No Rich Child Left Behind

[flyingiguana]

http://opinionator.b...=me&ref=general

 

"....It may seem counterintuitive, but schools don’t seem to produce much of the disparity in test scores between high- and low-income students. We know this because children from rich and poor families score very differently on school readiness tests when they enter kindergarten, and this gap grows by less than 10 percent between kindergarten and high school. There is some evidence that achievement gaps between high- and low-income students actually narrow during the nine-month school year, but they widen again in the summer months...."

 

So early childhood experiences are supposed to have more importance than all the years of schooling.

 

My take on this is that the rich can afford quality childcare -- either by paying someone or by having a family member stay home. Everyone else is stuck in substandard childcare.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

eta: However, I'm wondering how they got rid of the probable correlation between wealth and school quality. I don't doubt their finding that children of the rich might be better prepared for kindergarten, but I don't think they can draw the conclusion that the poor and middle class are going to schools that are equivalent to the rich. And that therefore any further gap is due solely to the pre-kindergarten experience. However, maybe they managed it (can't see HOW) and I just missed it.

[kewb]

I have always said that no child left behind should have been called "no wealthy white child left behind".

[Jean in Newcastle]

Wealthier families tend to have more parental education - so often a richer language environment in the home. Wealthier families tend to have better medical care starting with prenatal care and then through a child's lilfe. Wealthier families tend to have more access and exposure to cultural activities. It's not that you can't do any of these things on a very tight budget but if parents are working to make ends meet they often don't have time. And doing things on a budget takes even more time than just handing over your credit card. So there are big disparities way before the start of kindergarten and even something like Head Start which doesn't even the gap.

[SarahW]

 

 

eta: However, I'm wondering how they got rid of the probable correlation between wealth and school quality. I don't doubt their finding that children of the rich might be better prepared for kindergarten, but I don't think they can draw the conclusion that the poor and middle class are going to schools that are equivalent to the rich. And that therefore any further gap is due solely to the pre-kindergarten experience. However, maybe they managed it (can't see HOW) and I just missed it.

 

I went to a suburban high school that had a rich side of town (everyone there made half-million or more), the middle, and the "other" side where most of the poor minority kids lived. Private schools were around, but at least a 20 min drive, and sometimes even more exclusive than some of our rich people. So we were all in the same building with the same class opportunities, and it was a pretty good school with a new building and etc.

 

In my CP classes, the number of minority kids was far lower than the average percentage, and those that were there were usually the rich-black kids, not the kids from "over there."

 

And, iirc, there was no separate elementary school for kids "over there" either, they were all bussed over to the regular elementary school in the middle of town where most kids attended.

 

So why the discrepancy?

[Georgiana Daniels]

Wealthier families tend to have more parental education - so often a richer language environment in the home. Wealthier families tend to have better medical care starting with prenatal care and then through a child's lilfe. Wealthier families tend to have more access and exposure to cultural activities. It's not that you can't do any of these things on a very tight budget but if parents are working to make ends meet they often don't have time. And doing things on a budget takes even more time than just handing over your credit card. So there are big disparities way before the start of kindergarten and even something like Head Start which doesn't even the gap.

 

Exactly.

 

Plus, I don't know how it works in all school districts, but don't the schools in the higher-income areas (and thus more revenue from property taxes) get better funding?

[beaners]

 

Exactly.

 

Plus, I don't know how it works in all school districts, but don't the schools in the higher-income areas (and thus more revenue from property taxes) get better funding?

 

Short answer: no. There are a lot of different things that go into funding in different areas. It may be like that where you are, but searching for costs per pupil for various districts throughout the nation should make that clear.

[Murphy101]

Meh. I'm all for kids doing nothing but riding bikes to the creek and swimming all summer. (Notice I didn't mention electronics all summer. )

 

That's what the supposed Great Generation did and they weren't any dumber for it.

 

Why is it that people today need triple the class time to get half the education of people just 1 or 2 generations past?

 

I don't think the problem is how much instruction/classes they are getting. I think it's a question of quality.

[ElizabethB]

Good methods make a difference, too. When poor methods are used in schools, well off parents have more time, expertise, and money to help remediate problems. Here is an old thread where I link some articles about how the black students in much poorer Richmond, VA did compared to wealthier black students in Fairfax, VA after a switch to phonics:

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/249561-achievement-gap-stats-decreases-with-homeschooling-and-phonics/

 

(We are not in the Fairfax area any more, but I think that they have since worked on the problem and the results are now closer for black and white students in Fairfax.)

