Abstract
Inequality researcher Sean Reardon has found that the correlation between the median socioeconomic status (SES) of all public school districts in the United States and student test scores is .85 (communication via email). Reardon and his team measure district SES as a composite of district median household income, the proportion of parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher, and rates of child poverty, free lunch eligibility, SNAP (food assistance), teen births, and unemployment. Here is another new social fact: No poor school district in the nation has average test scores that lie above the national average. The correlation between students’ family socioeconomic status and their test scores, Reardon also informed me, is roughly .40. The strong correlations of both district and student SES with test scores strongly point to the effect of non-school factors. Today, our society expects all groups of students to make it to the same floor (i.e., test scores and high school or college graduation rates) at the same speed, on average. Yet, some groups are flying by in elevators going at the rate of a bullet-speed train, others are on smoothly running escalators, and some students are walking up the flights on stairways with missing handrails and broken steps. If test scores are a reflection of social class, then as Downey and Condron (DC) note, schools cannot completely eradicate test score gaps because of the disparate nature of children’s resource environments. Other social and economic policies must address communities’ needs.
Still, schools play a significant compensatory role in student test score performance, DC argue, using a counterfactual of what if there were no schools at all. They also note that research emphasizing seasonal analyses (i.e., the summer loss gap) highlights the power of schooling. I agree. The primacy of school versus non-school effects on achievement is not an either-or issue, however. Chiding “critical perspective” researchers for underestimating the power of schools by characterizing their views (and they are multifold) in a very narrow and simplistic way is not the way to go either. Critical scholars who document the opportunity gaps within schools (myself included) rely greatly on the logic that high-quality schools—materially, culturally, and socially—enhance all students’ educational and personal well-being. Most of us believe and have found in our research that good schooling is a necessary means to minimize some effects of the gross, enduring inequality in U.S. society. In addition, critical scholars argue that schooling is worthwhile not only for students’ personal gain but also for greater societal, democratic reasons.
Nevertheless, the educational system is unequal and even unjust. Too many students from disadvantaged backgrounds do not acquire as rich an educational experience as their more affluent peers. School inputs in low-income communities tend to be considerably substandard to the school inputs of middle-class and wealthier communities. Let’s just be honest about that. And if this does not matter, then why are so many middle- and upper-class parents concerned about where they buy a home and school their children?
DC offer the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) and KIPP charter schools as examples of schools that have erased test score gaps. How have they done so? Such schools have implemented equity-based policies and practices. Contrary to what DC suggest, school equity need not lead to either the stagnation or deprivation of high SES youths’ academic growth. Rather, equity refers to a greater infusion of resources to school communities that need them. The HCZ takes an ecological approach to youth education. Its educators understand that many “non-school” factors are indeed “school” factors. Kids need proper food and health care to learn. Their parents require skill development and jobs that pay livable wages so they can provide their children stable homes in which to learn. High-quality teachers familiar with diverse learners are also necessary to ensure rich learning environments.
Researchers often miss the forest for the trees. Sociologists of education cannot ignore the full ecology of students’ lives if they want to fully understand learning and achievement. Indeed, the field would benefit greatly from the production of more in-depth research and knowledge of both school and non-school factors. Finally, tests are not and should not be fully determinate of life outcomes. Many disadvantaged youth can soar and thrive academically even if their test scores are relatively lower. Experienced, competent teachers can raise proficiency rates, produce vibrant engagement across diverse social groups and cultures, and cultivate deep critical thinking, numeracy, and writing—conditions that compel students to become productive, caring citizens. In my opinion, these are the fundamental purposes of schooling.