Dear all,
Meneruskan 'jurus-jurus' saya tentang UN yang saya anggap bisa
'membalikkan jalan darah', dengan ini saya kirimkan artikel tentang
faktor kemiskinan dan hasil tes. Ceritanya, lembaga Ed Trust di Amerika
menyampaikan sebuah hasil survei tentang keberhasilan siswa-siswa dari
kalangan bawah yang bisa menunjukkan perbaikan nilai tesnya. Hal ini
membuat mereka yakin bahwa mitos tentang adanya hubungan antara
rendahnya kualitas pendidikan dengan kemiskinan menjadi terbantahkan.
(This result was considered sufficient to "dispel the myth" about the
relationship between poverty and educational achievement, and was
followed by newspaper articles proclaiming that these high-scoring
schools can "offer a lesson" (New York Times, December 17, 2001; Los
Angeles Daily News, December 16, 2001).
Tapi setelah melalui penelitian lebih lanjut ternyata apa yang
disampaikan oleh Ed Trsut tersebut dibantah oleh Stephen Krashen.
Silakan menikmati.
Salam
Satria
Oh, ya. Ini ada hubungannya dengan penolakan saya terhadap UN yang saya
anggap tidak adil bagi sebagian besar siswa kita yang masih belum bisa
menikmati pendidikan yang 'standar' (tapi mau diuji dengan tes
'standar' dan dihukum kalau tidak bisa melewatinya)
Poverty has a Powerful Impact on Educational Attainment, or, Don't
Trust Ed Trust
Stephen Krashen
Substance (in press)
The powerful impact of poverty on literacy development has been well
documented. Children of poverty, in addition to the obvious problems
they face, have very little access to reading material ; they have
fewer books in the home, inferior public libraries, inferior school
libraries,and inferior classroom libraries, (e.g. Duke, 2000; Neuman
and Celano, 2001). This means, of course, that they have fewer
opportunities to read, and therefore make less progress in developing
literacy.
The recent report from Educational Trust West (Ali and Jerald, 2001)
appears, at first glance, to show that a significant number of children
in poverty have overcome this problem. The report claimed to find 3,592
schools in the US that were "high-performing-high poverty" schools. In
California alone, there were 355 high-performing-high poverty school.
This result was considered sufficient to "dispel the myth" about the
relationship between poverty and educational achievement, and was
followed by newspaper articles proclaiming that these high-scoring
schools can "offer a lesson" (New York Times, December 17, 2001; Los
Angeles Daily News, December 16, 2001).
The Ed Trust Report deserves another look. It has serious flaws, and,
in fact, shows exactly the opposite of what it says it shows.
Very few schools qualify. The number of schools classified as
high-poverty high-scoring represents about 4% of the nation and state
school population. Moreover, a closer look shrinks even this number to
considerably. In fact, it shrinks it to nearly zero.
It is easy to qualify as high-scoring. A high-performing school was
defined as one in which students in ANY grade scored in the upper third
of the schools in its own state in EITHER math or reading. Thus, a good
performance by one grade level (in some schools only one classroom) on
one test can qualify a school as "high performing."
Consider the case of California. Of the 355 "high-scoring" schools in
California, only 134 were high-scoring in reading. There are 8761
schools in California. This means that about 1.5% qualify as
"high-flying schools." Of these 134, 83 managed to qualify because of
children in only one grade level! This could be due to the performance
of a few students in one classroom, perhaps even those from
higher-income families (see below). We are now down to 51 schools,
about half of one percent.
Scores can be based on students NOT considered high poverty. Ed Trust
may claim that a grade in a high poverty school reached the upper 1/3,
but not all the children at that grade level were high poverty.
Consider the case of fourth graders at the Language Academy, a (magnet)
school in San Diego. Academy fourth graders scored in the upper 1/3 of
the state in reading, averaging 61. But the subset of economically
disadvantaged children (n = 27) scored 42, while the advantaged
children (n = 36) averaged 73. Fourth graders at Language Academy were
classified as high scoring high poverty not because of the scores of
its disadvantaged children but because of the scores of its advantaged
children. Ed Trust does not present this kind of a breakdown of scores.
Ed Trust used a low standard for classification as "high poverty." A
high-poverty school was defined as one in which at least 50% of the
students were from low-income families. The California average is 46%.