[Word Nerd]

 

My take on this is that the rich can afford quality childcare -- either by paying someone or by having a family member stay home. Everyone else is stuck in substandard childcare.

 

 

 

That might be one reason, but a bigger factor is likely related to the parents' education and the children's access to books, a language-rich home environment, library programs and other informal community learning activities, etc.

[flyingiguana]

Not in CO--the higher income districts get LESS state funding, more of their funding comes from local property taxes. And then the lower income districts get HUGE federal funding: Title I, etc.

 

In our state, the lower income districts get more state funding, but when you look at it per capita, each poor child in a poor district gets WAY less from Title I than a poor child in a rich district. It's a ridiculous system. You'd think where property taxes are high and the percent of poor kids way lower, that the Title I could step back, but that's not the way it works.

 

My understanding is that this is divvied up the same way in all states (correct me if I don't know what I'm talking about).

 

The general rule of thumb, though, is that wealthier districts have better funded schools. Now it may be that the poor districts are getting more money overall, but they might have much higher expenses.

 

However, this is all missing the point. The article was talking about rich vs everybody else. They're doing way better than even the middle class (which are probably mostly who's going to those "wealthy" public schools). And the middle class probably also have tons of parents who are just as verbally aware as the rich.

 

So what's going on? Is the term middle class just too broad and now also containing a lot of people who would previously been classified as poor? Because more of the lower tier of the socieconomic classes are now making into the middle class cut off? Or are there significant differences in what the rich are doing?

 

I'm not all that impressed with the study, actually, because from the article it didn't look like they could have controlled for things as well as they were claiming they did.

[flyingiguana]

 

That might be one reason, but a bigger factor is likely related to the parents' education and the children's access to books, a language-rich home environment, library programs and other informal community learning activities, etc.

 

I still think this misses the point of the study -- that the *rich* are doing way better. Lots of people in the middle class have the education and the opportunities to provide these things for their kids.

 

I mean, it could be the water -- there might be lead in everyone's water, but the rich have figured this out and found a way around it.

 

The article, though, should have provided some income cut offs so we could see what they were talking about.

[Parrothead]

Well, there may be something to the whole early childhood cognitive enrichment but I don't think it is that much of a difference.

 

Over the years I've bee places, talked to lots of people, seen things. Of course I've not done any formal studies or anything. I think a lot of the problem is how education is perceived by each socio-economic group. Within the communities education is not valued. There is pressure on a lot of these poor kids to not be like the rich kids or the smart kids or the white kids. Inner city kids don't have teachers that can relate to their struggles with life within the schools much less outside the educational environment.

 

Also gangs and drugs suck these kids up faster than any one teacher can help the kids avoid the gangs. The parents are absent in several ways. The best being the parents are working dead end jobs and trying desperately to get their families a better life. At worse the dad is not known, the mom is strung out herself.

 

Life itself is very different within poor communities than it is within the middle class or rich communities. Often the worst of humanity resides in these areas. Just getting to school can be an obstacle.

 

These are the things that need to be addressed much more than preschool cogitative explorations.

[KungFuPanda]

My theory is that kids who grow up in families that value education will do better in school. My family was poor. I don't remember ever asking for or receiving help with homework. We never went to expensive summer camps . . . occasionally a church camp, or something entered by merit like a science or writing camp that was heavily subsidised. We had no library nearby, but we were allowed to walk a mile to meet the weekly bookmobile. We were expected to get decent grades and become educated citizens even though our school system was rural and underfunded.

 

I honestly think that the schools are only 1/3 of the equation. In elementary school, the parents are responsible for another third and the child is the final third. There is equal responsibility and if a piece is missing the child will not do as well. A school system can offer services, but they can't force anyone to take them up on it. They can't MAKE families care. It's education that pulls you out of being "poor." Yes, there are uneducated rich people and VERY educated and intelligent poor people, but statistically, a much larger percentage of uneducated folks are concentrated in the lower income brackets. As a group, it's unrealistic to think that schools alone will close the gap. The statistics also don't account for the people who move from one socioeconomic level to another as their children age.

 

I currently live in the suburbs. The schools here are very good. The children come from varied backgrounds, but attend the same schools and classes for 13 years. There is still a discrepancy between rich and poor when the kids graduate. The kids aren't underperforming because they went to underfunded schools in a bad part of town. They underperform for personal reasons. You can't make laws to force people to care about their child's education or legislate that parents have the time and inclination to advocate for their child.

