Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law and the classic Class and Schools has written an important article showing how the coronavirus is exposing and deepening the inequities in our society.
This article was originally published by Shelterforce: The Voice of Community Development.
Richard Rothstein writes:
The COVID-19 pandemic will take existing academic achievement differences between middle-class and low-income students and explode them.
The academic achievement gap has bedeviled educators for years. In math and reading, children of college-educated parents score on average at about the 60th percentile, while children whose parents have only a high school degree score, on average, at the 35th percentile.* The academic advantages of children whose parents have master’s degrees and beyond are even greater.
To a significant extent, this is a neighborhood issue—schools are more segregated today than at any time in the last 50 years, mostly because the neighborhoods in which they are located are so segregated. Schools with concentrated populations of children affected by serious socioeconomic problems are able to devote less time and attention to academic instruction.
In 2001 we adopted the “No Child Left Behind Act,” assuming that these disparities mostly stemmed from schools’ failure to take seriously a responsibility to educate African-American, Hispanic, and lower-income students. Supporters claimed that holding educators accountable for test results would soon eliminate the achievement gap. Promoted by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, the theory was ludicrous, and the law failed to fulfill its promise. The achievement gap mostly results from social-class based advantages that some children bring to school and that others lack, as well as disadvantages stemming from racial discrimination that only some children have to face.
The coronavirus, unfortunately, will only exacerbate the effects of these advantages.
With schools shut, white-collar professionals with college degrees operate homeschools, sometimes with superior curricular enhancements. My own children, with post-graduate degrees, are introducing my young grandchildren to Shakespeare and algebra, topics they would ordinarily encounter only in later grades. A friend, a biologist in normal times, now staying home from work, is taking her pre-school, kindergarten, and 2nd grade children for walks in the woods where they learn the names of birds, why goldfinches get their bright yellow wings, about sexual selection in birds and their funny displays to attract a mate, and how moss reproduces with spores. They found some of that moss in the woods and saw that when you touch the red part, it lets out a puff of tiny spores; this was a huge hit with the children.
In neighborhoods that are socioeconomically segregated, friends and classmates of children like these have similar experiences. Parents with full-time professional jobs never before had the opportunity to be full-time instructors, and many make the most of it.
Meanwhile, many parents with less education have jobs that even during the coronavirus crisis cannot be performed at home – supermarket clerks, warehouse workers, delivery truck drivers. Even with distance learning being established by schools and teachers—many of whom are now busy with their own children at home—too many students in low-income and rural communities don’t have internet access: 35 percent of low-income households with school-aged children don’t have high-speed internet; for moderate-income families it is 17 percent, and only 6 percent for middle-class and affluent families. When measured by race and ethnicity, the gap is greater for African-American and Hispanic families.
In New York City, 300,000 students live in homes with no computer. The Philadelphia school system, a majority of whose students are from low-income families, initially chose not to conduct online classes during the coronavirus shutdown because it would be so inequitable: “If that’s not available to all children, we cannot make it available to some,” the schools superintendent announced. He has since relented and announced that the district would purchase Chromebooks and lend them to students without computers. This did not, however, solve the problem for students who have no high-speed internet service at home, something the district is trying to address, but only with great difficulty and not in time to bridge the current digital divide.
For students in some states, the shutdown could last for almost half the school year. The achievement gap between low-income and other children is already equivalent to at least two years of schooling. Might the coronavirus shutdown expand that by another half year?
We have evidence that tells us what to expect. Increased reliance on homework, for example, widens achievement gaps. Children whose parents can more effectively help with homework gain more than children whose parents can do so less well.
We also know that the educational gap is wider when children return after summer vacation than it was in the spring, because middle-class children frequently have summer enrichment that reinforces knowledge and experience. The larger gap shows up in test scores, but also in less easily quantifiable areas that are particularly valued in higher education, professional workplaces, and civic life, such as cooperative skills in group activities, possibly due to enrichment from things like summer camp and family travel.
Children living in low-income, disinvested, overcrowded, or less-safe neighborhoods are more likely to experience toxic stress from exposure to violence, homelessness, and economic insecurity that interfere with emotional health and learning, as well as leading to behavior challenges that affect the classroom environment for others.
