Sociology 3901: Outline--Week 13
A. Much better evaluation research, based on 35 schools, getting Success for All program for free, and randomly assigned to implement it either in the kindergarten-2nd grade or 3rd-fifth grade. The schools that implement in 3-5 become the control group for comparison with those implementing k-2 program. Three-year comparison, and at the end the Success for All classes have closed the race/poverty gap by between half and 3/4 depending on the school
B. Latest from NYC...
Groups
III. What about " No Child Left Behind," with its goal of "proficiency" for all school children in the United States by 2014.
A. Thernstrom and Thernstrom: No Excuses. Since states can establish their own tests and their own standards of proficiency, every indication that proficiency will be more like what the NAEP calls "adequate." " Many states are little short of fraudulent in their testing and definitions." e.g, NYTimes, Nov 26, 2005: "Student Ace State Tests, But Earn D's from U.S."
B. What is the main remedy for students in schools that do poorly three years in a row. Tutoring (which is offered by private companies, with no quality control whatsoever) and the right to tranfer. But what does the right to transfer really amount to
Kozol: : In NYC... only 8,000 out of 275,000 eligible students were able to make transfers in 2003-2004. In Cleveland, out of 17,000 students qualifed to transfer, only 58 did so. In Chicago, of 19,000 actual applications to transfer, only 1100 were approved. In Los Angeles 175 students were successful in achieving transfers. Nationwide, the figure around 1%. What's more, transfers allowed only within school districts, not between.
C. How are we doing? Star Tribune, November 28, 2007: "U.S. Students Post Flat Reading Scores."
"Test results released Wednesday show U.S. Students, who took the test last year, scored about the same as they did in 2001, the last time the test was given--despite an increased emphasis on reading under the No Child Left Behind law."
Internationally, we've lost ground over that period, with eight countries ahead of us now out of 45 tested), compared with only three in 2001. U.S. reading scores lower than: Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, and Canada. Our scores about equal with those in ten other countries.
D. Is it a matter of money?
1. Thernstrom, No Excuses: "We lack strong data for the period as a whole, but comprehensive data for the 1989-1990 school year...." show much smaller differences in expenditures per pupil by race and also much smaller differences between suburbs and central cities ($200, "a mere 5%")
2. Star Tribune study, June 23, 2002. "Does money make a difference in how students perform in Minnesota? You bet. Especially the money the kids parents make." Analysis of school spending vs. test performance in all of Minnesota's school districts. On third grade tests, fifth grade tests, and eighth grade tests, the best predictor of test performance was the amount of poverty in the school system. Also important: less students with limited English skills, smaller class sizes, lower % of special education students taking the tests, fewer students new to district
3. Kozol: using a formula from the federal government designed to put a size on the adjustment factor to equalize spending, Kozol comes up with the following figures for the size of the spending discrepancy between poorer and more affluent districts on a per class basis (if classes average 25 students)
Texas, $23,000; Arizona, $29,000; Pennsylvania, $33,000; Illinois, $62,000; New York, $65,000
III. Groups: Kozol, chapter 6-7