#1. Mychal Wynn makes the statement, "The catch-all phrase used by those who teach in high-poverty schools to explain the abysmally low level of student achievement is, 'A high percentage of our students are on free or reduced lunch.' " Talk about your feelings on that deficit-focused statement.
#2. Discuss ways we might become asset-focused rather than deficit-focused.
83 comments:
CFES Tanya House said...
My opinion about blaming poor performance on the perctile of free and reduced lunch students is that it is unfair. Just because you are poor does not mean you are ignorant. A better way to address the issue is by saying that you have a high percent of families who do not value education. Parents who value education are the ones who make sure that their child does their homework, comes to school, and helps them to the best of their ability.
Some ways to promote an asset focused attitude are teaching to meet the multiple intelligences and differentiated instruction. Using the muliple intelligences to instruct will promote student success and add interest. Differentiation will help students achieve at their own level. Even if they are 2 years below grade level, they can show great gains and growth throughout a school year. Focus on what you and your students can do, aim for growth, and success will follow.
kh, cfes
the problem isn't the environment or what you are subject to it's what's instilled in you to desire to learn to achieve and the parents that focus on the betterment of their children is the one's that find how to input this into their child in a positive effective way.
stop telling the kids that we don't have enough and let them become more focused on the tools we have to use them in a effective way such as being driven to develope aternative routes and working as team players to get work done. Repeat, reintroduce until it sinks in.
A problem with society today especially in the poor sector is the " why should I work for something when it is given to me attitude". In too many cases this attitude comes from the parents to the children.
We have the opportunity as teachers to show the children that hard work is not only rewarding but can be enjoyable. We have to meet the kids where they are, to be able to teach them on their level. When we figure out their level, we teach them to set goals and help them reach and hopefully exceed them. Each child is different, so their goals will be different as well.
I agree with Tanya about focusing on what you and your students can do, to aim for growth and success will follow!
CFES Tanya House said...
I agree with T. Moore because kids today really do not understand what the reality of work hard for anything. A good attitude can take you a long way in education, the job force, and life.
Income does not dictate who a person is. We tell the kids all the time…it doesn’t matter what a person looks like, what matters is on the inside. Income is the same. A person’s income does not tell you who they are. Our kids are so much more than their parents’ money, or lack thereof. They are individuals, with individual needs, abilities, desires and dreams. We need to meet them where they are and help them grow, which is exactly what differentiated instruction, project-based learning, and using multiple intelligences in the classroom are designed to do. Using these strategies in the classroom allows every child to draw on their strengths and excel. Kids are all different. But, they all have something to offer in the classroom and in the world. Focusing on assets rather than deficits makes learning more personal, more enjoyable, and ultimately more successful.
RPP: Philips, Flynn, Eakins, Hope, Collins
#1: We believe that saying students can not learn because they are on free or reduced lunch is unfair. This does sometimes indicate that the families have not been taught to value education as much as those that do not receive free or reduced lunch. This goes back to the cycle we are always trying to break.
#2:
We should look at the individual growth of each student from where they started the school year. This may not always mean they are on grade level but if they are growing and are successful, we have accomplished great gains in building a postive atmosphere for the child and family. This does not have any thing to do with their economic background and allows families to see how the schools are working to improve their child's education. This is accomplished through differentiated instruction and individual student goals. All students do not start in the same place and will not end in the same place. We should celebrate all success!
RPP: Philips, Flynn, Eakins, Hope, Collins
In response to T. House at CFE: We see the same thing in that the students who complete homework and have parent support are the ones who value education the most. This is seen in the parents attendance at school functions and through the communication received by these parents.
1. That statement, used by some, is a "cop out"; it's a way to blame someone or something else. Many times teachers and staff put more energy into "blaming" someone or some group (previous teachers, parents, previous schools, etc.) Our energy needs to be put into finding our students' strengths and focusing on ways to use those strengths to enhance their learning and help them grow. We need to identify their weaknesses and find ways to help students turn them into strengths.
2. I really like differentiating instruction through Choice Boards: where students have choices about their assignments. This is a very effective way to address multiple intelligences and learning styles. These types of activities have really helped ALL of my students become engaged in and responsible for their learning and IT'S FUN!!! I enjoy the ongoing interactions I have with my students.
to Janet @ RPP: I agree that a child's family's economic background has nothing to do with the relationships that we establish with our students' families. It's those relationships that help build that bridge of trust and respect. When those qualities are in tact, students can make greater gains emotionally and academically than if they had more money.
1. It is a fact that a high percentage of our students are on free and reduced lunch, but what does that have to do with their ability to learn? Nothing. Each and every student that walks through those doors has the potential to learn. It is unfair to our students to assume otherwise. If we don't believe they can learn and succeed, then what reason do they have to believe in themselves? It is our job to begin preparing them for bright futures and the first step is believing they are capable.
2. Each teacher needs to find a way to meet the needs of multiple intelligences in their classroom that works for them as well as the students. Setting goals on an individual level, centers where they make their own choices, these are things that will help our students feel that they can take charge of their success. We need to take every opprotunity to inspire ALL students to develop dreams for themselves. Have every student develop a plan of steps they could take to achieve their dreams. We must work together to achieve our mission.
T. Moore RPP
I agree with what you said about us having the opportunity as teachers to show the children that hard work is not only rewarding but can be enjoyable. They will want to continue working hard if we make them feel good about their accomplishments.
I think that when a teacher says they have a high percentage of children on free/reduced lunch, they have no intention of meaning it in a negative way. When I heard this statement when I was hired (just a few years ago...) I knew what that meant. It meant that I would have some children who most likely had parents who were not high school graduates, or who had limited English at home, or who were not in a home with a parent. This was not, to me, a negative statement. It was a call for compassion and understanding. It was my sign that I needed to make these children see what all they could accomplish, no matter where they were coming from. Does this mean I focus more on these kids? Absolutely not. Every child in our classroom is treated the same, and each child has their own special talents. Whether they make $100 a week or $100,000 a week makes no difference, but it does help to put the compassion in place. I think I may feel just as much compassion for a wealthy child who is ignored so the parents can work, as I would for the child whose parent isn't home because they are partying at a friend's house. These are children and it is our job to love them. Period.
As far as being more asset focused, drop the test score comparisons. We have turned children and teachers into numbers. A number has no feelings. People do. Look at the person and what they are achieving, and what they can achieve, and focus on getting them there and higher. Focus on how the kids feel about being in school. Then when a teacher or administrator says they have blah blah percent on free lunch, they can also say they have 80 percent of their students who love coming to school each day. In our class we just did a survey and found that 100% of our kids love coming to school each day, and that 91% of our students would come to school on Saturday if we invited them. And guess what? I will bet I have some free and reduced kids in my class. What does that tell me? That I am focusing on just the right stuff for 91% of them, and now I need to work on the other 9%!
Hudson at CFE said that income does not dictate who a person is. And that is right. But sometimes, who we are does dictate our income.
I think that statement it is not an indicator of intelligence.I don't even know who gets free or reduced in my class. I expect all my students to learn and I work towards that goal with all of them.
I think that looking for strenghts in each child and helping them to develop these strengths will make us more assest focused. Once a child feels that he/she can be sucessful in one area they gain confidence in other areas.
I agree with T. House That the way to teach so that all students get a fair chance at learning is differentiated instruction.
We absolutely disagree with Mr. Wynn’s blanket statement and personally find it insulting that you would accuse us of believing that because our students don’t come from high-income homes in no way correlates to their educational achievement. Low income does NOT mean low intelligence or the value thereof.
We choose to focus on achievement and growth as opposed to student household income. We are proud of the fact that our students are academically equal with other areas (including higher income areas) of the county despite the fact that they are considered lower income.
I have living proof in my classroom each year that being poor will not necessarily dictate a students intellectual abilities and growth. Sure, it helps to have parents that support the students efforts, but even students with non English speaking parents have excelled.
Promote an asset focused attitude by encouraging each student and their personal individualism as well as their learning style. Encouragement not provided at home it can be experienced in the classroom.
I agree with the RRP girls,by building a positive atmosphere for the student and the family we will open invaluable opportunites. Get the parents involved, keep them in tune to what is happening. By involving my student's parents I get wonderful results that can only benefit my learners. Parents may get sick of you, but they know whats going on with their children and become a part of their child's learning experience. All benefitting the child in the end!
We agree with CFESKane that children should be shown that they can be successful in life on every level no matter what their obstacle.
I try to bring real life examples of people that came from poor homes and became successful into our class discussions. My most recent example was Abraham Lincoln. He grew up in a one room log cabin. He worked all day, but spent the night reading. Life is not about finding yourself. It’s about creating yourself. We need to help our students feel confident on their journey to solve problems no matter what their circumstances may be.
I think it’s cool that Bogan surveyed her kids to find out how many love coming to school and how many would come on Saturdays! It would be interesting to do that at cfes and even cfms. Unfortunately, I think their love of school probably decreases as they get older. That said, I think a lot of the things people have mention, such as differentiation, building on student strengths, addressing multiple intelligences and student learning styles, make school more relevant and interesting for students...and help sustain that love.
I have never believed that student achievement was determined by financial status. In my nine years of teaching I have always been at schools that have had high levels of free and reduced lunch and have seen students make tremendous growth. I have noticed that some parents we work with fail to recognize that their children are capable of succeeding despite their circumstances. At times it is almost impossible to get parents in to discuss their child's progress. I truly believe that in some instances it is not because they don't care, but because they are working jobs that make it difficult for them to get into the school. This also makes it difficult to help their child at home. As teachers we need to be willing to provide the necessary resources for students in such situations to help them reach their full potential.
An asset focused attitude can be approached by teaching the children where they are, and how they learn best. Differentiation is key. Classrooms are so diverse and there is no "one size fits all" lesson plan. It is also important to teach using the multiple intelligences. All students learn in different ways and it is much easier to plan a lesson to fit their learning styles then to try drilling the information in a way in which they will have difficulty retaining it. I have always taught the EC students in the regular classroom, many of which are at least 2 years below grade level, and have seen such growth from these children. All children can be taught and can succeed!
To T. Moore RPP from CFE Sikes
I agree that it is important for teachers to model the rewards and benefits of hardwork. In some cases we are the only ones who can show them. I know this is not true of all families on free and reduced lunch, but so many times I see students give up and expect me to do something for them.
When we focus on our deficits, I think that it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should have high expectations regardless of any deficits we may be facing.
We need to focus more on our assets and the assets of the students. One way to do this, is by looking at each student as an individual. We need to celebrate each individuals accomplishments and growth. We need to focus on how far a student has come rather than some benchmark that was set.
I agree with Carolyn that we need to work harder to find those strengths in each and every child, and then we must build upon them.
There was a good position article in the paper this past weekend about that. The author was saying that the solution really starts with the parents. Many of these kids come from unstable home situations. I have seen firsthand how, even if a student is from a free and reduce dlunch family, the kids are tremendous due to a supportive effort by one or both parents.
To make a school asset focused is to maximize each individuals potential and talents. I was at a school that had a principal that said something i will never forget. He said, Mr. Chris, I hear your problem, but I don't hear any solution. I want solutions. You can't just say what is wrong with the situation, you have to come up wioth solutions to make the problem better.
The comment from Moore is so right on. The sense of entitlement these days is so frustrating. Kids think they deserve everything just because! Hey, what about hard work? What about manners? My own daughter came up to my wife the other day, a half hour before she was leaving for school and said, Mom, you need to give me five dollars for lunch. Really? What about please and thank you? This is the same kid who just two nights before was telling my wife she needed to make her a packed lunch for school bc she didn't like what was on the menu that day. Really? Hey, make the lunch yourself, you are 12 years old and supposedly a straight A student. You can't make lunch for yourself? When I was in second grade I was making 14 sandwiches a morning for my brothers and sisters and father bc that was my chore.
that was my comment just posted - chris cfes
I do not think that a school with the majority of students on free or reduced lunch has an excuse for poor performance. But I do think it is important to take into consideration the background of students when assessing their needs/current abilities and their parents’ ability to provide help and support at home.
Instead of a focus on the deficits of students and their families, we must focus on the assets of our schools and everyone who works with the students. We are highly trained teachers and administrators who continually grow and learn in our field and most importantly we care about the progress and success of each student.
My response is to Janet from RPP. In regards to achievement, I agree that helping students make progress and growth is important for their future success. We need to build on their self-esteem and help them develop on their level, where they are right now. A student does not have to be on grade level to be and feel "successful". They should be praised for growth and hard work. Each child is different and may not reach goals at the same pace as others.
Income level, or the fact that a family might qualify for free and reduced lunches does not mean that their children will perform on a low level. There are many factors that play a part in a child's development:
-amount of vocabulary that the child is exposed to at home
-parent's education level
-each child's natural abilities
-parent participation
In today's economy, financial situations have changed for many families. Many parents with college degrees and previously stable jobs are now asking for financial assistance.
As teachers, we need to remember to focus on what families and the school have. At the least, we know that most children are fed two meals per day at school. We also offer many parent involvement activities to help involve parents in their child's education.
Megan Dalton, Cynthia Eason, Amy Leister, Amy Greenwood, Amanda Weaver, and Courtney Burbick-
RPPS- PreK
We believe that families do play a big part in how students face anything challenging in life. Children often learn by example. If they see their parents or guardians work hard to better themselves regardless of their economic or cultural background, they too will strive to better themselves. We ourselves were products of immigrant low economic parents with limited educational backgrounds. In watching our parents strive to make ends meet we learned that anything you want to accomplish is possible in life.
Therefore it is unfair to say that children who do come from free or reduced lunch districts are automatically expected to be underachievers. The problem lies in the home environment and work ethic.Whether rich or poor.
Ways to promote an asset focused attitude is to meet the child's individual needs. Making what they're learning meaningful to those particular children. If they cannot relate what is taught to their own lives most often it is not learned, one needs to make a connection.
We agree with Tanya that teaching does need to be defferentiated to the multiple intelligences in your classroom. Even if they are at a lower level than where they should be, see where the child is most comfortable in starting.
I don't believe the idea that low income is the cause of low academic performance. Yes, it is true that children of low income families may not have access to all of the resources and supplies at home that more "well-off" families can provide. However, I don't think this is fair indicator of what a student is capable of. I also think that the idea that money means smart has leaked out into the community so parents, politicians, and now our children have this perception. If a child isn't expected to do as well as others because of their family's financial situation, they won't do as well. And if parents are expected to assume any responsibility for their child's educational experience because of their financial responsibility, they won't. But who can blame them completely when money and resources are given to schools with higher percentages of students on free and reduced lunch??
I think in order to change our way of thinking, things need to be changed at all levels of the education system. Instead of so much emphasis being placed on tests that assess academic "smart" we should also celebrate and encourage our students who have talents beyond book sense. Arts, music, and physical abilities should be emphasised for students (rich or poor) who may not excel in math and reading. Also, parents need to be educated on how to help their children using the resources they do have, instead of being given opportunities to make up excuses. Now, there are students who don't even have a home to go to for help, or whose home lives are beyond our imaginations, so after-school programs should be established to facilitate support for those children.
I also agree with Mrs. Moore about the attitude some families have that they don't have to work for what they have because so much is handed to them. I've seen in my classroom where some students have the same attitude. Why should they have to work hard in the classroom when mom and dad will write a note about a bad grade, and get angry with the teacher? Some students have a really hard time making the connection between the work they do and the outcome they want. It's our responsibility, and the responsibility of families, to teach good work ethic and model an appreciation for what we have.
Donna Redinger, Ann Johnson, Mary Younginer, Allycen Garner, Joanne Kingston, Ashley Purgason, Ashley Blake, Stephanie Cioffi, Mandy Harrell
Having read the Ruby Payne book, A Framework for Understanding Poverty, showed us that RPP meets all needs of our students despite their socio-economic background. Having read this book reinforces that we are aware of the students’ economic differences, however it does not negatively impact the way we teach or the way they learn. As teachers, we have the same expectations for every student regardless of their background or poverty level.
As teachers at RPP, we are asset-focused. We are positive role models and establish long term positive relationships with our students. We take pride in working at a school where our staff, peers and students make this a priority. Dr James Comer says ,”No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship.”
Donna Redinger, Ann Johnson, Mary Younginer, Allycen Garner, Joanne Kingston, Ashley Purgason, Ashley Blake, Stephanie Cioffi, Mandy Harrell
Mr. Chris at CFES: We completely agree with your statement. Parents and teachers need to collaborate as a team to create solutions to these achievement problems. By doing this, success is almost guaranteed.
RPPS- Bishop, K. Brown, Bullard, Caison, Houseman, Howell, Weiss, Witherspoon
1. We do agree that the statement is unfair. Although, research has correlated this socio-economic class of students with low academics, we feel that the majority of the time it is actually a low value placed on education. They may not know how to place emphasis on education, they may not have a model or taught how to appreciate education. It should not affect our standards and our expectations, as teachers, should stay the same with each child reaching their full potential.
2. We feel at RPPS, we are asset-focused. We keep high expectations for our students, encourage our students and colleagues, and differentiate our instruction to meet students where they are and help them make growth! Through RtI and workshop time at RPP, we are able to focus on our student achievement and the goals for each student.
Response to @Susie Yeull:
We love what you said about fostering the encouragement in the classroom when they do not receive it at home. We can absolutely take on that responsibility as teachers to increase student confidence and achievement.
I think it is unfair to blame poor performance on the number of free and reduced lunch students. I think support from the family would be a more fair scenerio.
We need to focus more on our assets and student assets. We can do this by looking at each student as an individual and celebrate their growth.
I think it is unfair to blame poor performance on the number of free and reduced lunch students. I think support from the family would be a more fair scenerio.
We need to focus more on our assets and student assets. We can do this by looking at each student as an individual and celebrate their growth.
marie@ cfes
I agree with Janet @ RPP that a child's family's economic background has very little to do with the relationships that we develop with our students' families. We do not start at the same place and we will not end up at the same place either.
My opinion about this statement is that it is unfair. Although we have seen a correlation between the two (low income and low achievement)it should not be used as an excuse. Instead, this correlation should be seen as a challenge for all educators to investigate the "why" and then work cooperatively to bring about a positive change. Many of the comments I have read thus far have hit on the reasons why - lack of support from parents, little to no value placed on education in the home, a parent's education level, etc. Therefore, we as educators, have to instill in our students the value of education and we have to offer as much support to our students and their parents as we can.
I think that CFE is asset-focused as opposed to deficit-focused. We meet students where they are and then strive to help them grow regardless of their economic status. We set high expectations for them and help them create goals. We develop relationships with them and show them that we care. We focus on their strengths and use that to build their confidence. We encourage our students to take pride in their work and we celebrate their successes. We address their needs and use a variety of resources and programs to help them be successful. We do all this and more regardless of their economic background. Although we offer parent involvement activities, perhaps we could offer more parenting classes and/or a homework club for students who don't have that support at home.
In response to Maria and Gordon at RPP, I agree wholeheartedly that children learn by example and that if the parents of our students value education then they will too.
But in the case where the parents aren't setting good examples for their children, then we as educators, have to set those examples and instill in our students the importance of getting a good education and model good work ethics.
We feel that the statement saying kids who are on free and reduced lunch are lower level achievers is not the most fair statement. At our school we see that our students who are on free and reduced lunch seem to have less parental involvement and that sometimes dictates how students react to school. The more parental involvement, the easier it is to have students involved in the academic process.
We think that our school is asset focused. We target individual skills and students with small group instruction everyday during our RTI time and we have seen a huge growth in their academic ability.
We agree with Hudson CFE in the saying that money does not make a person. We should not base our thoughts of our children based on the monetary development of their parents.
Julia H. CFES
This is a complete cop-out and an example of stereotyping. Just because you may not have as much materially as another person does not necessarily make you ignorant or a person of lesser quality. There will always be high achieving students and lower achieving students, which may be due to many conditions: ability to learn, lack of parental support, even maybe the prejudices of professionals in the school.
