Why Pittsburgh's schools aren't that bad... (Millvale, Sharpsburg: daycare, preschool, subsidized)

[gg]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I'd really like to see some numbers for that.

So would I, but I doubt they test as high as the Fins. Also, Finland's citizens are regretting letting so many immigrants in because the immigrant population demands to be treated as if they are in their original country. It doesn't work that way. You have to adjust to the host country and not be a drag on the host country. Finland made a mistake, but it is in place now.

[BrianTH]

Here is a nice detailed article about what Finland has been doing, including some statistics related to closing their version of an achievement gap:

NEA - What we can learn from Finland

It mainly relies on a couple articles by Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish policy analyst.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I'd really like to see some numbers for that.

Alright:



This is a chart measuring the test score gap for British Children by race. The "zero line" is the average white score for that age. As you can see, while Afro-Caribbean kids do lag behind, other black British (mostly African immigrants) achieve parity with white scores by age 16.



Here's a color chart showing roughly the same thing. The black line (Black Africans) achieves parity with whites by age 16. The data starts a bit earlier, and shows large gaps early in life, which narrow dramatically. This is exactly the opposite of what we'd expect if biology, rather than upbringing/environmental factors, was determinative in racial test score gaps.



Another example showing that black/white grade gaps (as opposed to test scores) close, but don't get totally eliminated. Note that the British education system causes improvements over time for everyone, with the exception of Gypsies and Irish Travelers.

Finally, here's the article I read about Finland last year.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Generally speaking, only near totalitarian levels of control can quash it, if restraint hasn't been internalized due to your parents and your peer group. The best thing you could do is basically isolate/expel the real problem students. It will doom their lives, of course, but it might make a big difference for the majority within the school.

The criminal justice system makes for some interesting comparisons on these points. Prosecutors, in the day-to-day course of their duty, routinely encounter defendants who are not so much intentionally malicious as simply incompetent as adults and citizens, and who might have been better off being "tracked" into a sort of "remedial" status of citizenship.

Of course, the obvious implication, of a category of citizenship involving reduced autonomy in return for reduced responsibility and increased paternalist control, is anathema to the egalitarian spirit of our laws. But the same leveling spirit has also come to dominate educational thinking. It seems to me possible that the consequences have been negative on both sides of the childhood-adulthood divide.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Here is a nice detailed article about what Finland has been doing, including some statistics related to closing their version of an achievement gap:

NEA - What we can learn from Finland

It mainly relies on a couple articles by Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish policy analyst.

I want to add, that Finland has no poverty. It is a very small country with a pretty good economy. There are only about 5.1 million people in ALL of Finland. The US has 300 million plus. What can we learn from a country so small and that has no poverty? Probably not much. We have tons of poverty and a totally different style of living. Finland is very clean and even the subsidized housing is spotless and they take great care of it. Ride on a bus in Finland and they are new and spotless and the bus passengers are very quiet and pleasant. The people in general are quiet and totally the opposite of America's residents who seem to shout when they speak. There are bike paths/walking paths everywhere. The mail is delivered by bicycle. They are the ONLY country with a green embassy in Washington, so the culture is the opposite of the US.

What can we learn from them? We would have a very long way to go. I have been in Finland for months at a time and cycled all over the Helsinki region as well as some other areas. There is no Homewood in Finland. No Hill District or even a Millvale. What they consider a less desirable area would be something we wouldn't even understand. Their taxes are much higher, but there isn't much drag. In other words people wouldn't feel owed a living or people would be much less likely to take advantage of that system for extended periods of time or even an entire lifetime. They work and to be honest aren't happy with the new immigrant population. Talk about opposites.

Would be hard to compare these two places Brian. We have too many slums and daily shootings to really look at schools and say, wow they do well. Home lives are totally different as well as culture. It isn't watered down over that way, but it is more watered down now than it was, but still not much.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

So, one way to close the gap would be to better promote magnet schools? Or is it the mere fact that the parent(s) were involved enough to explore a magnet school as an option for their kids.

