If you reply to this long (12 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
Kevin Laws (2011a) in his PhySoc post "Decline/Improvement of US
Science Scores internationally?" wrote:
"Digging into the underlying . . . . .[[TIMSS
<http://nces.ed.gov/timss/> and PISA
<http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/>]]. . . .data , it appears that the
US scores are unique among most countries on the list. Most countries
have relatively similar scores across schools *within* the country.
The US has widely divergent scores - districts with less than 10%
poverty rate (similar poverty rate to all the top scoring countries
on the test) actually outscore all other countries. The average
that's compared internationally is driven primarily by very poor
performance in the bottom performing districts in the US. THE
CORRELATION BETWEEN POVERTY RATE IN THE DISTRICT AND THE DISTRICT'S
SCORE IS STARTLINGLY STRONG. [My CAPS.]"
To which Art Hobson (2011) replied:
"That's quite an interesting observation, Kevin. If it's true, then
the US education system is not at all a problem. The rich/poor gap,
and specifically the existence of severe poverty, is instead the
problem. Does anybody know of any published articles documenting
Kevin's point?"
Eight articles or reports germane to the crucial influence of poverty
on the U.S. educational system are (in chronological order):
1. "Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform" [Berliner (2005)];
2. "Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success"
[Berliner (2009)];
3. "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid" [Riddle (2010)];
4. "Another Look at PISA" [Ravitch (2011)];
5. "Is the 'Teacher Effect' the Dominant Factor in Students' Academic
Gain?" [Hake (2011a)];
6. Is the 'Teacher Effect' the Dominant Factor in Students' Academic
Gain #3?" [Hake (2011b)];
7. "Is Poverty the Key Factor in Student Outcomes? " [Hamilton (2011)];
8. "Failure of U.S. Public Secondary Schools in Mathematics: Poverty
is a More Important Cause than Teacher Quality" [Marder (2011)].
"For the short term, preparing teachers in mathematics and science is
a wise and useful step toward improving schools. . . . . .[But]. . .
As quickly as possible, we must understand the link between poverty
and educational outcomes in the US, devise solutions, and test and
implement them. Britain briefly tried to substitute public relations
for aircraft safety and paid with the loss of its commercial aviation
sector. I hope the United States can avoid a similar error, that
proponents of teacher quality and charter schools will recognize the
weakness of the evidence before it is too late, that we will not
damage public education, let down our most vulnerable students, and
lose technical leadership we take for granted."
Michael Marder (2011)
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 29 June 2011; most are shortened by
<http://bit.ly/>.]
Berliner, D.C. 2005. "Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform,"
Teachers College Record, August 02, free online as an 872 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/ff8BVj>. Berliner argues that: "poverty places severe
limits on what can be accomplished through school reform efforts,
particularly those associated with the federal No Child Left Behind
law. The data presented in this study suggest that the most powerful
policy for improving our nations' school achievement isa reduction in
family and youth poverty."
Berliner, D.C. 2009. "Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors
and School Success." Education and Public Interest Center (Univ. of
Colorado) and Education Policy Research Unit, (Arizona State
University); online as a 729 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/fqiCUA>.
Hake, R.R. 2011a. "Is the 'Teacher Effect' the Dominant Factor in
Students' Academic Gain?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ>. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L
and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were
transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/ifvkSz>. I wrote: "(a) if "academic
gain" means "gain in higher-level learning for *U.S. K-12 students*,"
then the answer is: "NO! POVERTY is the dominant factor" - see 'I'
and 'II' above, and the next most important factor is the degree to
which 'Interactive Engagement' is provided by courses
and teachers - see III above."
Hake, R.R. 2011b. "Is the 'Teacher Effect' the Dominant Factor in
Students' Academic Gain? #3
" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/jy61UB>. Post
of 3 May 2011 13:02:37 -0700. The abstract and link to the complete
post are being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also
on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/k1HsRH> with a provision
for comments. I wrote: Regarding poverty as the dominant factor in
higher-level learning gain for U.S. K-12 students," Reeve Hamilton
(2011) in a recent report in the Texas Tribune titled "Is Poverty the
Key Factor in Student Outcomes?" did an excellent job of showcasing
Marder's analyses, which strongly suggest that (a) poverty rather
than "teacher quality" is the dominant factor in Texas K-12 students'
academic gain in mathematics, and (b) charter schools are not the answer.
Hamilton, R. 2011. "Is Poverty the Key Factor in Student Outcomes? "
Texas Tribune, 2 May; online at <http://bit.ly/mpkki0>.
Hobson, A. "Re: Decline/Improvement of US Science Scores
internationally?" PhySoc post of 28 Jun 2011 15:15:47-0500; online at
<http://bit.ly/lpQd72>.
Laws, K. 2011a. "Decline/Improvement of US Science Scores
internationally?" PhySoc post of 27 Jun 2011 17:54:16-0700; online at
<http://bit.ly/kyYyb9>. See also Laws (2011b) in which Laws points to
o Riddle (2011).
Laws, K. 2011b. "Re: Decline/Improvement of US Science Scores
internationally?" PhySoc post of 28 Jun 2011 21:01:46 -0700 ; online
at <http://bit.ly/jMcgX5>. Laws wrote: "I was secretly hoping that
I'd found something in the [PISA] data that nobody else had noticed
and I could shift the educational debate in this country with it.
Alas, it is not to be so. A few Google searches for "PISA and
Poverty" show that many others have found this. Here's a summary . .
. . [[Riddle (2011)]]. . . . that actually has tables with the stats
in the article.
Marder, M. 2011. "Failure of U.S. Public Secondary Schools in
Mathematics: Poverty is a More Important Cause than Teacher Quality,"
to be submitted, online as a 3.3 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/fjUquC>.
Ravitch, D. 2011. "Another Look at PISA" in the Ravitch/Meier blog
"Bridging Differences" of 4 January; online at
<http://bit.ly/lz8xpf>. Ravitch wrote: "The other salient factor
about U.S. performance on international tests is that we have an
exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty. Isabel Sawhill of the
Brookings Institution says that more than 20 percent of our children
live in poverty, and she expects that proportion to increase to
nearly 25 percent by 2014. As poverty deepens, Sawhill writes, we
should be strengthening the safety net that protects the lives of the
poorest. Robert Reich, the former treasury secretary in the Clinton
administration, says that income inequality is higher now than it has
been in many decades. Most of the nations (and cities) that compete
on PISA have far lower child-poverty rates."
Riddle, M. 2010. "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid," in the blog
"Principle Difference," 15 December, online at
<http://bit.ly/gA2RxV>. Riddle wrote: "There is, however, someone
who recognizes that the data is being misinterpreted. NEAToday
published remarks from National Association of Secondary School
Principals Executive Director, Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi, that have taken
'a closer look at how the U.S. reading scores on PISA compared with
the rest of the world's, overlaying it with the statistics on how
many of the tested students are in the government's free and reduced
lunch program for students below the poverty line.' Tirozzi pointed
out,'Once again, we're reminded that students in poverty require
intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling
alone cannot overcome.' Tirozzi demonstrates the correlation between
socio-economic status and reading by presenting the PISA scores in
terms of individual American schools and poverty. While the overall
PISA rankings ignore such differences in the tested schools, when
groupings based on the rate of free and reduced lunch are created, a
direct relationship is established."