Today’s T-shirt Inspiration

” I think the world is going to be saved by millions of small things.”  –Pete Seeger

Pete Seeger.  A name from the distant past, still  as relevant today as he was protesting in the 1950’s.  As I pull today’s t-shirt out of the drawer, I am comforted by his words.

I see Pete Seeger not only as the father of a movement, but also as an archetypal father: one who cares for the world and everything in it.  This father-archetype is clearly etched in my soul.  I married a man like Pete, someone who loves the world and everything in it, even me!

Today we are reeling from masculinity of another kind, a toxic kind that fosters hate and destruction.  Pete is right. It’s the “millions of small things,” not the big terrifying things, over which we have power. Each day we can decide what small thing we will do.

Teachers, parents and other adults who are around children feel the power of small things each and every day.  We are fortunate to have these beings who remind us that each action counts.  Children provide us with a course in mindfulness if we let them into our hearts, souls, and attention.

In the ’50s there were icons like Pete , whose hearts were so full that they splashed their good everywhere.  You might think that good is hard to find today if you focus on the news, but it’s not.

Science is leading us.   “Social Emotional Education” is slowly percolating through our schools.  It’s shorthand for the idea that far more important than filling kids’ brains with facts and figures, we adults must fill their hearts with compassion and heads with dreams of how they will heal the world.

SEL, the shorthand version of “social emotional learning,” evolved out of  research that describes the basic functions of the brain in learning.  The pre-frontal cortex “leads the band” when our brains are in equilibrium, giving us space and time to choose our actions wisely.  The amygdala, a retrofitted part of the brain, alerted early humans to pay attention to the many dangers in their environment. The pre-frontal cortex does not work well when the amygdala is calling the shots.

Wise educators and other adults help children (and themselves) manage the amygdala and its functions to allow for best use of the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain that takes in information and makes wise choices.

Nothing could be more important to building a kind and compassionate world.  Millions of actions each day, one by one.

 

 

 

Supporting young children’s behavior — Wendy Zacuto Educational Consulting

The most important thing a teacher or other adult can teach is the ability to healthfully interacting in relationship with others. Yet, as adults we often find ourselves frustrated with the behavior of young children. Deb Curtis, one of my most influential educators, describes a common response to why young children act the way they […]

via Supporting young children’s behavior — Wendy Zacuto Educational Consulting

Is everyone learning?

Brain research and learning: How do teachers keep up with knowledge?  Textbooks as curriculum are no longer a panacea for planning a complete educational program.  Our group of experts presents unique approaches to supporting classroom teachers in expanding their toolboxes for differentiation.  We present specific tools to be incorporated in practice, believing that differentiation starts with clearly defined, small, doable steps.  Differentiation of instruction to engage all learners encompasses a wide range of  approaches and frameworks.  Our group approach supports all learners, both adults and students, in keeping up with the latest research.

Teacher-Experts can help!!  Nini White shares her guided questioning technique, applicable to increasing critical thinking.  Her program, Kids’ Own Wisdom, focuses on social emotional skills and problem solving, but teachers will find a strategy for use throughout the curriculum.  Melanie West shares her unique discovery about the importance of meaning-based instruction with sight words and how brain imaging influenced her approach.  Cris Lozon and Elizabeth Echternach will share an approach to documenting learning, providing the formative assessment needed for differentiation.  Jenny Zacuto shares her work with 4-8th grade students including them in the process of learning,  based on specific objectives, provide scaffolding as needed, teaching  “YET,”  and facilitating guided reflections that help students understand their responsibility to be active learners.  Her method is simple and practice enhances its ease.  Building on the reality that nature is a palliative for all humans, Johnna Hampton-Walker shares her skills in bringing learning into the garden or the garden-enhanced classroom. Deb Chickadel and Katharine Sjoberg  share “Math Vitamins, ” a process for creating a school culture of math success.  Nathalie Aluisi, will share strategies frm OT practice that can be applied in typical classrooms. Desiree Hamburger will share her experiences with  arts-based learning and gifted education,  allowing for multiple pathways to success.