 

I'm all for getting up in arms when a situation is clearly unfair, or when a school is so bad that no child could be properly educated there. However, I think that statistics can be somewhat useless when looking at the unique problems of individual communities. It's just not as simple as "It's not fair that rich people have a better life."

[SKL]

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that preschool makes kids smarter or more successful. (My kids attended preschool, so I'm not dissing it, but it's a child care solution, not an IQ factory.) Rich or poor, what matters is that minds are engaged AND that they have time to clear at some point in time. When I was a kid I didn't do anything all summer that cost money, but I did a lot on that bike of mine. Wandering aimlessly has its merits. Now if I had been born with a low IQ, or suffered brain damage due to severe neglect/abuse during my formative years, no amount of wandering, working, studying, or other brand of "enrichment" would make me smart. It's not the amount of money that makes a kid successful, it's the factors behind both family income and child development. Genetics, good and bad habits, good and bad attitudes, and sometimes discrimination.

[RanchGirl]

That article addresses the source of the problem - children need parental involvement, stable home-life, "Goodnight Moon time," and cognitively stimulating experiences at young ages in order to succeed in school. But the author apparently believes that government can solve these problems. This flies in the face of all known evidence, and common sense. Government and public education can't solve this problem. Head start and other day-care programs can't solve this problem. Bussing the rich kids across town to "desegregate" the schools won't solve it. The solution is having a Mom and Dad, one of whom takes the toddler to the zoo, the park, and the library, and reads every book they can find to their little darlings, and talks about how important it is to do well at school, and tells junior he has a real future ahead of him someday.

 

It breaks my heart that children grow up in hopeless homes, but government can't make parents make good choices for their children.

[SKL]

I still think this misses the point of the study -- that the *rich* are doing way better.

 

Well let me see . . . I have a theory of my own. The "rich" kids might have rich parents, who might be rich because they are smart and got a good education. There are poor people who are smart and have a good education, and vice versa, but on average, people who are smart and educated are gonna be richer AND gonna have kids who do better in school. Hmm... What I'd really like to know is, how many more millions of dollars are they going to spend before they stop beating this dead horse? How about spending that money on a better education for the people who need it most?

[ElizabethB]

Methods can make a huge difference.

 

The fastest two children I have remediated were two 2nd grade minority boys with formerly homeless moms. They had been kind of in inner city LA schools, but mostly not in school. After 4 to 6 sessions learning phonics with Wester's Speller, they were both able to read the words and passages from the 12th grade level easily.

 

My remedial students who got a lot of sight words in school took longer to remediate, you had to untrain guessing habits and then build up good L to R reading habits.

 

I discovered Webster's Speller after I started working with inner city children, my previous students were mainly white and mainly middle class. I was able to get more inner city children reading above grade level than my previous middle class students, I only got a few of them above grade level, and then only a grade level or two. Several of my inner city students have been able to read 2+ grades above grade level after less than 20 hours of remediation.

[Paige]

Wow....so much is going wrong in that article. Where to start? I find it interesting that the poor and middle class scores are rising compared to the poor and middle class scores in past years. The difference is that the wealthy scores are rising more. Where's the analysis of this? Should we be happy that the scores are rising- isn't that good news? Or should we be concerned that scores are being inflated? Should we be surprised that the wealthy are working to ensure they continue to score as high as possible?? Of course they are scoring higher.

 

They say the schools don't create the gap (much) but then say that the gap increases by about 10% from what the kids show at enrollment. What???!! In what world is a 10% increase not significant? I see many many studies promoting changes in behavior or policy based on a much smaller statistical change or difference.

 

The conclusion that it is what happens in their early childhood that is most important and causing this gap? Huh, what? Where did that come from? (I did follow their logic in how they get that conclusion, but I find the logic terribly flawed and that it ignores many other more likely causes.)

 

It's easy- wealthy people have resources and time to make what they want and hope to happen happen. People with less means want the same for their children but have less resources to make it happen. It doesn't mean the rich are trying to keep anyone down- it means they have an advantage. It doesn't mean that less wealthy children are hopeless- they will just have to work harder for what will come easier to the wealthy kids. It's not fair but it's the way it is. The only way to make it otherwise is to prevent the wealthy from doing everything any loving parent would want to do for their children. That would not be fair either.

