Shh! We're Sort of Trying to Close the Achievement Gap

Remember the darling Warner Bros. cartoon character, Elmer Fudd?
How he would tippy-toe about in the forest with his useless
rifle, until he would at last slowly turn to the camera and say in a "lispy"
whisper, "Shh. I'm hunting wabbit."

Somehow, I have come to see post-NCLB bureaucrats in this same light,
tippy-toeing about holding to their ridiculous educational mandates whispering,
"Shh. We don't want anyone to know children ( ELL, Low-socioeconomic, and Ethnic Minorities) at low performing schools (Title 1 and PI schools) have the right (there are provisions, and there is supposed to be funding), to allow them to transfer, within their district to more
successful schools."

Richard D. Kahlenberg calls this socioeconomic integration and feels this would be an effective way to close the achievement gap across racial and income groups, since research has shown students will perform better in a higher performing (middle class) school than in a high-poverty (PI-type) school.

What? Research said so? And the government is not acting on this research the way it did on the type of "research" which was used to create the developmentally inappropriate curriculum since NCLB first reared its well-intentioned, but terribly flawed, ugly head? Is this the same bureaucratically-challenged government which was an accomplice in creating such stressful restrictive environments at PI schools, that teachers flee them at statistically significant rates because of the accountability measures of NCLB, which were created to CLOSE the achievement gap? Are these the same people who are now hush-hush about the benefits of socioeconomically integrating public schools ?

I know they are hush-hush because a recent report illustrated the fact that less than one percent of students, who are eligible for these transfers under Title 1, have even taken advantage of this opportunity. Now, I know what teachers at Title 1 schools are saying, " But, each year, a flyer is sent home informing parents of their "right" to transfer to a non-Title 1 school site. So, isn't that enough?"

The dismal response to the offer tells me NO it is NOT enough. Enough would be a MUCH larger percentage...even 20% would be better, but not enough. If research shows "socioeconomic integration" works, why aren't administrators and bureaucrats (you know, the people who tell teachers how much they really care about children---especially marginalized populations of children) really PUSHING parents to transfer their students? This would level the playing field, not only for the students, but for the teachers as well, since it is a commonly known fact that teachers at Title 1, PI schools have greater stresses and work loads.

Shh. A teacher told me something bureaucrats and administrators do not want the public to now. (teachers know a great deal about what goes on at school sites). This educator told me when a school is labeled as Title 1 or Program Improvement, there are definitely those who transfer out. But who are they?

In the world of education, it is equivalent to what real estate agents call "white flight". Families, not necessarily Caucasian, but definitely of higher socioeconomic statuses, are the ones who take flight. They put in for the transfers to higher performing schools. And so, schools which used to have a greater balance of ethnic and socioeconomic student populations have seen a new imbalance in the levels of their poor, English language learners, and ethnic minorities, as the parents of more middle class "majority" children take their children out of PI schools and get them placed in higher performing educational situations.

This lets me know there are parents who are aware of the destructive nature of Program Improvement schools.

To really shake things up, to really make an effort to let every parent at Title 1, Program Improvement schools aware of the researched-based benefits, it would take a lot of real work at the "higher levels"of the educational system, more than just a whisper about the beneficial programs available to students. The problem is classroom educators know that outside the classroom in the far away district and government offices, what occurs is mostly talk. Teachers and students accomplish the real work and change in education.