As educators, we learn from one another.  Networking and collaboration are two additional strategies fostered by our group.  We welcome your comments and participation in our event on April 16^th. Reserve your spot today!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eYIl6cE1fQKzzgvoMf8pqswH_qJEcA80hQfg5-tH2EQ/viewform

 

Powerful Invitation to Learning

I heard the dearest thing today. A young mom, a teacher, who had been struggling with the concept of expanding her approach, began to notice her child’s play. A scientist herself, she noticed that the process in which the baby explored his world was the same process replicated by scientists. A profound discovery, this knowledge of how we learn by exploration, observation, trial and error, changed the teacher deeply. She decided to apply what she learned about scientific inquiry to her approach with her students.

Christine Chaille and Lory Britain are working on the third edition of The Young Child as Scientist. The first edition was published in 2002, and while an easy read, is a highly regarded textbook in early childhood education.

The book clearly illustrated the concept of “constructivism,” and provided activities and materials to encourage the innate curiosity of children. It demonstrated the process of developing a theory by repeated testing. The tenets of the book are applicable to children of all ages; indeed, teachers use the same process as they collect data from student learning to design instruction. Constructivism is a theory, but also a fundamental strategy in all learning. Thoughtful teachers provide materials for exploration, encourage theory building and testing, and see the process evident in their own learning.

I wonder: how can we better support students and teachers to expand the constructivist approach in all classrooms and professional development to ensure that students are learning from the inside out?

Loose Parts and the Paradox of Modern Teaching

When my kids were little, most children attended preschool, but a trend to supplement the preschool experience had begun. With limited funds, my children were home with me for long stretches of time.  No t-ball for tots or music for munchkins.  My kids and I played together and with their dad, when we were all home together.  We were not super-parents. Although my husband amassed a huge collection of mismatched mechanical parts and gizmos, the often-referred-to “cockpit” never manifested.  He did, however, manage to build a substantial sandbox in the backyard for the kids.

I’m beginning to think the tradeoff was a good thing.  Although a cockpit sounds very exotic and a big project with dad might have been fun, looking back on the proposed vehicle I wonder, “How many times can one be an astronaut or a pilot?”  On the other hand, the kids and their friends played for hours each day in the roughly hewn, 8×8 wooden frame filled with sand, and on many occasions, in messy ecstasy with water and mud as well.

As infants, my kids had the run of the kitchen; Martha Stewart would be horrified to know that cooking utensils and paraphernalia were divided into two categories: breakable and unbreakable.  The kids played unfettered while I cooked until at some point in their growth they wanted to cook, too.   I had no plan; my years as a teacher did not tempt me to create “learning opportunities.”  I just watched them to see what they needed.  And what they needed was stuff. Lots of stuff;  “loose parts”—and time to explore them!

Many years later, on a beautiful summer day at the end of the school year, I visited Bing School at Stanford University and discovered a new-old theory: the theory of “loose parts.” Sarah Wright, a teacher at the school, shared the concept in the school newsletter: “…creativity is… proportionate to the variables.”  Thank you, Simon Nicholson, architect, originator of this idea, for filling in a space in my learning!

Paradoxes often reveal the truth about concepts.  One grows older yet is young at heart. Energy and creativity spark intellectual growth, yet it is the pauses that allow us to connect with the profound. An active and thoughtful teacher creates a learning environment in which students learn successfully; yet children actively create their own learning from the inside out guided by their intrinsic curiosity.  An inspired teacher is able to see the standards hiding in a block of clay, just as Michelangelo saw David in the marble. The paradox:  the more the teacher prepares in expectation of the child’s actions, the more “loose parts,” available to the child, the better the child is able to act upon those parts in new and creative ways to increase the effectiveness of his/her learning.

Fads like scripted math and reading programs compete in the marketplace assuring educators uniform successes if teachers dance the same dance, classroom by classroom. We strive for “no child” to be left behind, and “race to the top”, but have we stopped to look where we are going?

In the today’s world, learning theories and research document contradictions in professional practice.   We all know that children learn best when teachers instruct and assess the impact of their lessons; yet somehow we have lost touch with the idea that the child must be a participant in the creation of lesson and assessment.
Kids in classrooms need loose parts, guided by adults who  step in  with a question or to model usefulness, to take learning  to the next step.  Teachers armed with learning theories do best when guided by their own inner child, seeing both the trajectory of the learning process and the necessity for flexibility and creativity.

Testing for Giftedness: New York Leads the Way?

Ah, yes, New York, once again hits a home run, sending education over the back fence.  In an article titled, “Schools Ask: Gifted or Just Well-Prepared?”  we find the newest trend in education to be cranking out 4-year-olds who can pass admissions tests for entrance to gifted schools.  In fact, the kids have become so savvy as a result of excellent tutoring programs geared at the tests, that the bar keeps rising.  The tests just can’t keep up.

The creator of the test, Dr. Samuel Meisels from Chicago’s Erickson Institute, asserts that the test is used erroneously;  the test was designed to detect early delays to enable skilled early childhood educators and parents to provide intervention for children who might not otherwise be successful in school.

One wonders what the definition of giftedness is, and why we need to identify giftedness so early in a child’s life?  Is it just to skim the cream off the top so that schools can enroll homogenized kids?  Or is giftedness more difficult to discern, as Harvard’s Howard Gardner has postulated?  One who has worked with gifted students in middle school can see a profile of a student who hungers for more,  requires uniquely tailored learning experiences, and is likely to be a quirky kid who is anything but homogenized!  And as Gardner notes, giftedness shows up in many venues, among them: artistic, scientific, nature-oriented, social-emotional, few of which can be identified on a test given to children at the age of 4.

So let’s talk about 4-year-olds.  Is it possible to train a bright 4-year-old to pass items on a test?  Yes.  Is it also possible that a gifted child might lack the focus at 4 to sit still for a test, lack the dexterity to use a pencil effectively, or might be more interested in taking apart the phone of the person administering the test?  I’d think so.  4-7 year old children are what I describe as “popcorn.”  They inexplicably develop along their own timeline, irrespective of cognitive potential, for cognitive potential is what most of these tests attempt to measure.  Development is multi-faceted, and as children age and grow “into themselves” they reveal increasingly the kinds of bits of themselves of which Gardner speaks.  Do 4 year-olds benefit from the specter of adults hovering over them to ensure they can meet marks meant for older children, children whose bodies have fully developed? What are we doing to the children whose giftedness is being cultivated like a prized rose?  What will they learn about their value as human beings?  What will they feel as they step forward into their lives?

Truly “gifted” students require specialized schooling.  As a society we need to begin to address the education of children to discover the humane and nurturing response to the needs of truly gifted children.   And what about the assumption that cognitive potential is fixed by 4?  Why do we accept that assumption?  The current process of training and testing 4 and 5 year-olds is off the mark, particularly to those of us who care about the well-being of children.

What You Should Know About Public, Private, and Charter Schools

Education in this country is in crisis. For all of the patriotic rhetoric spewed during the last presidential election, in the “land of the free,” we have not yet made the connection that our children are the nation’s greatest resource and education deserves our greatest support. We do not take seriously the charge to educate all students. Some of our public schools are doing a great job, but in areas of the United States children are subjected to large classes, unskilled teachers, and unsafe school environments. Though for many school is a respite from troubled lives and overwhelmed parents, often schools are ill-prepared to give the children who most need a caring and safe environment and the confidence in themselves as capable learners needed in order to become healthy, prepared citizens.

Worse still, research reveals an alarming correspondence between poverty and school failure. With few exceptions, income level predicts academic levels in America’s schools. Data, such as test scores, can provide information that allows us to act in ways that serve change; or data can become a justification for doing nothing, blaming poor performance on “non-school” factors that we can’t change.

Data is used in public schools, organized on a top-down model. School boards make decisions that serve multiple schools, rarely able to be sensitive to the needs at each school. Well-meaning, high-level administrators and boards create policies that address the needs of the masses. Sometimes those policies support the schools in their districts; most of the time they do not. Federal attempts to create “one size fits all” policies are even more misguided. Current federal policies based on “research” overlook the fact that much of the research in education is based on assumptions that do not apply to all schools and all children. Statistics can lie; (consider the average of one’s feet in the freezer and one’s head in the oven—on average, just right) for children are individuals, not numbers.

Ronald , Nathan, and Hugo are three fictional boys who live in Los Angeles. Ronald, attends a public school downtown.  As an African-American child, born of a mother who struggles to support him and his three brothers, his chances of succeeding toward high school graduation are slim and toward college, slimmer. If by some chance he does make it to college, benefiting from one of the few non-profit,  innovative support systems , his chances of completing college are minimal, according to latest research.

Nathan’s future is rosy. Growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, Nathan attends public school as well. His school boasts a “booster club” in which members of the school community raise $300,000 a year, allowing the school to hire extra teachers to supplement programs like art and music and to reduce class size.

Hugo is the luckiest of the three; he attends one of the city’s many private, independent schools. Although a student whose tuition is supported by partial scholarship, Hugo’s education is rich in scope, and his peers support his learning.  In all likelihood, he, like Nathan will attend college, graduate, and find a wonderful job.

Ronald, Nathan, and Hugo represent aspects of what has become known as “the achievement gap.” Ronald’s and Nathan’s achievement are measured by state testing that depicts individual and school success levels. In fact, the quality of the school is measured by the score.

Curriculum at Ronald and Nathan’s schools correspond directly to what is tested on the state tests, with math and language arts occupying the majority of time. Subjects such as social studies and science are evaluated sporadically during a child’s progression through grades K-12, and tests in those subjects focus on multiple choice responses about content.

In current discussion of the “achievement gap,” conversations focus on students such as Ronald and Nathan, and school programs are aimed at and judged by API scores, the aggregate of student scores at a school. No one would argue that a gap exists and must be closed. All students deserve good education. But do we all have the same definition of a “good” education? And why have test scores on one kind of test become the measure of what is “good” in education?

Viewing Hugo’s school expands the perspective of the discussion of the gap. Those students who attend independent schools are receiving an education that eclipses both Ronald’s and Nathan’s school experiences. Parents of public school students visiting good independent schools are often shocked at the difference between what is considered a good public school (one that boasts high test scores) and an independent school. I know I was.

March, 1989, Westlake School for Girls

As a young mother, I loved the idea of public schools and free education, and I hold that perspective today as well. Although my husband taught at a private school, I fought the very idea of any child of mine attending a private school. My own three years as a public school teacher, prior to becoming an “at home” mom, solidified my belief in neighborhood public schools as anchors of community and democracy. I saw public schools as a great leveler, providing my children with the opportunity to expand their world view of cultures and races, as I eschewed my own  segregated education of  in an isolated bastion of whiteness. I sent my oldest child to Westlake School for  Girls.  It was a “no-brainer:”  I saw what the school offered and compared it to her public magnet school.  Huge step for a person committed to public school.

Neighborhood Public School Districts

I began my teaching career at a well-funded school in a tiny beach district, and although my 28 kindergarten children had a slim slice of my attention within a three hour school day, the day was filled with enriching experiences for them. The school board decided to change the class size for all elementary grades. My kindergarten roster grew from 28 to 33 children reflecting increased class size across the district, designed to meet the challenges of shrinking enrollment resulting from skyrocketing property values that changed district demographics and new laws that limited spending in affluent school districts. A member of the school board supported the increase of class sizes as a solution to the districts shrinking enrollment, based on research of the day that substantiated the idea that class size did not matter; a “good” teacher could “disseminate instruction” (to quote the board member) to 40 students.

