For the last twenty something years I've taught mostly impoverished children in a large urban school district. Initially, the attitude seemed to be "Just do the best you can." With the advent of standardized testing, the attitude changed to one of "Forget the curriculum and just make sure the students can pass the test." The last two years have seen the emergence of a new attitude: "Student background and current circumstances are irrelevant, all students can learn the same curriculum at the same rate."
The idea is noble and I like it for that reason, but it excuses too much to be practical. Consider two children growing up in radically different circumstances. One is growing up in a well maintained neighborhood, in a sound house where the utilities are always on, with clean clothing, never worrying about food, sleeping in his/her own bed in his/her own room. Trips to museums, book stores or libraries and cultural events are frequent. The television isn't always on and someone is usually around to help with homework, projects and other school related activities. The other moves frequently from place to place in run-down neighborhoods where multiple cousins share rooms and beds, where there isn't always hot water or air conditioning, where the television is constantly on to provide an escape from the now. There are no trips to museums unless it's part of a school field trip. The neighborhood doesn't even have the kind of book stores into which you can take a minor. Libraries have outreach programs to bring children in, but mostly they come for the face-painting and other activities and the books are just part of the larger setting. Kid one has had access to a variety of printed material since birth. Kid two hasn't. Kid one has had someone to screen the television and movies watched; kid two has had to learn to do this for him/herself. Kid one gets time-out; kid two gets pops. . . I could go on, but you get the picture. Now, I know that nothing is ever this cut-and-dried. But, still, it begs the question: How could these two kids be expected to perform identically in an academic setting? What we're told is, "We don't want to hear any excuses. If students don't achieve then it's your fault. Period."
I know from my own experience that my understanding of new information depends upon how well it resonates with what I already know. If I'm learning something new, say physics, then I have to work a lot harder to build a mental scaffold upon which to hang the new ideas. When students come to school with a smaller variety of experiences, fewer exposures to the world outside of their immediate surroundings and less practice with language -- especially written language -- then they have to work a lot harder to achieve at the same rate as other students. Just for fun, complicate the situation by adding the additional burden of learning a new language. Many students come in and are not only expected to learn new subjects, but to learn them in a new language. . . but, no excuses.
I'm not sure where I want to go with this. Again, I like the idea that all students are expected to learn equally, but I'm frustrated about the failure to recognize that the playing field isn't level. I'm frustrated that society has excused itself from any responsibility for the vast discrepancy in the way different Americans live. I like the idea that society has deemed that none of this matters once the child has crossed the threshold into the classroom, but I'm frustrated that there is nothing in place to help bridge the gap between what some kids bring to school and what others do not.
