Achievement Gap

[Anonymous]

No, the solution lies in a complete sea change in attitude among certain cultures that educational excellence is for
Whites. That long-running position is why this gap exists at all SES levels in every single city studied.

If you read the actual study, it's very clear to see, and very disheartening.

[Anonymous]

agree. parenting is the biggest contributor to the achievement gap. Poor-parenting= poor educational outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Point taken.

I do think it would be a Nobel Prize-worthy educational innovation if someone could figure out how to easily ramp up parental expectations and involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear: The size of the achievement gap is not important. The important metric is the low rate of mastery among struggling students. Any talk of shifting the demographics to close the achievement gap entirely misses the point (and belies an attitude that mindlessly buys into the rhetoric of NCLB).

The talk about demographics is about alleviating concentrations of poverty. If you look at scores for Ward 3 Northwest schools, or even more significantly schools like Ross and Brent, you see that AA and econ-disadvantaged groups do far better than their peers at schools with higher poverty rates.

Unless you set up a KIPP like program and provide significantly more resources, the quickest way to improve schools is to attract (not force) non econ-disadvantaged families to enroll in a given school. One way to jump start that process it through magnets or another program that provides a measure of security for progressive parents to give it a chance.

It appears DCPS may be doing this with its McKinley MS magnet (although there is almost zero info from DCPS on this new program).

While creating a selective program would be resisted for the reasons cited on this thread and others, if city leaders simply allow gentrification (or whatever the technical term is) to change things, there is potential for even more acrimony as neighborhood groups organize and hold hands together when they jump in and try to fix schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:agree. parenting is the biggest contributor to the achievement gap. Poor-parenting= poor educational outcomes.

Nope - this still doesn't explain the gap. It exists with higher SES black and white too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:agree. parenting is the biggest contributor to the achievement gap. Poor-parenting= poor educational outcomes.

Nope - this still doesn't explain the gap. It exists with higher SES black and white too.

NP--There have been several studies on this and most find that the difference is cultural. Educational achievement is linked to middle-class culture (not by income, but by value system). This is also linked to parenting styles. This happens through a process of middle-class acculturation. The achievement gap is not found in AA families that have been middle/upper-class across multiple generations compared to similar white families. However, many middle-class AA families do not fit that definition, ie the families are recently middle-class compared to the previous generation that was working-class or lower middle-class. These families have not learned and/or have sufficient cultural capital to participate in middle-class childrearing styles, sometimes referred to as concerted cultivation. In other words, just because your income is middle-class doesn't mean you act middle-class (which in the US is white culture). This idea is most noticeable in the upper-class in terms of acceptable behavior, e.g nouveau riche vs. old money. The nouveau riche are acculturated into wealthy culture through time and practice.

[Anonymous]

Given how much is cultural, do the schools make this better or worse. I think one of the challenges is to be very candid with parents, but when I brought this up in a high FARM school we have since left no one was comfortable. I get if you are poor and without a car the idea of getting your kid across town to a cultural program is just not going to happen, but I still don't think schools have been willing to confront parents on this at the earliest grades. The afformentioned KIPP and Harlem Children's Zones are about the only places I have seen this discussion open up. Now the next question is how many of us are willing to mentor a child making that move? It is not such an easy move for a lot of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given how much is cultural, do the schools make this better or worse. I think one of the challenges is to be very candid with parents, but when I brought this up in a high FARM school we have since left no one was comfortable. I get if you are poor and without a car the idea of getting your kid across town to a cultural program is just not going to happen, but I still don't think schools have been willing to confront parents on this at the earliest grades. The afformentioned KIPP and Harlem Children's Zones are about the only places I have seen this discussion open up. Now the next question is how many of us are willing to mentor a child making that move? It is not such an easy move for a lot of reasons.

The Harlem Children's Zone starts with the parents at pregnancy! His whole program is about acculturating middle-class values in the children AND parents from the very beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear: The size of the achievement gap is not important. The important metric is the low rate of mastery among struggling students. Any talk of shifting the demographics to close the achievement gap entirely misses the point (and belies an attitude that mindlessly buys into the rhetoric of NCLB).

