Another school finds standardized tests
- Thread starter GrimReaper
- Start date
One thing is certain, and that is I'm about to have enough empirical data to prove you're an a-hole.
However, regarding the topic at hand the first hit was a nice summary of many studies. Some highlights include:
"For decades, research from around the world has shown that parents’ involvement in and engagement with their child’s education—including through parent-teacher conferences, parent-teacher organizations, school events, and at-home discussions about school—can lead to higher student achievement and better social-emotional outcomes."
Some highlights include:
1. Studies show more parental involvement leads to improved academic outcomes
2. Parent involvement changes social-emotional outcomes, too
3. Not all parental involvement is created equal
4. Results of parent involvement don’t discriminate based on race or socioeconomics
Does Parent Involvement Really Help Students? Here's What the Research Says
Parent involvement can lead to improved student outcomes, research shows, but some forms are more helpful than others.
www.edweek.org
Not hardly, chuckmeat. Where is the study that demonstrates the positive impact that parental involvement has on standardized test scores, which is the question under discussion?One thing is certain, and that is I'm about to have enough empirical data to prove you're an a-hole.
However, regarding the topic at hand the first hit was a nice summary of many studies. Some highlights include:
"For decades, research from around the world has shown that parents’ involvement in and engagement with their child’s education—including through parent-teacher conferences, parent-teacher organizations, school events, and at-home discussions about school—can lead to higher student achievement and better social-emotional outcomes."
Some highlights include:
1. Studies show more parental involvement leads to improved academic outcomes
2. Parent involvement changes social-emotional outcomes, too
3. Not all parental involvement is created equal
4. Results of parent involvement don’t discriminate based on race or socioeconomics
Does Parent Involvement Really Help Students? Here's What the Research Says
Parent involvement can lead to improved student outcomes, research shows, but some forms are more helpful than others.
Well, I think I have enough data now. I've started the analysis but haven't yet completed all the t-tests. Early results do not look encouraging for you.
And another:
Yale announces new test-flexible admissions policy
This week Yale’s office of undergraduate admissions announced a new policy on standardized testing for first-year and transfer applicants.
news.yale.edu
Harvard announces return to required testing — Harvard Gazette
Leading researchers cite strong evidence that testing expands opportunity.
news.harvard.edu
Walked home uphill both ways…with no shoes…in the snow?
There’s overwhelming evidence that college admissions, test taking and the likelihood of even getting a chance to attend a university is directly related to financial well being.
There's overwhelming evidence that parents who don't care about their children's education have children who don't care about their own education. It's not about money, it's about parents. Send a child to school who cares about getting an education and respects the teacher and those teachers will produce educated students. New bricks and fancy gadgets in the classrooms don't mean a thing if the child isn't there to learn.
The thread is about testing. The tests and test preparation favors a certain demographic - study after study after study ad infinitum confirms it.
As someone who works in high schools, I see the Studies you’re talking about, frankly they are BS at this point. We are paying for all the kids to take the test. We’re actually paying for them to take it twice and during school hours so it’s not like they have to worry about taking four hours out of a Saturday. We are paying for them to get individualized tutoring for the SAT after school and even having specialized sessions for those groups you are talking about on the weekends. You want to know which group of kids is most likely to choose to not to attend any of those free things? Do you know what else is funny, all groups have kids that don’t show up for these free sessions but you know which ones most often do Show up, the ones whose parents make them.
It's the parents. Why don't you understand that? Do you have children? Did you raise them to respect teachers and understand that learning the required material was not negotiable? Being educated and doing well on tests is well documented. it's not about money, it's about parents. Most, if not all teachers will do a very good job if the parents send them students willing to learn.
If you'd like to draw a conclusion about parents, money, and test scores go ahead.
Seasoned teacher here in both Regular Ed. and Special Ed.…. It’s both the family dynamics as well as the the school system. People have no idea how much training we are are put through year after year to change up things to get students to learn. We teachers did not want Keystones or any other type of high stakes testing….why?.. because you end up teaching to a test. Many of us didn’t want common core….why??? Because it was low on fundamentals. We are now seeing less creativity, more tell me what I need to know, and stressed out faculty and administration because our livelihood balances on the performance of children on 2-3 days of testing. Have you seen these tests??? They are written at levels that many high schoolers cannot read at nor comprehend. Furthermore, we can do all we can in the classroom, but if it is not supported at home…forget about it.