[dhudson]

Maybe I am just reading too much into this, but isn't anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gap lessens during the school year? To me, this means that no matter what you do in the summer or how much you prepare your students ahead of time, the ps is the great equalizer. It looks like the kids who went in higher didn't get what they needed to stay challenged. As a Mom of gifted children, that would worry me.

 

 

 

 

[ElizabethB]

 

 

But, we're spending OBSCENE amounts of money on the lower-income kids--with little to show for it! Wouldn't all hs moms LOVE to have the $14,000 or whatever it is that is now spent on black kids in DC for schooling? I don't think just spending more $$ is going to help. If our private school can do it for $4000 a year, there's a disconnect.

 

 

:iagree:

 

For the reading portion, all you need is a white board and $5 worth of printed materials for each student, the materials can be printed for the cost of ink and paper from my how to tutor page:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/howtotutor.html

 

I am sure you could do something similar with math using a whiteboard and MEP, maybe some right start math games.

[Parrothead]

I think this is one reason that hsing works--the vast majority of hsing moms hs because the family values education.

 

 

This is interesting. How far back did the researchers go? To the time when homeschooling started becoming mainstream? I wonder if the results are what they are today because the parents in low and middle class economic situations who value education have removed the kids from public school.

[wapiti]

I think family and community culture both play huge roles, sometimes even opposing ones, at which point family culture probably wins out (at least it did for my dh, who grew up poor in a "very bad" neighborhood in NYC but his immigrant parents valued education highly and he also happened to be very smart - attending a special high school was his ticket "out," but his siblings attended other high schools and also made it out).

 

I attended elementary school in a lower-middle-class suburb and was mocked - on a daily basis - for doing well in school, both by classmates and by some of the neighborhood kids. I wasn't challenged academically. Part-way through middle school, we moved to a new district in a relatively wealthier area; let's say upper-middle-class with perhaps some "rich" thrown in. I was put into honors classes and *never* mocked for doing well. I was challenged. (As an aside, kids were somewhat more likely to say "pardon me" rather than use curse words, so the whole atmosphere was different.) Education was valued. I never really thought about this particular comparison until just now. I don't know how much affect either school really had on me except for the challenge part; my family valued education generally (we had plenty of books, etc.).

[wapiti]

Maybe I am just reading too much into this, but isn't anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gap lessens during the school year? To me, this means that no matter what you do in the summer or how much you prepare your students ahead of time, the ps is the great equalizer. It looks like the kids who went in higher didn't get what they needed to stay challenged. As a Mom of gifted children, that would worry me.

 

 

No Child Let Ahead.

[AimeeM]

 

That might be one reason, but a bigger factor is likely related to the parents' education and the children's access to books, a language-rich home environment, library programs and other informal community learning activities, etc.

 

This.

In general, most non profit (church affiliated) private schools spend significantly LESS per pupil than the local public schools... and the private school students outperform their local public school peers (and by no small amount either). Catholic schools, for example, are non profit and only charge enough in tuition that it covers their expenses (with some additional fundraising necessary throughout the year by way of bake sales and book sales) - these days that amounts to about 5K per student (more if you aren't Catholic, because you aren't contributing by way of "tithing" to the parish supporting the school). Our local public schools spend almost double that per student.

The public schools here have things (in terms of technology, specialty classes, extracurriculars, resources for gifted and special needs) that the parochial and non profit private schools could only dream of having.

If this argument (in the OP) were true, then why aren't the public school students (who have so much more money allotted to their education) excelling ahead of their parochial school peers? What do the parochial schools have that the public schools DON'T have? Hint: it isn't things that money can buy necessarily. Even the parochial school teachers are paid less! The computer labs look archaic compared to those in the public schools. The libraries are in small trailers behind the school/parish. Kids eat in the gym or their classroom. You won't find students with school provided ipads. Still, they seem to fare better for some reason.

 

1. Small class sizes. The parochial schools have average class sizes of 15-20 for elementary classes; average size of 10-15 for middle grade class sizes, compared to the average class of about 28 in the local public schools.

 

2. Involved parents. Sucks but the truth hurts - they are more invested in their child's education, either because they are paying for it or because they cared enough to seek out scholarship opportunities for their child. Also, every local parochial school has mandatory volunteer hours (I believe you can opt out for a hefty fine). At home, you have parents who again are either highly educated themselves or want better for their children so they actively seek out scholarship opportunities for school and extracurriculars - either way, you have invested, involved parents.

