Start Young, Go Far

I've pointed this out before, but in case you missed it, I'll say it again. The achievement gap cannot be laid solely at the feet of differing levels of school quality. There are much bigger issues that need to be addressed before we can really and truly close that gap.

Don't believe me? Check out this article from the Daily News. Turns out that six of New York's 32 districts don't have enough incoming kindergarteners qualify for a gifted and talented program to offer even a single section (about 25 kids) in the district. Want to guess where those districts are? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Upper East Side where a single school can have enough kids qualify to open at least two sections. No, we're looking at Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx. Kind of the usual suspects when we're talking about these issues.

The important thing I want to highlight here is that these tests were given to incoming kindergarteners who have not yet attended even a single day of school. Even before they enter the system, these kids are starting behind. Seems a little unfair to blame the schools for that.

So what do we do?

Looking at information like this just makes me think that we need to start extending our efforts farther and younger. In neighborhoods like Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx we need to make better efforts to boost child health and nutrition. We need to provide more resources to help parents be better parents. We need to invest more in early childhood learning and intervention.

Clearly, the problems start before the kids get to school and extend far beyond what happens in that single building. We need to make sure our solutions do the same.

A Question of Why

Good news, people. A report out of the Center on Education Policy has found that the achievement gap is narrowing. Of course, it's not nearly that simple, but let's take a moment at least to bask in the very positive headline.

The study found that on the whole, the gap between minority and poor children and white and more advantaged children is less than it was. Furthermore, the gap closing seemed to be taking place largely because those at the bottom are gaining more quickly, as opposed to those at the top slowing down.

And now for the bad news. First, there's still an achievement gap and it's huge in some states (as much as 20 percent). Second, this report looks at state test scores and doesn't take into account the lack of progress on achievement gap closing as its shown by NAEP scores. Also, while the gap narrowed 58 percent of the time (across all of the studies trend lines), the gap increased 37 percent of the time.

The picture gets bleaker pretty quickly, doesn't it?

The next step that these researchers never seem to take is to look at why this might be happening. I get that the study I'm asking for would be infinitely more complicated. I really do understand that. But it also seems like it would be worth it. As it stands, we're looking at data and saying, "Wow, that's great that the achievement gap is closing (except where it isn't). Let's make sure all schools are doing that. Oh wait. We don't know what's actually making the difference. Let's open more charter schools." At least, that's what I'm hearing policy makers say. Maybe you're hearing something different.

To sum up, let's celebrate those 58% who are successfully working to close the achievement gap. But let's not celebrate for too long. After all, for another 37%, the problem is getting worse and we don't really know what's making the difference either way.

More Than Parity

One story I've been following with a mild degree of interest is the controversy over PTAs hiring teaching assistants in their schools. Apparently, for the last several years, certain well-to-do schools - mainly on the Upper East and Upper West sides - have been using PTA money to hire extra staff for their schools. The teaching assistants don't engage in instruction, but they are another set of eyes, ears, and hands around the classroom.

Frankly, the idea seems pretty good to me. The only problem is that the teaching assistants were not unionized, which brought about a complaint from the UFT, which brought about a change in policy from the DOE, which set off a lot of upset parents in those neighborhoods.

The disturbing thing to me has been the backlash against these parents who are trying to do the best they can for their children. As one woman wrote to the New York Times, "Thank you to the United Federation of Teachers for trying to level the learning field. "

Now don't get me wrong. I'm all about closing the achievement gap, but this is ridiculous. We should be trying to close the gap by bringing up the poor schools, not by bringing down the good schools. That's a solution out of Stephen Colbert's head. (Seriously, it is. Here's the link.)

We have to keep in mind that our goal is not just educational parity. Our goal is the best possible education for every student. That includes the rich kids. So while we should focus our efforts on raising the level of achievement for those on the bottom end of the spectrum, our efforts should not try to limit the options available to those on the top end.

Also, for what it's worth, it looks like they may have found a solution (to the teaching assistants issue, not the achievement gap. We're still working on that one.)

Agreeing into Oblivion

Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich are working together now. At least for a while. In other news, hell has frozen over.

Seriously, though, last Saturday uber-liberal Al Sharpton and arch-conservative Newt Gingrich shared the stage at a rally calling for the closing of the achivement gap. Sharpton called the pairing the "original odd couple" which would be a pretty good line if he hadn't already used it to describe himself and New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein.

