Comments on: Poor Schools or Poor Kids? http://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/ Education Next is a journal of opinion and research about education policy. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:19:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: What is the cost? – Schools Building Communities http://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/comment-page-1/#comment-1100 What is the cost? – Schools Building Communities Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:53:38 +0000 http://educationnext.org/?p=49631369#comment-1100 [...] of the Education Equality Project recently to discuss education policy and the full interview can be found here. Noguera was up first, facing the question, “Can you explain the key reforms the coalition is [...] [...] of the Education Equality Project recently to discuss education policy and the full interview can be found here. Noguera was up first, facing the question, “Can you explain the key reforms the coalition is [...]

]]> By: George Mitchell http://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/comment-page-1/#comment-924 George Mitchell Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:01:36 +0000 http://educationnext.org/?p=49631369#comment-924 PN says "in most choice systems it’s not parents but schools that really do the choosing. The better schools are often able to screen out needy students and limit enrollment. Because of high demand, they can be selective about whom they choose. This often occurs even in charter schools that use lotteries to determine admission but set criteria that are difficult for low-income parents to meet. Those who are not chosen by the superior schools invariably end up in lower-quality public schools with fewer resources." His description could apply to many urban public school systems, where individual schools often screen students. In contrast, in urban America's largest voucher program — the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program — participating schools may use no screens other than residency and family income limitations. JW says, "Choice, in and of itself, won’t bring about the kind of systemic change that we need." Nothing, "in and of itself," will bring about the needed change. Choice, however, is an essential prerequisite. PN says “in most choice systems it’s not parents but schools that really do the choosing. The better schools are often able to screen out needy students and limit enrollment. Because of high demand, they can be selective about whom they choose. This often occurs even in charter schools that use lotteries to determine admission but set criteria that are difficult for low-income parents to meet. Those who are not chosen by the superior schools invariably end up in lower-quality public schools with fewer resources.” His description could apply to many urban public school systems, where individual schools often screen students. In contrast, in urban America’s largest voucher program — the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program — participating schools may use no screens other than residency and family income limitations.

JW says, “Choice, in and of itself, won’t bring about the kind of systemic change that we need.” Nothing, “in and of itself,” will bring about the needed change. Choice, however, is an essential prerequisite.

]]> By: William Grimes http://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/comment-page-1/#comment-914 William Grimes Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:11:56 +0000 http://educationnext.org/?p=49631369#comment-914 George Will wrote about the impact of the child's out-of-school environment: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010702.asp He quoted a guru from the Educational Testing Service, who estimated that 90% of differential outcome was strongly associated with 5 factors. The common denominator was all involved this out-of-school environment. Included: presence of two parents, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading material in the child's home. In the wake of Katrina, the spotlight was focused on the Black population of New Orleans (67% of pre-Katrina total), whose children were subsequently found to be underperforming their school peers in the states to which they had emigrated. 80% came from single-parent homes; 40% of the pre-Katrina adult Black population was illiterate. Do the math: assuming the illiteracy rate equitably afflicted the parents, one-third of pre-Katrina Black schoolchildren came from homes with a single illiterate parent. None of the social remedies proposed by Mr. Noguera address this prevalent shortfall in educational support. George Will wrote about the impact of the child’s out-of-school environment:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010702.asp
He quoted a guru from the Educational Testing Service, who estimated that 90% of differential outcome was strongly associated with 5 factors. The common denominator was all involved this out-of-school environment. Included: presence of two parents, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading material in the child’s home.
In the wake of Katrina, the spotlight was focused on the Black population of New Orleans (67% of pre-Katrina total), whose children were subsequently found to be underperforming their school peers in the states to which they had emigrated.
80% came from single-parent homes; 40% of the pre-Katrina adult Black population was illiterate.
Do the math: assuming the illiteracy rate equitably afflicted the parents, one-third of pre-Katrina Black schoolchildren came from homes with a single illiterate parent.
None of the social remedies proposed by Mr. Noguera address this prevalent shortfall in educational support.

]]>