I'm a big fan of magnet schools, because they achieve the same function that suburban schools do - concentrate kids who perform better than their peers, creating a peer culture which values studiousness. All while not requiring you to live in a suburban area.

That said, it's hard to disentangle heredity and environment here. Studies have shown, for example, one of the strongest predictors of how well a student will do is the number of books in their parents house. Now, does this mean that children in literate houses have greater exposure, and are thus more likely to succeed? Or does it mean their parents had an inborn greater interest in learning than average, which their children inherited? I'd actually say it leans a bit more toward the latter, given studies have also suggested there's no connection between IQ (or indeed, ultimate income level) of adopted children and their parents by age 30.

Other studies, of NYC's elite magnets (they have the most advanced system in the country), have shown that kids who are on the margins (barely accepted in), generally have no better life economic outcomes, once family life is considered, than going to neighborhood schools.

The important thing I think magnets teach us is there's no reason why city schools have to be bad. At least within the U.S. context, a critical mass of good students make a "good school," not teaching quality, teacher pay, or overall funding levels. So there's no reason for people to avoid city schools as a rule.

Originally Posted by robrobrob

Is is race or is it merely that impoverished students are more likely to fall behind that affluent students?

Within the U.S. context, it's mostly race, not class, I'm sorry to say. Studies have repeatedly shown that working-class white children do better on standardized tests than middle-class black children. And even black adoptees from white families, although they start out with grades similar to white students, typically dip to normal African American scoring levels by high school.

That said, there is thankfully now some evidence this is due to cultural factors, not genetic ones, as the British studies make clear.

Originally Posted by robrobrob

I also wonder how important an intact family (mother and father still together/married) is to educational achievement. I would also think that an intact family is more affluent if for no other reason than you only have one roof to pay for, not two.

I wasn't aware of any studies off the top of my head. However, here's a link I just found from Yahoo.

As with all such things, the question is just because two issues correlate, is there causation? It could be that some of the same cultural trends both contribute to single-parenthood and poverty, so merely promoting two-parent families doesn't accomplish much on its own.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by squarian

The criminal justice system makes for some interesting comparisons on these points. Prosecutors, in the day-to-day course of their duty, routinely encounter defendants who are not so much intentionally malicious as simply incompetent as adults and citizens, and who might have been better off being "tracked" into a sort of "remedial" status of citizenship.

There's actually a very strong relationship between intelligence and law-abiding activity, with the only real exceptions being some sociopaths. This isn't surprising honestly, as greater intelligence means you're more likely to think through the consequences of your actions, and be able to morally reason that a given action is wrong.

Fortunately, this type of intelligence is pretty clearly teachable. It's one reason why IQ's seem to rise over time (the "Flynn Effect") and have to be periodically adjusted. People 100 years ago were by and large much dumber than us when it comes to logical reasoning, and much more likely to behave in a violent fashion.

[BrianTH]

I agree Finland not only does a better job on education, it also does a better job on poverty. Rather than using those facts as an excuse for refusing to learn anything from them on either subject, I would suggest we try to learn from them on both subjects.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm a big fan of magnet schools, because they achieve the same function that suburban schools do - concentrate kids who perform better than their peers, creating a peer culture which values studiousness.

It might be worth pointing out, in connection with the interesting data on the British GCSE test score racial (lack of) gap, that magnet and charter schools have another characteristic, which they share with typical British state-supported schools: a greater degree of autonomy.

Magnets to a lesser degree, and charters to a greater, mimic the administrative independence which is a traditional feature of British state-funded schools; in effect, almost every British school is a charter school in American terms.

If the difference in test achievement gap between the US and the UK is in fact nurture not nature, then the differences in the way public schools are run ought to be taken into account in explaining it.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The important thing I think magnets teach us is there's no reason why city schools have to be bad...So there's no reason for people to avoid city schools as a rule.

By virtue of simply being in a city, yes of course. But obviously that isn't the only factor.