In 2012, the Assistant Superintendent of public instruction in Texas echoed the board member’s sentiment, wondering what connection ipads and smaller class sizes might have on the “dissemination of academic instruction.” Misapplication of research findings holds true today. Students in Texas may be in for a long, disappointing ride, as their districts attempt to meet student needs while placating the views of politicians whose narrow perspective on education stilt student experiences and derail their futures.

Out of what became a sad mess of public educational reality, developed a menu of educational choices, designed to provide parents who could afford options, alternatives for educating their children. Religious education, secular independent schools and later, the home school movement provided parents more “hands-on” input in their children’s lives. Seeking a way to better educate their children, parents attempted to create private educational opportunities for their children in spite of the taxes they already paid to the public system.

Each of these solutions provided an advantage over public education while at the same time requiring a commitment of time and money. Religious schools provided focus on character development and spiritual affiliation; independent schools with additional accreditation and oversight implemented standard practices for board governance and administrative practices.  Some parents began to  keep their children at home for schooling so they could control the content and environment of instruction.

To evaluate the effectiveness of instructional programs, school districts and state board use standardized tests to establish a uniformly applicable set of criteria. Unfortunately, many of the goals of education (student confidence, character, creativity, flexibility, and resilience, safety, and “belonging” to name a few) do not conform to methods of evaluation that can be applied on a large scale. The standardized tests themselves, therefore, are establishing an extremely narrow band  with which to judge the success of a school’s program.

Charter Schools
What seemed like an ideal solution to the challenge of education in America began appearing across the country in the late 90’s: charter schools. Charter schools seemed to blend the best of both options of private and public education. Charter schools are public schools governed by a board, created by private citizens or business affiliations, and sanctioned and evaluated by a state, county or city school district. Just as there are many kinds of public and private schools, charter schools represent a range of philosophies, environments, and methods of implementation. Some charter schools, like the KIPP family of schools, have strict policies for the enrollment and participation of its students and teachers. Some, like KIPP, have evolved to be the size of  school districts. A key attribute of independent schools, local school autonomy, may or may not be an attribute of a charter school. Many charter school leaders believe that a business model is the “saving grace” of education and should dominate the charter school movement, or that staff who attended ivy league schools create the best pool of talent.

As a movement, charter schools are not yet 20 years old; an adolescent in the field of education. There is much to try, fail, and learn as the movement matures. If nothing else, charter schools represent, at best ,“American ingenuity”, a free market approach to education, and independent thinking. At worst, charter schools run the risk of repeating the errors that plague our current public school system or creating new errors as business-trained non-educators assume leadership roles. A recent report by Stanford University attempts to summarize the success of charter schools. The report points to specific benefits and challenges to the success of charter schools, as seen by test score data.

The problem with evaluating schools by test scores alone is that Ronald and Nathan are left out of the equation. Ronald and Nation are the point of education, as are their parents, and their needs should be front and center, not hidden within pages of state testing data.

Building Community in Education
When one creates a school, one must consider not only how children will learn but how to structure the community in a way that supports parents, honors their fears, and gives them appropriate outlets for their needs to be involved in their child’s education. The Harlem Children’s Zone schools, developed by Geoff Canada, are examples of combining educational reform within a community framework.

Ideally, schools are a reflection of a triangle model, with a joint effort of staff, parents, and students. At the top, educators, whose job it is to stay current and informed, should be the leaders at a school. Parents, who have needed information about their children’s abilities, needs and skills and who have opinions worth hearing, not only contribute this information, but ideally contribute time and money to augment that which is provided by government or tuition. Students, who are the real consumers day to day, form the last third of the triangle. Their voices should be heard in concert with the adults who care for them.  The triangle model requires the participation of all three constituents, each with a particular role. In an ideal setting, there is mutual respect and understanding of the roles of each, as well as a clear understanding of the boundaries among constituents. Mutual respect and understanding requires commitment to processes that cultivate social norms and community expectations, often neglected in the focus on scores and day-to-day school issues.

