No Rich Child Left Behind

via the Los Angeles County
Office of Education

While the idea of standardized testing and the gap between the rich and poor may not seem to have any connection besides the fact that they are both rising, they do correlate in an uncanny way: they can be used to assess the widespread effect of one another in America.

It is fairly common knowledge that kids from a higher income background tend to have higher GPAs and perform better on standardized tests than kids from lower income households. However, it is lesser known that there is actually a more substantial discrepancy of educational success between social classes than between that of different races. According to Professor Sean F. Reardon of Stanford University in an article for The New York Times entitled 'No Rich Child Left Behind', "If we look at the test scores of white students only, we find the same growing gap between high- and low-income children as we see in the population as a whole". Therefore, the American public's test scores in general are fluctuating at the 'same growing gap', regardless of race.

I think the use of standardized testing in testing the rate of the increase in the gap between the rich and poor is a unique idea. Why do you think standardized testing can be applied to assess different socioeconomic thresholds? To learn more about the disparities of education for rich students versus poor, you should check out my classmate, Lily Stein's, blog.

Higher Institutions Under Fire

One of the most stressful things about the end of high school for many American teenagers is the college admission process. In the application process, students must provide a transcript of their GPA, extracurricular activities and for most, standardized test results. However selective a college or university may be, they typically offer admission to those students who fit their academic and student profile of caliber.

A student body profile often provides a glance to the public of what the school is like and how rigorous the curricular is etc. Naturally, the more competitive the college looks, the 'better' is would seem.

In efforts to get ahead and establish a 'good' reputation, many higher institutions have altered the data for the public eye. In a recent article for the Washington Post, Nick Andersen examines how some colleges have misreported data in efforts to skewed rankings (such as those seen in the U.S. News and World Report). According to the article, Bucknell University in Pennsylvania announced that for several years it had reported inflated SAT scores for incoming students and others submitted incorrect test scores or overstated the high school rankings of their incoming freshmen. Andersen argues that these schools have misreported data in efforts to "angle for prestige to stand out in a crowded market [of colleges]". I think the use of the word 'prestige' is key; colleges feel that in order to convince their peers or potential donors for their continued support, they must stretch the truth.

To what extent do you think the altering of test scores affects a university's rankings? I wonder if there should be legislation enacted to deter public higher institutions from inflating class ranks or other aspects of their student body profile in the future.

Tests Scores and Affirmative Action

As time presses on, it seems that the number of standardized tests is increasing in America. While data for the rise of standardized tests is available because of government legislation ordering more examinations in public schools can be attributed to recent efforts such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in public schools, I wonder why tests that are administered by private companies like the ACT and the SAT are also increasing. Is it solely to increase profit or for another reason?

In an article from the March 17th New York Times, David Leonhardt writes that "only 34% of high-achieving high school seniors in the bottom fourth of income distribution attended any one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges". I find this especially interesting since almost 1/3 of 'high-achieving' hard working students cannot get into more selective institutions because I previously thought initiatives such as affirmative action highly encouraged colleges to accept a more diverse group of students.

However, the study published in the same article as above, the Hoxby-Avery economist paper, is clear to point out that low income does not imply the student is a minority.

It is common knowledge that many factors go into the college admission process; grades, extracurricular activities, and for some the all important test scores. One student cited by Leonhardt, Winona Leon, a sophomore at USC said that in her small town in Texas, "AP classes and SAT preparation were rare. It was really on ourselves to create those resources". There is definitely a correlation between the range of test scores and the amount of preparation taken. When preparation is 'rare' and the students are basically going into these high-stakes tests cold, the scores are not expected to be selective college quality. Given this, how is it fathomable for top colleges to increase the percentage of students from all backgrounds of income and race? Why is the relationship between private standardized test companies and affirmative action in college becoming more close-knit?

Murders and TV

According to the United States Department of Labor, the average American watches about 21 hours of television a week. Surely it is not just lack of anything better to do that people tune in everyday: it truly the enticing nature of the programming that attracts people to the screen.

In Thursday's Chicago Tribune, there was an article that discusses one idea of trying to combat homicides in Chicago: by making television shows about them. This weekend on a show called 'Crime Stoppers Case Files: Chicago', the Chicago police hopes to gain more evidence about a 21 year old cold case of a young mother stabbed on to death in her home in front of her then 4 year old son.

Police Commander Jay Parrott of the Evanston Police Department hopes that shows like this can spread awareness about the issue. He says, "It's a cold case, but it's not so old that people are not going to remember it. Hopefully we can make some developments on this." I wonder to what extent the show will come across as a hybrid between crime show like CSI and a reality tv program. When the officer said that the case 'not so old', I wonder if that crosses a line between still classified evidence and familial privacy.

Shows similar to this have aired before; it reminds me of '24 Hour Murder Mystery' or even ones about prison lockups. What do you think of this idea of a program? How successful do you think it will be for providing 'more developments' as the officer said?