The report has numerous inaccuracies. For California, several schools
listed as high-poverty were not, and in many cases grade levels Ed
Trust said were high scoring were not. The alternative analysis below
presents details, as well as confirming that the number of
"high-poverty high-scoring schools" is very very small.
An alternative analysis
If we define truly exceptional schools as those with at least three
grade levels scoring in the upper one-third in reading, we are down to
20 schools in California. Let's take a closer look at the 20: In two
cases, the schools did not qualify as high-poverty, even according to
the very modest standard set by Ed Trust. 1 For the other 18, a look at
SAT9 scores shows that only four of the schools actually had all three
classes in the upper one-third in reading, based on California's
standards, and none qualified as a high-scoring school using national
standards. Of the four that qualified in California, one was a magnet
school. The high-scoring classes in the three other schools had a total
of 391 children. In one, the Steinbeck school, high scorers in two
grades (3 and 6) scored much lower on the language portion of the SAT9
(36 and 30). 2
Poverty has a powerful effect
The Ed Trust report is actually a stunning confirmation of the
overwhelming effect of poverty. Even with a very loose definition of
high performance, few schools perform in the upper one-third and a
careful look at one state reveals that even fewer qualify. California
has about five million children in school. Ed Trust claimed that about
230,000 were in high-poverty high-scoring schools for reading.
According to this analysis, the real figure is less than 400. It is
extremely difficult to "defy the odds." Poverty has a powerful effect
on educational attainment.
Notes
1. The Raoul Wallenberg school reported only 41.5% and Richmond only
36.4% of their students on free or reduced price lunch. Wheatland Union
had 50.5% and Pescadero had 50.8% on free and reduced lunch. These were
included as "high-poverty" schools.
2. It is a lot easier to place in the upper 1/3 in California than in
the most other states; California ranks at the bottom in reading among
states in the USA. State averages are really low in grade 2 (30th
percentile), 9 (33rd), 10 (33rd) and 11 (37th). The fifth, sixth and
eighth grade CA average is 43. All are under the national average of
50.
Even using this lower standard, only four schools in California had
three grade levels that actually scored in the upper 1/3 for reading:
Borrego Springs (81 children), Bravo Magnet (about 1000 children),
Steinbeck (193 children) and Kernville (117). Three out of four grades
nominated by Ed Trust actually qualified at Steinbeck and Kernville.
For Kernville, grades 4, 5 and 6 met the standard, but there were few
disadvantaged children in grade 5.
Ten of the 18 schools had no grade levels meeting the California
standard for the upper 1/3: Costano, Cottonwood, Florence, Happy Camp
High, Hayfork High, Kernville, Muir, Surprise Valley, Surprise Valley
High, Van Duzen.
In five schools, results were mixed: At Clairemont, grades 9 and 10
qualified, but grade 11 did not. For the Language Academy, grades 3 and
4 qualified, but not the subset of disadvantaged children. Grade 7 did
not. For Pescadero, two of the three grades did not qualify. Grade 5
did, but not the subset of disadvantaged children. For Perry: grade 3
qualified but not grades 5 and 6. At Wheatland, grade 9 qualified, but
not the subset of disadvantaged children. Grade 10 qualified but grade
11 did not.
(California scores were calculated from mean scores (percentile ranks)
provided by the State of California Department of Education website,
and converting to NCE's.)
Here are SAT9 scores for those grades in "high-poverty" schools
categorized as achieving in the upper 1/3.
1) Borrego Springs; grade 9 = 60; grade 10 = 44; grade 11 = 46; only
nine disadvantaged students were tested in grade 9
2) Bravo Magnet: grade 9 = 43 (493); grade 10 = 43 (389); grade 11 = 36
(400); for disadvantaged students only, grade 9 = 44 (434); grade 10=
43 (314); grade 11 = 34 (320).
3) Clairemont; grade 9 = 43 (493); grade 43 (389) ;grade 11 = 36 (400).
For disadvantaged students, grade 9 = 44 (434); grade 10 = 43 (314);
grade 11 = 34 (320).
4) Costano; grade 3 = 60 (37); grade 4 = 41 (72); grade 7 = 39 (49);
for disadvantaged children only, grade 3 = 63 (40); grade 4 = 39 (41);
grade 7 = 30 (34). Note that this school reported more disadvantaged
children tested than total children tested for grade 3.