Every child is different. Realizing that, all students need to be given equal opportunities for learning or experiencing new things, although they may have to have their learning modified to meet their needs and experience success. The most important thing is to be aware of each child's abilities and needs and adjust accordingly for success in learning.
I don't believe that family income is a predictor of a child's success. I do believe that a child is influenced by his/her home life either in a negative or a positive way. It is our job as teachers to expect growth out of all students despite their circumstances at home. Sometimes that means we need to give extra support to those students who are not getting it at home.
We become more asset focused when we look at students as individuals. We can and should expect growth out of all students. We need to set goals and expect all students to put forth their best effort despite their socioeconomic status, and we should provide support when they don't have it anywhere else. Even though our expectations and goals may be different for different students, we need to celebrate when students show growth.
I completely agree with the Philips, Flynn, Eakins, Hope, and Collins when they said that all students do not start in the same place, and we cannot expect them to end in the same place.
Analyzing poverty and it's repercussions on the family is an excellent starting point to assessing the needs of a child in the school system. It just can't be left there. Still solutions must be provided.
This was the struggle forty years ago, and continues to be the struggle today. There are so many examples of success and achievement despite environment. I am greatly impressed with the use of the multiple intelligence approach when introduced to it back in the 90s with my own children. I am sold. We weren't impoverished, but we weren't rich. The children thrived. So hats off to any teacher, but particularly CFES House, that sees the need to encourage differentiated instruction to obtain the minimal expectation from our schools to allow us to compete globally. I want our schools to produce children that can exist without the cataclysmic devastation of poverty on the next generation.
Solutions right: Did I say that Rpps is using differentiated instruction to achieve class goals which correlate to school and district goals. Would love to see even more time spent with a homework assistance team (afterschool program). I don't believe out teachers and administrators have another breathe to give. They are never-ending producers of education with families of their own. Some kids don't seem to awaken until 12 noon. These programs would be the of great assistance to the schools. Nixon @ RPPS
RPP Kindergarten Team
teachers and assistants
We also believe that low income is not an indicator of intelligence or a child's ability to learn. However, it does reflect the lack of opportunities and exposure to certain things that children recieve outside of school. So when they come to us, they are already at a disadvantage. It doesn't mean that they can't learn and will not be successful-- because they can! It is our job as teachers to provide opportunities for these kids to grow and learn at school.
Ways to promote an asset focused attitude include looking at the growth of each individual child and celebrating their successes. We do this by differentiating instruction to meet their indiv. needs. We also need to focus more on a child's strengths-- whether they be in reading, math, art, music, or sports than focusing on test scores that don't show the full picture of a child's abilities.
We also agree with CFE Williams that another way to become asset focused is by providing parents with ways to help their children using the resources they do have and by establishing after-school programs for further support.
In my grad school class this semester, we have spent a lot of time reading and discussing about children with low SES. It is true that falling into the category of "poverty" does present its own unique challenges. Are they road blocks? No. They certainly can be overcome and it takes strong teachers, administrators, and communities to make it happen. One thing that has really stuck with me in my readings is the statement that children of low SES are the students that need ENRICHMENT, not remediation. It is so true. They are the ones that need to experience the things that their parents and guardians can't provide for them. In a way, schools are these students' only chance to realize their potential and see what the world holds for them.
One way we can focus more on assets is by looking at each child as an individual. Every child has something special about them and something unique and important to contribute to the world. We need to help nurture it. We need to celebrate each others differences and give students--not only the academic tools--but the social and emotion tools they need to succeed. I found this quote from Mother Teresa that sums up what I want my students to learn: "You can do what I cannot do. I can do what you cannot do, Together we can do great things.
I agree with Bogan, the system of testing in our state does not differentiate for our students. It does not take into consideration where they started at the end of the year and where they ended. Learning is so much more than a test score.
In regard to the statement about the "catch-all" phrase being used as an excuse for poor performance, I feel that poverty is NOT an excuse for failure. It is however "a reality for familes," as stated by Mychal Flynn.
Having been raised in a low socio-economic "housing project" environment myself (in England), I am living proof that students from poor families can be successful!
I was always held to the highest expectations by my teachers and parents when I was in school, and I have always had the same high expectations for all of my students. Thankfully, my parents did value education; even though neither of them went to college. School and academics were of the utmost importance in our family. Unfortunately, that is not the case with many of the students I work with today.
My parents worked hard to try to better themselves, and were able to move our family to the United States (with only suitcases) where we could have a better standard of living. I attribute much of my success in life to the fact that I had a wonderful home environment, and I saw my parents' strong work ethic. (I think these are some of the important factors in the success of a child; regardless of whether he/she is from a rich or poor family.)
#2 - I feel that we should always encourage all students to dream, and help them to set goals that will enable them to achieve their dreams. (In a recent activity I did with my class, centered around Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dream speech, it was very interesting to learn about some of the dreams that my students have for the future.)
It is also crucial to find our students' strengths, and focus on them. Once they have been identified, it is equally important to build upon them. This can be done by using Multiple Intelligences, and by targeting each student's learning style. Differentiating instruction can incorporate the varied learning styles, so that students can achieve at their own levels.
