Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
-3.JPG)
American Idol 2012 finale
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2005 > August > 11 > Entry
Why we’re low in the world
Jenny D, a grad student in education at one of the nation’s best schools of education and author of an excellent blog, argued this week that America’s education system still produces scholars that can compete with anyone in the world.
Our big problem, according to Jenny D, is educating kids on the low end. She makes her point using TIMMS, an international math test:
“The highest scoring kids in the U.S. score as well as the highest scoring kids anywhere in the world. Our best and brightest are as good as the best and brightest anywhere. We are indeed producing scholars. They tend to be white and affluent, according to the statistics. They go to public and private schools.
The big difference between the US. and other nations is at the low end of the achievement spectrum. Our kids who score low are at the VERY bottom, well below the lowest scoring kids in other nations that we compare ourselves to (think Germany, Japan, Singapore, Denmark). Thus our average score is much lower than that of other nations. Not because our smart kids are scoring poorly, but because we have so many kids at the bottom, and our bottom is so low.”
So perhaps our wealthy, suburban kids are doing just fine. This raises two questions:
- How does the U.S. address obstacles to learning where the most urgency is needed — in poor cities and rural areas?
- How worried should Americans really be about international comparisons that show us far behind?
Permalink | Comments (18) | Categories: Testing
Comments
By Amanda
August 22, 2005 4:41 PM | Link to this
Tests, tests, test…are they really even accuracte indicators? I have a 12-year-old going into 7th grade. She’s been tested at least annualy with some sort of standardized fill-in-the-bubble (IOWA, OH proficiency, Terra Nova) since 1st grade. At what point do the kids just get burnt out and simply NOT CARE? I know that after year-in year-out sitting in judgement, not to mention the months-on-end test prep forced & endorsed by the school district, would wear on my nerves. And for what? Supposedly the kids that don’t pass the proficiency don’t pass the grade…I know of at least two students that this didn’t apply to….By Karen
August 20, 2005 11:39 PM | Link to this
As a group kids from poor families do not do as well as other kids because they do not have the same resources (which includes much more than money) as other kids. See search-institute.org and look for “developmental assets.”By Rick
August 20, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Question: Why do kids from poor families do much worse in school than those from middle-class and upper-income families? Please do not tell me we are not spending enough, because big-city schools have higher per student spending than most schools. Please don’t blame it on suburbanites or politicians because education is a personal a school community affair.By JennyD
August 18, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Hi. For the record, I am advocate of phonics. But not in isolation. Kids also need to read books and be read to, even as they learn the basics. I am considered, at my ed school, to be one of the more conservative members. I am not a huge advocate of differentiated instruction based on ethnicity or race. But I have not seen studies that show that poor people don’t value education. I have seen studies that poor people are not educated, however, but I have not seen studies that they don’t value education. In fact, a recent survey in Michigan showed that immigrants and minorities (blacks and Hispanics) valued education more than middle class whites.By Karen
August 17, 2005 10:32 PM | Link to this
And one more thing…here’s an example of someone who is probably helping to drag down the US’ TIMMS score. Use the Carnival of Education link that Scott provided and read about the “parent from hell.” How do you think that child is performing and what might he see as his future? This one is definately not an issue of poverty.By Karen
August 17, 2005 10:08 PM | Link to this
For more regarding where I’m coming from in my last post see: search-institute.org and look for “Developmental Assets.”By Karen
August 17, 2005 10:04 PM | Link to this
Wheels gets at what I was trying to say about motivation — but maybe did not convey too well. I think a student has to have some vision for what he or she could be in order to really engage in any kind of education, or to see the relevance of working at an education. Consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. If it requires all my time and energy as a parent to meet the basic physical and safety needs of my family or if those needs are threatened by sources beyond my control, what energy do I have left to invest in helping to meet the esteem and self-actualization needs of my children. (And this applies not only in poor families. In any family where abuse exists, a child will have to give much more attention to safety needs, possibly sapping some of the energy her or she might have devoted to the higher order needs of self-esteem and self-actualization. (And the abuse thing is just one other example — so don’t get hung up on that either because there are many other things that happen in and to families that sap motivation.) I said the issue gets complicated because there is not an overarching culture of the poor. There are millions of INDIVIDUAL families (each unique in its experiences and resources)trying to raise children in situations where their energies and resources are being drained by other stuff — some of that stuff might come from outside the family and some of it might be inside the family. How can we develop in families, communities and schools resources that support the healthy growth and development of all children?By wheels
August 17, 2005 7:40 PM | Link to this
I completely agree with Jenny D.’s comments. I read the back and forth arguments that have been going on here with rising anger toward those who feel the poor don’t value education. That’s absurd, and frankly, its attitudes like this that are part of the problem. I worked in various capacities with poor people, and I can tell you that they all have unique stories, just like everyone else. They are in their situation for a variety of reasons, and once they are in it, it’s not easy to get out. I was part of the “system” that’s supposed to help them, and I can tell you that the system doesn’t work. But you know what, no one really cares, because these people tend to not have a voice. If their kids program at school gets cut, are they there fighting it? No, because they have been beaten down so many times that they just accept this as part of their fate. It’s not that they don’t care about education, education does not care about them. I suggest you walk a mile in their shoes before you make sweeping assumptions.By Rick
August 17, 2005 6:19 PM | Link to this
Question, is it so much that our schools better serve rich, white kids (ah there it is, class warfare) or that those kids come better prepared and have higher parental involvement? If the latter, then why is that the fault of the schools. BTW: I was looking at you bibliography. Was I correct in gleaning that you are a critic of phonics?By Rick
August 17, 2005 6:12 PM | Link to this
