Class Struggle
Reflections about Families and Student Learning
Every urban learner can succeed. As an educator dedicated to closing the Achievement Gap, I believe that every urban learner can grow; every urban learner can achieve; every urban learner can excel; every urban learner can – and deserves to -- succeed. I know this is true, because I came to know every one of the remarkable, resourceful, resilient learners who populated my culturally rich, grade 11, urban literacy classroom in North Minneapolis. To contemplate so important and precious a collection of young people is to re-negotiate the import of my polyfunctional position as classroom manager, academic mentor, community resource and role model, and its attendant professional charge to prompt learning, promote growth and empower students to realize their personal potential.
While I may know in my heart and believe in my soul that all learners can succeed, as I think back on the juniors in my language arts class, I also know, in reality, they did not all finish the year with “A-pluses” There were certainly all sorts of successes. But, measured by final grades – derived from summative assessments of proficiency and evaluations of academic performance – there was uneven and generally modest growth demonstrated by the group, with a few students even failing, and thus, failing to acquire the language arts credits required for graduation.
Examining a set of nine specific students from this class, and their various levels of learning and achievement, is a way of reflecting on my effectiveness as an urban educator. It is also a way to critically contemplate my position as one person who operates among the many other people and elements that contribute to a young person’s academic accomplishment.
Critical Components
Student success involves several factors. In Reflective Teaching, authors Zeichner and Liston cite a 2012 quote from Arne Duncan which nicely serves as a guide to these factors. Framed from a teacher’s perspective, the quote breaks down the broad education, social and institutional components that pave the pathway to student success:
“When a good teacher has useful information about a child’s particular needs — has support from his or her principal — a real partner at home — a quality curriculum aligned with college and career-ready standards — and the tools and the time to do the job — that child is going to learn and achieve.”
Secretary Duncan’s model is useful because it establishes that student success depends on more than the classroom teacher. There must also be support from family, community and school. Sandy Grande, speaks of these components in relation to the aims of a critical pedagogy, saying that schools must be engaged “alongside other revolutionary struggles, specifically those that seek to end economic exploitation, political domination, and call to rule dependency.” Grande goes on to cite Henry Giroux who similarly asserts that critical pedagogy must be seen as "part of a broader ethical and political project wedded to furthering social and economic justice and making multicultural democracy operational."
Duncan’s model is also useful because none of its specific set of required elements are directed toward the student. The learner is here presumed innocent of any personal shortcoming or deficit that would prevent success. In Duncan’s model – given the proper environment and resources needed to succeed, the student will succeed.
Dynamic Thinking
As an urban educator, tasked with narrowing the Achievement Gap that exists between students – when looking broadly at ethnicity, gender, cultural background and socio-economic status – I am developing the understanding that I can best foster student success by focusing, not on what I am teaching, but on who I am teaching – and how they are learning. Zeichner & Liston speak to this as a general shift in education philosophy.
Some look back upon past educational policies and practices and see subject matter coverage, not students, as the central focal point of classroom instruction. But that has changed. With the national attention given to student outcomes toward the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, including the federal A Nation at Risk report in the Regan era, the No Child Left Behind legislation of the G. W. Bush tenure, and the more recent Race to the Top policy formulations promoted by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the Obama administration, we find greater consideration being given to instruction that is focused on student academic outcomes.
In Pedagogy of Confidence, Dr. Jackson advises against using a deficit model when thinking about students and student outcomes:
Administrators frantically searched for that magic program that will save them from the penalties imposed as a result of the low performance on standardized tests of many of their students of color, a situation branded with the pernicious label achievement gap. This label has exacerbated the cultural myth that the only way to close the gap is by focusing on weaknesses. As a result, we have been obsessively misdirected to turn our backs on the vast intellectual capacity of the students and to regard minimum proficiency as the ceiling, dismissing two inherent truths about learning as if they do not pertain to these individuals:
All people had an intrinsic desire to learn and to be self-actualized . . . All brains are the same color. In other words, the way the brain makes learning happen does not differ from one culture to another.
The deficit model’s focus on weaknesses, which assumes there are many flaws to be corrected, stands in contrast to dynamic models which presume there are many strengths to be built upon.
Deficit Model Families
In Providing Access for Culturally Diverse Gifted Students, authors Ford & Grantham state that “family involvement in the educational process enhances student achievement,” but go on to stress the dangers of deficit thinking:
. . . If the deficit orientation is present among educators, they may not communicate with culturally diverse families about gifted education services and other opportunities. Further, if this mindset exists, diverse parents might view schools with suspicion and doubt the school's commitment to their children. Such parents are unlikely to involve themselves in school settings because of the belief that they are not valued as our resource and member of this whole community.
