There has, in recent times, been a flurry of articles in the maintsream press about America’s educational woes. Students are underperforming, teachers are underperforming, and no one knows why. The analysis tends to end with fancy pie charts or some other diagrammatic representation plotting race versus “performance.” The results are unsuprising, and tend to reenforce already prevalent stereotypes. What is surprising is the simplicity of the interpretation of the “data.” As already mentioned, there is virtually no analysis or critical discussion of the results.
I would like here to raise some issues that seem to me to be pertinent to the issue of academic performance, issues which have received little to no discussion in the mainstream press. I do not claim that they are relevant. My aims are more modest. I would merely like to raise them, to suggest that they have some initial plausibility, at least as much as “race,” as factors that may lie behind the observed performance results. I will leave it to the experts to let us know what the facts are.
First, there is no questioning the validity of the measure of “performance,” usually some form of standardized test or other whose value as a respectable yardstick of a child’s intellectual development is controversial, at best. But this controversy does not make its way into the news, and as such cannot challenge the elite worldview the papers are designed to present.
Second, there is little to no discussion of the relevance of relative poverty/wealth to a child’s academic performance. Freedoms/deprivations of various sorts tend to be package deals: relative poverty tends to co-occur with various other unfreedoms. Obvious unfreedoms, such as lack of access to health care, quality nutrition, access to tutors, books, and the need (as opposed to the choice) to work all interfere with academic achievement. But there are other effects. For example, a poor child faces spatial restrictions in ways that a wealthier child does not (for obvious reasons). This affects, for example, liesurely activites, access to parks and other recreational facilities, access to public libraries, inter alia. The poor are closely tied to the confines of their own neighbourhoods, usually within their own homes. Such spatial restrictions make it extremely difficult to venture outward in pursuit of activities that enrich the mind and body.
This connects with a third issue, which I think is rather serious. Tied to their homes, or the homes of their friends in similar situations, the TV becomes a primary source for entertainment. Again, there is very little choice involved in this. One is not choosing between watching TV and going skating at the public rink downtown — the latter is typically not a feasible option. This makes the child more susceptible to the form of mental abuse known as “advertising,” or “marketing” directed toward children. Such ads are explicitly designed to turn children into mindless consumers, to create in children “wants” for things they neither truly want nor need. This form of child abuse actually affects children across the socioeconomic spectrum. To put some numbers to this assertion, the average American child is exposed to 40,000 commercials a year (Source: Free Press). A recent article in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity estimates that over $10B a year are spent on child/youth directed marketing. In what ways do such forms of manipulation affect the intellectual development of children?
Fourth, race is perennially a favourite issue in elite discussions of academic “performance.” But it is never asked: Given the prevalence of racial discrimination in the marketplace, common knowledge to all but the NY Times, how does the existence of such unjust practices affect one’s incentive to excel in school? If you bust your ass off only to be passed up for the next applicant, how likely are you to direct your efforts to such a dead end?
Fifth, how do poverty, parental care and educational achievement relate? If a single mother raising a child in poverty needs to work two jobs to make ends meet, how much time and energy can she spend making sure her child is doing its homework, or to help the child with its homework? She obviously can’t hire a nanny or a tutor to do that job for her. She also can’t take time off work, given the little job security left for low-wage earners in American society. This kind of strangulation chokes both parent and child, with ramifications found in daily activities, long-term planning, psychological state, and social development, among others.
Sixth, we live in what German sociologist Ulrich Beck calls a “risk society.” The poor disproportionately carry the risk for the rest of society. What’s it like to live in such a heightened state of risk? To not know whether the rent will be paid three months from now? To not be able to weather an unexpected flu, or a sprained ankle, or some other unexpected difficulty?
These are merely six issues that seem to me, prima facie, to have some relevance to the issue of academic performance. I don’t know the extent to which they are relevant, but I believe that they are at least as plausible as “race” is to be causal factors in accounting for a child’s capacity to excel in school. The pie charts that cut children up into race and academic performance indicate to me that the mainstream press is utterly incapable of transending their limited worldview. They are unable, or refuse, to ask, what’s it like to be raised poor? to be raised coloured? to be deeply in the grip of need? to be abused by the extremely wealthy?
