I have read and listened to comments from people who seem to believe that poverty plays no role in a child's learning. That poor, middle class and rich kids all have the same opportunities etc. Is that what most people believe or just a few bloggers? I have to ask a few questions for those who actually do believe that poverty makes no difference.
1. Why does the Federal Government give Title I funds to schools with high poverty rates?
2. Why does NCLB look at the gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged?
3. Why was SAGE created?
4. Why do schools with high poverty rates almost always have low test scores?
5. Why was Head Start created?
6. Why have a "War on Poverty" if poverty has NO effect on children?
Why do people want to deny that poverty does affect children and their learning? I am not saying that every child in poverty will be affected the same way or that if you are poor you will not succeed. But to deny that teaching and learning is more difficult in high poverty schools just has no basis in reality.
It was asked on OshKonversation, "Is it fair that only some of our children benefit from SAGE classes and not others; what happened to equitable?"
The poster is confusing EQUAL with EQUITABLE.. SAGE is the very definition of equitable... equal means everyone gets the same thing, equitable means giving everyone an equal opportunity, which is what SAGE does.
It just baffles me that some continue to argue that poverty has no effect... or like the speaker at the last board meeting... those whose children qualify for free or reduced lunch aren't poor --- they just need someone to show them how to spend their money more wisely. Yeah, you go on believing that the families who make $6 and hour don't have it any harder than those that make $20. I guess it makes one feel better to believe poverty really doesn't matter, because then we are not required to address a problem that doesn't exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Thank you for pointing out that which should be obvious, Mrs. Thiel. I believe Mrs. Monte has made comments about this very issue elsewhere and is one of those who continually confuses the 2. It strikes me that she and others are so desirous of pointing their finger at those in administration and some members of the school board that they often don't look at everything or miss even the most obvious. Sounds ike that expression about not seeing the forest for the trees, doesn't it??
Please explain how it is equitable that a K-3 student at Webster in a 15:1 ratio classroom is getting the same educational opportunities as a Smith students who is in a 22:1 ratio classroom. This is equitable? Under the option E scenario, Roosevelt kids who previously got SAGE will not get it because the district is putting more non-disadvantaged kids in the school. How is this fair... these kids are still disadvantaged?
Anonymous 4:33 it is called --- putting the resources where they are needed. When over 1/2 the students in a school live in poverty (Webster Elementary) that puts a strain on the school and those children come to school with fewer experiences, less ready for school (for example some have never had anyone read them a book) etc., the smaller class size allows the teacher to meet the needs of ALL the students in the class. The needs just aren't as great in a school with less than 1/2.
As for Roosevelt, if the school goes from 55% poverty to 20% the strain will not be as great to meet the needs of those that are disadvantaged. That is what is meant by directing resources where the need is greatest
Correct me if I am wrong with this thought. If a SAGE class at Roosevelt has 15 kids and 7 live in poverty and we send a bunch of Oakwood kids to Roosevelt and it is no longer SAGE school we now have the same 7 kids in a class of 25. How does this help those 7 kids?
Actually, from the numbers I have heard, Roosevelt would have about 20% poverty. The district maximum for class size at the K-3 level would be 22 so it is likely that only 5 of 22 students would be students in poverty. This would certainly not put the same burden on a teacher as it would at say Jefferson with 65% poverty, if they were not SAGE with 22 students at 65% poverty that would be 14 students in poverty. Surely everyone can see that 14 student in poverty out of 22 is much more difficult than 5 out of 22.
I just don't understand the rationale of "if we can't have SAGE for everyone then we should have it for NO ONE". I don't see that as directing resources where the greatest need is.
BUT...
The district is taking on a significant expense in the addition of classrooms, retention of staff, and additional busing to get the correct numbers that they need to have SAGE on one side of town.
You say that you don't understand the rationale. I think you need to open your eyes. SAGE is fine. It is working at the level that it is now. It is NOT a self sustaining program no matter how you sugar coat it for your loyal followers.
Also, if the district "picks and chooses" the students from certain areas, that can be viewed as discrimination and could be prosecuted by parents that are excluded from these wonderful programs.
Don't paint the picture that this is the best thing since the wheel. We need to worry about funding what we have before we take on more.
Anonymous 7:04pm said "It is NOT a self sustaining program no matter how you sugar coat it for your loyal followers."
Since you know SAGE is not self sustaining, could you provide us with the amount the district spent last year on SAGE?
I don't know what you mean by "district is taking on a significant expense in the addition of classrooms, retention of staff, and additional busing to get the correct numbers that they need to have SAGE on one side of town."
Under the current proposal there will be SAGE at Jefferson... just so happens, the majority of low income families in Oshkosh live on the North side so with boundary changes there will be more SAGE schools on the North side than the South/West side.
As far as "if the district "picks and chooses" the students from certain areas, that can be viewed as discrimination and could be prosecuted by parents that are excluded from these wonderful programs."
The district has to pick students from "some area" to change boundaries, something that the distirct has every right to do under state law. Good luck suing over boundary changes. The federal government has Title I which provides additional dollars to schools with high numbers/percentage of students on Free/reduced lunch to provide additional reading services... are you going to sue over that too? As I said, good luck with that. Even the Feds. acknowledge that poverty requires additonal resources in schools.
Post a Comment