A "feel-good" label for "at-risk" kids?

[MountainLaurel]

I sympathize with those who might not be comfortable with the latest plan to rid our schools of at-risk kids. Several educators across the country, including Alexandria Superintendent Morton Sherman, have decided not to call them that anymore. Henceforth they will be known as "at-promise" children.

"We use the term 'at-promise' in Alexandria City Public Schools to describe children who have the potential to achieve at a higher rate than they are currently achieving," Sherman said in a July 23 op-ed in the Alexandria Gazette Packet. "Really, all children are at-promise, because we, as educators, have made a promise to each and every child that we will work toward higher achievement for all."

Cathy David, Alexandria schools deputy superintendent, said at a School Board meeting last December: "The previous 'at-risk' model was a deficit model that identified and categorized children by criteria such as low income, special education, ethnicity or English language proficiency, with the assumption that if the criteria fit the child, then the child must have some sort of deficit. The 'at-promise' model comes from strengths."

Word of this change has spread slowly. I first heard it a few days ago from a teacher. I sought reaction from people I know who stay current on educational trends. They weren't thrilled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111502189.html

[Berry Cool]

1. Such a label is useless, because in bending over backwards to be politically correct

to make the description sound good, it creates a construction that applies to everyone...and thus to no one.

"At-promise"? First, what kind of English is that?

Second, even the creators admit that if you're going to try to accentuate the positive by calling at-risk kids "at-promise" instead, well then, what do you call the other kids? Are they NOT "at-promise"? Well, no, they admit--when you really come right down to it, ALL kids are "at-promise."

So, "at-promise" doesn't really work as a label for the kind of kids you want to apply it to, does it?

You need to come up with something else, don't you?

But heaven forfend that you should come up with something NEGATIVE, that implies BAD CONSEQUENCES if something isn't done to help them. Oh my goodness no!!!!!

*sigh*

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. LOL 'We can't solve the problem, so we will just call it by a different name!'

Boy do I ever get tired of that.

[donco6]

3. Right on its face it provides no differentiation.

"All kids are "at-promise" kids.

Then what use is the label?

[southerncrone]

4. Just another example of bending education jargon to blame the

teachers for all the ills of society. Will there ever be an end to this madness? Let's just call kids, kids. If they need extra help because of their circumstances, then let's just state such. This incessant "labeling" to avoid looking at reality in education is what makes education unworkable for many. Stop covering up sores with flowery band-aids that do nothing but camouflage the real problem instead of pro-actively dealing with a real solution.

The real reason we must use all these labels is so we can "measure" all sorts of useless data & justify more central office jobs.

[Prometheuspan]

6. You are soo right.

I agree, calling the kids names doesn't help them solve their problems, it just lets teachers stick them in slots.


we need real education reform, not rubber stamps for kids foreheads.

[torie705]

5. PG County

It's a shame that we have to label the youth nowadays. In my
old school system, many teachers would push
"at-risk" students forward with no remorse, and
whenit was time to graduate they couldn't or the child BARELY
got by. My mother saw this happening to my brother while he
was in high school, so she demanded that they stop pushing him
and to be held back a year just so he can get himself
together!