Educators have a new euphemism for struggling students, writes Jay Mathews on Class Struggle. “At-risk kids” are now “at-promise.”
“We use the term ‘at-promise’ in Alexandria City Public Schools to describe children who have the potential to achieve at a higher rate than they are currently achieving,” (Superintendent Morton) Sherman said in a July 23 op-ed for the Alexandria Gazette Packet. “Really, all children are at-promise, because we, as educators, have made a promise to each and every child that we will work toward higher achievement for all.”
Of course, if all students are “at-promise,” then the term has no meaning.
Educators want to focus on students’ strengths, rather than their “deficits,” such as disability, lack of English proficiency or family poverty. But, if the deficits really relate to learning, then focusing on something else means ignoring what children need to learn.
About Joanne
In the immortal words of Mr. Incredible: “It’s psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity…”.
How about “Woebegones”?
After all, all the children are above average…
Can we just go back to “retarded”, in its literal sense of “slowed down”?
Since public education is a political institution the relevant question is: who benefits?
In this case it’s sure not the kids. Or their parents. Changing what a condition is called doesn’t change the prognosis. Some kid’s more likely to end up in jail or in the ground then average and no name-change is going to effect that outcome.
Of course the obvious beneficiaries are the folks that run and work for the public education system. The more politically-palatable description gives the appearance of concern and even implies action where there’s neither concern or action. No budget necessary. No responsibility if the idea turns out to be useless.
A net win.
“Can we just go back to ‘retarded’, in its literal sense of ‘slowed down’?”
Retarded, or developmentally delayed, is in no way equivalent to the group of kids who are determined to be “at risk.” I don’t have a tremendous problem with this particular terminology–except that it gets tossed around inappropriately–rather than being used to determine needs. In fact, like most of the available labels, I have seen it far to frequently used as either a justification for low achievement–or to define a particular teacher’s experience of challenge in the classroom (as in “I have all these ‘at-risk’” kids). I frequently want to ask, “at risk of what?”
In the best of all circumstances, we know at risk of what and we are actively working to lower the risk. For instance, we know that a sixth grader with grade failure, frequent incidents of discipline and a high rate of absence is at risk of dropping out prior to graduation. There are in fact concrete interventions that are applicable–but this seldom happens. We may count up the numbers and use them to justify funding for whatever it is that we wanted or were planning to do anyway (Saturday test prep, a character program, teacher PD, a security officer, whatever).
In a best case scenario, kids who are at risk would know who they are and why they are at risk and for what. Interventions would be specifically targetted to ameliorating the level of risk in ways that are specifically measureable. Kids would understand the goals for change and how well they are doing. We seldom operate with this level of transparency. Changing the name to “at-promise” just goes along with this kind of murky thinking about what needs kids have and what we intend to provide to them.
Margo/Mom wrote, “In a best case scenario, kids who are at risk would know who they are and why they are at risk and for what. Interventions would be specifically targetted to ameliorating the level of risk in ways that are specifically measureable. Kids would understand the goals for change and how well they are doing.”
Margo, you need to understand that at the middle school, and certainly at the high school level, one major reason these kids are “at risk” is because they simply don’t give a shit about why they are “at risk”, let alone diddling around with “interventions.”
In the usual scenario, seems to me, the real at risk kids are those who actually want to learn — not the thugs, trobule makers, disrupters, bullies and others we tend to deem “at risk.”
Bill says: “Margo, you need to understand that at the middle school, and certainly at the high school level, one major reason these kids are “at risk” is because they simply don’t give a shit about why they are “at risk”, let alone diddling around with “interventions.” ”
Well that’s certainly one way to justify doing nothing at all.
Ye gods, “at-promise.” Yet another attempt to re-define a problem and think you’ve done something about it. I remember the first time I saw the term “differently abled,” which to no one’s surprise I saw in a Democratic Party pamphlet back when I was a party activist. I remember thinking: “What? You lose use of your legs and you get ESP?”
I just love it when people who know very little about education spout off about those students who “want to learn” being disrupted by those students who just set out to disrupt the learning off those angels. Are there kids who have no interest at all about becoming educated and are raised incredibdly poorly? Of course. However, a lot of the time the students who disrupt class by acting the class clown role or seeking negative attention are those who would like to learn but are struggling with issues that hamper their ability to learn (i.e. learning disabilities, poor home life, being bullied, frustration from lack of quality teaching, etc). They can not participate in a positive fashion, so they participate in a negative fashion. Does the ratinale for them acting the way they do make it right? Of course not. Does it justify people like Bill Leonard and others like him on this board to just write them off in a simplistic manner? Absolutely not! People like Bill Leonard need to try to see people in a more nuanced light. Otherwise they just look and sound silly.
Thank you for keeping this important conversation going. Whether or not you believe in changing the focus from ‘at-risk’ to ‘at-promise,’ the fact remains that students need strong support systems, a community of teachers and others who believe in them, and schools to address their needs and teach them effectively. This discussion shows the value in reflection and communication about education in general.