Educational Woes and Questions Unasked
November 28, 2006 at 11:39 pm · Filed under Socio-Political Commentary, Uncategorized
There has, in recent times, been a flurry of articles in the maintsream press about America’s educational woes. Students are underperforming, teachers are underperforming, and no one knows why. The analysis tends to end with fancy pie charts or some other diagrammatic representation plotting race versus “performance.” The results are unsuprising, and tend to reenforce already prevalent stereotypes. What is surprising is the simplicity of the interpretation of the “data.” As already mentioned, there is virtually no analysis or critical discussion of the results.
I would like here to raise some issues that seem to me to be pertinent to the issue of academic performance, issues which have received little to no discussion in the mainstream press. I do not claim that they are relevant. My aims are more modest. I would merely like to raise them, to suggest that they have some initial plausibility, at least as much as “race,” as factors that may lie behind the observed performance results. I will leave it to the experts to let us know what the facts are.
First, there is no questioning the validity of the measure of “performance,” usually some form of standardized test or other whose value as a respectable yardstick of a child’s intellectual development is controversial, at best. But this controversy does not make its way into the news, and as such cannot challenge the elite worldview the papers are designed to present.
Second, there is little to no discussion of the relevance of relative poverty/wealth to a child’s academic performance. Freedoms/deprivations of various sorts tend to be package deals: relative poverty tends to co-occur with various other unfreedoms. Obvious unfreedoms, such as lack of access to health care, quality nutrition, access to tutors, books, and the need (as opposed to the choice) to work all interfere with academic achievement. But there are other effects. For example, a poor child faces spatial restrictions in ways that a wealthier child does not (for obvious reasons). This affects, for example, liesurely activites, access to parks and other recreational facilities, access to public libraries, inter alia. The poor are closely tied to the confines of their own neighbourhoods, usually within their own homes. Such spatial restrictions make it extremely difficult to venture outward in pursuit of activities that enrich the mind and body.
This connects with a third issue, which I think is rather serious. Tied to their homes, or the homes of their friends in similar situations, the TV becomes a primary source for entertainment. Again, there is very little choice involved in this. One is not choosing between watching TV and going skating at the public rink downtown — the latter is typically not a feasible option. This makes the child more susceptible to the form of mental abuse known as “advertising,” or “marketing” directed toward children. Such ads are explicitly designed to turn children into mindless consumers, to create in children “wants” for things they neither truly want nor need. This form of child abuse actually affects children across the socioeconomic spectrum. To put some numbers to this assertion, the average American child is exposed to 40,000 commercials a year (Source: Free Press). A recent article in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity estimates that over $10B a year are spent on child/youth directed marketing. In what ways do such forms of manipulation affect the intellectual development of children?
Fourth, race is perennially a favourite issue in elite discussions of academic “performance.” But it is never asked: Given the prevalence of racial discrimination in the marketplace, common knowledge to all but the NY Times, how does the existence of such unjust practices affect one’s incentive to excel in school? If you bust your ass off only to be passed up for the next applicant, how likely are you to direct your efforts to such a dead end?
Fifth, how do poverty, parental care and educational achievement relate? If a single mother raising a child in poverty needs to work two jobs to make ends meet, how much time and energy can she spend making sure her child is doing its homework, or to help the child with its homework? She obviously can’t hire a nanny or a tutor to do that job for her. She also can’t take time off work, given the little job security left for low-wage earners in American society. This kind of strangulation chokes both parent and child, with ramifications found in daily activities, long-term planning, psychological state, and social development, among others.
Sixth, we live in what German sociologist Ulrich Beck calls a “risk society.” The poor disproportionately carry the risk for the rest of society. What’s it like to live in such a heightened state of risk? To not know whether the rent will be paid three months from now? To not be able to weather an unexpected flu, or a sprained ankle, or some other unexpected difficulty?
These are merely six issues that seem to me, prima facie, to have some relevance to the issue of academic performance. I don’t know the extent to which they are relevant, but I believe that they are at least as plausible as “race” is to be causal factors in accounting for a child’s capacity to excel in school. The pie charts that cut children up into race and academic performance indicate to me that the mainstream press is utterly incapable of transending their limited worldview. They are unable, or refuse, to ask, what’s it like to be raised poor? to be raised coloured? to be deeply in the grip of need? to be abused by the extremely wealthy?
Permalink Leave a Comment