Unless you set up a KIPP like program and provide significantly more resources, the quickest way to improve schools is to attract (not force) non econ-disadvantaged families to enroll in a given school. One way to jump start that process it through magnets or another program that provides a measure of security for progressive parents to give it a chance.

That doesn't improve the school. It improves the school's test scores. Not at all the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear: The size of the achievement gap is not important. The important metric is the low rate of mastery among struggling students. Any talk of shifting the demographics to close the achievement gap entirely misses the point (and belies an attitude that mindlessly buys into the rhetoric of NCLB).

Unless you set up a KIPP like program and provide significantly more resources, the quickest way to improve schools is to attract (not force) non econ-disadvantaged families to enroll in a given school. One way to jump start that process it through magnets or another program that provides a measure of security for progressive parents to give it a chance.

That doesn't improve the school. It improves the school's test scores. Not at all the same thing.

Test scores are an indicator, and good ones at that. If you had visited Ross or Brent five years ago and then visited them this year, the change is palpable. Both schools are in a better place, and I would argue it is due to a reduction in the concentration of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no proposal to fix because none of us have the ablity to address the SES problem. Or at least there is insufficient data and political will interms of really how to reverse this dynamic.

Time and gentrification.

Iow, get rid of the poor (black) people. That helps US but not THEM. They will still be poor, but they won't be a bother to us any more

Of course they will. But instead of making up 60% of DCPS, they'll make up, say, 20%. Or 30%. And the numbers in MoCo, PG County, Alexandria, etc... will all tick up some relatively insubstantial amount. Which means the well-publicized problems of highly concentrated poverty that DC proper faces will become surmountable.

You do understand that it's *concentrated* poverty that's the problem, right? Not the teachers. Not the curriculum. Not ineffective political leadership. It's the fact that historically we've made the decision to take all the poorest of the region's poor, segregate them in an isolated political entity with as little political representation as possible, and deny them any means to better themselves.

By seeking to perpetuate this fraud by any means necessary you're just weeping crocodile tears about "the poor (black) people".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear: The size of the achievement gap is not important. The important metric is the low rate of mastery among struggling students. Any talk of shifting the demographics to close the achievement gap entirely misses the point (and belies an attitude that mindlessly buys into the rhetoric of NCLB).

The talk about demographics is about alleviating concentrations of poverty. If you look at scores for Ward 3 Northwest schools, or even more significantly schools like Ross and Brent, you see that AA and econ-disadvantaged groups do far better than their peers at schools with higher poverty rates.

Unless you set up a KIPP like program and provide significantly more resources, the quickest way to improve schools is to attract (not force) non econ-disadvantaged families to enroll in a given school. One way to jump start that process it through magnets or another program that provides a measure of security for progressive parents to give it a chance.

It appears DCPS may be doing this with its McKinley MS magnet (although there is almost zero info from DCPS on this new program).

While creating a selective program would be resisted for the reasons cited on this thread and others, if city leaders simply allow gentrification (or whatever the technical term is) to change things, there is potential for even more acrimony as neighborhood groups organize and hold hands together when they jump in and try to fix schools.

Exactly. The only successes we've seen so far have come from taking a slice of the concentrated poverty of Ward 8 (and other poor neighborhoods) and integrating it with wealthier populations in DC. Problem is that there aren't enough wealthier populations in DC. So if anything is going to change, some significant portion of DC's poor population is going to have to end up out in MD and VA. That's slowly happening, but accelerating by the day. There's a social cost to that, but it's the only way out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear: The size of the achievement gap is not important. The important metric is the low rate of mastery among struggling students. Any talk of shifting the demographics to close the achievement gap entirely misses the point (and belies an attitude that mindlessly buys into the rhetoric of NCLB).

The talk about demographics is about alleviating concentrations of poverty. If you look at scores for Ward 3 Northwest schools, or even more significantly schools like Ross and Brent, you see that AA and econ-disadvantaged groups do far better than their peers at schools with higher poverty rates.

Unless you set up a KIPP like program and provide significantly more resources, the quickest way to improve schools is to attract (not force) non econ-disadvantaged families to enroll in a given school. One way to jump start that process it through magnets or another program that provides a measure of security for progressive parents to give it a chance.

