Labeling the Little Rock School District as failing when over half of its students are performing well, many outstandingly so, makes me think that the schools are not the root of the problem. Public schools are necessarily funded for group instruction, which requires that students report to school with a positive attitude and behavior conducive to learning.
I will relate three examples out of many I can recall from a long career as a teacher: A third-grade teacher in a Union County school told me that when she admonished a boy in her class about his lack of effort, he replied, "I don't need an education, I'm going to get a check!" Home values are constant and very difficult to overcome.
A kindergarten teacher from Columbia County told me that after testing for mental maturity, these 20 5-year-olds ranged from the equivalent of 2-year-olds to 7-year-olds.
This screams for early intervention programs!
When the first tracking research of Head Start students' success rate in the first three grades was reported, it showed no statistical difference in achievement between Head Start graduates and a control group of non-Head Start pupils.
The research was flawed since the Head Start kids all came from lower-income families while the control group was composed of all income groups. The conclusion of the researchers was that Head Start made no difference, and many still believe this. I have talked to several kindergarten teachers over the years, and they all told me they could tell which kids had been through Head Start, not because of knowing the ABCs, but because they knew how to function in a group classroom setting.
The next example is of a high school student who was a constant problem in school. He finally got into enough trouble with the law that he was sent to the Wilderness Camp in Lewisville for several weeks. The principal told me that he was a changed boy when he returned, and all was well for several weeks, but the boy, after being put back in a severely dysfunctional home, reverted back to his disruptive and nonproductive behavior.
This tells me that intervention programs can be effective, but must be continuous.
The last example is the impact of peer pressure exerted on many students. One of my advisees at Southern Arkansas University told me that when she was in high school she was afraid to show her good grades to any of her classmates for fear of being beaten up.
Many so-called failing schools also have this subculture to deal with. It is unrealistic to expect public schools to overcome these obstacles without early and continuous intervention programs!
The data about what works are out there. We just need to collect and analyze it. The state Department of Education should apply for a grant to compare the academic success rates of students (over several years) who have been in pre-kindergarten programs, after-school programs such as properly supervised athletics or band, and weekend activities such as church programs. We should compare the rate of success of students with these experiences with failing students from similar socioeconomic class who have not had these experiences.
A perfect example of a continuous-intervention program is Keith Jackson's Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids program. The success rate of kids who have been in that program should definitely be examined.
Keith Jackson recognized the problem and invested his time, energy and money to provide incentive to students to make a commitment to a long-term investment in education with its delayed payoff. This is a difficult task because poverty is right now and material wealth is all around.
Perhaps the Walton Foundation would sponsor such a study.
------------v------------
Larry McNeal of Waldo is a retired professor from Southern Arkansas University at Magnolia.
Editorial on 10/10/2016