kitchen table math, the sequel: Lewis M. Andrews on why suburban schools don't change

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Lewis M. Andrews on why suburban schools don't change

How is it that intelligent and motivated parents, many sacrificing financially to afford homes in the most expensive suburbs, end up as uncritical supporters of a public school system...?

IN THEIR HEARTS, says University of Missouri political science professor J. Martin Rochester, many suburban parents know something is wrong. When he interviewed 250 executives of leading corporations for his book on suburban education (Class Warfare: Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence), most believed their local schools suffered from programs that are "diluted, distracted, and diffused from the basic mission of education."

The problem, he concluded, is that over decades suburban schools have developed effective techniques for promoting ideas that support the convenience of teachers and administrators, while excluding information and research that would require a change in policies, practices, and personnel.

It starts at the top with boards of education composed largely of busy volunteers, who over-rely on the guidance of superintendents, and goes all the way down to the interactions between teachers and individual parents. When suburbanites join school curriculum committees, for example, they are rarely presented with all sides of an issue and seldom informed of all the relevant research. Critical parents, Professor Rochester found, "end up being demonized as right-wingers or troublemakers."

Other writers who have studied the academic deficiencies of suburban schools reach a similar conclusion. When EducationNews.org columnist Barry Garelick examined the inability of three Maryland districts to successfully incorporate a superior math curriculum from Singapore, he found that teachers skillfully used vague technical jargon and inflexible rules to discredit aspects of the program that required them to learn new skills.

As suggested by the title of his book Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, Stanford professor emeritus Larry Cuban finds suburban educators eager to spend public money on the latest technology to create a "leading edge" aura, yet rarely willing to take advantage of its academic potential. "Curricula, teaching methods, and schedules [could] all be customized to meet the learning styles and life situations of individual students," says Cuban, and "coursework from the most remedial to the most advanced can be made available to everyone...(but educators take) action to prevent technology from transforming American education."

Dr. Armand Fusco, a retired Branford, Connecticut school superintendent who has written and lectured widely on the deficiencies of suburban districts, sees similar problems: "It's one thing for parents to intuit a problem, quite another to do anything about it when educators with advanced degrees flash their credentials and have glib answers for every question."

Superintendents, for example, will always brag that their local public school students perform just as well on state mastery tests as students in neighboring affluent suburbs. What they neglect to mention is that any mediocre suburban school will appear successful, just so long as it is surrounded by other mediocre suburban schools and their average test scores are higher than those of nearby urban districts.

Dr. Fusco believes that the federal No Child Left Behind law had it right when it sought to measure the performance of individual schools, but it was aimed at demographic groups least able to do anything about the results. "What's needed is data that makes it clear to suburbanites just how badly served their own children really are."
Meet the Suburban Parents

12 comments:

SteveH said...

One reason is that by the time most figure it out, their kids have grown up and the new batch of parents are coming along. There is no knowledge transfer. It's also hard to understand that what some educators claim is a good education is just not good enough - until it's too late.

Another reason is that no one thing will make everyone happy. We have full-inclusion and differentiated instruction in our K-8 schools. Many love this idea. They are willing to accept the limitations that go along with that philosophy. If you don't like it, pay to go somewhere else. Many parents do NOT want high academic standards. Perhaps (see the first paragraph and Petrilli's comments) they just haven't learned yet how low that is.

Bonnie said...

I think the biggest problem is that most suburban parents really do *not* want change. They want a school that looks pretty much like the ones they went to - fun, unchallenging, and mainly about social skills. They want a football team, and teen parties, and clubs, and field trips. They want to talk with the teacher during conference about whether Susie is getting invited to the correct playdates. I can't imagine many of the parents in my district ever accepting Singapore math. Those funny little books with the multiracial kids with vaguely Asian names - no way would that fly in my district. Suburban schools don't change because parents don't want real change.

Independent George said...

Er, that's not Michael Lewis. It's still a good article, but I was all excited because putting Michael Lewis' name on the subject makes it a national, mainstream issue.

Catherine Johnson said...

