This
commentary is offered in support of the Michigan Department of Education (MDE)
and State Superintendent Mike Flanagan. This is a response to an article that appeared in
The Oakland Press on Sunday, October 21, 2012, written by Diana Dillaber Murray entitled, “State slams Oakland Schools for wide achievement gap.”
Essentially,
the MDE is holding the Oakland County Schools accountable for being among the
10 percent of schools in the state that have the largest gap between the 30
percent of the highest achieving students and the lowest achieving 30 percent
of students. Their position is that
schools need to develop strategies to improve the achievement levels of those
students. We concur,
wholeheartedly. However, I would caution
the MDE to avoid the biggest problem associated with the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act established by the Bush Administration. NCLB is a punishment system, not a leadership
program. It is not enough to point out
discrepancies and issue warnings. School
districts, of course, as a first step need to be required to acknowledge that
there is a discrepancy. However, they
also need to be pointed in the direction of a solution. That is what is missing in our educational
world.
Superintendent
of the Oakland Schools, Vickie Markavitch is attempting to defend the
indefensible by using code words that hark back to the days of “separate but
equal.” Her position is that even though
the African American and lower income children (the lower 30%) are not
performing on par with the top 30% in the schools, they have reached levels of “near
proficiency” that are good enough for them to be “work and college ready”. Even though these children’s achievement
falls way below the other children in their same school, the level at which
they are performing is good enough because it is above the statewide
average. We have to ask some hard
questions today when the definition of public education is for some children to
be “near proficient” and for others, in the words of Superintendent Markavich
to take AP Physics, major in Chemistry and become prolific authors. She doesn’t state explicitly what occupations
the “near proficient” children can expect or deserve. Is that the role of government to make those
designations?
Her
use of the term “proficiency” harks back to the days when the argument was made that
unequal separate schools for Negro and white children in the South were in fact
equal. Her argument suggests further
that the bottom 30% are doing well enough – certainly as well as they would be
doing in a low performing Priority school – where they belong?
The
“elephant in the room” is the activity of upper middle class white
parents. Principals and superintendents
know that on any given day 70% of the parents in their schools can yank their children
and enroll them in private schools. They
are catering to those parents. Upper
middle class white parents want to create private schools within the public
schools. They want to penetrate the
politics of the public schools and create private school outcomes for their
children without having to pay private school tuition.
This
cadre of parents whom Lisa Delpil says are connected to the “culture of power”
know the “code of power”. They are only
in favor of school practices and policies that elevate the achievement of the
top 30% in a single-minded fashion. That
is the condition of their remaining in those schools. This is the population that the
superintendent represents. The parents of the lower 30% do not have the savvy
to be able to penetrate the school power structure to change what is happening
to their children. Sometimes it is all
they can do to deliver their children to those schools.
As
a result, the spotlight should also be shined on the covert activities of
schools in affluent communities. Reports
have been made of parents being informed upon entry to high school, that if
their child does not have good grades in the 8th grade and does not
pass a proficiency test, they will involuntarily be bussed to an alternative
school. This is an effort to prevent the
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in the affluent school from being dragged down by an
influx of children who need to be taught.
Reports
have also been made that if there are enough high achieving children in the
school that can “mask” the children who need to be taught, the middle range
children can remain in the building.
However, for the lower third of children, strategies are brought into
play to eliminate them from the assessment pool so that they don’t show up and
drag down the AYP when assessments are given.
More
time and thought is being given to erecting these evasive strategies and polishing
the data interpretation angles of administrators than is spent in seriously trying to meet the educational
needs of these children.
The
“Hide and Seek” scenarios in private schools are not any different. In my book,
Learning While Black, I chronicled my struggle to guide the journey of my
African American male son through an elite private school in Michigan. Even though he was tested as gifted, the
politics of everyday life in the classroom resulted in a constant struggle
against his having been tracked and placed in lower ability groups.
The
MDE and the Superintendents of schools need to step back from talking to each
other from data bases. They need to
avail themselves of the growing body of literature that documents:
1. the rabid competitive culture perpetrated by
white upper income parents in trying to achieve unending advantages and
separation for their children;
2. the ways in which teachers structure statuses
in the classroom that result in African American and lower income children
entering school eager to learn and departing increasingly disadvantaged for
each succeeding year of their journey through school.
What
is needed is cutting edge in-service
training of teachers and administrators.
However, in order to prescribe that training, the administrators who
design solutions need to look beyond the test score data to school climate and
classroom solutions. In my book, I set
forth a model of school reform for creating an instructional accountability
infrastructure within each school that delivers educational excellence to every
child.
We
also have to ask ourselves as a society the question of, “What is the purpose
of public education?” Public school
education was created in the 1890’s for the children of white immigrants. It was never intended for African
Americans. African Americans who were
only a few years free from slavery were required to pay taxes to support the
quality public school education of white children while being relegated to
inferior schools themselves. They had to
use near slave wages to fund schools and colleges to give their children a
chance at a better life. Public colleges
and universities that they were taxed to support were allowed by law to exclude
them.
Public
school education began when the nation was in a transition from an agricultural
economy to a manufacturing economy.
Public schools were created to give every white child an opportunity to
be connected to the 20th century economy. Public school education was designed to
provide an opportunity for white children to be connected to the future. What is the plan for all children today? It sounds like the plan in the Oakland County
Schools is for African American children to be “proficiently” unemployed.
Julie Mushing sent the following comment:
Julie Mushing sent the following comment:
Doing a
little more search, I came across the response from the Superintendent,
you may want to add a link to the information from your blog, to see if
people
agree or disagree with her statements:
Thank you,
Julie