For some, school is the safest place. Teachers report that when children in low-income neighborhoods who are living in overcrowded and highly stressed homes return to school after breaks, evidence of physical abuse is more noticeable. (Two examples of research on this can be found here and here). It is frightening to consider the consequences of a three- or four-month break when some children and parents will be isolated and frustrated in overcrowded conditions.
Congressional consideration of a massive economic program to minimize a virus-induced depression has properly focused on immediate needs to save small businesses, enhance and extend unemployment insurance, and guarantee sick leave. But when schools reopen, the expanded achievement gap will be in urgent need of intervention.
We can’t (and in a free society, probably shouldn’t) try to reduce the resources that advantaged parents can give children (although Philadelphia’s attempt to forego online instruction on equity grounds offers a contrary ideal). But we can increase resources for other children to provide more equity. Federal law now provides added support for schools serving low-income children. It enables, for example, the hire of additional teacher aides or reading specialists, the purchase of some additional curriculum materials, reduced class sizes in schools serving concentrations of low-income students, or a truncated summer school program focused on basic skills. The stubborn persistence of the achievement gap shows it is not nearly enough.
We should do much more. Not only should we substantially increase teacher pay, but also finance nurses, social workers, art and music teachers, instructional librarians, and after school and summer programs that not only provide homework help but clubs that develop collaborative skills, organized athletics, and citizenship preparation—like the expansive education that middle class children typically receive at parents’ expense.
Most important, all children should have publicly funded, high-quality early childhood education, including preschool for three and four year olds with evidence-based programs. If a research consensus exists on anything in education, it is that the socioeconomic gap in cognitive performance is well-established by age three.
The continued segregation of children by income and race, however, will dilute the impact of even these reforms. In the long run, redressing this segregation has the potential for a much bigger impact. That redress should include both opening up middle-class and affluent neighborhoods to diverse residents, and improving the quality of existing disadvantaged neighborhoods, not only with better resourced schools, but with mixed-income housing, transportation access to good jobs, markets that sell fresh food, and walkable options.
Americans have become dramatically more divided by income and wealth. Upward mobility has declined; inequality is increasingly transmitted inter-generationally. We can act to prevent the coronavirus from accelerating these trends.
__
*The estimates of achievement differences by parental educational attainment, and of how achievement gap can be expressed in “years of schooling” are based on an average of fourth and eighth grade scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The estimates were developed for this article by economists at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), using the online NAEP Data Tool. Martin Carnoy is a professor of education at Stanford University and an EPI research associate, and Emma Garcia is an EPI staff economist. I am grateful to them for their assistance.
Read other Shelterforce COVID coverage, or sign up here to receive Shelterforce Weekly in your inbox.
Poor ELLs are generally very behind in academics when they first arrive as well as needing to learn a new language. They will suffer greatly from not being able to attend school. These students have very few resources at home. Most of the parents have little education, and they also do not speak English. Most of the families do not qualify for any government assistance. I had a very good relationship with public librarians that help students locate information for school projects. When ELLs need access to technology, they generally use the public library. In this pandemic even that resource in not an option for them. These families are often very isolated, and they often have no other family members in the vicinity to help them. The current COVID-19 crisis will be very hard on poor recently arrived immigrant families and a further set back for the children.
While I agree that the opportunities afforded professional parents are significant, I would claim that the real strength to the homeschooling experiences being had by some at this time is the lesson that is not consciously being taught. Let me explain.
My daughter is full of information that we have fed her because of our hobbies. She can tell the difference between a Hairy and Downy Woodpecker. She knows that John Glenn fell in the bathtub after he safely circled the earth three times (and she knows this illustrates irony). Something, however, has led her during this time to spend all her time doing school work that her teachers have posted. Her day lasts indefinitely, often into the evening. How can this be?
The things we teach besides content are often the most important. The children of professionals often get the message that education is important, while they forget the rest. It always amazed me how many of my friends who grew up very poor turned out to be well-educated. This is because their parents taught them that it was important. Stability I the family and the value of education allowed many a poor guy to grow up and contribute, often without understanding how they got that way.
Poor folks might not get the opportunities we got. It costs a lot more to go to college these days. Schools are way more strapped for cash, given the inflation of educational costs. But the lesson that education is important is still free.
AMEN!! Roy
I would draw your attention to a new book by Thomas Piketty, “Capital and Ideology.” His former book “Capital in the twenty-first century” created an academic frenzy. This new book he feels explores a wider diversity of scholarship, a world view even more comprehensive than the first one. In the April 20 – 27 issue of “the Nation” Piketty is interviewed about it. Most enlightening.
I would add that this whole issue of the Nation is in my opinion a source of REAL importance,. I like the Nation but this issue is comprehensive on so many levels. If you can pick up a copy I would encourage you to do so.
I am sorry to see that this otherwise important article speaks of “achievement gaps” and the statistical fiction of “years of schooling” lost/gained.
That fictional “year of schooling” metric and variants such as “days of learning gained (or lost) needs to be put in the dumper of all serious journalism. Significant learning, whether in school or at home or on the streets and in neighborhoods is not captured by standardized tests and that includes the NAEP.
This is how the fictional year of learning (or not) is calculated by experts at the Center for Research on Education Outcomes. https://credo.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj6481/f/cmo_final.pdf
“To assist the reader in interpreting the meaning of effect sizes, we include an estimate of the average number of days of learning required to achieve a particular effect size. This estimate is based on computations by Eric Hanushek and Margaret Raymond (husband and wife). Hanushek and Raymond created the estimate by examining average growth from fourth grade to eighth grade (in reading and math scores) on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The previous translation used in CREDO reports relied on work from Hanushek, Woessmann and Peterson (2012) and estimated the growth rate at 720 days of learning per standard deviation. Incorporating the 2015 NAEP results in reading and math has led to a refinement of the days of learning translation. With the addition of the 2015 NAEP data and taking the average of separate growth estimates for reading and math, the new estimated growth rate is 570 days per standard deviation of growth.
We wish to emphasize that the days of learning translation is only meant to be a loose approximation of the effect size to provide a sense of scale to aid the reader in interpreting the effect sizes. The effect sizes are the mathematically computed measures produced by the statistical models AND SHOULD BE THE BASIS FOR POLICY DECISIONS. (Caps are mine) Page 12 in https://credo.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj6481/f/cmo_final.pdf
I say. Nonsense, unless you think the only thing that schools should teach are the forms of reading and math presented in NAEP tests. Please no policy decisions based on test scores and achievement gaps mapped into some variant of a bell curve, assuring by that statistical representation that the “gap” can NEVER EVER close, and that “on average” means mediocre.
I think that Rothstein may know about the work of Gloria Ladson-Billings who calls for thinking about the “education debt” rather than the “achievement gap.”
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3876731
or this version http://educationdebt.reclaimourschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Confronting-the-Education-Debt_FullReport.pdf
Well said, Laura! This truth, in particular, stands out:
“Significant learning, whether in school or at home or on the streets and in neighborhoods is not captured by standardized tests, and that includes the NAEP.”
GREAT explanatory words: “statistical fiction…”
ALSO a great title for a book
Richard Rothstein is one of my heroes, a man of profound learning that he puts to use on behalf of the poorest among us.
Implicit in the discussion of achievement gaps is an unfortunate acceptance of a flawed system of assessment which falsely equates both value and learning of a child with a statistically flawed value. Would it not be more valuable and more useful to focus on opportunity gaps?
It’s not just “statistically flawed value”. It’s onto-epistemologically banrupt. Wilson showed the world in his 1997 dissertation “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error”. And there has been ZERO refutation/rebuttal by the psychomeretricians and the standards and testing malpractice regime proponents. For twenty years I’ve searched, pleaded, begged for some rebuttal. . . Nada, nil, nothing.
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
This is the ugly underside of this whole “experiment.” I mean, we don’t have a lot of choices at this point. I get that. But I am worried sick about my kids with special needs, my kids who are English language learners, my kids who are homeless, and my kids whose families are losing jobs. I don’t hear from some of my students at all, and some of them I haven’t been able to contact. It truly keeps me up nights worrying about them.
Talk of “gaps,” and schools’ attempts to bridge them always sounds like skating on thin ice to me. The patchy ponds of my youth were full of such gaps; attempts to “bridge” them ran counter to laws of physics & weakened the thick expanse, pulling its thinner edges into the breaches. Nobody engaged in wishing the thin places away, as they were obviously caused by “inequities” of underlying depths and springs, and overarching sunlight/ shade. There was one good skating pond nearby, created by a contractor for his hockey-playing kids: just the right depth, bottom dead-level w/straight sides, in the middle of an open field. You have to make it that way, it doesn’t happen by itself.