Achievement Gap
I read this article today on the achievement gap. It reminded me that last October I drafted the following post on the topic:
This morning [ed. -- last October] I heard a report on No Child Left Behind ("NCLB"). Then, I watched my nephew run in the state cross country ("CC") meet. The two events might relate.
NCLB: The NCLB report shows that the Nation is not making significant progress in improving education performance overall; however, it shows that the "achievement gap" -- the performance differences between various groups (primarily racial groups) -- is closing. In other words, we're not doing better as a whole. But, the distance between the top and bottom is shrinking.
CC: The runners started in a pack, but, by the end of the race, there was a huge spread between the first and last runners. The winners were congratulated. It would be a joke to suggest that the sport as a whole is flawed because of the achievement gap between first and last places. It is a simple fact that some runners work harder and come to the meet better prepared.
NCLB: Even though the report shows that the Nation is not doing better as a whole, the White House hailed it as a success. Of course it did. NCLB is not concerned with improving overall performance. Nor is it focused on improving individual performance. Instead, it is focused on shortening the distance between first and last. The report and the reaction show that NCLB is getting exactly what it is after -- a pull to the middle.
CC: Each runner should work hard to improve -- before the meet. Some will work harder than others and will improve their performance; with constant effort, they might even win some races. If, however, cross country were governed by the NCLB approach, individual preparation would be irrelevant; the important thing would be to close the achievement gap between the best and worst runners. In future meets, NCLB would require all runners to do about the same, no matter what they did to prepare: no matter whether they train 2 hours a day or 3 minutes a week.
If we're unwilling to acknowledge that preparation and effort outside the actual race have any importance, but we decide that the main drive of the cross country season is to correct the achievement gap, what is left other than putting ankle weights on the top performers?
NCLB: NCLB is designed to have the bottom come up and the top stagnate or come down. And that's what we're getting. We don't do any better as a Nation, but, by golly, the achievement gap is overcome! We will meet in the middle -- as other nations race past us.
It is ridiculous to gauge success by measuring the gap between top and bottom performers. If there are obstacles to learning in the classroom and in the system, they should be identified and eliminated. But, to try to use education policy to overcome massive differentials that occur outside the classroom simply denies reality. Some get more support at home and come better prepared to learn. Those advantages virtually guarantee better performance, unless we hobble those students or actively work to negate the advantages that come from greater effort and preparation.
We do need to improve the performance of the worst performers, but not at the expense of the top performers. Helping both, and those in between, can best be accomplished by measuring the performance/gains of the individual. Rather than focus on group versus group statistics, we should ask, "Is each student improving at least one grade-level each year?" If so, public education is doing its job. If some parents and students want to achieve more, they have 5 or 6 years before the child hits the system, and, after that, they have weekends, summers, and 17 hours every school day to do something about it. Some families will take advantage of that time. Others will not. And performance will reveal who did and who did not.
This morning [ed. -- last October] I heard a report on No Child Left Behind ("NCLB"). Then, I watched my nephew run in the state cross country ("CC") meet. The two events might relate.
NCLB: The NCLB report shows that the Nation is not making significant progress in improving education performance overall; however, it shows that the "achievement gap" -- the performance differences between various groups (primarily racial groups) -- is closing. In other words, we're not doing better as a whole. But, the distance between the top and bottom is shrinking.
CC: The runners started in a pack, but, by the end of the race, there was a huge spread between the first and last runners. The winners were congratulated. It would be a joke to suggest that the sport as a whole is flawed because of the achievement gap between first and last places. It is a simple fact that some runners work harder and come to the meet better prepared.
NCLB: Even though the report shows that the Nation is not doing better as a whole, the White House hailed it as a success. Of course it did. NCLB is not concerned with improving overall performance. Nor is it focused on improving individual performance. Instead, it is focused on shortening the distance between first and last. The report and the reaction show that NCLB is getting exactly what it is after -- a pull to the middle.
CC: Each runner should work hard to improve -- before the meet. Some will work harder than others and will improve their performance; with constant effort, they might even win some races. If, however, cross country were governed by the NCLB approach, individual preparation would be irrelevant; the important thing would be to close the achievement gap between the best and worst runners. In future meets, NCLB would require all runners to do about the same, no matter what they did to prepare: no matter whether they train 2 hours a day or 3 minutes a week.