 

3. The basics are solid. I mean really solid. They aren't generally concerned with the latest and greatest methods - they stick with what has always worked.

 

4. Why do even gifted and special needs children often excel in a school with almost NO resources for special education (gifted or otherwise)? My guess is because of the smaller and despite the lack of resources, teachers are often happy (and able) to accommodate different learning styles.

 

5. They are safer. I haven't nailed down exactly why. Perhaps because they are able to more easily implement policies that keep troubled children at bay or to help them seek help. Maybe because of the smaller size of the school - the teachers and admin have a more personal relationship with their students and can better troubleshoot or notice problems more easily. Maybe because they aren't in the habit of enrolling children who have no desire to be there. I'm not sure.

 

All of that to say this:

I'm going to be blunt and say that the only disparity I see is largely caused by parents not giving a hoot. Every day I see advertisements for summer enrichment camps or intervention programs - and all provide need based scholarships. You can't miss these advertisements... they pop up on my computer, on the television, the parenting magazines, the local newspapers, the radio. If a parent CHOOSES not to seek these opportunities or ask for scholarship money/financial hardship consideration, the blame is solely on their shoulders, nobody elses.

[Word Nerd]

Maybe I am just reading too much into this, but isn't anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gap lessens during the school year? To me, this means that no matter what you do in the summer or how much you prepare your students ahead of time, the ps is the great equalizer. It looks like the kids who went in higher didn't get what they needed to stay challenged. As a Mom of gifted children, that would worry me.

 

 

This is why we afterschool. I'd prefer to still be homeschooling, but it isn't an option at this point in time. In my experience, the below-average students are getting most of the attention and resources directed at them.

[Paige]

Maybe I am just reading too much into this, but isn't anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gap lessens during the school year? To me, this means that no matter what you do in the summer or how much you prepare your students ahead of time, the ps is the great equalizer. It looks like the kids who went in higher didn't get what they needed to stay challenged. As a Mom of gifted children, that would worry me.

 

No Child Let Ahead.

 

 

Yes, it could be that during the school year the gap decreases not because the poorer or middle class kids are performing better but because the more affluent kids are in school and not spending as much time with their personal tutors or whatever other enrichment they are getting and their scores decline.

[SKL]

Well, I agree that the money spent on education currently is too much and not well-managed. I did not mean to say more good money after bad is the answer, but more expensive studies "proving" that life is unfair isn't the answer, either.

[SKL]

Maybe I am just reading too much into this, but isn't anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gap lessens during the school year? To me, this means that no matter what you do in the summer or how much you prepare your students ahead of time, the ps is the great equalizer. It looks like the kids who went in higher didn't get what they needed to stay challenged. As a Mom of gifted children, that would worry me.

Yeah, this is what's troubling me right now. My kids are in a very good (parochial) school. My average daughter had average progress in reading this past year. My very advanced daughter took a hit as far as her standardized test percentiles. Why? Not sure, but it probably didn't help that the school has zero differentiation in 1st grade instruction. I mean literally zero. The slowest Title 1 children are doing the exact same work as the most exceptional students in the grade. My kid does do a lot of reading independent of school, but what is happening to her brain for the 7 hours she spends in that classroom? And there's only so much I can do with her in the evenings, for many reasons.

[jennynd]

 

Exactly.

 

Plus, I don't know how it works in all school districts, but don't the schools in the higher-income areas (and thus more revenue from property taxes) get better funding?

 

 

no. Not the case here. My district is quite wealthy. they get very little state funding while the poor district get a lit more. we are talking about 30% vs 70%

[Catherine]

I think family and community culture both play huge roles, sometimes even opposing ones, at which point family culture probably wins out (at least it did for my dh, who grew up poor in a "very bad" neighborhood in NYC but his immigrant parents valued education highly and he also happened to be very smart - attending a special high school was his ticket "out," but his siblings attended other high schools and also made it out).

 

I attended elementary school in a lower-middle-class suburb and was mocked - on a daily basis - for doing well in school, both by classmates and by some of the neighborhood kids. I wasn't challenged academically. Part-way through middle school, we moved to a new district in a relatively wealthier area; let's say upper-middle-class with perhaps some "rich" thrown in. I was put into honors classes and *never* mocked for doing well. I was challenged. (As an aside, kids were somewhat more likely to say "pardon me" rather than use curse words, so the whole atmosphere was different.) Education was valued. I never really thought about this particular comparison until just now. I don't know how much affect either school really had on me except for the challenge part; my family valued education generally (we had plenty of books, etc.).

