David Brooks thinks it's human capital. His column confuses me, though, because Brooks wrote just??last month that schools should not abandon academic reform??to instead concentrate on remedying what occurs outside their walls (poverty, family breakdown, etc.).??Today's piece??seems to say the opposite, but perhaps I'm reading it the wrong way.
Update: The Onion weighs in.
"Community leaders on Monday called on students from poorer parts of Chicago to protest inequalities in school funding by skipping the first day of classes."
Article here.
I've come to admire the anonymous edu-blogger Eduwonkette, what with her skillful use of Photoshop, fearless questioning of the high and mighty, and, yes, lavish attention and fun she heaps on us here at Fordham.* But I've got to call her out on this morning's post about New York City's achievement gap.
My beef isn't about NYC in particular but her analysis of the achievement gap in general. (An analysis that is strikingly similar to Charles Murray's, by the way.) She writes:
Proficiency rates, or the percentage of students passing a test, are often used to measure achievement gaps. For example, if 90% of white students passed a test and 65% of black students did, some observers will say that the achievement gap is "25 points." Proficiency is a misleading and inaccurate way to measure achievement gaps. Primarily, the problem is that we cannot differentiate between students who just made it over the proficiency bar and those who scored well above it. Proficiency rates can increase substantially by moving a small number of kids up a few points---just enough to clear the cut score. But black and Hispanic students may still lag far behind their peers even as their proficiency rates increase.... The most valid way to measure gaps between groups is to compare the test score distributions of the groups. What this means is that we compare average scale scores as well as differences between low-scoring white/Asian and Hispanic/black students (i.e. students scoring at the 10th percentile of their respective groups) and differences between high-scoring students (i.e. students scoring at the 90th percentile of their respective groups).
This is true, as far as it goes, if your goal is to create a world whereby all differences between racial or economic groups disappear. Maybe that's what some organizations are seeking. But I think that objective is rather na??ve and not particularly helpful. As Jay Mathews explains, working toward that outcome leads you to root against the progress of white and affluent students, because every gain they make offsets your attempt to "close the gap." Mathews says "all children deserve a chance to climb as high as they can," and surely he's right.
Eduwonkette's analysis also stands if "proficiency" has no meaning--if it's just an arbitrary bar, and a low one at that. And yes, in many states, that's exactly what it is. But let's imagine that a state sets a standard for proficiency that actually means something--say, that a student is on track to be college- and workforce-ready by the time he or she graduates high school. Then closing, or at least narrowing, the "achievement gap" at the proficiency level is a worthwhile objective, for it would mean that we are succeeding in getting more students to that real-world standard. Since most white and affluent students are already at that standard (or close to it), the only way to narrow the gap would be to help more poor and minority students become college and work-ready. That's a goal we can all get behind.
There are plenty of reasons to push back against the Bloomberg/Klein hype, but arguing that closing the "proficiency gap" doesn't matter isn't one of them.
* And so, as the senior pooh-ba on this blog (let's face it, Checker isn't posting a whole lot these days), I decree that Eduwonkette shall now be included among the "Flyest of the Fly." (See sidebar.)
From the Associated Press's description, it's hard to believe that the "paragon of taxpayer-funded cradle-to-grave welfare" would have supported a school choice program 16 years ago, and have seen it be so successful. But believe it we must--and embarrassed we should be.
There are differences, of course, between the Swedish system and the American one, most notably that private or "independent" schools in Sweden really are free since all schools are state-funded, whether they are run by the state or a private company. And there are some problems, of course, such as the offer of laptops and iPods as incentives--a practice we have mixed feelings about. We know it's not a perfect solution. But that's not the point. The point is that even the L??rarf??rbundet teachers' union is on board, reports the BBC. The union.
Maybe our own unions can take a page out of Sweden's book. It's not a matter of politics anymore, it's a matter of good policy that works.
You've waited all year....
Update: I cannot believe the University of Florida took the top party spot, with FSU??crossing the finish line??in??lowly tenth place. Who does Princeton Review have??running this harebrained outfit???Oh... and Stanford offers, like, the best classroom experience or something.
The New York Times "Education Life" supplement asks that question of America's colleges and charter schools. But why not ask it of education policy think tanks? No doubt, Fordham would win that contest by a mile.
httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=loZjzAwHDaQ
Over here, over there, those "right-wing thinktank[s]" are always so spot on. How do they do it? From The Guardian:
High-flying graduates should be encouraged to dip into teaching rather than commit to the profession for life, a right-wing thinktank has argued.The Policy Exchange says would-be teachers should be given more opportunities to train on-the-job only, rather than on lengthy teacher training courses.
It also recommends schools opt out of national pay rules in England and lure the best teachers by offering them more money.
The report (pdf) is here.
When I wrote in the Education Gadfly a few weeks ago that "in times of budget crunch, school boards are tempted to consider extra-curriculars as, well, extras, frills even," I wasn't making it up.
Does the??penchant of universities??for outsized emphasis??on production of new research create professors who shirk??one of their primary duties, namely??to teach undergraduates? I think so.