Charter school developers are bravely experimenting with models. Some models exchange financial support for privilege, creating an opportunity to extend programs. Some charter models hold boldly to the belief in developing the leadership and participation of all community members. Teachers, principals and other staff give mightily of their time, energy, and creativity, often experiencing burnout as they attempt to create the learning environment enjoyed by Hugo–with meager resources.

There are no easy answers, and if we are to move forward we need to accept the current reality:
• Many of our public schools are held hostage by antiquated bureaucracies, and board/union political agendas.
• Some of our public schools are doing a great job despite limitations.
• Student in independent schools are getting an education that makes use of modern research and extended funding, and children who attend them are at an advantage.
• Charter schools are an option for some parents who feel their local schools do not serve their child’s needs.

Wisdom dictates that we consider a wide range of data to discuss and develop our public educational system. As a nation, we do not seem to do well with dissent, despite the examples of the founding fathers. We make quick judgments, discredit partial successes, and fight rather than listen. Our children deserve better. It’s time to bring all voices to the table to hear what is working and to move our schools forward in ways that provide commonly understood “good schools” for all.

What do you think? What are our next steps?  What are your and your child’s experiences?  Let’s start the discussion!

(photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/aoisakana/288099156/)

“Deja vu” in Education?

“This is like déjà vu all over again,” said Assistant Attorney General (for the state of Texas) Shelley Dahlberg, quoted in yesterday’s New York Times.  Her concern was the dwindling funds for education, about which she blasted the requests of superintendents of school districts.  Dahlberg went on to say, ““Ask yourself or the witnesses whether a district can provide for the general diffusion of knowledge without iPads or teacher aides or brand-new facilities.”

She is right.  It is deja vu.  Back in 1974 I attended a city school board meeting in which a board member quoted a study, “An experienced teacher can disseminate information to 45 children.”  He was defending class sizes of up to 33 for k-6 schools.

Why is it that as a nation we allow the politics of school boards and state legislatures to determine what is best for children?  As educators we are not “disseminators of information,” but as Dr. JoAnn Deak, brain and learning expert says, we are “neurosculptors,” shaping the brains of children for effectiveness in their lives.  Our systems underlying education cannot support the needs of 21st century learning.

There is broad “buy-in” to the concept of achievement gaps throughout our nation, defined by socio-economic status.  Some brave souls refuse to accept such a link, and through their own perseverance and initiative have created schools like the Celerity Schools and Valor Academy, both charter schools in Los Angeles.  These schools demonstrate through that site-based, research-driven school leadership, all children can be successful.  School by school, these innovative institutions are closing the documented gap among students in public schools.

Once that gap is closed, we need to take a step out and notice that there is an even bigger gap, the gap between national school evaluations that define outstanding, blue-ribbon schools as schools in which all students read at grade level and schools that produce students ready for the 21st century.    A great number of our citizens are not even represented in the data, as they shuttle their children to independent schools that are current with 21st century trends, research, and knowledge of how the brain works.

What will happen when we as a nation take a look at the REAL academic gap in our country?

(photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/siacademy/4098291846/)

Are we losing our students to technology?

The New York Times (November 1, 2012) reported the views of teachers and Common Sense Media that technology is reshaping the attention spans of children.  Teachers report that they are seeing less depth of work and less focused attention from students.  One teacher reported that she felt she had to be “an entertainer” to maintain the attention of her students.

Two things are clear: technology is here to stay, and our children need to be able to sustain focus on difficult tasks.  The ability to succeed in life anchors on one’s ability to persevere through challenges. Are the teachers correct?  Are our children’s abilities being diluted due to a steady diet of short-term, immediate gratification and entertainment?  If the answer is “Yes,” then we adults must use that feedback to adjust the lives of children.  What are some things we can do to enhance children’s attention, focus, and perseverance?