Researchershave consistently found that students with high incomes enjoy major advantages in the college application process and that their income has a significant impact on the performance of students in exams that are standardized. In a paper published in 2013, called, ” Race, Poverty and SAT Scores,” researchers Ezekiel J. Dixon-Roman from the University of Pennsylvania and John J. Mcardle from the University of Southern California found that students with higher incomes earn more SAT scores compared to lower-income counterparts. They also found the gap of SAT scores between low- and high-income students was twice as high when comparing black students with whites.
In the words of The Washington Post, in 2014, according to the Washington Post “students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.”
An analysis of 2015 by Inside Higher Ed found that for each of the three components of the SAT (reading writing, math and language) the lowest scores were for students who come from families that earn less than $20,000 of family revenue, while top scores were recorded by students who come who have families that earn at least $200,000. Inside Higher Ed says that the greatest disparities were in the reading section. In this, families with incomes less than $20,000 scored an average of 433, while those who had families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored average scores of 570.
Wealth isn’t only a factor in SAT scores only. According to a study by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, ” Born to Win, Schooled to Lose,” being wealthy from birth is more reliable indicator of achievement within the U.S. than academic performance. “To succeed in America, it’s better to be born rich than smart,” Anthony P. Carnevale, the lead author of the report said to CNBC Make It.
The most wealthy students have higher SAT scores. - Exl Learning | Academic Support & Tutoring in Denver, CO
Research has repeatedly shown that students with high incomes enjoy substantial advantages during the college application process. Additionally, the amount of money earned by a student greatly affects their ability to perform on tests that are standardized.
exllearning.com
It is a fly wheel. More money leads to better outcomes which leads to more money.Researchershave consistently found that students with high incomes enjoy major advantages in the college application process and that their income has a significant impact on the performance of students in exams that are standardized. In a paper published in 2013, called, ” Race, Poverty and SAT Scores,” researchers Ezekiel J. Dixon-Roman from the University of Pennsylvania and John J. Mcardle from the University of Southern California found that students with higher incomes earn more SAT scores compared to lower-income counterparts. They also found the gap of SAT scores between low- and high-income students was twice as high when comparing black students with whites.
In the words of The Washington Post, in 2014, according to the Washington Post “students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.”
An analysis of 2015 by Inside Higher Ed found that for each of the three components of the SAT (reading writing, math and language) the lowest scores were for students who come from families that earn less than $20,000 of family revenue, while top scores were recorded by students who come who have families that earn at least $200,000. Inside Higher Ed says that the greatest disparities were in the reading section. In this, families with incomes less than $20,000 scored an average of 433, while those who had families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored average scores of 570.
Wealth isn’t only a factor in SAT scores only. According to a study by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, ” Born to Win, Schooled to Lose,” being wealthy from birth is more reliable indicator of achievement within the U.S. than academic performance. “To succeed in America, it’s better to be born rich than smart,” Anthony P. Carnevale, the lead author of the report said to CNBC Make It.
The most wealthy students have higher SAT scores. - Exl Learning | Academic Support & Tutoring in Denver, CO
Research has repeatedly shown that students with high incomes enjoy substantial advantages during the college application process. Additionally, the amount of money earned by a student greatly affects their ability to perform on tests that are standardized.
Having less money doesn't make one less intelligent, but it does provide resources that can lead to better outcomes. Sometimes the resource is parental involvement (because parents are not focusing on money/survival but success of their children).
Still some children overcome the lack of resources.
I agree - just saying those saying ‘it’s the parents’ are severely discounting the other drains on lower income family resources (work more, live in poorer areas, more crime, etc). It’s easier to be involved when you have the resources and especially time to do so. Some overcome for sure but it’s a tougher path.
