Last month, an interesting article was published in The Oregonian describing how scripted curricula had made their way into the poorer schools within the Portland school district. Here’s an excerpt:
“Portland Public Schools students, especially low-income ones, are spending more time with their heads buried in books, learning to read in kindergarten, deciphering math and cramming in still more with evening homework.
Zeroing in on the basics has paid off: Low-income elementary students are doing better than ever. Who could argue with what it takes to make that happen?
Parents, that’s who.
Specifically, middle-income parents whose children will enter kindergarten already reading, thanks to stellar preschools and evening story time. They look at the worksheets and the phonics drills and wonder: How could my child possibly enjoy this?”
Notably, Portland has not introduced this in all of its schools, just the poorest ones:
“King’s staff grappled with low test scores for years. The school has the district’s second-highest poverty rate, with 92 percent of students qualifying for subsidized school lunch. Now the school uses the federally funded Reading First program in kindergarten through third grade.
Not all Portland schools use the program, says Judy Elliott, the district’s chief of teaching and learning, and the curriculum adoption won’t extend it to those that don’t.”
This quote from a parent says it all:
The grapevine carried word of King’s program to Daniel Sullivan. The Portland State University sociology professor lives four blocks from King. But his son will start kindergarten next year at the Metropolitan Learning Center, a K-12 alternative public school that follows the philosophy of his son’s preschool.
‘For kids who don’t come from households where they’re learning how to read and probably with parents who aren’t highly educated, they said (King’s) can be a very successful program,’ Sullivan says. ‘But I have a Ph.D., and my wife has a Ph.D. He’s a high-energy kid. I don’t want him sitting in a desk all the time.’ “
So, to summarize, apparently it’s OK for the poor (and disproportionately minority) students to suffer through drill-and-kill reading instruction, but children from middle-class and upper-class families deserve something more stimulating? Interesting.
At least those inner-city students don’t have to deal with bad facilities, less money allotted per student than in rich neighborhoods, and less experienced teachers, or we might think this is outright discrimination.
Posted by mpullen 
