One of the most important goals of the No Child Left Behind Act is closing the “achievement gap” between white and minority students. President Bush assures us in frequent addresses that this achievement gap is closing and will soon be a thing of the past. To do this, his signature legislation focuses on four main areas affecting student achievement: increased funding, quality curriculum, frequent testing and “highly experienced” teachers.

I’ve already addressed how the achievement gap isn’t really closing and how the measures within NCLB actually make the problem worse. If our politicians were truly interested in improving the status of public education, particularly for the most disadvantaged in our society, they would do better to look at real numbers from real research and attempt to discern what really works. In What it Takes to Make a Student, Paul Tough of theNew York Times takes a look at some of these issues affecting our achievement gap and the need for reform.

Unlike authors such as Richard Rothstein, I do believe that it is possible for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to achieve at levels equal to and even superior to their more economically advantaged peers. The problems inherent in poverty are great, but they are not insurmountable. I know this because I have seen it done, and the children involved are not statistical anomalies.

These children face very real problems that most of us have never experienced. English may not be their primary language or, where it is, it may not be the standard American English taught and tested in the schools. They may be malnourished and understandably more concerned about their empty stomachs than their blank worksheets. Their housing may be substandard and their neighborhood may be plagued by violence. Their parents talk to them less, read to them less and criticize them more. In fact, research conducted by two child psychologists from the University of Kansas (my alma mater) found that by the age of three, the vocabulary of the middle class child was more than twice that of the poor child. Also by age four, the average child of a professional had heard about 500,000 words of encouragement and 80,000 words of discouragement. This is completely reversed for the welfare children. By age three, they have heard 75,000 encouragements and 200,000 discouragements.

So by the time they enter school, they believe they cannot succeed and everything about the structure of our public school system reinforces that negative attitude. Especially where there is heavy emphasis on preparing for a standardized test which is of little immediate relevance to their lives.

Tom Torkelson was trying to get his IDEA academy off the ground in 2000 when I met him through Teach for America. His entire student population consists of students who qualify for free and reduced lunches. They are Hispanic and for many, English is a second language. Some live in colonias, illegal housing developments which do not meet codes. These often lack basic water and sewer systems, electricity, paved roads or even floors. When I first drove through a colonia in Donna, Texas, it was difficult to believe I was still in the United States. It was even more difficult to believe that “high expectations” and “student accountability” was going to do anything to help these children attain an excellent education.

With a rather simple formula for success — teacher dedication, emphasis on math and reading, long school hours, and a contract between the school, parents and students — the IDEA academy has become one of the top ranked middle schools in Texas, and one of the highest performing charter schools in the nation.

Unfortunately, the biggest roadblocks to meeting the demand for these schools are education leaders themselves, particularly the labor unions. As Ryan Boots of edspresso points out in his commentary on Tough’s article:

It would require autonomy on the part of principals to make personnel decisions, institute some form of merit pay, no more dancing lemons. In short, the unions would have to get out of the way and let principals run their schools, a feat requiring a level of political muscle not present in either party at the moment. — edspresso

I don’t know that it is necessary to replicate this sort of model in every public school which serves economically disadvantaged children. I do not particularly advocate a lengthening of the school day (some of these schools are in session from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. with only a month off in summer, and teachers are often available weekends and via their cell phones for students who need help). That is the beauty of extending the charter system and of local control. Schools can look at what their individual student populations need and see what they need to do to meet those needs. Differing models can be developed, adapted and studied. Where true choice exists, an excellent education is attainable for anyone who is willing to do the work to get it.