...and also, there are some that have all the resources (including involved parents) , but still manage to make a mess of their lives.
You're citing a guy who is "Professor of Critical Race, Media and Educational Studies"? What outcome do you think he was after? Neither of the who guys cited above have ever stepped into a K-12 classroom as the teacher, and are only interested in getting grants to do more studiesResearchershave consistently found that students with high incomes enjoy major advantages in the college application process and that their income has a significant impact on the performance of students in exams that are standardized. In a paper published in 2013, called, ” Race, Poverty and SAT Scores,” researchers Ezekiel J. Dixon-Roman from the University of Pennsylvania and John J. Mcardle from the University of Southern California found that students with higher incomes earn more SAT scores compared to lower-income counterparts. They also found the gap of SAT scores between low- and high-income students was twice as high when comparing black students with whites.
In the words of The Washington Post, in 2014, according to the Washington Post “students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.”
An analysis of 2015 by Inside Higher Ed found that for each of the three components of the SAT (reading writing, math and language) the lowest scores were for students who come from families that earn less than $20,000 of family revenue, while top scores were recorded by students who come who have families that earn at least $200,000. Inside Higher Ed says that the greatest disparities were in the reading section. In this, families with incomes less than $20,000 scored an average of 433, while those who had families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored average scores of 570.
Wealth isn’t only a factor in SAT scores only. According to a study by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, ” Born to Win, Schooled to Lose,” being wealthy from birth is more reliable indicator of achievement within the U.S. than academic performance. “To succeed in America, it’s better to be born rich than smart,” Anthony P. Carnevale, the lead author of the report said to CNBC Make It.
The most wealthy students have higher SAT scores. - Exl Learning | Academic Support & Tutoring in Denver, CO
Research has repeatedly shown that students with high incomes enjoy substantial advantages during the college application process. Additionally, the amount of money earned by a student greatly affects their ability to perform on tests that are standardized.
BTW, it took me 10 seconds to find some articles that counter your post.
Penn does some good work in the field of Education, especially putting resources into very low income neighborhood schools. Their lead example is transforming the Penn Alexander School (formerly the Sadie Alexander School)l into the what is considered the best K-8 school in Philadelphia. On the surface this seems like a huge success because the school "was" located in a ghetto. Well, as soon as Penn started putting resources into the school the neighborhood went through gentrification. Yes, gentrification happens when people with money move into a dilapidated neighborhood and clean in up. However, why was this neighborhood in West Philadelphia, surrounded by some of the worst ghettos in the country targeted? The answer is simple. Parents who cared about their children's education wanted to send them to the school. The outcome should have been easy to predict yet many of the Penn "Educators" refuse to acknowledge why they are getting such good results.
It doesn't take money to be a good parent. Usually it takes having been raised by good parents to make you a good parent, but this should not be a crutch. Here are some write-ups on this school.
In Addition,
Research shows that parents’ involvement in their children’s learning is a more powerful predictor of academic success than any other variable, including race and class. One study finds that 80% of the variation in public school performance results from family influences, not the teacher’s. Bottom line: Parents, not schools, are the biggest determinants of children’s learning.
The Biggest Blind Spot in Education: Parents’ Role in Their Children’s Learning
Gibes de Gac: Forget tutors, summer school, extended days — engaging families is the only effective, affordable and fair way to spur learning recovery
www.the74million.org
You're citing a guy who is "Professor of Critical Race, Media and Educational Studies"? What outcome do you think he was after? Neither of the who guys cited above have ever stepped into a K-12 classroom as the teacher, and are only interested in getting grants to do more studies
BTW, it took me 10 seconds to find some articles that counter your post.
Penn does some good work in the field of Education, especially putting resources into very low income neighborhood schools. Their lead example is transforming the Penn Alexander School (formerly the Sadie Alexander School)l into the what is considered the best K-8 school in Philadelphia. On the surface this seems like a huge success because the school "was" located in a ghetto. Well, as soon as Penn started putting resources into the school the neighborhood went through gentrification. Yes, gentrification happens when people with money move into a dilapidated neighborhood and clean in up. However, why was this neighborhood in West Philadelphia, surrounded by some of the worst ghettos in the country targeted? The answer is simple. Parents who cared about their children's education wanted to send them to the school. The outcome should have been easy to predict yet many of the Penn "Educators" refuse to acknowledge why they are getting such good results.