 

 

Culture is HUGE. Just looking at how different cultural groups do educationally should point this out. After reading the Tiger Mother book, I made it a point to poll my co-workers about their cultural backgrounds (I work in a very culturally diverse place) and my co-workers are all doctors, PAs, or NPs. Exactly one of us, out of 32, has a typical suburban middle-class American background. That to me says that the middle-class suburban way of life is fairly anti-intellectual. My own experiences support that conclusion. Many of us are partially educated, or even completely educated, in American schools of various kinds, but a culture that strongly values diligence, independence, and self-respect seems to be the common denominator. I would argue that family should be the primary vehicle for transmission of culture, but schools are also a part of this equation, and often, not a positive one.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't believe that the rich have better childcare. I've seen the nannies they hire and as a former nanny myself, I'm appalled at how poor the quality of childcare provided by these nannies is.

 

IQ is about 80% heritable and most of the people who are well-off today are also above average in terms of cognitive ability. MSNBC recently had an article discussing research on the overlap between the cognitive elite and the financial elite.

[Susan in TN]

I think No Child Left Behind and it's federal predecessors just contribute to the downfall of the public educational system. I know for sure I'd hate to be a public school teacher in this environment, having no real control over what and how you teach.

[Wildcat]

. 

 

[ElizabethB]

I don't believe that the rich have better childcare. I've seen the nannies they hire and as a former nanny myself, I'm appalled at how poor the quality of childcare provided by these nannies is.

 

IQ is about 80% heritable and most of the people who are well-off today are also above average in terms of cognitive ability. MSNBC recently had an article discussing research on the overlap between the cognitive elite and the financial elite.

 

 

Literacy is actually more highly correlated with earnings than IQ.

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/profitable.html

[Parrothead]

Thinking about this more. I couldn't remember what I read early on in the article so I went back and reread it. This part said something to me

 

We are still talking about this despite decades of clucking about the crisis in American education and wave after wave of school reform.

 

I remember reading TWTM and Jesse talking about how her grandparents gave her a classical education at home after school. Until the whole school reform of the 50s the classical model was pretty standard more or less. I wonder how much of this crisis is manufactured by the education scholars themselves using the past 3-4 generations of children as guinea pigs.

 

Seems that with the changes within society at large was a recipe for disaster. I think the great education experiment has gone greatly awry.

[MistyMountain]

Actually the evidence does show the preschool for low income kids does work. I have a friend who teaches in a very successful preschool program where the kids from this low income area are starting kindergarten with all the skills they need and scoring similar to kids from better areas. There are studies that show that a quality preschool does make a difference for low income kids. The income gap does play a role. Providing a good environment from an early age does play a huge role and when the middle class is sliding and parents are working more hours it very much does play a role in it. High income people are doing more and more for their children. It has been a trend for a while but high income people can buy tutors and enroll their children in more enriching activities and middle class families are being squeezed more and must cut more out with the rising gap and inflation. There are things you can do with your children that don't cost money like free activities and tutoring yourself but I think the article is right about the general trend. I think it obvious that is what is occurring.

[AimeeM]

There are things you can do with your children that don't cost money like free activities and tutoring yourself but I think the article is right about the general trend. I think it obvious that is what is occurring.

 

.... or you can look into scholarships. For the life of me I have no clue why more people do not understand that this is an option. Even the elite summer enrichment camps here offer need based scholarships. All of the sports teams locally do the same. In fact, even our pricey children's museum offers "scholarship" passes for low income parents.

These things aren't hidden and are well advertised (here at least).

[In The Great White North]

The rich have always had the money to provide their offspring with the best available of everything. That hasn't changed. If the score gap is widening is must be caused by something else.

[catz]

Maybe I am just reading too much into this, but isn't anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gap lessens during the school year? To me, this means that no matter what you do in the summer or how much you prepare your students ahead of time, the ps is the great equalizer. It looks like the kids who went in higher didn't get what they needed to stay challenged. As a Mom of gifted children, that would worry me.