It appears DCPS may be doing this with its McKinley MS magnet (although there is almost zero info from DCPS on this new program).

While creating a selective program would be resisted for the reasons cited on this thread and others, if city leaders simply allow gentrification (or whatever the technical term is) to change things, there is potential for even more acrimony as neighborhood groups organize and hold hands together when they jump in and try to fix schools.

Exactly. The only successes we've seen so far have come from taking a slice of the concentrated poverty of Ward 8 (and other poor neighborhoods) and integrating it with wealthier populations in DC. Problem is that there aren't enough wealthier populations in DC. So if anything is going to change, some significant portion of DC's poor population is going to have to end up out in MD and VA. That's slowly happening, but accelerating by the day. There's a social cost to that, but it's the only way out.

I have seen studies that indicate DC's population can grow to a million plus. If that is the case, and it is managed the right way, DC can still keep a good number of less affluent families, and add a bunch of more affluent ones. Displacement doesn't have to account for the entire demographic shift.

[Anonymous]

So let's see if we're all on the same page here: There aren't any actionable public-policy solutions. Parents should do a better job raising their kids. Then it's just a matter of letting nature or economics or serendipity run their course.

Is this a great country or what?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear: The size of the achievement gap is not important. The important metric is the low rate of mastery among struggling students. Any talk of shifting the demographics to close the achievement gap entirely misses the point (and belies an attitude that mindlessly buys into the rhetoric of NCLB).

The talk about demographics is about alleviating concentrations of poverty. If you look at scores for Ward 3 Northwest schools, or even more significantly schools like Ross and Brent, you see that AA and econ-disadvantaged groups do far better than their peers at schools with higher poverty rates.

Unless you set up a KIPP like program and provide significantly more resources, the quickest way to improve schools is to attract (not force) non econ-disadvantaged families to enroll in a given school. One way to jump start that process it through magnets or another program that provides a measure of security for progressive parents to give it a chance.

It appears DCPS may be doing this with its McKinley MS magnet (although there is almost zero info from DCPS on this new program).

While creating a selective program would be resisted for the reasons cited on this thread and others, if city leaders simply allow gentrification (or whatever the technical term is) to change things, there is potential for even more acrimony as neighborhood groups organize and hold hands together when they jump in and try to fix schools.

Exactly. The only successes we've seen so far have come from taking a slice of the concentrated poverty of Ward 8 (and other poor neighborhoods) and integrating it with wealthier populations in DC. Problem is that there aren't enough wealthier populations in DC. So if anything is going to change, some significant portion of DC's poor population is going to have to end up out in MD and VA. That's slowly happening, but accelerating by the day. There's a social cost to that, but it's the only way out.

I have seen studies that indicate DC's population can grow to a million plus. If that is the case, and it is managed the right way, DC can still keep a good number of less affluent families, and add a bunch of more affluent ones. Displacement doesn't have to account for the entire demographic shift.

Exactly. Only part of it. DC will likely always contribute a disproportionate amount to the region's anti-poverty efforts. First, because it's an urban center. Second, because it's fairly liberal, and liberals tend to support a strong social safety net.

As far as "displacement" goes, we're only recently starting to get an understand of the dynamic--and it's quite different from the popular view of yuppies pricing poor families out of their long-term homes. What we know about gentrification from studies is that very few individuals are displaced in that way. That's because what seems like a monolithic, inert population in a poor neighborhood is actually quite mobile. People leave. They move elsewhere. Some get a decent job and move to a wealthier neighborhood. The folks who migrate out are replaced by new residents with a similar socioeconomic (and racial in DC) profile. Furthermore, studies have also found that the residents who do stay for long-term do significantly better by most metrics in gentrifying neighborhoods.

In DC what we've seen is this dynamic, but with wealthier middle-class residents replacing poorer residents as they naturally cycle out of the neighborhood. While these neighborhoods have been "african american neighborhoods" since the 60s, and there are definitely long-term residents, the normative case is that poor people move out, poor people move in, poor people move out, poor people move in.