national statistics
           Underachievement
stems from a number of factors. The NationalCenter for Educational Statistics
reports that twice as many teachers in high-poverty schools have less than
three years experience than in more wealthy schools. There are few peer role
models in high-poverty schools.
           Also, no
matter how much people say “all children can learn,” a population of needy
students can put this maxim to the test. It is difficult for teachers and
administrators to stay focused and positive day after day, year after year, and
not become discouraged.
           Band-Aids
like after-school and mentor programs can help. Never underestimate the power
of superb teachers, counselors, principals, or mentors. But the pockets of
success that we have seen in poor urban schools due a cadre of committed people
do not constitute systemic change.
           Fifty years
of studies confirm the real solutions. For poor kids to achieve, they must be
in classes and schools with kids who are not poor. A critical mass of at least
60 percent middle-class kids seems to be the magic number. Flight to the
suburbs by the middle class makes this impossible in most urban areas including
Rochester.
           To improve
education, we must think regionally. This means considering solutions like a MonroeCounty school district or greatly
expanding partnerships with suburban districts. By thinking “outside the box,”
we can address the middle-class flight from the city and provide educational
opportunities for all children. This model of cooperation can turn into a
win-win for all of us. But it cannot be happen if we continue to make believe
that schools with concentrated poverty rates have any chance to do as well as
wealthier schools.
           Recent
figures indicate that in the next few years the RochesterCitySchool District
school population will shrink below 28,000. Divide that total by the eight or
nine school districts and six or so colleges and universities in our immediate
region. Think of the money that could be saved and children that could be
served by creating partnerships at all these levels.
           The Rochester
region has the human and institutional capital to tackle this problem but it
starts with acknowledging it. An effort to break up the warehousing of poor
children could transform our community and become a national model for change.
Yes, it is a dream fraught with difficult barriers involving race, neighborhood
schools, and turf wars, but it is worth the struggle.
           Rochesterian Jeffrey Linn is Director of Staff
Development in the CanandaiguaCitySchool District. Previously he served as associate professor of education at SUNY Brockport.
During that time he participated in a partnership with RochesterSchool 17 in a program training teachers in urban school districts.
This article appears in Mar 30 – Apr 5, 2005.