I agree with Holly G. that we should focus on how far a student has come, rather than a benchmark test score that was set for them. We know where our students are at the start of the year, and as we track their progress we can see their growth.
I strongly agree with the statement made by Philips, Flynn, Eakins, and Collins regarding all students not starting in the same place, and not ending in the same place. We should indeed celebrate their successes!
I totally agree with Philips, Flynn, Eakins, Hope, and Collins at RPP. All students do not start in the same place, and will not end in the same place. We should indeed celebrate all of their successes!
To: Stephanie Cioffi / RPP Staff
Members
I like what all of you had to say about establishing long-term positive relationships with your students. (I still frequently hear from former students who I have taught during my 33 years in this profession.)
I also liked the quote you included from Dr. Comer. ("No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship.")
:-)
CFE T. Podolinsky-
The more I find out about our students, the more amazed I am by them. These students are coming from all types of backgrounds, family situations, and obstacles yet they are bright, hard-working, and resilient. Their parents may not be able to read or help with homework, but they do everything they can to help their children be successful.
At CFE, we are always recognizing students by their assets and developing relationships that encourage students to succeed. Although, students may progress at different rates we must recognize their indivual growth and successes.
T. Podolinsky CFE-
Re: Amigo, Chapman, Cottrill, Lassiter, McIntosh
I think that it definitely proves the catch-all phrase wrong when students in a high poverty school are performing just as well as students in more afluent schools in the county.
Just because the students are on free or reduced lunch does not mean that they are low performers or that their families do not value education. The parents for some reason or another may not have gone further than high school and can only get a minium paying job. This does not mean that they do not value education. Most want a good education for their child.
Choosing to teacher these children to want more in life and show them the possibilities. Giving them varitey in experiences and introducing them to new ideas and concepts.
I believe that this is a statement that may be true. But not in all circumstances. There is a connection with poverty and test scores. I believe that sometimes if you come from a family with less money then the child gets less help from the parents because they may often times work multiple jobs or be uneducated themselves. This is not the case in all homes. If the parent is uneducated you may get one of two things a child that has no help or a child that has a parent constantly telling them how important school is and how important it is to do well. These parents want their child to become more than they are and achieve. But to strictly make this connection with school lunch I believe it to be unfair.
By paying more attention to the growth of the students and not how much money they have maybe the best way to benefit the students and allow them to get the most out of their education.
CFES Allison Bender
Many times society will associate poor performance with a family’s socioeconomic status. I believe most of the CFES staff tries to give the students more credit then that. We, as a society, can't keep blaming others for our problems. We have a job to do just like anyone else, come in and teach the students the best way we know how. Our job is not to lower expectations just because a child is poor; on the contrary, we should be keeping their bar as high or higher as the above poverty line students. They will need to work harder because they don’t have the family, do to low educational levels, able to help them at home.
Having the free lunch program is an asset.At least we know for sure that they came into our classroom with a meal.
In response to carolyn_lunsford CFES Allison Bender
I agree that we should not lower our expectations for children below the poverty line.
When someone say's a high percentage is free and reduce lunch to me only sounds like an excuss for poor teaching. If we could only see each child and never know some of their background would we push harder to help these students acheive?
I really believe the question could be asked if we did'nt have to know everything about their background would it possibly help us to focus more on each student as a person not a # or what their problems might be.
I definitely do not think that a student's IQ is linked to the parents' financial situation. I do understand that by looking at test scores, and the way they are divided up into different groupings, show that many children living in poverty do tend to underachieve. This is the data that NCLB has shown us. Many times it is the parents lack of education that places them in the poverty grouping. It has taken alot for me to digest this, because I have never thought of this before. So, we do need to focus on our students assets and develop meaningful relationships with them. Like so many others have said, we need to teach to their multiple intelligences.
Environment does not define the child. Many of our students probably have their only meal(s) at school everyday. Just like with teaching, you can not fix the home, you can only work with what is in front of us. If you give a child the feeling they can do anything, then they can.
Yes, sometimes environment and money play a part when it comes to dress, trips, supplies, etc. but you can not blame that child. They are not responsible for what goes on at home. A child will give you exactly what you expect…so expect great things!
We need to focus on the strengths of those children. Find their strong points, their assets they can bring into the classroom and start with that. Mold the clay you are given into what it can become.
RPP Kindergarten
I agree…as teachers, we have to provide many of the opportunities our kids are going to have. We have to expose them to new and different things. If they are going to be disadvantaged at home, we have to make the most of school!
Todd O-CFE
I strongly believe that this statement does not imply that our children are stupid, but it does imply that our children are less advantaged. Often times, or so it would seem to appear, students that come from a household where the income level is less, be it marginally or considerably less, than other peers, those students have less life experiences. They do not seem to have nearly as much previous knowledge about issues, events, places, and even common sense. This is not the case in every situation, and to use this as a blanket statement would be highly unfair. Not every student that comes from a poverty-ridden household is ignorant, just as not every student who comes from a rich household is smart. The difference is that many times money affords opportunity. Students that have households where the income is very low do not always get the same opportunities.
