Diane Ravitch mentions a link to Noel Hammitt’s blog on the correlation between poverty and how well a student does in school.  She taught Noel as a student undergrad.

Note:  Noel Hammitt has copyrighted this material, but kindly allows liberal use of it as long as copyright is noted.

The first chart is stunning in how the “F” grade corresponds with the kids in poverty.  Again–they are trying to blame teachers for something that is out of their control–and the biggest factor in how well a child does in school….poverty.

From this chart it appears that there is a powerful pattern in the relationship between the concentrations of poverty in schools and the assigned letter grades for schools. However, we should note that for four years Louisiana put out a report that highlighted High-Poverty High Performing Schools, which suggested that there are, perhaps, many schools that defy this pattern. After carefully examining the lists, which reported higher numbers of schools each succeeding year, with 56 schools in the 2011 release, we noted that many of the schools actually had a lower percentage of students qualifying for free meals than the state average. In addition, most of the schools were magnet schools or schools where Gifted/Talented programs were masking lower test scores for other groups of students in the schools.  Finally, there were schools like Lake Forest Elementary, in New Orleans, that had extensive application and testing procedures that eliminated low-scoring students from the schools.  We also noted that there were no schools that had been on the list every year. Not one school out of over 1300 schools in the state that had overcome the challenges of poverty every year.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

We note that although the private schools seem to have an advantage on the scores, they enroll very few special education students, and they get to select their students.

~~~~~~~~~~~

NAEP scores can be useful checks against a natural tendency of states, districts, and schools to focus on teaching to the test, because NAEP assessments are much more difficult to game or teach to than state level tests. An example of this can be found in states where 90 percent or more of students receive passing scores in their state at the basic level, when only 20 or 30 percent of their students are passing NAEP at the Basic Level.

~~~~~~~~~~

I think this last quote is really important for the non-teacher to understand what is going on with testing.  As we have learned, tests can be manipulated in that the teacher is forced to teach so the children can pass the test so the schools will not be penalized either by closing them or denying them their federal tax dollars through programs such as Race to the Bottom…er, I mean, Top….so the assessment is muddied.  The national assessment appears to circumvent that and gives a true picture of how the children are doing.

Noel notes that a child in poverty can also make high grades–he emphasizes that one should understand this and not have low expectations of these children.  I agree.  The problem isn’t that the child is not capable….but they have so many obstacles to overcome every day that get in the way.

Finally, the biggest point of the paper is that just because a school is called “failing” doesn’t necessarily mean that the kids and teachers are stoopid.  Again, parents and the public need to  ask how that school was assessed, is poverty  a huge problem with the students?