In the fifth chapter of Unfinished Business: Closing the Racial Achievement Gap in Our Schools,
authors Route-Chatmon, Scott-George, Okahara, Fuentes, Wing and Noguera use specific observations from families at Berkeley High School to highlight general issues surrounding the important role played by parents and guardians in shaping the educational experiences of learners. The authors explain that, often being a child’s first teachers, parents and care-givers not only have a strong influence on learning and literacy skill development during early childhood, their influence shapes the “intellectual foundation for future cognitive development.” Pointing to several other researchers, the authors assert that “the educational and socio-economic background of parents” is often a decisive factor “in the formation of student attitudes and habits towards school.” This indicates that the influences of parents, guardians and care-givers, which extends through adolescence in various ways, can subtly but significantly effect a student’s learning and academic achievement.
The authors of Unfinished Business also explore family – school relationships from a critical perspective. They assert that, while parental involvement was trumpeted as key to promoting academic success, and “especially so for poor and minority students,” historically, the experiences and treatment of different parents at Berkeley High varied widely based on their race and class. The authors go on to describe the problematic social situation:
. . . poor and working class parents of color [face] numerous obstacles that have made it difficult for them to play an effective role. In the same way that the school marginalizes many African American, Latino, immigrant, and low-income students, the parents of these students are often distanced from school activities. The distancing is due in part to linguistic and cultural differences that separate parents from Berkeley High School staff, but also due to a basic lack of power on the part of parents of color within the school community.
Leo Tolstoy’s novel, Anna Karenina, begins with the following famous sentence: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Tolstoy here implies that for a family to be happy, several key things are necessary (health, finances, relationships, etc.), and that deficiency in any single one means the family will be unhappy.
Since a number of conditions must be met in order to produce a happy family – they all fit a similar profile. Each unhappy family has a distinct profile, unique to its specific combination of deficiencies from among the constellation of necessary conditions.
Jared Diamond in his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, extended Tolstoy’s idea into a frame for understanding “the requirements for success in complex undertakings,” called the Anna Karenina principle (AKP).
According to the AKP, “the success of complex undertakings always depends upon many factors, each of which is essential,” so that if even just one factor is lacking, the undertaking is likely doomed.
When applying this principle to schooling, and the mission of closing the Achievement Gap, the conclusion is at first disheartening. Any number of factors threaten to block a student’s success and any one of them can get in the way. Conversely, doing well can only occur in special circumstances. But, if we start with the presumption that every student can learn – regardless of ethnicity, gender or any other cultural identification – then there’s a subtle lesson in the AKP about closing the Achievement Gap.
All failing students are alike; each successful student is different in his or her own way.
We know that all students are a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. Further, we know that young urban learners are resourceful and resilient. Taken out of a deficit model and placed in a dynamic model, the AKP holds that it is possible to succeed in many ways but to fail in only one way. Here, we are not focused on finding and correcting the many things that can lead to school failure, but on identifying and developing the one or two strengths of the student that can lead to success.
Poetic Justice Project
This reflection finishes with snapshots of nine urban learners, grouped into three types of students: Deep Inspirations, High Frustrations and Mid Variations. These student profiles sketch basic information about my relationships with them and their families – and thoughts about lessons I learned. The urban learner snapshots are accompanied by samples of original poems – composed as part of the Poetic Justice Project – and some brief notes on each student learning.
Input
Grade 11 learners were tasked with creating 30 poems using formats and guidelines given through individual assignments over the course of the quarter. After editing, learners used their best 20 poems to create and publish an online poetry collection. Students presented their final collections to the class – choosing one poem to read aloud. The poetry rubric lists four main areas: (1) Original Ideas and Depth of Thought; (2) Clear Voice and Articulate Expression; (3) Figurative Language/Poetic Device Use; and (4) Expressive Text Layout and Formatting.
Outcomes
I do not have access to records of the student grades for this project and therefore no aggregated data, but I can generally say that the female students found more success than male students. The work from this particular set of students, randomly chosen, seems to indicate that, across the board, students were able to engage, produce and grow in proficiency.
In thinking back on the project – what I could have done differently or do again – I can say, I would definitely do this again, but I would schedule it early in the school year. Clearly, I would plan much more time for the re-thinking, rewriting and editing of work. The project would benefit from added opportunities for learners to work with partners and groups, co-creating and co-editing poetry. The key lesson learned from the project – most students actually did it. They saw it as an opportunity to express their feelings. Importantly, the most troubled, at-risk and socially awkward students were among the most successful. Generally, students enjoyed posting and publishing their poems to the web. Despite the moaning, groaning and grumbling from the class when this project was first introduced, several students found they had a talent for writing poetry and went on to produce some fairly sophisticated work.