Whatever It Takes - Sandcastle

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kimberly O'Brien on June 2, 2009 at 6:54pm

I found Chapter 2 very insightful as a parent and as a teacher. I found the discussion on parenting styles facinating. I felt validated and releived that there are advantages and disadvantages to both the "middle class" and the "working class" syles of parenting. I would argue that the "working class stye" is not necessarily a matter of socioeconomic status as its name suggests, but also a parenting style of past generations (i.e., defer to adults, be respectul, don't talk back, entertain yourself, and be independent). My husband says that our kids have a diffucult time entertaining themselves--they often ask us, "What can we DO?!" when it's Saturday, dance class is over, it's raining, and there are no playdates. I know that we've inadvertantly "trained" them to expect us to schedule their time. Now that they're a bit older, we gently make suggestions about what they might do and then firmly tell them they have to figure it out! In other words, we are trying to balance the values of the "working class/older generations" with the "middle class." The issue of respect and deference to adults sparks many conversations with us. I hear kids from all walks of life speak very disrespectfully to their parents at school, on the playground, among friends and family, etc. Our society has become very tolerant of rudeness, especially from kids. So while we encourage our kids to "challenge assumptions" and "negociate rules," we also let them know firmly what kind of language and tone is acceptable to use with us and that sometimes they must accpet "no" without an explanation (or get one later). I guess we're trying to get "the best of both worlds."

As for lanaguage gaps, I think this problem not only negatively affects kids' academic success, but their abilities to resolve conflicts. Instead of saying, "When you keep tapping your pencil, I can't concentrate on my work, " they might snap or hit. I know that when my husband and I resolve conflicts with our kids, we use a lot of specific language and I think it helps. I agree with Susan that talking to your children and modeling language seem like such obvious things to do to make life so much more productive and pleasant. So why doesn't everyone do it?

I know when my mother raised 3 of us on her own, modeling language was not a top priority. In fact, maybe she rationed it! She was tired and her communication style was purposefully efficient. She was a strong supporter of school and encouraged us to go to college. But if we wanted her full attention about something, we had to wait for "the right moment."

We don't want to come across as judgemental or patronizing to our parents, but we need to speak up about things that we know will help kids be successful. Many of the parents I talk to did not go to college, but hope that their kids will. While Somers Point is not Harlem, I think the discussions in this book are very relevant to our work here.

Permalink Reply by Susan Dugan on June 3, 2009 at 9:00am

I think Kim makes some very good points. You can't read this book without reflecting on your own beliefs and experiences. Both my parents were educators, so education was not only a priority but a given in my home. However, I played a lot of tennis during my adolescence and I don't think my mom ever saw me play. I have always been somewhat amazed at the amount of parent participation in their child's after school life. Secretly, thinking that parents were reliving thier own childhoods through their children. However, I think Paul Tough makes a very interesting point about how children from middle class homes are learning how to navigate the world of the estabishment through thier after school activities. I now can understand how it gives children self-confidence and an understanding of how to handle themselves in an adult community. Also, when parents take an active interest in thier children's lives it is another avenue for communication.

Permalink Reply by Michelle Baltz on June 3, 2009 at 2:03pm

Martha Farah’s study was interesting to me. Her research showed that the four specific areas where the poorer children lagged most significantly were: language; long-term memory; “working memory,” which allows us to hold lots of information in our brains temporarily so that we can manipulate it; and “cognitive control,” the ability to resist obvious (but wrong) answers and find unexpected ones. If we know these areas are lacking, we can find ways to remediate them.
Creative Curriculum, our Pre-K curriculum, discusses the importance of student teacher dialogue. It asks the teacher to interact with students during snack, free play, and centers. Teachers are directed to strike up conversations with the children much like you would talk to your own child. The reason for that is to help students gain language skills that they may not have acquired previously. It also helps the students build a more nurturing relationship with the teacher. Teachers in all grades need to do that, not just Pre-K!
Positive reinforcement was created to help deter teachers from constantly focusing on the “bad” things that a student was doing and providing that student with reinforcement of bad behavior and not desired behavior. This is a necessity when dealing with students living in poverty. As Hart and Risley found, by age 3 the wealthier children had heard about 500,000 encouragements and about 80,000 discouragements, while welfare children had heard about 80,000 encouragements and 200,000discouragements. If this study was continued into the classroom, I hypothesize that you would find a similar ratio. Many children from poor families not only lack the language skills of their wealthier peers, but also the problem-solving and rationalization skills. Therefore, the poor students will more likely get in trouble in school and hear more discouragements than encouragements.
I do agree with Kim and one of the researchers who stated that it is really the parenting and not the income level of the parent that matters most, but overall the research has shown that most of the families living in poverty lack the parenting skills of middle class parents. I am starting to read baby college now to see what Canada is teaching the parents of his students, and like Susan, I am wondering how we could take on this task? We cannot tell parents that they must attend parenting classes or their children may not attend our school. We also know that just inviting parents to attend things is not enough- either the wrong parents attend, or not enough parents attend.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Litz-Neavear on June 6, 2009 at 6:13pm

As I'm reading everyone's informed comments on the nature of how schools help impoverished children, I honestly feel somewhat pessimistic about our ability to compensate for gaps in parenting and early childhood experiences. Since attitudes towards education are reflective of family culture, how can we instill in our students the sense of the importance of learning, following rules, and respecting the rights of others?

I wish that we had the ability to observe the early 20th century NYC public school teachers who created an entire generation or two of Americans. How did one person educate a classroom of non-English speaking students of different backgrounds and presumably different cognitive abilities? If conforming to classroom expectations was based on a culture of fear, i.e. listen to the teacher or else, then doesn't that contradict other research about students needing to enjoy the learning process? While the hard-working immigrant parent was most surely motivated by the importance of his child becoming educated, I don't think that motivation could be understood by the child. I would think that the child would be motivated by a) wanting to please his parent by being successful in school, and b) avoiding punishment. I highly doubt if early 20th century pedagogical practices were as analyzed as ours are now. Teachers are better educated than they have ever been, and issues surrounding student achievement are more highly researched. Yet our students seem to be achieving less than ever. What has changed, but our American culture? It concerns me that schools are continually being asked to address societal problems, while concurrently assuring the American ideal of equal opportunity for everyone. I certainly think that we can work towards that goal, or I wouldn't be able to go to work everyday. Federal law dictating the time line of accomplishing such a goal is unfair and unrealistic. There are too many complex factors related to socioeconomic background, parenting styles, language usage, etc. which affect student learning.