How Do We Address Schools of Poverty?

In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act introduced the concept of holding schools accountable for student performance on state assessments. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 changed that by requiring a regimen of annual testing in grades 3 through 8 and by imposing sanctions on schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress. In the school year 2006–07, 70 percent of 98,905 schools nationwide (64,546) made adequate yearly progress; 10,676 schools were designated as schools in need of improvement; and 2,302 schools were designated as schools in need of improvement restructuring. These schools generally have explored a variety of strategies to improve student achievement, but without rapid or clear success. The reasons they have not been successful are complex and multi-faceted. The strongest issues that have not been addressed very effectively in NCLB are students of poverty; school cultural environment; quality and training of teachers; and the effectiveness of administration. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind has not been designed to address these issues in a specific fashion. Requiring “high quality” teachers in the classroom based on an arbitrary measure is not enough. At the same time, the issues that face schools attempting to meet the educational needs of Hispanic and Latino populations are compounded by the fact that not only are there language barriers, many times there are learning barriers created by the lack of education in their native language. Migration, war, lack of education facilities, cultural and economic circumstances can all interrupt a student's formal education. Because some students enter a U.S. school with limited or even no history of schooling, they may lack understanding of basic concepts, content knowledge, and critical thinking skills. They may not even read or write in their home language. Nevertheless, they will be expected to develop higher-order thinking skills in English. Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) are “the highest of high-risk students” (Walsh, 1999). Although the needs of the SIFE population may overlap with those of English language learners (ELL) in general, students with interrupted formal education most often require additional assistance in acquiring fundamental skills that many English language learners already possess. To meet the needs of all our urban students it will require something more than incremental change. We must examine and utilize practices to raise and sustain student achievement within one to three years, not the four to five that many educational change theorists advocate. It is our strong belief that we must use the “New-Model” for education as laid out by the Gates Foundation and the MASS Insight and Research Institute in “The Turnaround Challenge” research to meet the needs of all our students. ISECP will address the major components that research has determined will make urban school students successful. We will also enhance our odds for success with all students by teaching our staff the cultural traditions, norms, practices, values, and learning styles that can enable education professionals to effectively deliver services and connect with culturally different individuals on a deeper level. However, it is critical to keep in mind that all individuals, children, and families are unique; although their ethnic, cultural, and language backgrounds may influence them, they are not fully defined by them. Therefore, differences should be viewed as guidelines, not absolutes; serving to enhance services and communication, rather than to stereotype individuals. The goal of cultural learning is insight, not stereotype. General descriptions and guidelines will not apply to every person or situation, simply because there will always be exceptions when describing individuals. The barriers and walls between cultures begin to crumble when we further our understanding of others’ differences, respect their points of view, and strive toward cultural competence. An expanding body of research affirms that teaching and counseling students with interventions that are congruent with the students' learning-style preferences result in their increased academic achievement and more positive attitudes toward learning.