Er, that's not Michael Lewis. It's still a good article, but I was all excited because putting Michael Lewis' name on the subject makes it a national, mainstream issue.

NO KIDDING!!

I think my unconscious was speaking there!

Catherine Johnson said...

imagine Michael Lewis having a go at suburban schools & suburban parents --- yowza

Catherine Johnson said...

I think the biggest problem is that most suburban parents really do *not* want change.

For me the biggest problem is that suburban parents who do not want change have the power to impose the schools they want on my child.

If I don't like things, I can take my child and leave, but my money stays.

Catherine Johnson said...

They want a school that looks pretty much like the ones they went to - fun, unchallenging, and mainly about social skills.

Yes and no.

There are quite a few parents here who attended the schools. They tell me that the schools are very different today.

Catherine Johnson said...

I can't imagine many of the parents in my district ever accepting Singapore math.

First of all, I assume that the American version has American kids in the margins.

And second, parents in Scarsdale & Dobbs Ferry haven't had any problem accepting Singapore Math that I'm aware of (and I **am** aware of parents who love the series).

People here wouldn't have any problem adapting to Singapore Math, and many parents would be thrilled.

Bonnie said...

My district is not anything like Scarsdale, though it is next door.

I honestly think our schools today are far BETTER than the schools I attended in the 70's. My son is learning far more math than we did. They are expected to write 3 to 5 page research papers in the 5th grade, which we didn't do until 9th grade. There may be some geographic reasons for the difference - my U.S. schools were mainly in the South - but I did go to an affluent district in Seattle for one year of high school, and I can tell you that our school here in my Westchester district is much better (and hopefully more drug-free, lol).

I do think I went to school at the nadir for American schools - the 70's. That report A Nation At Risk appeared not long after I graduated.

SteveH said...

"I think the biggest problem is that most suburban parents really do *not* want change."


I don't know what that means. Is that based on knowing exactly what they are getting? Is that based on knowing what it could be? Is this some sort of philosophical understanding? And, if it's a "problem", then what would the solution be, to give them something they don't want?

There is a lot of vague talk, but no quantification of what happiness versus test factory means. Petrilli can't seem to define it, but that doesn't stop him from coming to some sort of conclusion. Middle class parents are supposed to do something to fix schools, but whatever that is can't be defined.

Most parents do NOT get what they want for math education. They don't know what that is, but I can say that what they want is NOT a system that pumps kids along trusting the spiral until they blame the students and then filter them out starting in 7th grade. This is WORSE than when I grew up. In both cases, it was (and is) a sink or swim proposition, but in the old days, they didn't ignore the problem until it was too late. They actually ensured mastery of the basics without sending "study math facts" notes home.


"What's needed is data that makes it clear to suburbanites just how badly served their own children really are."

How about showing them that their bright kids can't do two digit multiplication in 5th grade? How do you change the subject from understanding and critical thinking to basic educational competence?


But what is the goal, to get most all parents to agree before any change or options are provided? Are educators unable to make improvements themselves? Most all high schools offer different levels of academics, so what is the problem? The problem is not that there isn't a lower academic level. The problem is not a desire for lower expectations in K-8. If the majority do not have a problem with schools, then there is nothing left for schools to offer?

If some parents want to emphasize more happiness and less homework, nothing should stop them from bringing up the issue. Problems arise when a school model does not allow for educational options. The solution is not to try to get everyone to agree. The solution is to provide more options.

Crimson Wife said...

For me the biggest problem is that suburban parents who do not want change have the power to impose the schools they want on my child.

If I don't like things, I can take my child and leave, but my money stays.


I don't see any parents having any power whatsoever in my district. The power lies with the teachers' union and the state & local educrats the union has bought and paid for.

FedUpMom said...

I agree with Crimson Wife. Parents have no voice and no power. It's irrelevant whether they want the schools to change.

My local nominally high-performing school district will be using Investigations as its math curriculum starting next year. Did they ask the parents before making this decision? Of course not. If you could get 75% of the parents to sign a petition against the new curriculum, would it make the slightest difference? No.