Introduction
No institution is more critical to our nation’s long-term economic health and social progress than education. With that in mind, our State’s founding fathers included a constitutional requirement to ensure that all of our students are given equal access and opportunities to a “sound basic education.” While I agree with the WestEd Leandro report’s conclusion that we are not providing equal education opportunities to all of our students, I believe elements of their action plan miss the target. In this post, I will focus on two. I will argue that the “Gap” in standardized testing scores correlates with family income instead of ethnicity. Further, I believe the term “Achievement Gap” could impede efforts to fulfill the constitutional requirement. Much like trying to untie the mythical Gordian Knot, attempts to find a solution for “closing the gap” have been underway for many years without success.
Background
In December 2019, the WestEd report entitled “Sound Basic Education for All: An Action Plan for North Carolina,” was published. This report was ordered by Superior Court Judge David Lee to address the educational achievement gap identified by the 1997 Leandro v State of North Carolina ruling. The report explains that “the future prosperity and well-being of the state’s citizens requires successfully educating all of its children.” Indeed, the State of NC has a constitutional duty to provide “an opportunity for a sound basic education” to all public school students. The Leandro report concludes that “North Carolina’s current education system fails to meet the educational needs of many of its children.” Based on the testing data presented in their report, it appears they are correct.
It is Not About Skin Color
While achievement gaps in standardized testing results are indisputable, the Leandro report’s analysis fails to identify the causes and locations of the disparities accurately. The authors appear to imply that race and ethnicity directly correlate to deficiencies in academic achievement. I disagree. Skin color is not a predictor of a student’s ability to succeed in school. To say so is, at best insulting as it implies that intelligence and motivation are linked to that as well. To effectively correct the failings, it is vital to accurately identify where and why our current system is coming up short. I do not believe there is one large central target, but instead, 115, representing the number of school districts in the State. Each community has unique strengths and weaknesses, which makes a one size fits all solution impossible.
It Is About Socioeconomic Status
In my previous essay, “Reforming Education Reform,” I shared Professor Alexander W. Wiseman’s belief that “Socioeconomic status is the single most significant predictor of student performance.” A 2019 study conducted by researchers from Stanford, Pennsylvania State, and St. John’s Universities gives credence to his conclusion. They found that achievement gaps among black, hispanic, and white students are “completely accounted for” by students’ poverty level, as measured by the percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced-price meals. There are schools in North Carolina that remain, to a great extent, segregated with a high percentage of minority students. Many of them are in our lowest-income counties. The Leandro report aggregated testing data in a way that focused on ethnicity instead of household income, thereby, in my opinion, misdirecting their focus. I agree with their diagnosis for those particular counties because adequate funding is not available to provide needed resources for students and teachers. However, this issue does not occur in most NC counties. The State per-pupil spending is equal in all districts, but the local supplement varies and tends to fall short in the less affluent counties.
Cut The Knot
Studying the disparity in student academic success reveals an intricate knot of paradoxical data that varies significantly from district to district in North Carolina. The Leandro report’s action plan attempts to solve this intractable puzzle by laboriously loosening the knot to find a uniform solution for all of the State’s school districts. This effort has been underway since 1997 and has only produced modest if any, improvement. I believe a better option is to slice the problem into small, more manageable pieces by delegating “close the gap” responsibility to local school districts. I understand LEA’s are “accountable” for this now, but accountability occurs after the fact. Responsibility requires taking continuous ownership of that duty.
Labels Do Not Make Arguments
It is a scientific fact that our subconscious mind is hardwired to categorize and label. This innate ability serves us well when quickly differentiating between a hamburger and a charging bull. But allowing ourselves to generalize and label other human beings, particularly young students, can be hurtful and cause irreparable harm. Siloing groups of students by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status perpetuates prepackaged expectations and constraints. In my opinion, the Leandro report plan will produce those unintended consequences. There is not a human alive that doesn’t have biases programmed into their cognitive subconscious. Try as we may that is not going to change. It is the way human brains function. The key is to be vigilant and remove grouping and labels from education institutions.
Words Matter
I am not fond of the term “achievement gap.” The word achievement points to a performance result. Comparing disparity in test scores between different groups of students, such as white students and minorities or students from higher-income and lower-income households, suggests competition, which is counterproductive to educating all of our students. Students are often unfairly defined and labeled by standardized test results.
Similarly, the term “opportunity gap,” another political buzz word, points to student expectations as they enter the learning environment. It carries the same labeling concerns as previously stated and can perpetuate lower educational aspirations for certain groups of students. Through coaching sports and managing employees, I have learned that people will live up or down to their teacher or supervisor’s expectations. It is the job of educators to build all students’ self-confidence and motivation to learn. Stereotypical group labels make that job much more difficult.
My Proposition
Remove the word “gap” from any discussion of education. In this context, it means a problem caused by some disparity or a difference in character or attitude. This terminology demands a right side and a wrong side, thus reducing a real issue into a political football for scoring points in a “do-gooder” game. Instead, let’s focus on developing a growth-oriented culture of continuous improvement for all of our students.
Conclusion
It is time for us to start using testing data to pinpoint weaknesses, not as a be-all and end-all mass sorting device. Drilling down into the data must be done district by district. As discussed in my previous essay, understanding context and both in and out of school factors are critical.
It is time to start asking tough questions. Who sets the performance standard by which all students standardized testing results are measured? Are the results even worthy of comparison? Are student outcomes judged solely on summative test results, or is motivation and growth taken into account? Do we have adequate diversity in our teaching and administration ranks to be in tune with local outside school factors? These questions barely scratch the surface.
Please make no mistake; providing a “sound basic education” to all of our students is a monumentally complex task that must be tackled locally by school personnel, parents, stakeholders, and other governmental agencies and supported at the State level. It is well worth the investment and vital to the future health and well being of our County, State, and Nation.
References:
https://dennissparks.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/can-i-give-you-hope/
Comments are closed.