Couldn't it be that poor kids who do better in school tend to be smarter, more conscientious, etc? I know Eric Hanushek has done work purporting to show that better instruction actually results in better outcomes for students, but this study, at least as described, does not seem to show this.
I think with better curriculum and instruction (i.e., more aligned to cognitive science), we would likely see many more poor kids who are "smarter" and "more conscientious." Some kids just need more explicit instruction before they can reveal their actual potential.
As I've argued in a different post, when kids from more affluent families aren't successful in school, their parents get them the support they need (tutoring, a more structured school environment). E.g., the child of friends of mine was struggling as a first-grader in a highly "progressive" (and much sought-after) private school. Distraught, they sent her to a different private school that provided more structure and explicit teaching. She did fine and ended up graduating from an elite law school. Obviously, poor kids rarely get that second chance.
I'm not saying that this means all kids are geniuses awaiting the unlocking of their potential--I think there are innate differences between individuals in intelligence and ability--but I just don't think we know how much hidden potential is really out there.
I am skeptical that "racism" has much effect on learning outcomes in this day and age. Family, community and quality of the learning environment (school) are probably by far the greatest factors. Throw in the expectations of one's subculture about the value of academic achievement. If your subculture doesn't respect academic achievement you are primed to fail.
The most important factor (as this piece notes) is family, educated parents and an intact marriage predict success.
My compliments (as a non-teacher) on another informative piece. Heartening that your succinct analysis/summary of the research conforms with common sense. Teachers in Australia seem to face similar issues and common problems, not the least being the strictures of a politicised and sub-optimal curruculum.
This article is written as if educators do not already present material that students need to know. Teachers have known forever that SES is an important factor, and they have always known the gap has to do with parental guidance. The problem is of course, what do you teach. And everyone blames the teacher, but teachers don't have choices. They are told what to teach. Once again, teachers being given a bad wrap for something curriculum companies have created.
I apologize for not making it clear in this post that I do NOT blame teachers. As I have said and written many times before, this is a systemic problem and not the fault of individual teachers.
Couldn't it be that poor kids who do better in school tend to be smarter, more conscientious, etc? I know Eric Hanushek has done work purporting to show that better instruction actually results in better outcomes for students, but this study, at least as described, does not seem to show this.
I think with better curriculum and instruction (i.e., more aligned to cognitive science), we would likely see many more poor kids who are "smarter" and "more conscientious." Some kids just need more explicit instruction before they can reveal their actual potential.
As I've argued in a different post, when kids from more affluent families aren't successful in school, their parents get them the support they need (tutoring, a more structured school environment). E.g., the child of friends of mine was struggling as a first-grader in a highly "progressive" (and much sought-after) private school. Distraught, they sent her to a different private school that provided more structure and explicit teaching. She did fine and ended up graduating from an elite law school. Obviously, poor kids rarely get that second chance.
I'm not saying that this means all kids are geniuses awaiting the unlocking of their potential--I think there are innate differences between individuals in intelligence and ability--but I just don't think we know how much hidden potential is really out there.
I am skeptical that "racism" has much effect on learning outcomes in this day and age. Family, community and quality of the learning environment (school) are probably by far the greatest factors. Throw in the expectations of one's subculture about the value of academic achievement. If your subculture doesn't respect academic achievement you are primed to fail.
The most important factor (as this piece notes) is family, educated parents and an intact marriage predict success.
You shouldn't be just reading to your kids you should be teaching them to read
15 mins or so a day is enough. Learning to read is not a group activity
My compliments (as a non-teacher) on another informative piece. Heartening that your succinct analysis/summary of the research conforms with common sense. Teachers in Australia seem to face similar issues and common problems, not the least being the strictures of a politicised and sub-optimal curruculum.
This article is written as if educators do not already present material that students need to know. Teachers have known forever that SES is an important factor, and they have always known the gap has to do with parental guidance. The problem is of course, what do you teach. And everyone blames the teacher, but teachers don't have choices. They are told what to teach. Once again, teachers being given a bad wrap for something curriculum companies have created.
I apologize for not making it clear in this post that I do NOT blame teachers. As I have said and written many times before, this is a systemic problem and not the fault of individual teachers.