Drat! White Kids Tested Better, Too
Sam Dillon writes for The New York Times about a disappointing state of affairs for some, that black and Hispanic kids tested better in reading and math proficiency, but white kids also upped their scores:
Between 2004 and last year, scores for young minority students increased, but so did those of white students, leaving the achievement gap stubbornly wide, despite President George W. Bush's frequent assertions that the No Child law was having a dramatic effect....The 2008 score gap between black and white 17-year-olds, 29 points in reading and 26 points in math, could be envisioned as the rough equivalent of between two and three school years' worth of learning, said Peggy Carr, an associate commissioner for assessment at the Department of Education.
...Despite gains that both whites and minorities did make, the overall scores of the United States' 17-year-old students, averaged across all groups, were the same as those of teenagers who took the test in the early 1970s. This was largely due to a shift in demographics; there are now far more lower-scoring minorities in relation to whites. In 1971, the proportion of white 17-year-olds who took the reading test was 87 percent, while minorities were 12 percent. Last year, whites had declined to 59 percent while minorities had increased to 40 percent.
The scores of 9- and 13-year-old students, however, were up modestly in reading, and were considerably higher in math, since 2004, the last time the test was administered. And they were quite a bit higher than those of students of the same age a generation back. Still, the progress of younger students tapered off as they got older.
Some experts said the results proved that the No Child law had failed to make serious headway in lifting academic achievement. "We're lifting the basic skills of young kids," said Bruce Fuller, an education professor at the University of California, Berkeley, "but this policy is not lifting 21st-century skills for the new economy."
Which is what the real worry should be.
and as the demo continues to shift, who're they gonna blame then? It's not a zero sum game... the point is to pull everyone up... but they have to want to. This is where a disinterest in learning hurts you...
So, how do you convince kids to continue to take advantage of their free education, when peer pressure and family is saying it isn't needed? That's why their scores plateau as they get older - learning just isn't a prize. IMHO anyway.
SwissArmyD at May 2, 2009 10:31 AM
"We're lifting the basic skills of young kids," said Bruce Fuller, an education professor at the University of California, Berkeley, "but this policy is not lifting 21st-century skills for the new economy."
The above is a stupid remark. The basic skills that we are lifting are the bedrock upon which those "21st-century skills" are built.
And, for that matter, from where I sit the single most important skill necessary for success in the 21st century is a very exotic one: The ability to read, write, and speak the English language proficiently. If you can't do that, then you won't be able to master all the high tech skills everyone is always on about (oh, and by the way, without those "basic" math skills that have jumped, you won't be able to master those high tech skills either).
More importantly, however, if you fail to achieve proficiency in all three aspects of language (reading, writing, speaking) then you have no chance of rising to leadership positions in any organization. On the other hand, someone who has thoroughly mastered all three language skills can effectively lead and manage those who have technical skills, even if they manager/leader does not have those technical skills to the same degree as his or her subordinates. The reverse, however, is not the case: someone with a great technical mind but poor oral and writing skills will not be able to lead or manage effectively, regardless of his or her technical achievements.
It is all about the fundamentals - they are the indispensable prerequisite for everything else.
Dennis at May 2, 2009 11:34 AM
We should call the No Child Left Behind laws by their real name - No Child Pushed Ahead.
DavidJ at May 2, 2009 11:54 AM
"the results proved that the No Child law had failed to make serious headway in lifting academic achievement."
It really ought to read: "the results proved that even under the No Child law, teachers have failed and continue to fail to make serious headway in lifting academic achievement."
There is a ton of research on highly effective/high performing schools pointing out that highly effective teachers are the decisive factor in lifting academic achievement.
No teacher union member will ever voice the unspoken truth about their objection to NCLB -ACCOUNTABILITY. If NCLB did not exist, the scores of poor, minority, and special ed students would be even lower than they presently are.
Under NCLB, the scores of students are disaggregated by sub-population and the performance report is broken down by district, school, and then finally by individual classrooms. However each state measures performance, under NCLB all students must reach some measure of "proficiency" or show progress toward reaching proficiency.
Teachers do not want that spotlight on them.
It is true that the populations of poor, minority, and special ed students are the most difficult students to move foward. The culture of poverty and low expectations is a very real obstacle.
That irony is that setting high standards and expecting proficiency is what these sub-populations need the most. They also need the best and most motivated teachers.
gsarcs at May 3, 2009 11:57 AM
As compared to 30 years ago, the educational performance of American children has plummeted relative to kids in other, less-developed countries. Our education system is an embarrassment. We talk about how well our girls have been doing. Well, they actually are doing much worse than before we decided to make the entire educational experience more "girl-friendly." They only appear to be doing better because the performance of the testosterone-poisoned boys has fallen even farther under this estrogen-drenched regime.
But never mind. We'll continue to feel smugly superior despite the evidence.
Jay R at May 3, 2009 1:54 PM
Leave a comment