September is National Literacy Month, a time to reflect on the state of literacy across the United States. Here in Rochester, New York, the statistics are deeply concerning. According to recent data, only 11.4% of third-grade students in the Rochester City School District are reading at grade level. This is an urgent crisis that demands our attention.
We often hear explanations for low academic performance in Rochester’s schools that point to poverty. Rochester is one of the most impoverished cities in the country, with the majority of its children living in poverty. While poverty undoubtedly poses significant challenges, it must not be used as an excuse for low expectations. To suggest that poverty means our children cannot achieve academic excellence is both harmful and disheartening.
There is a growing body of evidence that self-fulfilling prophecies—the idea that beliefs and expectations shape outcomes—play a major role in student achievement. Low expectations lead to disengagement, subpar instruction, and a lack of meaningful academic challenges. This theory suggests: if we don’t believe our students can meet the standards, we won’t give them the support they need to get there. That when teachers and leaders believe certain students won’t succeed, those students internalize that expectation, and their academic performance reflects it. On the other hand, when we expect more from students, they are more likely to succeed.
Parent activist LaShana Boose, a passionate advocate for educational equity in Rochester, sums this up well: “Our kids will rise to the level we set for them. If we keep expecting less, that’s exactly what we’ll get. But when we believe in them and provide the resources they need, they can and will achieve. It’s on us as a community to set that bar higher.”
Her message echoes the words of civil rights activist Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, who once said, “It’s time for greatness—not for greed. It’s a time for idealism—not ideology. It is a time not just for compassionate words, but compassionate action.” We need compassionate action for Rochester’s children, and that starts with holding them to high standards and giving them the tools to succeed.
At READY, we are committed to transforming schools through the power of community. And as a community, we refuse to lower the bar for our students. We believe in their potential and are dedicated to providing the necessary support to ensure they thrive.
Shanai Lee, MBA, EdD
Executive director, Rochester Education and Development for Youth Inc.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. Submissions to the Letters page should be sent to [email protected].
Although Shanai Lee’s advocacy for all students to achieve at high standards is admirable, I think she’s not asking the right question regarding what students need in order to grow & develop into responsible, capable citizens. Even teachers who have high expectations for their students may fail to achieve positive results if their students are not internally motivated to engage in the content & skills being taught. So, the key question becomes: “What classroom conditions are necessary to intrinsically motivate students to engage in classroom activities and, as a result, grow academically and social-emotionally?” There is a great deal of research on this question and Rochester is fortunate enough to have a local expert, Professor Richard Ryan, who has conducted world-wide research on this issue & has valid, reliable conclusions on what it will take for teachers, school leaders and policy-makers to make a significant, positive change in student learning. The following is a summary of the key research-based findings by Ryan and his international team (Google : Ryan/Deci Self Determination Theory Education Research.)
Student expectations, learning activities, relationships, and assessments must be designed through the lens of meeting individual student physical and psychological needs! Here are a few key research findings:
1. Build positive relationships with students by taking & using student perspectives: Policy-makers & teachers must take into consideration student interests, goals, values and concerns when designing curriculum,
2. Give students meaningful choices, that include student interests, when giving student assignments,
3. Design learning activities that support student learning styles and meet student psychological needs for learning and expressing themselves,
4. Acknowledge, respect and communicate understanding to students who have negative feelings about what is being taught, through active listening and responding,
5. Provide “explanatory rationales” to students who are reluctant to engage in learning activities by suggesting that they give your response some consideration, or meeting with them, individually,
6. Rely on “invitational language” for students to solve academic problems; “You might want to think about this option.”
7. Display patience, allowing students to think, rather than giving the immediate answer, and
8. Provide structure for all students to follow, rather than control and dictatorial decisions.
What’s also proved to be a tremendous bonus for teachers who regularly used these practices is that they experienced a much greater sense of satisfaction and well-being. Students and teachers felt much happier & joyful with their learning, teaching and student relationships.
On February 1, 2024, through the sponsorship the Rochester Teachers Association, Dr. Ryan presented an overview of his research to over 500 RCSD teachers, as part of their professional development options. Professional development follow-up is an option for all RCSD teachers & administrators. Perhaps the RCSD Superintendent, his staff and the Board of Education members should also become familiar with the Self-Determination and Intrinsic Motivation research, if they haven’t already!
Well, maybe I’m wrong, but I cannot come up with any organization, public or private, that got rid of everyone and started over that was very successful, except for a few at the top.
I 100% agree with this. Poverty represents additional challenge, but is not the excuse we should use to neglect that challenge. “Oh they are poor, just write them off” is not acceptable. I think to add to this what fixes poverty challenges is hope, and that’s something that many of the charter schools do well – instilling a sense of hope of achieving an exit from poverty, and a sense of potential forward progress to a less challenging life. While I’m not a super fan of charter schools because it represents privatization of education – I also think that public schools could garner some methodologies some of these more successful education settings have adopted that actually work. The graduation rate of some of the area charter schools puts public schools to shame, but also proves that there ARE methods that can instill a sense of hope and accomplishment despite poverty. I don’t pretend to know what those methods are – I’m not an expert in this field – but there is no reason we shouldn’t be studying and adopting successful models.
I agree Mr. Drake. Albert Shanker, the National president of the teacher’s union for decades came up with the concept. His idea was that public Charter Schools would be incubators for instruction and resources. The methods that were successful would then be adopted in the public schools. There seems to be a breakdown at that point, though I’m sure there are other issues.