Despite what out students come to us with, we cannot use that as an excuse. The hurdles may be greater to overcome, but that means the desire to overcome must be even greater. Educators must go the extra mile to give students the exposure to concepts and life opportunities that they may not get at home.
I also believe that education must be emphasized and stressed at home, no matter what the income level. If there is no value placed on education, the child learns this and thus does not value education, and then passes this down to the next generation.
I believe that the first step in becoming asset-focused rather than deficit-focused is the most difficult of all. This step is a paradigm shift, an attitude adjustment if you will. People must make the attempt and effort to look for the good and not the bad, to find the haves and not the have-nots. I don't mean students here, I mean the qualities that a student has and not the ones that he or she does not have. This is so difficult because for most of us the negative is the most obvious, and with a lot of students the positives are buried deeper within. It's not the child's job to show them to us, it's our job to find them in the child. That takes a great deal of patience, acceptance, love, dedication, commitment, and discipline. If we can change our mindset then we can change the way we see our students and ultimately how we teach them.
Todd O-CFE
I totally agree with the statement "As teachers, we have the same expectations for every student regardless of their background or poverty level," from Stephanie Cioffi. I don't care if you're rich, poor or in-between, I still expect you to give me 100%, do your best, pay attention, and strive to meet the goals set for you and by you.
I also love the quote by Dr. James Comer, which says, ”No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship.” This is very similar to one of my favorite quotes. "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." I don't know who originally said it, but I love it and it's definitely the truth!
M Insco - CFE
Excusing low performance with the fact that the students are low income is an excuse I would rather not use. These students have the same options in school as any other student and it is not a reason to do poorly on tests or classwork. Having parents that are not accountable to their students and their homework may be a more justified excuse. Most parents that are low income value the education and the possibilities that can open for their child if their child does have a better education than perhaps they did or they see that doing homework and being in class to learn is a better way.
I believe that as teachers we must understand that each child has a different situation once they get home than that of the school environment. Educating parents on our expectations of them and our students and standing behind these expectations is one way to promote an attitude of seriousness towards education. Letting the parents know what is going on in the classroom and how their child is performing will hopefully open lines of communication between the teacher and the parent. Encouraging parents to read and do the homework with their child and help their child the best way they can will help the parent feel more a part of their child's educational experience as well. Also giving parents tools or resources to help thier child will help focus more on the positive, then when the child shows improvement, letting the parent know that it is obvious that what they are doing at home is helping with the child's achievements in school.
MInsco - CFE
In response to Bogan RPP -
I do agree that all our students are treated fairly in the classroom and that whether they are wealthy or not doesn't make that much difference to most teachers. I also agree that compassion plays a large part in how we treat our children, understanding that each child is different and that there are differing situations at home may help us to understand why homework cannot get back to school or why they have not read each night. Understanding this we have to make decisions on how to help each child do the best they can.
Unjust! Every student has the capability to learn, and it is our job as teachers to help the students adapt and learn at school!
By really getting to know our students through conversation, question/answer, surveys, etc teachers will be better able to understand how they learn best in school. We must not assume that the lesson designed will have the same impact on all 25 children. We should tune in to their learning styles and adapt our lessons to their individual needs. This is a difficult concept, but once we understand our children then we can teach our children – not just go through the motions.
We must also continue to encourage our families to instill education and teach our children how to value the importance of learning.
Well said, Todd! How do we get our children to notice the positives in life rather than focusing on what we do not have or what we cannot do? And, teaching the families (moms, dads, big brother, aunts, etc) to VALUE education is the key to student success. If mom and dad say it's ok not to do your homework or go to school, then that is how our students will grow up - thinking going to school and getting an education is not top priority!
I think having that kind of attitude towards students who may be considered low wealth and poor is unfair, and can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because they are poor do we treat them differently or do we provide them with the same kind of educational opportunities as we would our students who do not receive assistance. I do think that SES does play a part on some level, but there are many other variables that contribute to low performance. I think it is our job to figure out what all our students weaknesses/strengths are and provide instruction that will challenge and engage them.
I agree with Bogan(RPP) the test score comparison needs to stop.Our focus should be looking at the needs of the children and not how well they perform on a test .
#1: I think that while living in poverty does affect experiences, opportunities, and resources outside of school to say that a child's success or lack of success weighs on the amount of money their parents have is hishly unjust. Students can acheive and strive to meet high expectations in spite of economic background. They may have to work harder than those from families that can provide outside trips to D.C or the zoo or pay for tutors, but they can learn. To use "free or reduced lunch" as an excuse is a cop-out. These children simply must be enriched with the education their families cannot provide.
#2 Asset focused means that we should build on a student's strengths and learning styles. Multiple intelligences comes to mind, as well.
I agree with Bogan_RPP:
We cannot be asset focused when all of our children, regardless of economic status or disability, are faced with state score comparisons. They are all given the same exact test whether they are AIG or EC. "We have turned children and teachers into numbers." and if you don't make that number you don't measure up. They are ALL individual's and should be looked at individually.
