The ETS study will doubtless be with us for some time and fuel the fires of those who prefer to support the pretty good and good enough notions of education for those on the lowest rungs socio-economically. There are some things, however, that bear careful consideration. One is that their results are at the state level. Perhaps one could undertake such state-level activities as a campaign to lower TV watching time (no one ever really wants to take on any public policy to improve the marriage prospects of us single parents--darn). Improvement in the quality of pre-school education available to children from low-income families has solid longitudinal research to support it, and perhaps may be becoming more politically palatable.

But I believe it is important as well to examine the results of the ETS study in the contexts of an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) study at the international level using PISA data. The OECD study uses some perhaps more meaningful SES indicators(and thankfully both studies go beyond the free and reduced lunch), including education and employment of parents, and the ever-popular number of books in the home.

What is significant in this study is that the US scores above the mean in terms of the amount of impact these things have on the academic indicator. There are countries scoring further above the mean (and typically also showing a wider range of SES indicators, with more at the lower end). This holds true at both the individual student and school level (both more sensitive than ETS state level results). Also interesting is that in their model, the SES factors only account for about 20% of variance.

But there are models of countries successfully mitigating the effects of socio-cultural indicators from which to draw policy. While they do point to the value of adequate pre-schooling, they also underscore the value of setting numeric targets for the closing gaps, particularly in academic achievement and school drop-out.

Given the amount of buzz (or uproar) related to this specific as reaction to NCLB--which does precisely that--coming from the schools, one has to wonder how willing we are to invest (or believe) in policies that demonstrate concern abou the effects of poverty on children.

Carey is making progress though. NOW at least, he's acknowledging the role fo poverty and even claiming that the hard accountability NCLBers never denied its importance.

He now rephrases the issue as NCLB supporters saying poverty is surmountable but only when we have "fixed goals."

Now that's something we can profitably debate, and since we have years of underwhelming NCLB results we ought to be able to make a change from viewing ACCOUNTABILITY as the locomotive of educational reform to viewing accountanility as one component.

I get a kick out of the pro-NCLB bloggers who downplay Obama's "Marshall Plan" for teachers because it doesn't have the high stakes testing they want. Let's see. After WWII, the Soviets offered collective planning and top down management and we offered the imperfect vehicle of the Marsahall plan. Which won?

John

I don't have much time on my library computer and I don't know when the OKC ice storm will end, but I hope everyone will read the New Yorker article on Medical checklists, and the New York Times Magazine article on the value of just telling maids of the health benefits of the activity they already do. They just provided info and blood pressure and weight improved. Presumably the info gave hope which stimulated more healthy activities. Both point to modesty. Both point to the type of practical suggestions we are always getting from the AFT. I trust the AFT type ideas because they work for me in a real live inner city high school. Its not just a political debate.

Hope I don't have too many typos because time's up, and I'm back to swinging an axe and hoping we get things cleared before the snow storm hits. Wish Carey could join me. A reality check is a nice thing.