I think that schools matter. I believe that leaders can help or hurt schools and that teachers are the primary difference between the best schools and the others. I believe that some students face extremely difficult circumstances, that it matters exactly how schools and teachers respond to those circumstances, and that not all responses are equally beneficial. I believe that the best educational practices are not recent inventions of cognitive scientists, computer technicians or social workers and that educational fads are dangerous in the extreme.
The most dangerous fad in the game today is an unwritten belief, almost a gentleman's agreement, as they used to say. It goes like this:
All teachers, all administrators and all schools are equally effective. The most significant variables impacting student achievement are the characteristics of the student population.
Put more succinctly, Demographics are destiny. Pass it on!
Demographics as destiny is a powerful notion. Just the word, demographics, carries the weight of sophistication, of scientific authority. Who am I to argue with someone who commands words like demographics? And the argument sounds so compassionate, so caring. No blame here, they just can't help themselves. It's demographics, you see. It's the equivalent of a socioeconomic or ethnic disability and it would be unfair to expect these kids (or these teachers, or these administrators) to...
The more pressure that is exerted by the State of Oregon and the Federal Government to produce incremental gains on meaningless tests, the more deeply the demographics argument becomes embedded in the culture of schooling as the only defense against charges of everything from incompetence to cultural insensitivity. Ironically, the State's ham-handed attempts at closing the achievement gap by brute force have probably helped to keep the demographics defense alive indefinitely.
What to do? I'm not sure. But I believe that the more emphasis that the State puts on demographics and on data regarding subgroups, the more districts are going to be encouraged to dig in and seek strength in numbers by pursuing the most recent, most 'promising' new federally funded approaches rather than grappling with their unique local circumstances.
That's what demographics really are. They are local circumstances. Like rain in Cordova, or wind in Chignik Lake, demographics are part of the working conditions around schools. They should be taken into account. But not all kids in poverty are alike. Nor are all migrant students. And whatever these students may share in common within a particular federal category, they have a lot more in common with every other student in the building. They need to be engaged as individuals and as members of their school community. They need to receive their schooling in a network of concerned, expert adults who know them and who care about their success. What they most need isn't new, it isn't glossy, and it doesn't come from a kit or from a new professional development trend. Good teachers. Adults who care about them. Food, shelter, clothing, whatever it takes.
Demographics are not destiny. Categories are not fate. They are, at most, the climate in which we build our houses. There's more than one way to build a house, and each house needs to suit (and perhaps even take positive advantage of) its environment.
If we build where the rain falls or the wind blows, and our roofs leak or the walls collapse, that's not destiny. It's not fate. It might, however, be a sign.