On the one hand, this is great news. It means that leaders, regardless of political affiliation, are seeing that the achievement gap is a problem that demands a solution. On the other hand, this level of ubiquitous agreement doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to get results. Just ask anyone who wants to "protect the middle class" or "support our troops." Everyone agrees that these are good things. Being against them would pretty much be akin to opposing motherhood. But agreeing on the goal doesn't make the fight over achieving the goal any easier.

The danger here is that "close the achievement gap" is going to be agreed into oblivion. It'll just become another bromide that gets thrown out around campaign time. It becomes just another example of unspeak. What we need is not rallies saying that we're against the achievement gap (or for the middle class or in favor of motherhood), but real solutions to how we're actually going to get something done.

At the rally, Gingrich said, "We're not telling you what the answer is." No kidding. But until we do find the solution, all the rallies in the world aren't going to help.

Cost of the Gap

In case you weren't compelled by the moral issues involved in closing the achievement gap, there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that it makes some economic sense too. A recent report from McKinsey & Company has garnered a certain amount of headlines by proclaiming that the effects of the achievement gap are akin to a "permanent national recession."

The gist is that our GDP is $1.3 to $2.3 trillion lower than it would be if we closed the achievement gap. That's $3 - $5 billion a day (or about one Michael Bloomberg a week). Pretty stiff stuff.

The thing is, the report doesn't offer any clues as to how to solve the problems facing education, only saying that they should be solved. Well, duh. It's like going to the doctor with a headache, finding out you have a brain tumor, and then being asked to leave without being told what you can do about it. I guess it's good to know, but that's not necessarily helpful.

Maybe this is the symbolism that Eduwonk has been looking for. The image or idea that finally compels people to act. Maybe it will be that. More likely, it will be more fuel for every group to use to promote their own ideas for improving education (me included).

Get Them Early

A University of Illinois study recently found that students who take advanced level math classes in middle school are more likely to take advanced level math classes in high school. The researchers then argue that closing the achievement gap in high school can be done by increasing the number of students taking advanced math in middle school.

But why stop there? I'll bet that the number of kids taking advanced math in middle school correlates to the level of math instruction in elementary school. This study (unless I'm missing something) just seems to be saying that the achievement gap doesn't start in high school. It seems to be saying that gaps that exist in middle school carry over into high school.

I guess it's nice to have the data to back it up, but this seems like pretty low-level stuff to me.

Similarly, another study in California found that assessing college readiness in high school, and helping those who are behind, will help reduce the need for remedial classes when those students get to college. Again, this boils down to showing the need to help kids before the problem really develops.

So why wait until the junior year of high school? Or why wait until middle school (which we now know affects how kids do in high school)? Why don't we start at the very beginning when the kids first get to school or even before that?

The best way to close the achievement gap is to prevent one from ever opening. We're going to need to start way before middle school if that's our goal.

What About Everyone Else?

With all the moaning and wailing about how hypocritical liberals are opposed to school vouchers - which, of course, have a proven record of success - it's nice to see someone in the press gently tap the breaks on that runaway train by pointing out that vouchers (like charter schools) don't help nearly the number of children we need to if we want to dramatically reform education in the country.

The argument is pretty simple and I'm surprised that it's not made more often. It boils down to this: vouchers (and charter schools) may benefit those who are lucky enough to be part of the program. (Though there is some evidence to suggest that this is not the case.) However, even if those students benefit, what about the kids who are left in the traditional schools? What do we do about those kids? We've learned from the Milwaukee voucher experiment that the overall school system doesn't improve. Choice will breeding competition breeding success hasn't worked so far.

If we focus our efforts on saving a few kids while ignoring the rest, we aren't actually doing anything to close the achievement gap. All we're doing is adding another variable to the haves and have nots equation.

BONUS: Check out this article on the roots of urban poverty. According to the author, the ghetto culture that traps people into poverty should be viewed as a learned behavior. If true (and I think it is), it means that the behaviors can be unlearned and other attitudes put in their place. Ultimately, it's a very hopeful premise.

Achievement Gap Discovered

Add Florida middle schools to the list of locales that have officially discovered the achievement gap and are sweating over what to do about it. As last week's Orlando Sentinel reported, many middle schools are offering high school level classes to their students, giving them an opportunity to take more challenging course work. It turns out that those classes are made up predominantly of white students. And the achievement gap has been discovered.

Here's the part that makes me shake my head. Now that Florida officials have discovered the achievement gap, they're trying to decide what to do about it. One of the solutions they're apparently considering is doing away with this program. What? Talk about treating the symptom without going to the root of the problem.