 

 

Yes, absolutely. I agree with whoever said the school is just one piece in the equation. A school should cannot replace an educated and engaged parent. Every child in the classroom deserves a meaningful education whether they walk in not reading at all or reading at a post 12th grade level. All the testing they do on kids would be much more meaningful if they tested in September and again in June and made sure EACH kid gained that year from where they were at. Teachers shouldn't be responsible for getting kids up 5 grade levels in one year when there's not a lot of support at home. Teacher's shouldn't be allowed to ignore kids that are ahead of grade level. I think the whole model currently used is broken.

 

That would be one major reason we hs. Years ago I had a conversation with the current ps elem principal (she taught my kids organ lessons occasionally). "Wait, your kids aren't in school at all?" (the real kicker is she just now noticed that???) Me: "Well, take B here--she's in third grade, reading at a post-high school level, doing 6th grade math, socially about a 2nd grader. You tell me what you can offer her? You simply don't have a place for her." And they didn't.

 

 

This is exactly my kids. Asynchrous all over the place. My oldest went to PS for 2 years to a popular, high achieving PS with a wonderful, engaged community of parents. Was not remotely a good fit for him. And there were a number of kids left in that school with a similar situation.

 

 

No Child Let Ahead.

 

 

Exactly. We've always called it "No child gets ahead".

[Crimson Wife]

Literacy is actually more highly correlated with earnings than IQ.

 

http://www.thephonic...profitable.html

 

 

Literacy and IQ have a fairly high positive correlation, however. Not perfect (everyone knows about dyslexic geniuses) but in general, brighter kids tend to be stronger readers.

[stripe]

Meh. I'm all for kids doing nothing but riding bikes to the creek and swimming all summer. (Notice I didn't mention electronics all summer. )

 

Amen. I have observed behavior that is seen as perfectly respectable when rich people do it, is a sign of laziness when poor people do it. For example, "free range parenting." Or being a stay-at-home mom.

 

I very much reject the idea that poor people are stupid compared to the rich, etc. There are a good number of famous wealthy people who make incredibly bad choices and are obviously very stupid (in every way) but who are bailed out by their parents and excused by society. A lot of celebrities are examples of this. When poor people make mistakes, they tend to be game-enders, as it were. I know someone who is serving life in prison with no chance of parole, who really does not deserve to be there in any sense. The NY Times had an article recently about how a lot of tangentially involved people get sent to prison because they don't have the scoop to negotiate a good deal --the article focussed on a woman whose criminal (ex?) boyfriend hid cocaine in her attic without her knowledge. He's long since out of prison; she is in for life. He could snitch. She could not. She lost. A lot of kids have parents in those situations, and the kids and community suffer dramatically as a result.

[Wildcat]

. 

 

[In The Great White North]

In fact, average test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the so-called Nation’s Report Card, have been rising — substantially in math and very slowly in reading — since the 1970s. The average 9-year-old today has math skills equal to those her parents had at age 11, a two-year improvement in a single generation. The gains are not as large in reading and they are not as large for older students, but there is no evidence that average test scores have declined over the last three decades for any age or economic group.

 

This brings up a few questions:

 

1. Has the NAEP been re-norm'ed like the SAT? (BTW, the NAEP website claims the test started in 2003, so obviously, it wasn't the same test in 1970.) It seems to me that the need to re-norm the SAT is evidence that average test scores have declined.

 

2. If they gave the exact same 1970 test (not a different version), would the kids score as well?

 

3 Are they allowed to use calculators on this test?

[ElizabethB]

Thinking about this more. I couldn't remember what I read early on in the article so I went back and reread it. This part said something to me

 

 

 

I remember reading TWTM and Jesse talking about how her grandparents gave her a classical education at home after school. Until the whole school reform of the 50s the classical model was pretty standard more or less. I wonder how much of this crisis is manufactured by the education scholars themselves using the past 3-4 generations of children as guinea pigs.

 

Seems that with the changes within society at large was a recipe for disaster. I think the great education experiment has gone greatly awry.

 

 

I have data that shows the decline in spelling...2 grade levels by the 1950s. I would love (but hate the fact that it has most likely declined) to see data for that time frame for math. Spelling is also a good proxy for reading, you can be a good speller and a poor reader but I have not yet met a good speller who is not a good reader.

 

The spelling data for the late 1800s and early 1900s is free online, the 1950s data is proprietary but I have a copy of the data in book form.

