I did a search of active posts and didn't find this; my apologies if I missed it earlier. I haven't had much 'puter time recently.
This long article discusses the recent release of 2009 PISA scores. Duncan pointed to those scores as a "massive wake up call" and used them to push for more of the same: privatization, union busting, etc..
That's a misinterpretation of the scores, according to National Association of Secondary School Principals Executive Director Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi.
<snip>
Tirozzi pointed out, “Once again, we’re reminded that students in poverty require intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling alone cannot overcome.” Tirozzi demonstrates the correlation between socio-economic status and reading by presenting the PISA scores in terms of individual American schools and poverty.You see, the U.S. has a higher level of poverty than any of the other reporting nations that actual report poverty rates. And guess what?
When controlling for poverty rates, comparing U.S. schools with similar poverty rates to nations, the U.S. has the highest scores.Those statistics are included in the article, which goes on to say,
<snip>
The results of the latest PISA testing should raise serious concerns. However, the overall ranking of 14th in reading is not the reason to be concerned. The problem is not as much with our educational system as it is with our high poverty rates. The real crisis is the level of poverty in too many of our schools and the relationship between poverty and student achievement. Our lowest achieving schools are the most under-resourced schools with the highest number of disadvantaged students. We cannot treat these schools in the same way that we would schools in more advantaged neighborhoods or we will continue to get the same results. The PISA results point out that the U.S. is not alone in facing the challenge of raising the performance of disadvantaged students. While educators have known the correlation between poverty and student achievement for decades, long before Ronald Reagan began the attacks on public education, politicians don't acknowledge that link. If they did, they'd have to at least pretend to address it, and they wouldn't be able to use teachers and the public school system as scapegoats in their on-going work on privatization and union-busting.
Terozzi recognizes that here:
<snip>
To Secretary Duncan, poverty is not an issue that educators must address. At least he won't admit it in public. Apparently, he wants to take away all the excuses from teachers and principals. When I met with Duncan, I asked him if he had read the book or seen the movie, Blind Side. He indicated that he had and that he had enjoyed it very much. I reminded him of the pride and sense of accomplishment felt by the teachers in the private school attended by Michael Oher. In their minds, they had performed a miracle. I pointed out that, in high-poverty schools, a Michael Oher is the average student. In schools like ours we have hundreds of students like Michael Oher who depend on our school for everything including food, clothing, and emotional support.It's worth reading the whole thing; there are a few points I don't agree with, but the data speaks volumes:
http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/12/pisa_its_poverty_not_stupid_1.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