The real issue (as I read the article) is not that this advanced classes program is so discriminatory in who it accepts that only white kids get in. Far from it. Rather, the problem is that by the time the kids reach the age of eligibility for the program there's already a gap in academic preparedness that favors white students. Getting rid of the program is not the answer, academic and social interventions that prevent the achievement gap from opening is where the answer lies.

Look at it this way. If I get on the scale and think that I weigh too much, I shouldn't just throw the scale out. I should focus on eating better and exercising more. Getting rid of the scale doesn't solve my problem, it just keeps me from being reminded of it.

Getting rid of these advanced level courses doesn't close the achievement gap, it just hides it. The real problem would still be there.

On Screen Doors and Schools

Yesterday was a big day for education in the New York City papers. First, the Daily News discovered the achievement gap. (I told you it was a big day.) They found that schools receiving D's and F's on the DOE-issued report cards tended to have a higher percentage of minority students (particularly black and Latino) than schools receiving better grades. Given that these grades are based largely on achievement on standardized test scores, it's hard to see that this report shocked too many people. Still, the headline ("Bad New York City Schools trap many minorities, study says") provides a nice implicit argument for charter schools and voucher programs. Not that the News would seek to inject their opinion or anything.

The bigger and more interesting news of the day was reported in the New York Times. According to a newly released study, New York City children who live in public housing perform worse in school than their peers who do not live in public housing. On the surface, this is another not terribly surprising statistic given that public housing in the city goes predominantly to low-income minorities. We know from reading the Daily News that this demographic doesn't do as well on standardized tests. What's interesting about the study reported in the Times is that kids in public housing perform worse in school, even compared to students at the same school who share similar demographic factors like race, gender, and poverty. That's a hugely important point. It's not just that the kids in public housing tend to share the traits that we know are indicators of the achievement gap. There is something about living in public housing itself that depresses school achievement even farther.

The authors of the study very professionally refuse to speculate as to what about living in public housing has this negative impact on school achievement. In their words, "We don’t have the data that would enable us to pin it down."

However, the inescapable conclusion is that homelife matters; it has an impact on a child's success at school. To my mind, this has to be a major focus of any real efforts to reform public education. We can't focus just on schools because there are so many factors beyond the schools that impact a child's ability to learn and succeed. As I have been told and say repeatedly, trying to fix education by focusing entirely on schools is like trying to clean the air on only one side of a screen door. Certainly, the schools are important and that's where we can and should focus resources and energy. However, it cannot be our only focus. This study shows us that there's more to schooling than school.

Start Early

In their relentless pursuit of "reform" the DOE implemented a new gifted and talented admissions policy this year. Every interested child entering kindergarten and first grade took two tests. Those scoring in the 90th percentile or above got to enroll in the gifted and talented program. At the time the new policy was announced, it was painted in terms of fairness and equity. I seem to remember reading that this uniform policy was going to make G&T programs available to more kids across a wider demographic gain. For reasons that will become clear in a moment, I kind of new that wasn't actually going to happen. Turns out, I was right.

According to the New York Times, the new policy has resulted in a smaller, whiter cohort of children entering the G&T programs across the city. All I can say is, what did you expect?

I think that there are probably some pretty good justifications about running the system the way the DOE is trying to do now. It does provide a certain standard bar that eliminates the "friend of the principal" possibilities that used to exist. It also ensures that being in a G&T program means that at least at some level, the children are gifted and talented. Both of those are valild justifications for running the program this way.

It was always ridiculous, from the very start, to say that this was going to increase access and diversity in the programs. Haven't these people heard of the achievement gap? Haven't they heard that it starts at a young age?

The possible value of this program for education researchers and reformers is that it pretty convincingly demonstrates that the achievement gap exists before the kids ever enter the school building. Keep in mind that these are kids entering kindergarten and first grade. At least half of them have never set foot in a school building. And yet, black and hispanic children do not score as well as their white counterparts. My guess is that this would track along economic lines too, but I don't see the data on that in the Times article.

To me, this sets out in pretty clear terms that when we talk about the achievement gap, we cannot blame its existence entirely on substandard schools. True, the schools are where this can change, but we need to look beyond the schools also. Early childhood education, parenting classes, nutrition and health care - these are the things we need to look at before children ever walk into their first day of kindergarten.

Either a car or an insurance company is running ads now that says the safest way to survive an accident is to never get in one. Well, the best way to close the achievement gap is to never let one open. These test results give us a better clue of where we can start working.