[MistyMountain]

.... or you can look into scholarships. For the life of me I have no clue why more people do not understand that this is an option. Even the elite summer enrichment camps here offer need based scholarships. All of the sports teams locally do the same. In fact, even our pricey children's museum offers "scholarship" passes for low income parents.

 

The article is addressing how the gap between the middle class and rich kids is rising faster then in the past when the differences between he middle class and rich were not as big as they are today. The gaps used to just be seen in lower class children. Middle class people cannot get scholarships to summer camps.

[beaners]

Actually the evidence does show the preschool for low income kids does work. I have a friend who teaches in a very successful preschool program where the kids from this low income area are starting kindergarten with all the skills they need and scoring similar to kids from better areas. There are studies that show that a quality preschool does make a difference for low income kids.

 

 

They come in with the skills they need, but is there any long-term gain? I seem to remember hearing about studies saying that those early gains disappeared a few years after entering school. I say that as someone who has been pressured to put her son in the school's special ed preschool for speech services. I think that it's great that kids have the opportunity to attend these preschool programs. I just don't know if they make a difference in the long run.

[swellmomma]

Meh. I'm all for kids doing nothing but riding bikes to the creek and swimming all summer. (Notice I didn't mention electronics all summer. )

 

That's what the supposed Great Generation did and they weren't any dumber for it.

 

Why is it that people today need triple the class time to get half the education of people just 1 or 2 generations past?

 

I don't think the problem is how much instruction/classes they are getting. I think it's a question of quality.

 

 

I agree. My kids spend the vast majority of their summer riding bikes and just roaming etc. I think the difference I see though even within my town is not limited to economic status either. It boils down to family involvement. If the parents value education and make it priority they do what ever it takes to help that child succeed no matter what their socioeconomic status is. If they don't they don't. What I see is kids roaming around all summer with no adult guidance about anything and they become hoodlums rather than using that time to build their friendships, community, explore etc. With low income families, especially when it is true poverty not just low income is that education is more of a wish than a plan. Meaning they know it is supposed to matter but for generations it has not happened and they have no frame of reference how to provide an environment for the children to succeed and then you add in parents working 1,2 even 3 jobs to make ends meet and they are never home to guide the child into choices that would help. The difference between the rich and poor in the case of parents always working or unavailable to the kids(which we see in rich families often too) is the rich people have access to good childcare, camps, nannies etc so the child is not really left to their own devices with no guidance at all. As well low income families have less access to good food (empty belly = empty minds) especially during the summer months when there is no access to school breakfast and lunches. Many of those kids from a young age are busy working to help support their families rather than out at camps/music lessons etc.

 

It is little wonder that the kids lose ground over the summer.

[MistyMountain]

They come in with the skills they need, but is there any long-term gain? I seem to remember hearing about studies saying that those early gains disappeared a few years after entering school. I say that as someone who has been pressured to put her son in the school's special ed preschool for speech services. I think that it's great that kids have the opportunity to attend these preschool programs. I just don't know if they make a difference in the long run.

 

There would be long term gain if they kept getting support. It would disappear if they were put in a poor environment without any enrichment. The program is too new to test the students in her program.

[Word Nerd]

All the testing they do on kids would be much more meaningful if they tested in September and again in June and made sure EACH kid gained that year from where they were at.

 

 

They do this already. It's how they measure an individual student's yearly progress.

[mamajudy]

There is pressure on a lot of these poor kids to not be like the rich kids or the smart kids or the white kids. Inner city kids don't have teachers that can relate to their struggles with life within the schools much less outside the educational environment.

 

Also gangs and drugs suck these kids up faster than any one teacher can help the kids avoid the gangs. The parents are absent in several ways. The best being the parents are working dead end jobs and trying desperately to get their families a better life. At worse the dad is not known, the mom is strung out herself.

 

Life itself is very different within poor communities than it is within the middle class or rich communities. Often the worst of humanity resides in these areas. Just getting to school can be an obstacle.

 

 

This sounds like a description of the situation at the school where my DH teaches. Try teaching a classroom of 25 to 30 (or in the case of some electives, 60 or more)of these kids. It's amazing that anyone learns anything at all at his school! After teaching 18 years in exclusive private schools, it was very enlightening when he went to a Title I school.

 

The so called "end-of-the-year" testing takes place here in April. Once that's over, the kids shut down and think it's the end of the year, when there is almost an entire quarter left of the school year. Then it's just field trips, parties, very little learning, and trying to keep things under control until they are released in June.