Jenny, Among the poor there is less value on educated than among those who have achieved more financial success. Study after study has shown this; hopefully your life exeriences have shown that as well. While there are many poor people who value education, for example, immigrants from Asia, a greater portion of poor people do not value education as opposed to those who are not poor. Not one has advocated turning our backs on poor students, students not doing well, etc. I surmised from School Dad’s posts that he advocated focusing only on the non-achieving students. Some big city schools have done that and the more affluent, or even the poor with gifted children have moved out. See Scott Elliot’s piece in today’s DDN where he noted black students in Beavercreek did better than whites in math and science. No poster so far has advocating turning our backs on under-achieving students. Do you favor turning our backs on gifted and higher-achieving students?By JennyD
August 17, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the link! I think we should be very concerned about the low-end scorers. We, as taxpayers, will end up paying big time if our citizens our uneducated and unable to work. We should be VERY interested in raising the floor in terms of test scores and knowledge. I am quite dismayed at the comments that the poor don’t value education. So, you think that if a six-year-old child had the bad luck of being born to a poor mother, we should just turn our backs on that child? Screw him, and let’s worry about our own? I think we have a political, societal, and moral obligation not to label kids as failures before we give them to the tools to try to succeed.By Rick
August 16, 2005 6:01 PM | Link to this
School Dad, the reason I think you subscribe to the victim mentality is that in your first post you seemed to ascribe poverty to a lack of educational attainment. In addition, you ascribed to suburbanites a lack of concern. In another post you say a corporation would concentrate on its problems, not its successes. Actually, sometimes a corporation recognizes a problem , like a product in a low growth market and it cuts that product out. In hard times, corporation routinely cut their losses. I detect a whiff of egalitarianism in your posts. Bring the bottom up, concerntrate on them; don’t give special attention to higher performers. That attitude, which is prevalent in big city districts, is one reason the middle class has fled the big city school districts. You see, parents want their children to be high performers and given the attention and tools they need to be even better. In the Dayton City Schools such children were not given the attention or tools they needed, so they left. Various studies have determined that gifted children have not received the attention they need.By School Dad
August 16, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Why does Rick assume I would reject his program for avoiding poverty? I endorse it and live it everyday. Why does he say my comments convey a “victim mentality?” My point is only this. If you are a company and you want to be best in the world at what you do, you focus your resources and creative energy on solving your PROBLEMS, not celebrating your successes. Ohio legislators want to pretend the cities and small rural towns, and the problems of poor people, just aren’t there. They don’t care about them. Therre is no effort to solve those problems. The culture of poverty can be changed, but it takes effort and focus. Legislators can provide the focus on the problem and bring resources. Smart policy and programs do make a difference. Of course that’s not ALL it takes. Many others must buy-in and help. But this would be a good first step.By Rick
August 16, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
I agree with Dan and Karen, it’s the culture, stupid. Karen asks what can schools or lawmakers do about it? More and better vocational schools are part of the answer because many high school students just don’t fit into the “regular” type school. But how do we change a culture? Other than totalitarnianism, which I do not advocate, I am at a loss. Part of the answer is to reject the victim mentality that School Dad favors and hold people accountable for their actions. While School Dad would reject it, I have a program for people to avoid or get out of poverty: 1. Do not use drugs or alcohol, 2. Work hard in school, 3. Get a job and work hard at it and hard to improve yourself in it, 4. Do not have sex before marriage, 5. When married, be faithful, 6. Save your money, don’t spend excessively on the pleasures of today, 7. Number 6 includes saving for your retirement, and 8. Do not commit crimes or associate with those that do.By Karen
August 11, 2005 8:08 PM | Link to this
I agree with Dan that “when parents value education their child will succeed.” I don’t think you can identify an overarching culture of “the poor.” Which complicates the issue. I grew up in a rural community where education was seen in very practical terms. It was a question of how much and what kind of education do I need to be a farmer or to get a good factory job or to move away to the big city. That school system now participates in a county-wide voactional school that provides an alternative to traditional high school. That school is bursting at the seams and many of those students go onto some kind of further education. I think some of the students who were biding their time when I was in high school would have been motivated and engaged by the voactional school option. My point is that family culture, community culture and the student’s own goals all play a part. Our current system does well by those who are culturally and personally motivated to pursue higher education. It doesn’t do as well by students motivated to pursue trades or vocations that don’t require a degree. The student who has no motivation or vision for the future has no reason to invest any effort in an education. Where does motivation and vision come from? The student? The family? The school? the community? Why do other countries not seem to have this motivation problem? Is it because they don’t have as large a percentage of the population living in poverty? What can school systems or lawmakers do about it? Who else needs to be involved in a solution?By School Dad
August 11, 2005 1:24 PM | Link to this
Let’s suppose Dan is right. That the problem with test scores is a culture among American poor that doesn’t value education. Then what can we do to change that culutre? How can we focus resources on those poor people to accomplish this? Do you think suburban legilsators are thinking that way? No, they are focused only on getting more resources for their constituents. They don’t care about cities or rural towns. They try not to even drive through them. But if its important to America’s competitiveness in the world to get those poor kids up from the bottom academically, shouldn’t we be focused on addressing that problem? Yes, but it’s our suburban culture not to ignore the problems of poor folks, choosing instead to blame them for being poor.By dan kennedy
August 11, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
Show me the local lawmaker that doesn’t care. You can’t blame the government for everything and then expect it to fix the problem. That is a victim mentality. One must be responsible for one’s own education and that of one’s children. The poor do not do as well in school because their culture does not value education. When the parents value education their child will succeed.By School Dad
August 11, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
The system is stacked against poor areas. Property values are low which means less school tax when in fact they probably need more money. And these communities have less political clout. Suburbanites — the people who live there and the powerful lawmakers they elect — don’t care about cities and rural towns. They just pretend they don’t exist. This hurts America.