to schools where instruction occurred only 2 hours per day
Undiagnosed for reading levels
Left without basic knowledge
Provided instruction in a multi-grade-level class
Limited to working with textbooks and worksheets
The students were removed from regular classes, assigned to special programs for as little as 10 days, and then returned to their regular classroom. As a result of this educational disruption, the students fell further behind, and large numbers ultimately dropped out of school. This practice, in effect, constitutes a type of racial cleansing of public education in the state of Texas.
Misassignment to Special Education
Far too many teachers and schools are quick to order special education assessments for students who “just don’t fit in.” Unfortunately, the reasons for this poor fit may have more to do with learning environment than with students’ learning deficiencies. Research over the last two decades has documented the unfortunate effects of mismatching students’ learning styles with teachers’ instructional styles. Overused and ineffective strategies that contribute to this mismatch include the drills, worksheets, and lectures that are used so often with poor students (Barr & Parrett, 2003; Haberman, 1991). For the underachieving students of poverty, misassignment to special education can deny them the opportunities and high expectations awarded to regular education students (Barr & Parrett, 2001).
Over-Reliance on Medication to Modify Behavior
During the last two decades, millions of children have been prescribed medication intended to improve their school behavior and achievement. Today, as many as 1 in 10 students in the United States are medicated. Boys are medicated five times more often than girls. While such medication does indeed render many students more passive, less active, and more obedient, questions abound regarding the scope of its effectiveness relating to achievement and the long-term effects of this over-reliance on medication (Barr & Parrett, 2001).
Pullout Programs
Historically, many intervention programs have pulled students out from their regular classrooms to provide instruction in reading. For decades, Title I reading programs used a pullout approach as a primary strategy. But when students are pulled out of their regular classrooms, they miss regular classroom instruction and interaction with higher-performing peers. Decades of study have documented how little success these programs have had with poor children (Barr & Parrett, 2001).
Schools That Are Too Big
The United States has far too many schools that have lost the asset of community due to huge enrollments. For many poor and minority students, a small school with a personalized environment is essential for their educational needs. In big schools, these students often feel “isolated, anonymous, and alienated, and they sometimes become disrupters, bullies, or victims of bullies. Others simply underachieve or drop out. The larger the school, the more student disruptions can be expected. For every additional 600 students in a school, there is a corresponding increase in negative student behavior. Conversely, studies demonstrate an almost total lack of violence and considerably higher student academic success in small schools” (Howley & Bickel, 2002, p. 21).
Suspension and Expulsion
Suspension and expulsion do little to help students. Students suspended from school for a few days will only return to school further behind and may become even more disconnected from school. They also tend to become repeat disrupters. Expulsion is perhaps the most disastrous school policy. Too many students who are unable to cope in a school setting have been turned out into the community without supervision and have gone on to participate in antisocial or even criminal behavior. Expelled students often find themselves arrested and incarcerated (Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, 1995).
Educational Neglect
Recent research has identified yet another practice that has had detrimental effects on the children of poverty: educational neglect (Kelly, 2006). A recent study on educational neglect at the Center for School Improvement at Boise State University found that almost two million (1,708,463) school-aged children nationwide were unaccounted for educationally: It is not known where or if they are being educated, if they have dropped out, been expelled, are home-schooled, or have moved to another school. It was found that 15 states do not even know the number of students being educated through home schooling in their state. This leads to the conclusion that many school districts and states do not care whether or not children are being educated—as long as their poor performance is not counted in school, district, and state No Child Left Behind assessment reports. This raises another issue since many students who are unaccounted for have most likely dropped out. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation report (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006) found that few students drop out of school prior to their 16th birthday, which is the end of compulsory schooling in almost every state. The report questions why states have not raised the age for compulsory schooling until high school graduation (Kelly, 2006).
Many of these destructive policies, programs, and practices are still used in spite of decades of research that has documented their ineffectiveness. One explanation of the continued use of these destructive activities is that they are so ingrained into the culture of schools in the United States that they are justified, not by thoughtful research, but through unfortunate and widely believed mythologies about teaching and learning—or worse, through racism and class prejudice.
The Pedagogy of Poverty
In addition to these destructive approaches, there are strong indications that poor and minority students also suffer from ineffective classroom instructional practices. Researchers such as Martin Haberman have concluded that public schools continue to use instructional practices that are not effective for poor and culturally diverse students. Haberman and others have come to describe these ineffective instructional practices as the “pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman, 1991; Padrón, Waxman, & Rivera, 2002). These practices include the overuse of the following:
Teacher-controlled discussions and decision-making. Teacher-centered classrooms have a debilitating effect on poor and minority students. Research has shown that students need hands-on, involved learning in order to learn effectively. In addition, teacher attitudes and prejudices have a powerful influence on learning—both good and bad. If a teacher holds low expectations for poor and minority students, and he or she controls the discussions and decision-making in the classroom, poor and minority students are destined for low achievement.
Lecture, drill, and practice techniques. These strategies have been documented as some of the techniques most frequently used with poor and minority students. They have also been documented as some of the most ineffective strategies used with any student.
Worksheets. These tend to be “upgrades” of questions typically found in textbooks at the end of the chapter. Some ineffective classes use these “worksheets du jour” on a regular basis.
Other researchers (Jagers & Carroll, 2002; Barr & Parrett, 2001, 2003) have identified additional ineffective instructional practices:
Cultural aberration. Many public schools reflect middle-class values, thus creating a “collision of cultures” with the value structures of poor and minority students.
Low-quality of education. Observations in classrooms of predominately poor and minority students have found that the lessons and assignments are significantly less demanding than those found in middle-class classrooms. Poor and minority students spend a remarkable amount of time making collages and posters and coloring pictures under the guise of “hands-on learning.” Poor and