If we're unwilling to acknowledge that preparation and effort outside the actual race have any importance, but we decide that the main drive of the cross country season is to correct the achievement gap, what is left other than putting ankle weights on the top performers?
NCLB: NCLB is designed to have the bottom come up and the top stagnate or come down. And that's what we're getting. We don't do any better as a Nation, but, by golly, the achievement gap is overcome! We will meet in the middle -- as other nations race past us.
It is ridiculous to gauge success by measuring the gap between top and bottom performers. If there are obstacles to learning in the classroom and in the system, they should be identified and eliminated. But, to try to use education policy to overcome massive differentials that occur outside the classroom simply denies reality. Some get more support at home and come better prepared to learn. Those advantages virtually guarantee better performance, unless we hobble those students or actively work to negate the advantages that come from greater effort and preparation.
We do need to improve the performance of the worst performers, but not at the expense of the top performers. Helping both, and those in between, can best be accomplished by measuring the performance/gains of the individual. Rather than focus on group versus group statistics, we should ask, "Is each student improving at least one grade-level each year?" If so, public education is doing its job. If some parents and students want to achieve more, they have 5 or 6 years before the child hits the system, and, after that, they have weekends, summers, and 17 hours every school day to do something about it. Some families will take advantage of that time. Others will not. And performance will reveal who did and who did not.
posted by steve u. at 12/26/2005
Subscribe
5 Comments:
Excellent comments! When we try to guarantee success with sentient beings, all we really do is guarantee failure. You can lead a horse to water, and even make it enticing, but you CAN'T MAKE him, much less a human being, drink.
Steve, you articulate in this blog what I have long observed myself. Socialism is all about enforcing mediocrity, thereby eliminating incentive. I think Madeline L'Engle made this point quite well in her 1963 kids sci-fi classic A Wrinkle In Time. Certainly we need to address deficiencies in our education system, but it is utterly ridiculous to diagnose all (or even most) performance differences as the fault of that system. That leads us into the trap of thinking that government is the answer to every problem.
My two oldest sons are very bright boys, but their academic performance differs drastically. One turns in his homework while the other doesn't make it a high priority. Their grades reflect this. We put in vastly more time with the son that experiences the difficulties. Is it reasonable to even think that the school system is at fault for my son's problems? No. He's capable, and he actually pulls decent grades when we ride his tail like crazy. It would be ridiculous to demand that the system hold my one boy back due to my other boy's lack of effort, but that is the ultimate effect of NCLB.
Steve, the original intent of the bill was to punish "poor" schools and let students attend "good" schools thereby paving the way for vouchers. Turns out that the existing charter schools do not do a better job in academic performance. (so much for the voucher theory) Meanwhile the schools are all gearing students to taking tests and the arts and physical education programs are taking a beating. Still scratching my head on this one.
I agree with your comments, Steve.
Unfortunately, I believe public education in Utah is funded to mediocrity. It costs significantly more to provide education for students who don't natively speak English (I believe the number is an additional 40%). We are seeing considerable growth in the percentage of students classified as "English Language Learners", but funding is provided based on an average that is no longer average. (I don't believe current funding levels are adequate for any type of student, but that's a discussion for another time.)
The State Board of Education has requested funding to improve the teaching of math in grades 4-6, and funding to provide additional help to high school students struggling to pass the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (required for graduation with a full diploma).
Please, please, please, support these programs which will bring the bottom up without sacrificing funding or quality for students at the other end of the spectrum. (The math initiative should actually increase performance at all achievement levels as the recent K-3 reading program did.)
I think the previous 2 posters made some interesting commments.
The recent k-3 programs have indeed made at least an impact in my own classroom. Out of 25 students, 15 are reading on the NEXT grade level, 2 more are very close and the rest are improving rapidly (halfway through the year).
Being a conservative myself, I don't recommend huge increases in funding. My problem lies in some of the incessant attacks and rhetoric leveled at public education While I understand some of the reasons, the negativity and blame game and such are just not the way I was raised Iand yet here I am criticizing:). I think we in Utah can do some wonderful things in education if we all have the right attitude and work together--AND if we get rid of all the political junk (sorry couldn't think of a better term)--ON BOTH SIDES.
<< Home