Resource allocation in education

Two articles I read today speak to the single issue of resource allocation in education.

• Grim Graduation rates for black males highlight racial gap

• Why standardized tests matter

The first article ("grim graduation rates") mentions, among other things, that New Jersey's higher results are due in part to a deliberate effort to reallocate resources to level the playing field. The suggestion here is that, given a fair shake, black males are not only equally capable, but equally willing to do their part to learn, with higher results to prove it.

The second article ("standardized tests") discusses standardized testing in Ontario. While my issue with a particular shortcoming of standardization in education is mentioned in StudyRite, and echoed in another article that ran today, there is some merit to standardization, although I'm not sure it came through clearly.

In my opinion, standardized testing should not be about how well the students are learning. Nor should it be about how well the teachers are teaching: standardized testing should be about assessing how equipped a school is to meet the needs of its students. All things being equal (and human nature being what it is) most teachers will teach and most students will learn; government is thus left to determine how it will allocate resources to support teachers' teaching and students' learning.

I remember reading a Maclean's Magazine article back in 2001 about John Chambers, head of Cisco Systems, and his  project, called Networking Academies, which champions the value of computers and new, customized teaching methods. "We run more than 6,000 Networking Academies with 180,000 students in 110 countries and, given technology and the correct environment, these kids all score high, no matter the disparity in incomes or situations," Chambers said at an international economic conference. "Education is No. 1, but even the rich countries are leaving behind 25 per cent of their kids," (my emphasis).  (Francis, Diane. "A Learning Revolution". Maclean’s Magazine. March 5. 2001.)

The results in New Jersey appear to support Mr. Chambers' assertion. As such, the OughtThoughts here are that under-performing students are not always inherently to blame for their poor performance, and that we can make different decisions to improve the learning environment and expect progressive results to follow.

If lower scores on standardized tests in Ontario are indications of where more attention is required, and there is a weak correlation between scores and school location in higher or lower income areas, we may reasonably go ahead and look at teaching methods and student issues. If, however, there is an observable correlation between lower results and lower income area school locations, reallocation considerations must be in play, because these kids may be, in Mr. Chambers' words, "being left behind" in spite of their true capabilities.

Mind the gap

Sharon Otterman, writing for the New York Times (“Triumph Fades on Racial Gap in City Schools”, New York Times, August 15, 2010), noted that

• Among the students in the city’s third through eighth grades, 40 percent of black students and 46 percent of Hispanic students met state standards in math, compared with 75 percent of white students and 82 percent of Asian students. In English, 33 percent of black students and 34 percent of Hispanic students are now proficient, compared with 64 percent among whites and Asians…

• …Experts have many theories, but no clear answers, about why national progress on closing the gap has slowed. They included worsening economic conditions for poor families and an increase in fatherless black households, social factors that interfere with students’ educational progress.

"Worsening economic conditions for poor families" is misleading, since there are poor white families, too. And "fatherless black households", which certainly is a factor, is still but a symptom of a range of issues beyond the control of the black household - but that argument is beyond the scope of this post.

It might appear we're trapped in a vicious circle - we're doing poorly in school, so we can't raise our socio-economic profile, and as our profile diminishes, we do increasingly poorly in school. Which comes first, the chicken of better socio-economic circumstances or the egg of doing better in school?

It is impossible to change society in one action, but the OughtThought here is that it is possible for an individual to change one's outlook, and I think StudyRite can help.