1.  Mindfulness practice.  The practice of stepping out from a racing mind to pay attention to quiet, compelling sensory experiences reframes attention.  Young children are purposefully mindful as they explore their world, repeating tasks until mastery.  They are fascinated by such simple actions as blowing on a bubble wand to see the resulting flock of shimmering orbs floating through the air.  We can, as adults, provide activities for children of all ages that extend require them to find that God-given fascination rather than caving in to the idea of becoming a song-and-dance.

2.  Engage children in learning.  Teacher “on the stage” is an old paradigm.  Today’s understanding of the brain reveals that people need to move about every half our for maximum brain output.  We know that as teachers when we facilitate “doing” rather than passively sitting helps the brain construct meaning.  We s teacher need to re-examine our practice, and administration of schools need to provide professional development opportunities for teachers to develop 21st century skills that match current knowledge of how the brain works.

As with everything in our modern world of opulence, less is sometimes more.  We need to cultivate wise use of technology.  Young children need time to learn about the physical world.  Some schools are on the right track when they leave technology out of the classroom until second grade.  Our digital native students will not be hampered by later integration of technology in learning;  on the contrary, giving young children a chance to fully explore their world with the physical body lays the foundation for significant and deep learning in many forms in later life.

4.  Parents may find their daily lives  so hectic that resulting to “media babysitting” enhances their own sanity.  Sane parents are effective parents.  As a boomer, I suggest that grandparents offer a safe haven from technology.  Let’s make our homes “technology free”homes.  When the grans visit, let’s provide the kinds of activities we experienced as children: baking, gardening, simple chores, knitting, walking, writing, building–things we do with our hands and bodies.

What other ways can you think of that can provide children with the opportunity to build inner resources that develop perseverance for learning in our modern world?

(Photo courtesy of : ?http://www.flickr.com/photos/71982440@N08/6497172303/)

Does school choice matter? Research says…NO.

Parents are  hungry for ways to give their children “edge” in the world of education, and with high hopes, the workforce.  As an educational consultant I advise parents about schools in Los Angeles, helping them to find the best match between their needs and the profile of their child.  Eager to leave no stone unturned in the search for the “perfect school,”  parents spend money on consultants, admission test preparation , tutoring, and eventually, most likely, private school tuition.  New research shared in Johns Hopkins University Department of Education’s Center for Research and Reform in Education newsletter, Best Evidence in Brief, indicates that more important than school profile in assuring student achievement is what the authors call “family capital.”

Best Evidence in Brief describes the research presented in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility describing the quality of interactions and values in the home which seem to be better indicators of high levels of student success than attributes of the school the child attends.  The skills that contribute to student academic achievement come from the home, say the researchers in the study, not the school.

What does this research mean for parents?  Does that mean that the kind of school your child attends does not matter? The good news, says the study, is that any family in any school can give a child a good foundation for academic achievement if the values and behaviors are supportive and nurturing.

However,  from my perspective, schools still matter.  Ideally, the relationship between a school and the families who comprise the school community is a mutually supportiv relationship.  Hopefully, the school is a repository of resources, both tangible and intangible, that assist parents in being and doing the best they can for their child.  Hopefully, there is quality communication between home and school, providing parents with the kinds of information that allow them to be actively involved in the rights kinds of ways, with their child’s education.  Good schools provide opportunites for parent education and for parents to interact with one another, develping supportive relationships with other parents that increase their skills as parents.

The study mentions that parents who talk to their children effectively, take an interest in their children’s schoolwork, and who create effective means of communication in the home lay the foundation for their children’s learning.  It’s highly possible for parents to develop effective family cultures on their own or with the help of friends, family, or other sources;  but a good school can be a huge support in helping parents develop effective family environments.

Ironically, many parents look to find a school with a good reputation of high levels of academic achievement or status, assuming that somehow the attributes of the school will inculcate their child against school failure or ensure copious amounts of school success.  What the study tells us is that unless the school’s academic success is as a result of its support of families, helping them to develop high quality environments for raising children, the reputation of a school is no insurance for student achievement.

Student achievement, like everything else in life, it seems, is an “inside job,”  in this case, predicted by qualities of life inside a family.