To those who label schools as “failing,” Roberson offers a different set of metrics to consider. She challenges critics to look beyond standardized test scores and instead examine the level of parental engagement. Her questions are pointed and uncomfortably direct. Do parents attend open houses? Do they maintain a regular line of communication with the faculty? Do they ensure that their children are physically and mentally prepared for the school day? Perhaps most tellingly, she asks if parents even provide a working telephone number so they can be reached when their child struggles or disrupts the learning environment.
This perspective suggests that the “failing school” label is often a misnomer for a “failing community” or a “failing home life.” Roberson argues that a teacher can be a master of their subject matter, use the most advanced technology, and employ the most innovative teaching strategies, but all of it is rendered moot if the student is not a willing and prepared participant. When students are the primary source of disruption and homework is treated as an optional suggestion rather than a necessary discipline, the education system becomes a treadmill running in place.
The viral response to Roberson’s words revealed a deep-seated divide in public opinion. On one side, exhausted educators and their supporters rallied behind her, feeling that someone had finally articulated the “invisible labor” they perform daily—acting as surrogate parents, social workers, and disciplinary figures before they can even begin to teach a lesson. They argue that the school system has been treated as a “catch-all” for societal problems that it was never designed to solve. On the other side, critics argue that Roberson’s view is overly simplistic and fails to account for the systemic poverty, work-schedule conflicts, and socioeconomic pressures that prevent some parents from being as involved as they might wish to be.
