In the next few weeks, A-F report cards for schools and school districts will be issued based on last year’s test scores and other data. State Superintendent Ryan Walters will pay close attention to the number of F schools in Tulsa and may use the report to amplify his attacks on TPS.

But what separates an F school from an A school? What separates the schools at the top from those at the bottom? Affluence.

For two decades I taught in Oklahoma’s best public high school. I taught prestigious classes to students aiming for the best colleges in the country. I also taught standards to kids who had no college ambitions. I’m not sure I found one experience more meaningful than the other.

We rate our schools by five criteria: academic achievement, academic growth, post-secondary opportunities, English language proficiency and attendance. What we choose to measure has a powerful impact on outcomes.

For example, an urban school is likely to have more post-secondary options than a small-town school. And a poor school is going to face much higher levels of chronic absenteeism. These have important impacts on scores.

Kids who need to work after-school jobs have less time for study and club activities. Kids who grew up speaking a different language might struggle to pass a third grade reading test. Children with high levels of adverse childhood experiences might have a hard time building trusting relationships with teachers.

Poor schools have demonstrably higher rates of teacher turnover. Suburban schools are more likely to accumulate an experienced (and well-supported) staff. Experienced teachers can offer more support to students over longer periods of time.

Then there are the critical subgroups of students. The law requires schools to track the academic growth of students who speak another language at home, come from a minority background or have an educational disability.

Schools that have such populations have many more opportunities to fail than schools that do not have such populations. And because some of these subgroups are so small, the actions of individual students have a disproportionate effect. One student’s not showing up for a state test can lower a school’s rating, creating an arbitrary gap between one school and another.

There is one thing most A schools have in common: affluent populations. Kids who come from middle- and upper-class homes with two parents supporting their children and setting expectations for post-secondary achievement start with inherent advantages.

In my days teaching at Booker T. Washington High School I saw this firsthand. I taught students in the International Baccalaureate program, many of whom had attended Tulsa’s best private schools before coming to our magnet school. Students in this program worked extremely hard and came out prepared to attend Ivy League schools.

I also taught standard-level freshmen classes, with much lower academic expectations — and different teaching challenges. I valued each class equally.

I can recall, with fondness, an angry freshman who challenged my authority daily but learned to apply his energies constructively and authentically. I can also recall with equal fondness the IB kid who worked so hard to realize her dreams of going to Northwestern University.

Tolstoy said “happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

While we may wish to identify a common cause for education problems, such as leadership, we are reluctant to acknowledge that the real driver might be inequality.

In a so-called “failing” school, my colleagues might be struggling with a different set of challenges. This kid couldn’t attend because he lacked clean clothes. That one might be exhausted because they worked the night shift. Still another may be wracked with worry because they moved to a new country without their parents.

And this is crucial: The work teachers do with these populations is at least as vital and valuable as the work I did every day in the classroom.

The trouble with the A and F labels is that they invite direct comparisons of schools with vastly different contexts. And in some quarters the F rating inspires a visceral reaction rather than compassion.

Our state superintendent wants only to blame and punish and bluster his threats rather than acknowledge the real work done every day in every public school to help every child. Teachers in the field know better. Unhappy families are all unhappy in their own ways.

We must address that with kindness, patience, love and determination. Some might call that “woke.” I call it human.

The new Tulsa World app offers personalized features. Download it today.