From my perspective, this "it's the parents" rationalization is how middle-class
parents in Minneapolis justify the inequality of outcomes in the public schools.
"Things are fine the way they are now because nothing can be done to over
come the lack of involvement in THOSE families."
Change that to "...very little can be done that will succeed in overcoming the lack of involvement in THOSE families..." and you will have a pretty accurate statement, not always true in all cases, but mostly true in most cases.
If kids were a cash crop, wouldn't you expect that the grower who did the best job of nurturing a crop would have the best yield? Why do some folks persist in thinking that teachers alone can outfox the most dysfunctional parent or guardian in bringing up and educating children? It would be great - especially for kids - if this were possible, but it's just not reality.
I certainly don't think that schools are so good that they don't need to improve, but I have long believed that improving the care and nurturing of young people outside the school house would probably bring about a lot of academic improvement inside the school house.
If we spent as much time debating and promoting more responsible child rearing as we spend on browbeating the organized educational system, we might make community progress on this.
Just a thought: How would you describe good child rearing? There's a scary question.
Ann Berget
Kingfield
