One of the efforts over the past decade or so has been to blame the educational establishment (that is the public educational establishment) with the lackluster attainments of poor and minority students.
To cement this theme in the mind of the public, which likes public education, it was necessary to come up with some "proof" of this failure. When bogus books and articles didn't work the right came up with the federal "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) law. The key aspect of this law is that it imposes rigid testing requirements on schools. Those that don't show adequate "progress" are subject to various punishments. The thesis being that if the students aren't doing well enough it is the teachers or administrators who are at fault. A corollary is that the teachers are especially at fault because their strong unions are preventing progress and defending weak teachers.
Those who drew up the law must have been those who had failed math while they themselves were in school. Showing improvement every year is a mathematical impossibility. At some point you reach a limit. Well, the law makers aren't really that stupid. They designed a bill which will force schools to fail. Then can then use this failure to bolster their argument that eliminating unions and providing government money to support private (read parochial) education is a better path.
Arguments about the mathematical flaws, the distortions in the syllabus when it is necessary to "teach to the test" and the examples of states offering softball tests haven't derailed the program. There is a new report out which may help in the effort, however.
So, here are some actual findings from some real studies. The report is the work of the Educational Testing Service which administers the SAT and other tests. They find that the home environment is the most important factor in contributing to the success of students in school. They used several markers to determine this environment. Here are the bullet points from their press release:
* Thirty-two percent of U.S. children live in single-parent homes, up from 23% in 1980.
* Thirty-three percent of children live in families in which no parent has a full-time, year-round job.
* By age 4, children of professional families hear 35 million more words than children of parents on welfare.
* Half of the nation’s two-year-olds are in some kind of regular day care. Seventy-five percent are in center-based day care rated of medium- or low-quality.
* A comparison of eighth-graders in 45 countries found that U.S. students spend less time reading books for enjoyment - and more time watching television and videos - than students in many other countries.
In other words, a two parent home, good child care, adequate family income and less TV watching lead to better performance in school. The other side of the coin is that what happens in school has little effect if the home environment is deficient. This has implications for all those who continually support educational reform fads. It's not how reading is taught that matters, it's rather does the student come from a home where reading is important? It not new math or rote tables that matters, it's does the student come from a home where parents help with homework?
Schools cannot fix the problems in society. Admitting this would then require that government fix the problems in society. How would they do this: poverty elimination, higher wages for those at the bottom, better health care services and child care, and paid maternal leave. But this is anathema to the libertarian/conservative dogma that everyone is on their own. If you fail, it's your fault.
The full report is on the ETS web site.