CFES KLEINER
In my particular position, I teach a group of low income students who ALL recieve free and reduced lunches; it would be very easy to look at their family structures, routines, and various situations and label them unmotivated, lazy, or as someone who doesnt care about their education. But, in fact, after building relationships and bonds with many of these student, I witness daily that they are (for the most part) incredibly sweet, motivated, and positive about school and what they would like to get out of it. By labeling students based NOT upon their performance in school, or attitude while here, we are not being fair and not seeing our students for what they can be... instead only what they already are. The amount of money a person (or a persons family has) does not determine a persons character... I think it is always important to remember that.
I think we need to stop focusing on everything we do not have (materials, money, fieldtrips, technology, etc.) That is reality... as unfortunate as it may be. I think that if we could shift our thinking to what we do have (a positive place to work, workable materials, and mostly a group of studens who need our attention, love, and support).
It is nonsense!
As stated by so many before me a student's socio economic level does not keep him/her from learning. At birth children are learning. They learn as much as they are exposed to. So I think that the disadvantage some of our students on free or reduced lunch have is exposure to their environment and community. I have always been a big fan of field trips, guest speakers/ programs and hands on learning in the school environment. I am reminded of the impact these programs have on students every year when I hear of the student who went to the beach or the movies for the first time. Students need these experiences to make connections between school and life.
I think if we become more focused on the tremendous growth the children in our classes are making we will develop a positive attitude and feel more successful as professionals. If we continue to focus on test scores I fear we will focus the blame some where else.
I agree with the Pre K comment about the present economy changing many family's financial situations. Every year we think we are working with the least amount of materials and resources possible. But every year we excel with less. Children don't need these things to learn they need someone to care enough to believe n them.
No matter what one's income it is our respsonsibility to teach the children to the best of our abilities to achieve to the best of their abilities. With the low socio-economic area we are in we do have obstacles. I had a student tell me once that he did't need to do well in school. His daddy didn't do well. He only went to 8th grade and they are okay. We need to figure out how to motivate kids like this, to meet them where they are and expand upon it. This is what differentiated instruction, project-based learning, and using multiple intelligences/learning styles is all about. All kids have something to offer the world. We cannot expect them to be little adults coming in to our classes ready and willing to work, work, work leaving their troubles behind. We need empathy for their situations. We need to focus on their strengths instead of their negative behaviors. Maybe if teachers worked to build our children up instead of tearing them down constantly the achievement issue would be a little less dismal, low income or not.
To Bogan: WELL SAID! Knowing a student comes from a two-parent working household, maybe wkg two jobs and still on reduced or free lunch is information a teacher can use. When that child doesn't have homework all week, there is a reason. Let's remember, they are children. If there isn't a parent there working w/ them we cannot expect them to do the same as a child who has a parent right there with them wkg on that great project that gets the A. The economic and demographic information can be a useful tool.
1. This statement shows the true ignorance of those who do not know what is going on in our schools. Just because someone does not make a certain amount of money does not mean that they are ignorant nor that they do not value education.
2. We need to focus on the positives and not the negatives of each student. If we look at where they are in the beginning of the year and see the growth that was made at the end, we will be more asset focused. Also if we differentiate this will ensure that we are asset focused.
I agree with Bogan when she said that we should drop the test focus. I have many students in my class that perform well in class and do not do well on LOA's/EOG's. We have got to make them feel a part of something and that they are here to learn and succeed.
I agree with Bogan RPP when she said to drop the test score comparisons. It is not just about the numbers! We must make each child believe that they can be successful. I have a lot of students that do not do well on EOG/LOA's, but do well in class.
Who we are and what we become is not based on what we have. If that were true Abraham Lincoln would never have been President because he would have qualified for free lunch. We have a large percentage of parents who do not value education and do not give their children the encouragement and help at home they need to be as successful as possible. Children face so many barriers that start at home that concentrating on their education is difficult. We have to meet them where they are, help them deal with their feelings, and teach them according to their strengths.
There is not as one-size-fits-all way to educate children. We must differentiate instruction, use project-based instructions and use multiple intelligences to promote success and add interest. Focusing on assets rather that deficits makes learning more personnel, enjoyable, and successful
I totally agree with Janet from RPP in that we must focus on student growth. We have to focus on where they started and where they end up at the end of the school year. Being on grade level is not as important. Learning and growth will lead to success.
Who we are and what we become is not based on what we have. If that were true Abraham Lincoln would never have been President because he would have qualified for free lunch. We have a large percentage of parents who do not value education and do not give their children the encouragement and help at home they need to be as successful as possible. Children face so many barriers that start at home that concentrating on their education is difficult. We have to meet them where they are, help them deal with their feelings, and teach them according to their strengths.
There is not as one-size-fits-all way to educate children. We must differentiate instruction, use project-based instructions and use multiple intelligences to promote success and add interest. Focusing on assets rather that deficits makes learning more personnel, enjoyable, and successful.
Julia H - CFES
In this day and time, when people are loosing their jobs and have to ask for help in order for their family to survive, there should be no judgment on people based on their income. Every child should be given the opportunity to learn; being on free or reduced lunch has nothing to do with their ability to learn and whether or not they succeed in life. It is up to us as educators to give each child equal opportunity to learn.
Post a Comment