...and they will continue to cheat students as long as they see our kids as competitors to theirs

by Prometheus 6
April 3, 2005 - 7:56am.
on Economics | Education

Quote of note:

Although rarely recognized, minority children seem to learn as much in school as their white counterparts, and on some measures, their gains are greater. For instance, an analysis of scores from the highly regarded National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that black eighth-graders in 1998 gained more in reading from the time they were fourth-graders than whites. Although schools can do much more to improve minority performance, big causes of the continuing gap in overall achievement are that disadvantaged children start out so far behind, and their education gets less support after school and during the summer break. The best opportunities for smart investments to boost minority performance further may lie outside the regular school day.

Tests suggest this because we can assess children at the end of the school year and again when they return for the next grade. Disadvantaged children's scores fall during the summer break, while middle-class children's don't. One explanation is that in the summer, middle-class children read more, travel more, go to museums more often and learn new social and emotional skills at camp or in organized athletics.

Cheapskate Conservatives Cheat Students
Let's pump some money into highly promising programs.
By Richard Rothstein
April 3, 2005

For years now, conservative economists have contended that sinking money into schools is pointless because test scores don't automatically rise when schools boost spending. True, spending and achievement don't always go hand in hand, but the conservative argument still doesn't make sense.

California spends only $7,000 per pupil, while New Jersey spends more than $10,000. But the economists who deny that money matters don't propose slashing New Jersey's standard to California's more miserly one. Nor do they propose cutting suburban spending, high in many states, to inner-city levels. Yet still they argue, illogically, against pumping more money into schools with less —  an inconsistency that suggests their opposition to greater spending is based more on parsimony than on analysis.

Certainly, schools and districts sometimes spend foolishly. But even die-hard opponents of increased spending acknowledge that, when used properly, more money can raise achievement. So let's move beyond sterile debates about whether money matters and focus instead on three areas in which added dollars could make the most difference.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by DarkStar on April 3, 2005 - 7:43pm.

Studies show that early childhood care and education programs are crucial to academic success. Toddlers whose parents have professional jobs possess vocabularies twice as large as those whose parents are on welfare. Middle-class children have more books and watch less television; they play more with toys that develop hand-eye coordination, which facilitates reading. They have had, on average, more conversations with educated adults, which builds confidence for school success.

It seems to me that if the parents/guardians did more reading to the kids, required more reading from the kids (free library anyone?), required work from the kids during the summer, made kids turn off the damn boob-tube, and visited free events at the libraries and local museums, then there would be less lost during the summer.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 3, 2005 - 8:14pm.

Problem is, of course, the parents have to work and so no one is there to do those things.

You know, folks claim schools are supposed to teach but (on the functional tip) an equally important function they serve is socialization. I think we need to recognize (or admit) that and act accordingly.

Submitted by DarkStar on April 3, 2005 - 8:31pm.

Problem is, of course, the parents have to work and so no one is there to do those things.

Both of my parents worked. In the meantime, my mother, who had friends who were teachers, got the names of books, the material to teach reading and writing, chalk, a chalk board, magnetic letters, etc, and taught me how to read, write, and do simple math. My father chipped in as well.

This was pre-internet.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 3, 2005 - 9:32pm.

With me, it was my sister...but we were playing school, not REALLY trying to teach me to read. Of course, once they saw what was going on they were somewhat relentless about my educational advancement (while I was busy following my own interests...lotta interesting discussions there...)

At that time my father had two jobs as a laborer and my mom was doing housework for folks unil she got that civil service job that took so many Black folks into the middle class.

It's not so important that parents do the teaching as that the teaching gets done. And in my case my parents couldn't do it.

Submitted by EG on April 4, 2005 - 2:58am.

You both made a point that is worth considering: it was your parent's and/or teacher's expectations of you to excel. There was someone around you who told you or communicated to you that you could do great things.

Even if both parents worked, they found some way to get books and learning materials into your hands. And expected you to use them.

High expectations of parents, teachers, older siblings and relatives and neighbors and even yourself would seem to have a great impact of a child's learning than anything else. I recall taking a graduate level math course in college as a junior. I was interested in the topic but heard that the teacher and subject was hard. I psyched myself into believing that the class was easy and I would do well. I got a A+ (my only in college) while my classmates struggled. I tutored some of them (they were grad students) and they thought I was some sort of genius. I told them my secret but they couldn't wrap their brain around the concept the class/subject was simple.

Submitted by dwshelf on April 4, 2005 - 4:49pm.

This doesn't quite fit onto this thread, but it sure seems relevant.
Affirmative Action & law schools.

Quote:
The ABA won't accredit a law school that doesn't ADMIT what they consider to be enough black law students, but doesn't seem to mind that at many of these schools, most of the black students admitted won't become lawyers. It's a fraud, a travesty, and something that makes me very angry.

Submitted by dwshelf on April 4, 2005 - 4:55pm.

I recall taking a graduate level math course in college as a junior. I was interested in the topic but heard that the teacher and subject was hard. I psyched myself into believing that the class was easy and I would do well. I got a A+ (my only in college) while my classmates struggled. I tutored some of them (they were grad students) and they thought I was some sort of genius. I told them my secret but they couldn't wrap their brain around the concept the class/subject was simple.

Couldn't let this go EG, it's too important and I wasn't trying to bury it. Such is the secret to life. Confidence combined with a willingness to simply proceed full tilt. They go together, you can't proceed full tilt without confidence, and with confidence such progress is, as you've so well explained, easy.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 4, 2005 - 5:15pm.

My heart bleeds for Volokh.

Do most white students become lawyers? Not that the answer will change my attitude...

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 4, 2005 - 5:36pm.

You guys missed my point, by the way.

My parents pushed me, but not my other siblings.

Circumstances matter.

Submitted by EG on April 5, 2005 - 1:29am.

P6,

Why were you pushed and not the others?

I was also pushed harder than my sister. I was the oldest and male. At least that's the reasons I've determined. I asked my mother years ago (after adulthood) and she denied treating us differently. My father's answer was 'she's a girl'- whatever that meant. But my sister and I agreed that we were treated differently.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 5, 2005 - 1:58am.

I worked reading and math on a 5th grade level in kindergarten. I was a shock to my parents, much less my teachers because they had no idea I could read (like I said, I learned by playing school with my sister). Even now they don't REALLY know what to make of me.

I became something of an experiment to several teachers and my parents were convinced I would be able to "break out" by my being kicked up a grade. So they supported that and told everyone I'd be a doctor or some such.

Submitted by dwshelf on April 5, 2005 - 3:43pm.

My heart bleeds for Volokh.

I'm not sure what you're saying here p6. That we're doing better than any alternative?

Do you see a problem with sending a young person to law school knowing that their chance of success is very small? The problem I see is that, worse than a waste of time, this negatively affects the young person's perception of how likely it is they will participate in society at a good level. Stories to the contrary not withstanding, failure in such an important endeavor is seldom a positive event.

Apparently what's going on is that top tier law schools both attract better qualified students, as well as take care of them better. Lower tier schools attract black students by the number rather than by qualification, and the lower half of that scale has a small chance indeed of succeeding, and they don't care.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 5, 2005 - 4:24pm.

I'm not sure what you're saying here p6. That we're doing better than any alternative?

I'm saying I have no reason to respect his concerns.

How many students go to law school?

How many become lawyers?

Skip the racial distictions for now.