Wonkette:

Very good data, but I have to hold you to task for your comment regarding the factors of the community "leaking in" to the school. I have lately been very interested in this phenomenon of viewing the school as something other than a part of the community. On the one hand, it tends to let people inside the buildings off the hook (the educational outcomes are limited by the community, not by the quality of the education). But I believe it also sets up a false dichotomy that allows schools to operate sub rosa as a factor that contributes to community conditions.

Certainly the quality of education (in a pure sense) available impacts that quality of life available to children growing up within a community, but I am also concerned about a more insidious purpose of our current "system" of education, which, it would appear, is to maintain the current stratification.

As long as teachers view themselves, and are encouraged to view themselves, as missionaries within the alien urban context, their presence (despite any uplifting intent) will serve as a powerful reminder of a perceived inherent insufficiency resident within their students. This is pretty hard for an eight year old to sort out, much less overcome.

When, and if, schools regard themselves as a part of their community, stakeholders with responsibility for the overall culture, there will be possibility for improvement of not only such things as safety within buildings, but also real improvement in achievement.

I applaud the people in Chicago who have been willing to look at student death by violence as a profound problem to be dealt with, whether the deaths are in buildings, or on the street.

Hi Margo,

Very good point about my invoking a school/community boundary that does not exist. But I am going to argue that school quality is not a primary cause of current levels of violence in Chicago (let me know if I misunderstood you here). Even exceptional schools that attempt to assume responsibility for the overall culture will hardly impact levels of violence. They simply can't compete with concentrated poverty and long-term joblessness, which are owed to structural changes in the economy and housing policies that systematically segregated Chicago.

I'm also interested in picking your brain on how schools can operate as integrated members of the community. How would schools look different today if they assumed this role?

Wonkette:

No--schools alone cannot solve the problem of violence, or poverty or joblessness. However, just as we recognize that there are policies (such as those in housing that you brought up) in other areas that have fed the problems, so has education policy fed the problem. Our current school system is best viewed as a dual system which divides roughly into urban vs suburban schools--with divisions and funding streams rigidly protected to keep out the kids of poverty and to keep in the property tax revenue.

Rural areas, frequently as beset either by problems of poverty or lack of wealth (tax revenue) seem to have much better outcomes overall. I begin to suspect that there is a greater sense of unity within those rural districts. Teachers teach in the same system where their kids are educated. There is less sense of us (the educated, benevolent and long-suffering) vs them (the downtrodden, addicted, neglectful or just unfortunate, overwhelmed and not very bright). Teachers are more likely to see parents at the grocery, church, park, etc. It is harder to maintain stereotypes of people you see all the time.

There may be some models of schools with a different sense of connection to their community (Harlem Children's Zone comes to mind, although I don't know a lot about their specifics). I believe some indicators of heightened involvement might be a different kind of building use. Schools are beginning to offer summer ESY programs to increase scores. As I understand it, the have trouble both with staffing and attracting kids. It strikes me that if they were a bit more keyed in to their community they would realized that one obstacle that they face is getting kids to a half day program, with no transportation. Parents who work need full days. It has been a long time since rec and community centers figured this out and converted their summer drop-on programs to more organized full day programs (with before and after care). What if the schools were in regular conversation with these folks and were able to partner up. The schools could provide building space, maybe a lunch, and the local rec folks could provide the rest of the day and the transportation. The way my local district deals with the problem now is the include a block-lettered statement in the summer school sign up NOT TO REGISTER YOUR CHILD IF DAY CAMP OR FAMILY VACATION WILL INTERFERE. Not very welcoming. But more important, not necessary. these are problems that can be worked out.

A school that viewed itself as a part of a community might also be less likely to see suspension or expulsion as any kind of solution to anything. A school that was working closely with the juvenile justice system might not send off overwhelming numbers of kids that they just don't know what to do with--for things like truancy, for instance.

A school that viewed itself as part of the community might recognize that every parent or family member brings something to the table that the school needs. Even parents who have not completed high school generally have some skills or knowledge that is completely lacking within the school. But we squander these because we reject the package that they come in. We don't bother to reach out or get to know THOSE parents out there because (we believe that) they are part of the problem.

Maybe the NEA would lobby as hard for public housing or universal health coverage as it does for the end of No Child Left Behind. OK, now I've gone too far, but, you get the picture.