An inspiring message, particularly the quote from the great Marion Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. However, Edelman’s broad statement does not lead to the author’s conclusion, if that is what it is, that compassionate action for holding children to higher standards with more tools is the end of it. The great Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP brought not only passion, but hard evidence that Separate was not Equal and segregated education in poor communities was inferior and not equal. There was also similar evidence for poor mostly white rural schools. There was good reason that Marshall met a very large burden of proof to overturn the Plessey precedent in Brown V. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas, 1954. MBA Lee is correct in her advocacy to try every tool in the box, but equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, happens for most children when we start at least near the same place with similar educations.
Rochester City School District students are achieving at a low level due to the fact that for over 30 years the RCSD+Teachers Union + School Board= are a dysfunctional ‘Trio’ and have no accountability for educating our City students. This Trio has proven to be a failure! Just a factual fact!
They have different agendas- different goals that are not focused on educating our children let alone at high expectations.
With over 12,000 students on Charter School waiting lists , parents want their kids to get out of the RSCD schools and into schools that focus on learning, accountability AND with high expectations! Some reading this may not realize that 9,000 City students are in Charter Schools or truly understand why they work but I can tell you with knowledge — Charter Schools are accountable to the parents and students they serve. AND they are graduating at 2X the RCSD rates! RCSD is lucky to be able to blend the Charter School graduation rates into theirs which dramatically improves their sad numbers! And RCSD gets 1/3 of the State and Federal funds that the Charter Schools students are allotted RCSD just adds these dollars to their pot of spending. It’s so unfair that Charter Schools have to educate their students with 2/3 of the funds and watch the RCSD reap a windfall of millions of dollars!
If the writer is looking for high expectations = look to the 9,000 student in the Rochester Charter Schools! And advocate for more Charter Schools in Monroe County.
Note: with more Charter Schools, no one would have to worry about the revolving door of Superintendents. And the teachers in the Union, no worries = there would be plenty of jobs and here’s bonus = no need for the school board jobs and benefits!
The nationwide stats on Charter Schools do not reflect the higher outcomes you claim for Rochester Mr. Jacobson. The new direction of East High was a public-University partnership and very successful, not a privatized entity. Those classes in the RCSD must still be taught even though Charter Schools have taken two thirds of the funds of the RCSD for each student sent to a charter. Sadly, there are also other unintended consequences. The majority of America’s education tax money for “Charters” is now going to suburban, mostly white kids to attend private religious schools. The Taliban Supreme Court, ignoring over two centuries of precedent on the Establishment Clause, has caused this. The tax subsidies religion already received on property and income taxes was not enough for them.
For me and parents in Rochester, national numbers are interesting but Rochester numbers matter here. And the numbers I mentioned are real. Also the extra funds ( 1/3 of Charter funds) simply add to the extremely high numbers RCSD already get! More than almost suburban schools in our area! Quite simply, to solve the RCSD problems with poorly educating our children — we need to totally change the model.
No school board, no teachers union and new administrators.
James, I support your view that charter schools are not the answer – BUT, and this is a huge BUT. I care less about charter school success nationally and more about charter school success locally, and there are some valid points here about those numbers. Redirecting those towards national numbers does the success of many charter schools locally a disservice. Many of those schools ARE successful (and like any other business, some are not). But where they are successful instead of adopting the successful methodologies at the public level, they get cast aside due to the above mentioned politics and infighting in favor of accomplishing the goals of the constituencies mentioned. We should instead be concentrating on the successful models, why they are successful and looking to adopt those rather than constantly arguing against something that is actually working. There’s a reason that urban residents are trying to get their kids into these charter schools and it’d not because the current public school model is working or effective.
Howie: Rather than attempting to dismantle the state obligated parties involved we should rather be addressing HOW those funds are applied. While it’s true that RCSD has resources, they don’t have unlimited resources and are restricted by state and federal guidelines and goals they must folow, plus they have additional challenges that suburban schools do not have. Not recognizing that is unfair to the organizations involved. When – for instance – due to poverty a significant percentage of the population arrives at the school undernourished, if you don’t address that kind of need first, achieving educational goals is much more difficult. The overall approach to education we see today, both nationally and locally, was created in the 50s and 60s and centered around creating a vast factory worker community in urban settings and an operational farm community in rural settings. Farm focus caused the “ending school at 3” phenomenon, while factory focus underemphasized critical thinking and indepenent goals. Neither of those are predominant employment opportunities now and the current methodology does both a disservice. Recently we tried concentrating everyone on being college bound – and yet college also doesn’t address all of the labor needs, or personal goals of everyone. We need to refocus on essential life skills (caring for our bodies instead of competitive sports, budgeting and financial health instead of endless social studies and history, learning a trade, an art, or a craft rather than just being college and grade focused, etc). Changing the school day to coincide with work days so that single parents don’t have a potentially unsupervised gap between the end of the school day and the end of their work day. All of these things allow children to pursue their own passions, parents to more reliably supervise their children, and increase the likelihood that whatever they pursue they’ll be successful in life. While charter schools provide some of them there’s no reason that public schools cannot, and dismantling public schools – while definitely a “libertarian” goal – is more of an overall threat than just reconfiguring them for a better outcome.