It doesn't take money to be a good parent. Usually it takes having been raised by good parents to make you a good parent, but this should not be a crutch. Here are some write-ups on this school.
In Addition,
Research shows that parents’ involvement in their children’s learning is a more powerful predictor of academic success than any other variable, including race and class. One study finds that 80% of the variation in public school performance results from family influences, not the teacher’s. Bottom line: Parents, not schools, are the biggest determinants of children’s learning.
The Biggest Blind Spot in Education: Parents’ Role in Their Children’s Learning
Gibes de Gac: Forget tutors, summer school, extended days — engaging families is the only effective, affordable and fair way to spur learning recovery
You are debating ‘academic success’, I am only talking about performance on standardized tests. Poorer parents likely do not have as much time to invest in their kids education and thus, poorer results. My SIL is a public school teacher in a poor district near Philly. There are so many students with ankle monitors and behavioral issues in general I can’t believe anyone learns anything there (they are well resourced). Drugs, crime, etc. it’s. It’s not hard to connect the dots between affluence and academic achievement; even well intentioned parents who care are still stifled by lack of time and money.
A Critical Race Theorist will blame everything bad on money. You know and I know it.
So, it sounds like your saying all of these behavioral issues are "not their fault". Come on, you can't possibly believe that to be true. In general, parents who care about education have an education and therefore make more money. The money doesn't drive the success, the parents do because they care. If you're not going to properly care for children perhaps you shouldn't have children? I know that sounds crazy but many/most higher income folks try to get into an established position before taking on the task of raising children.
Funny thing about SAT's is that if you are well read and have good math and algebra skills you can do very good on the test without taking prep classes. Admittedly, prep classes will most likely help your score, but being educated is more important. I did quite well on my SAT's back in the 70's never having spent one minute preparing for the test. Both my parents were educated and made sure I did my assigned homework and if not assigned they assigned the homework. I remember that a teacher called home for behavior issues exactly one time. I quickly learned to control myself in school. That's what good parents do. Both of my parents families lost their houses during the depreciation and never really recovered financially.
My daughter teaches in an elementary school that services a small town, farm families, and people that I'll call "mountain" people who generally live in a trailer up the mountain a bit. Economically very diverse. She makes it a point to understand each child's home-life. Higher incomes and farmers never miss an opportunity to speak with her and reach to provide any information that may help her understand their childrens needs. Things like a grandparent recently passed, a friend moved away leaving them feeling stranded. Lower income families (not all but many) often won't answer their phone calls from her when she knows they are at home because where they work and when they work. They don't read her emails, and won't let her stop by to meet or have a discussion. Some lower income families do care and those students do quite well in class and on standardized testing.
Many of the lower income parents spend their evenings drunk and letting their kids run around the trailer park until the child returns home on their own, often after midnight. Yes, her students tell her what goes on.
BTW, every student in her school in given free breakfast each day and get free lunch. In addition, All kids & teens attending public school in the School District of Philadelphia (or charter schools operated by the District) can receive free breakfast and lunch without parents having to fill out additional paperwork.
For reference:
The Philadelphia school district will spend $22,379 per student in the 2023-24 school year,
Cheltenham School District spends $23,569 per student each year.
Neshaminy School District spends $15,827 per student each year.
Council Rock School District spent $12,251 to educate each of its students.
Last edited:
Still, it’s money. I send my kids to a top private in DC for about 50k each, pay for academic camps in the summer (including John’s Hopkins Center for Talented Youth), have all the academic support we need, and are like just about every other family at our school (noting we do not have houses in Kiowa, Deer Valley, or Jackson Hole). We, like all the parents, are excessively involved in every aspect of our kids academic experience. Now you don’t have to do all that to ensure success for your kids, but it helps. And money really helps. And that is basically every private in DC, NY, LA, etc. Then you have the public schools in poor areas and parents can only do so much. I don’t think all poor parents are drunk either - they’re overworked, exhausted, and have many concerns/distractions. It’s not a fair system but even good parents I know in our area (and we have the top public’s in VA) struggle because they can’t control what their schools do (especially concerning other kids).
