On Monday, I wrote
a post that argued that the constant focus on the failures of American school system is misplaced. Because there are many indicators that success, not failure, is the norm of the school system. I was delighted to see, both here, and elsewhere, a number of thoughtful responses and questions, so rather than just post short comments in response, I thought I'd use today's post to substantively respond to a few of the comments that particularly piqued my interest. (A couple of other questions I will answer in comments on yesterday's post.)
Reader Comment: In My Experience, Kids are Doing Terribly
I saw this quite a bit. I believe that people are frustrated on how kids are doing in their individual schools, etc. I am saddened to hear it. But I'm not reporting on individual schools, but cumulative data. And I wonder: are the kids who are doing poorly actually the normative experience? And is their work (across the board) terrible, or are their skills uneven?
Reader Comment: How does the US school reform compare, internationally?
Some argued that the American school system's improvements should be called into question because the national progress is much slower than that of other nations.
First, my point is that if we focus only on the disaster story, we may actually be slowing progress. I said that schools need to be improved – some desperately – so I don't think that the rate of improvement, compared to other countries, is really relevant to my point.
Secondly, without knowing what countries we are specifically talking about, it's difficult to fully respond. But I do think international rankings are an easy scare tactic that can lead to headlines, but not necessarily productive change.
Let's take, for example, Singapore. Singapore is a country that is heralded around the world for its progress particularly in math (with its highly innovative style of math instruction that some US schools are adopting). Singapore's progress is fantastic; however, there are only about 670,000 kids from zero to 14 years-old in the entire country. There are more kids in the City of Los Angeles public schools than there are in the entire country of Singapore. Those international rankings don't look at the size of the system, etc.
There are also unique challenges that face American public schools that just don't occur anywhere else on the globe – from differences in language to culture. So an across-the-board international comparison just doesn't seem appropriate to me.
Reader Comment: Are These Effects Holding True Across Socio-Economic Strata and Race/Ethnicity?
This is a great question (it's a point that I always want to address, but sometimes including it just confuses, rather than elucidates).
The report that was the catalyst for yesterday's post was based on Census data; the report includes information on racial group differences, but they don't report on socio-economic differences. Neither does the National Center for Education statistics.
According to Census, the increase in school participation – whether we look at early education or college enrollment – is seen across all racial groups. If you were to make a graph of the data, it would appear to be an essentially linear increase. The fact is, however, that the economy has been taking a toll on families, and from 2006 to 2008, we're seeing some dips in preschool and college enrollment, and that again is fairly true across racial groups. Some of the data seems to suggest that the economy is hitting black families hardest – with fewer of their kids in preschool and college – but then the other data seems to suggest everyone's being affected.
The NCES http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/ reports that in its assessment of school-age progress, that there has been improvement (at least in younger grades) across all racial groups. It doesn't mean that the racial disparity has been eliminated, but we are seeing progress.
As for socioeconomic data, I think the most interesting data that I mentioned yesterday was that the majority of parents who were happy with their schools. That was true for parents with less than a high school education, and those whose children were going to a school that had been assigned to them because of locality. Parents who had higher levels of education (and are thus presumably more affluent) were more satisfied with their kids' schools, but it was true across parents' backgrounds.
And I'm sure someone is studying this, but I haven't really seen any data that compares the progress of the more affluent compared to lower economic families over time. Most of the work that I've seen is cross-sectional – just compares kids in various levels of affluence concurrently. But it's a really interesting question that I promise I will look into further. And if there is anything, I will let you know.
Reader Comment: Do I really believe that kids go to school because it is interesting; isn't it just so they can go to college or because they are made to go?
I agree that there was probably some social-desirability in the kids' answers. But I actually believe it, as well. Every kid I've ever known (from me to my tutoring kids) is bored out of his mind by the end of a long summer vacation. Kids enjoy learning. They like being engaged and doing things. Think about the sheer joy a kindergartner has at learning how to write his name.
Could school be better at engaging kids? Sure. Does that mean that the majority of kids go to school only because it's legally required? I don't think so.
Great questions, Everyone! Please keep them coming! (On this topic and others.)
