Are we branding schools and students in reports and media
Rep Paul Boyer, Phoenix AZ introduced a bill to add 20 days to the states schools making the school year 200 days. That is not a big deal but the report cited that ... schools serving a high proportion of students from low-income families, with almost 90 percent of the district qualifying for free and reduced lunches showed improvement with the additional 20 days.
There was no mention of how "other" schools fared.
This has become a benchmark for educational comparisons ... If you are poor and eligable for a free school lunch then you have a low IQ and are a educational lab rat to be monitored.
I read a report that two professors challenged the PISA exams because some "low income free lunch kids" took the exam. I'm not for sure what point was being made here ... but if I was low income free lunch eligable I would be insulted.
Sure many of the inner city schools have high drop out rates for a multitude of reasons ... but it would be unfair to say it is because they are dumb or to hold them up as a lab experiment.
If we continue to name these schools in reports and news releases what is the impact on the self esteem of the students ... does it make it harder for the teachers ... does failure become the norm and only the "lucky beats the odds and gets a education".
Is this a receipt for failure.