5) Cottonwood; grade 3 = 42 (28); grade 5 = 33 (24); grade 7 = 41 (19);
for disadvantaged children only, grade 3 = 23 (19); grade 5 = 43 (15);
grade 7, no score reported, 10 tested.
6) Florence; grade 3 = 39 (26); grade 4 = 30 (23), grade 5 = 31 (23),
grade 6 = 39 (13); for disadvantaged only, grade 3 = 33 (16); grade 4 =
79 (21); grade 5 = 33 (13); grade 6 = 61 (12). Note that the grade 4
and grade 6 scores are mathematically impossible.
7) Happy Camp High; grade 9 = 37 (24); grade 10 = 34 (33); grade 11 =
33 (19). All students were disadvantaged.
8) Hayfork High; grade 9 = 23 (43 students tested); grade 10 = 41 (36
tested); grade 11 = 43 (33 tested); for disadvantaged students only;
grade 9 = 30 (23); grade 10 = 22 (23); grade 11 = 24 (32)
9) Kernville; grade 3 = 37 (28 students tested); grade 4 = 70 (31
tested); grade 5 = 73 (23); grade 6 = 63 (30 tested); for disadvantaged
students only, grade 3 = 23 (13 tested); grade 4 = 66 (13 tested);
grade 5 = no score given, 10 tested; grade 6 = 60 (16)
10) Language Academy (San Diego): grade 3 = 62 (34); grade 4 = 61 (63);
grade 7 = 43 (21); for disadvantaged children only: grade 3 = 34 (44);
grade 4 = 42 (27); grade 7 = 42 (13)
11) Muir; grade 4 = 43 (26); grade 8 = 43 (34); grade 11, not reported,
only ten students tested.
For disadvantaged children only, grade 4 = 37 (130; grade 8 = 41 (23);
no scores reported for grade 11, only 3 children tested.
12) Pescadero: This school has 50.8% disadvantaged children. grade 3 =
20 (39 students tested); grade 4 = 37 (28 tested); grade 5 = 60 (21
tested); disadvantaged only, grade 3 = no scores given, 9 tested; grade
4 = no scores given, 3 tested; grade 5 = 12 (23 tested).
13) Perry: grade 3 = 68 (31); grade 4 = 39 (43); grade 5 = 43 (43);
grade 6 = 43 (32); for disadvantage children only, grade 3 = 74 (33),
grade 4 = 60 (33); grade 5 = 43 (29); grade 6 = 30 (31).
14) Steinbeck; grade 3 = 69 (34), grade 4 = 61 (60); grade 5 = 32 (30),
grade 6 = 67 (63). All children were disadvantaged.
15) Surprise Valley; grade 4 = 38 (14); grade 7 = 39 (16), grade 8 = 33
(16). No scores reported for disadvantaged children. Only 9 tested in
grade 4, 3 tested in grade 7, 10 tested in grade 8.
16) Surprise Valley High School; grade 9 = 37 (13); grade 10 = 30 (14),
no scores reported for grade 11, only 10 students tested. No scores
reported for disadvantaged students; grade 9 had 7, grade 10 had 6 and
grade 11 had 2.
17) Van Duzen; grade 4 = 44 (13); grade 5 = 38 (17); grade 8 = 30 (11);
no scores reported for disadvantage children. Ten tested in grades 4,5
and 3 in grade 8.
18) Wheatland Union High School; grade 9 = 44 (179); grade 10 = 40
(133); grade 11 = 42 (147); for disadvantaged children, grade 9 = 33
(61); grade 10 = 40 (32); grade 11 = 36 (36)
Acknowledgment: My thanks to Gerald Coles for numerous insights and
suggestions.
References
Ali, R. and Jerald, C. 2001. Dispelling the Myth in California:
Preliminary Findings from a State and Nationwide Analysis of
"High-Flying" Schools. The Education Trust - West.
Neuman, S. and Celano, D. 2001. Access to print in low-income and
middle-income communities. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8-26.
Duke, N. 2000. For the rich it's richer: Print experiences and
environments offered to children in very low- and very
high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms.American Educational
Research Journal 37(2): 441-478.
Los Angeles Daily News. 2001. No more excuses. Dec. 16, 2001
New York Times. 2001. School defies the odds and offers a lesson. Dec.
17, 2001
____________________________________________________________________________________Looking
for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
