In The Pangloss Index, Education Sector analyzes how states game No Child Left Behind.
While NCLB was designed to raise achievement standards every year until 2014, when 100 percent of students are required to be “proficient,” the Alabama Department of Education has lowered standards annually, to the point where even abjectly failing districts like Birmingham make the grade.
Alabama is one of many states that has focused on accountability avoidance rather than school improvement.
The Birmingham News writes on the resource disparities between city and suburban schools. The story focuses on technology. What strikes me is that the black, urban students are being taught by a substitute.
It’s the Lake Wobegon Effect yet again, as discovered by WV pediatrician John Jacob Cannell. Tou can look it up in all the obvious places.
I don’t understand why so many media people don’t understand that correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation. I’m talking about the moronic Birmingham News piece that’s linked in this post. Why in the world do some reporters (and others) assume that the presence of computers and high-tech equipment is the reason for superior performance in some schools? You could go to the homes in which those kids live and graph the value of the cars their families own, and you’d see a correlation there, too. Does that mean that the presence of a more valuable car is a key to children performing well in school? Of course not.
Kids from wealthier areas have many advantages over kids from the inner city (on average). They have higher IQs, because they come from parents whose higher IQs have tended to make them more successful. They have better work ethics, because they come from parents whose work ethic have made them more successful. They are more prepared for school, because they come from better-educated parents. And on and on. Yes, they DO have advantages. But the better equipment in the wealthier kids’ schools is the result of their successful parents’ income, not the CAUSE of the kids’ better academic performance.
I would be willing to bet that you could take the wealthy kids and put them into the poor kids’ schools (and vice versa) and the gap would remain identical. (This would especially be true if each group kept the teachers they had always had.) It’s not the expensive buildings and high-tech equipment that make a difference.
I live in one of the suburbs of Birmingham that does rather well educationally, and I’m also familiar with the disastrous state of the Birmingham city schools. (The city is pretty much just inner city now. The vast majority of the kids there are poor and come from poorly educated parents.) But a few Birmingham city schools have been built in the past decade that are the financial equal of any suburban school. When they were built, city “leaders” (to use the term loosely) touted them as tools to equalize educational results. But they make no real difference. If parents don’t care enough (and aren’t able) to prepare their kids to learn, they have two strikes against them. The lousy teachers who TEND to end up dominating the inner city schools (as compared to their average suburban counterparts) are strike 3.
You can give the poor kids all the computers in the world, but high-tech equipment isn’t going to change the results. To concentrate on computers is to ignore the real issues. Reporters, please learn that correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation.
David – heck, a lot of “scientists” don’t understand that correlation doesn’t equal causation. I hold little hope for reporters.