Last edited:
I trust you aren't saying that the economic status that one is born into doesn't impact everything in one's life from education to health care?
I agree that economic status impacts everything, but not the "born into" part. People's economic status can change throughout their life, for the better or worse.
Yes, it can. But there is a very large advantage in being born into wealth over being born into poverty.
Does Penn State ever accept “new money”? Those people, and people who look like them, seem unlikely to fit in at the lawn parties and wine and cheese tailgates.
I'm sure it is, just like being born with a healthy body will help you run faster as a teen.
While there is correlation between income and academic success, the confounding variable of the parental involvement is not accounted for in those studies. It doesn’t matter the income level of the kid if the parents aren’t involved. Step into any high school today and those at the bottom of the rankings in their class are almost always ones whose parents have negative viewpoints of education and they are generally a single parent household, which accounts for some of the lower income. Those kids who are ranked at the highest parts of their class academically have parents who value and participate in their education and they are almost always two parent households.
In all seriousness, I really don't know what "deflection" means when someone says it to me. I assume they have no counter-point.
So, what is your point. It is better to be rich than poor?
Is it less of a disadvantage if someone is born into a poor family and by the time they are 5 years old when their single mother graduated from med school and is a successful heart surgeon? That kid has no chance because born poor.
Last edited:
Nope, I didn't remotely imply that. With just a few exceptions, parents are the reason children care about learning and respect the teachers. That is what it takes to get a good education possible.
Last edited:
This is a crutch. You are in a great position to provide and no doubt your children have many advantages but the most important advantage is that you and your wife care about their education. Who doesn't feel overworked, exhausted and have many concerns/distractions? If you're a parent you just have to suck-it-up and get it done. That's what parents are supposed to do.
Last, I wrote "MANY" of the lower income parents, not ALL. Why did you change my words?
No one here has argued that there isn't a advantage to being born into wealth. It's about getting an education. It doesn't take wealth to get an education.
Last edited:
The biggest issue here is talking past one another, as this is a multivariate issue, and they're all pretty darned important ... so when we talk about X, Y or Z being most important, or very important ... that's not to say some other reason isn't also very important.
I think parental involvement is very important and beneficial. Is it the most important? I don't know. But, being in a very well-to-do area, with those resources at my disposal, as well ... and choosing to keep my kids in public school, for now ... and also being involved in youth sports and seeing families from all walks of life come through there, and getting to know and befriending folks from many walks of life (and, thus, following their children's lives, somewhat, from there on out), I think I have seen some unique things and may have a novel perspective.
I've seen poor parents who stress education have children who just don't seem to get it. They flounder. Part of it, I think, is that the parents just aren't very smart (book smart, at least), and weren't successful themselves ... so even though they strive to have their children succeed, academically, they don't really know what support to give them, and/or the kids just aren't that bright to begin with. That's not to say all offspring of poor folks are dumb ... obviously that's not the case. I've seen rich parents with kids who are absolute blockheads throw their kids into private schools where they're coddled and pushed along, and they actually end up going to decent colleges despite being dumb as a stump (academically, and/or just in life decisions).
Money cures all sorts of ills that "want to" just doesn't address, often times. And, yes, I think you'll find, on average, rich people are smarter than poor people. Again, that's not to say all poor people are dumb, or even that their kids are dumb ... we're just talking on average. So if you have a less intelligent poorer child with parental involvement v. a more intelligent, wealthier child without parental involvement ... what's going to happen? There's a very good chance those rich folks are going to pay someone else to be involved. Private school. Tutors. Whatever. Does that mean they "care" about education more than the poorer family who is sitting down with their kids trying to help them every night? No.
Well Phil, it was a really big check.—Dean MartinAnd what is generally the strongest predictor of success on the SAT and standardized tests?
Hint:
