you're reading...
Education, Find Out More, Maori & Pasifika Education, New Zealand, Poverty & Socio-Economic Status and Education, Research on Education, School Funding

Education and the blame game

Blame the teachers

Who is to blame that some students achieve less than others?

Is apportioning blame and pointing fingers actually helpful for anything other than head-line grabbing?

Admit it – did you click on this because of the headline, hoping for an easy answer?

Well there isn’t one.  It’s a complex issue.

Why we need to consider this

If you see an easy head-line friendly fix for these issues, prepare to sound the alarm.

The truth is, until we put vote-grabbing solutions aside, try to avoid the blame game, and look for genuine research on the issue and unpolitical, unhysterical, practical, research-based solutions, we won’t get very far.

It’s particularly pertinent given some are arguing that there is a long tail of under achievement comprising predominantly Maori and Pasifika students and that schools and teachers are to blame for this.  This argument is then used to promote policy changes such as the introduction of National Standards, Charter (Partnership) Schools, and soon to justify performance pay.  But whether the original statement has any real basis in fact is debatable.   Could other issues be at play as well as teaching?

Until we know what the real issue is, we cannot begin to find good solutions.

So let’s begin to look at what we know.

Disadvantaged from the start

An American study found that “inequalities in children’s cognitive abilities are substantial from the beginning, with disadvantaged children starting kindergarten with significantly lower cognitive skills than their more advantaged counterparts.”  Students are arriving at their first place of education, kindy, already on the back foot.

The study  argues that the “same disadvantaged children are then placed in low-resource schools, magnifying the initial inequality” which certainly has bearing on New Zealand schools with their un-level playing field in terms of funds.(2)(3)

The report has conclusions relevant to education policy:

  • there are substantial differences by race and ethnicity in children’s test scores as they begin kindergarten;
  • race and ethnicity are associated with socioeconomic status (SES);
  • family structure and educational expectations have important associations with SES, race/ethnicity, and test scores;
  • SES strongly relates to cognitive skills;
  • and low-SES children begin school in systematically lower-quality elementary schools than do their more advantaged counterparts. “

This is certainly worth considering carefully.

Decile as an indicator 

Do students really achieve lower results at lower deciles?  And if so, then why?

Robyn Caygill & Sarah Kirkham looked at mathematics for year 5 Kiwi students, and argue that the decile of the student’s school does indeed correlate to the average level of achievement reached by students.  They point out that it “is indicative of a trend demonstrating that students with lower levels of disadvantage in terms of family background and socio-economic background and living in wealthier communities have higher achievement.”(1)

They concluded that, in general, students at lower decile schools tend to have access to fewer resources, stating that “the decile of the school [students] attend, [is] indicative of the level of economic disadvantage in the community in which they live, [and] was positively related to mathematics achievement.”

School funding

Does funding also have an impact on achievement?  And if it does, does that link to the socioeconomic position of the school’s community in any way?

A book just published looks an inequality in New Zealand.  In a survey, it found that decile 10 schools’ total budgets averaged $8,653 per student, whereas it was $7,518 per student in the decile 1 schools.  Can wealthier schools afford more teacher aides, more specialists, better resources, small class sizes and so on, all contributing to a slightly better chance for their students?  If so, what should this mean for the future funding of schools in poorer socioeconomic areas?

If students achieve less because of the socioeconomic status of their family, then this surely needs to be a focus for future research and action.

Parents as a factor

A Danish study last year found that in that country, a student’s parents are a huge indicator of future achievement, being five times stronger than the effect of teachers.  The report was said to”raise questions over the extent to which schools can be expected to make significant improvements to pupils’ results without the necessary backing from mothers and fathers.”  It stated that“[h]alf of the variation in test scores is attributable to shared family factors, while schools only account for 10 per cent,”  It went on to say that the remaining variation was down to pupils themselves.  Notably, researchers said the effect of families on test scores remained the same irrespective of household income. (4)

However, after looking at the research, the headline grabbing here seems to outweigh the scope of the research, which only looked at 16-17 year old students who changed schools at that age.  Another case where the headline doesn’t help us learn much at all.

Whilst I am very sure indeed that parents are a factor, this particular paper is not the one to show the link, at least not for NZ and not for primary schools.

My search for more rigorous local research continues.  If you know of any, please message me below.

Other indicators

Caygill and Kirkham (1) also noted that for mathematics, “books in the home, items in the homehousehold size and mobility” were indicators of  students’ maths scores.

It will surprise no teacher that the more a child moves school, the lower their achievement is.

And consider the results for books: 34% of students reported having  25 -100 books in their homes while 28% said they have 25 or fewer books in their homes. Guess which group got the higher scores?

  • Fewer books in the home = lower score
  • Smaller house = lower score.
  • Less access to a desk of your own, a computer at home, your own room, a calculator = lower score.

In essence, the poorer your family is, the lower your maths score.

So we are back to the socioeconomic status issue again.

Where next?

For my part, I will continue to search out research that will inform the situation and ponder what it tells us.  In this I stand on the shoulders of others, as people wiser and better placed than me are out there researching.

If you are one of those people, I would love to hear from you.

One thing I will leave you with is this – beware easy solutions sold to you in spintastic headlines.  They rarely tell the whole story, let alone a fair one.

~ Dianne

Sources and further reading:

(1) TIMSS 2006/07: Trends in Year 5 mathematics achievement 1994 to 2006

(2) Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in Achievement as Children Begin School.

(3) Fundraising keeps rich schools ahead of the pack – The NZ Herald

(4) Parents, Not Teachers, Key to Education

Forums for the Future Between Rich and Poor (video)

 

About Save Our Schools NZ

"One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds." Gandhi

Share your thoughts:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Save Our Schools NZ on WordPress.com

Category list:

StatCounter

%d bloggers like this: