Achievement tests finally proven to have no validity!!
Finally, someone has completed a study that proves what every educator knows: High stakes testing is NOT an effective measure of our children. See the full article from the Dispatch.
I work for one of the largest districts in Ohio. As the percentage of our students who are categorized as economically disadvantaged rises, our test scores go down (and with it goes the ever publicized State Report Card score). Students come to us (a charter school) because they are not successful at their home district, and we do not have the resources to help those students overcome socioeconomic barriers to academic success. Because charters receive less than the already under-funded public schools, we have to do even more with less, and with the students who have already given up on a traditional public education.
Once again, throwing federal legislation at schools is proving to be ineffective. Let's start with fixing school funding to level the playing field.
I agree that letting the feds tinker with our schools is of no help. But your plea to "level the playing field" of school funding does not square with the study you cite. And it supports what I've contended for years - the largest determinant of a child's success in school is parental and family support and involvement, even more so than economic status. Although it is not easy, good kids can succeed in bad schools. And there is no shortage of rich kids in great schools failing miserably because of lousy parents.
How do you resolve the discrepency between your call for funding reform and the study results? How is a "level playing field" going to help? If you are advocating shifting resources from wealthy districts to poorer districts (which is what I think you mean by "leveling the playing field"), you're not addressing the problem, according to Dr. Hoover.
First, using Dr. Hoover's study to justify increased funding for schools is nonsense. I read the study, did you? He found that a pupil's life outside the school was the predominant factor on whether or not a student would perform well on the standardized test. Ok, fine. I'm not so sure that would invalidate the test, but it certainly does not make a case for throwing more money at the schools.
Second, advocates of educational reform need to get it into their heads that the problems in these lousy school districts, especially the urban districts, is beyond the point of a financial fix. The marginal improvement from each additional dollar is too low to justify the investment. What does this mean? It means, as far as I'm concerned, it's not so much the teachers and administrators fault that kids are failing school. I certainly wouldn't expect the schools to work miracles on a student body that, if they do show up, is undisciplined and "under-parented". It's the parents who are to blame for their childrens' failure. The school district in my town is one of the best in the state, Blue Ribbon and all that. And the kids that do poorly are usually the ones that have uninvolved and uninterested parents, for whatever reason. It's truly unfortunate, and I take no joy in it, but that's not my problem.
Finally, if you think that you are going to equalize school funding without a fight, you are wrong. I used to live in Cleveland. When I bought my house (late '80's)my neighborhood was pretty decent. I dug the location and the neighbors were great. Within five years the writing was on the wall. I bailed out to the suburbs. I've gone back there occasionally. It's a cesspool now, and I'll be damned if anymore of my taxes are going to get flushed down that drain.