On the Ed Next blog, Mike Petrilli writes about some of the approaches education reformers should consider embracing if we want to give
less affluent kids a better shot at moving up: 1) working harder to identify talented children from low - income (and middle - income) communities and then providing the challenge and support to launch them into the New Elite via top - tier universities, and / or 2) being more realistic about the kind of social mobility we hope to spur as education reformers.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, is part of the play here on these new regulations is that if affluent schools realize they might lose something, that that might create some urgency around making sure that
less affluent kids get what they need - is that part of the logic of this?
Not exact matches
Another part of the answer has to do with early cognitive stimulation:
Affluent parents typically provide more books and educational toys to their
kids in early childhood; low - income parents are
less likely to live in neighborhoods with good libraries and museums and other enrichment opportunities, and they're
less likely to use a wide and varied vocabulary when speaking to their infants and children.
«Because, as a result, children from low - income families are
less likely to attend schools with children from
affluent families, and this ultimately isolates the poor
kids.»
So, again, you're starting off with this gap when they start school — you've got your
affluent kids and your disadvantaged
kids, one of whom has far more exposure to literacy, books, learning, all of those things, and the other has far
less, and that's reflected in the results completely.
It's taken as an article of faith in the education reform community: we're screwing poor
kids by giving them
less effective teachers than their more
affluent peers enjoy.