Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

Most of the achievement gap actually comes from parenting, not schools. And of the portion of the gap that comes from schools, most of it comes from the differences within individual schools, rather than the differences between schools. (In other words, a kid taking high-level classes in a low-income school is probably getting a better education than a kid on the bottom track of a high-SES school.)

While I'd like to believe that startups could help, I find it fairly unlikely. Most entrepreneurs I see in the education space don't seem to be experts in education theory/research, so most of the time their products seem to be only making things worse. And if the general public were well-educated enough to tell the difference, there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem to begin with.

View on HN

Most of the achievement gap actually comes from parenting, not schools.

John Hattie in his book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement

http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Learning-Synthesis-Meta-Analys...

reviews a lot of research studies from a lot of countries and suggests that that view, although it is conventional wisdom, grossly underestimates the importance of schools. I agree with you, because the data agree with you, that the most stark differences in school performance are among different teachers in the same school rather than between one school and another, but throughout the Western world, students with tough home conditions tend to get the lousiest teachers and the most underperforming curricula.

Other writers who have important points to make about how to help learners with the worst home environments by improving schools include the collaborators from Teach for America who have put together the book and website Teaching as Leadership

http://www.teachingasleadership.org/

and Eric Hanushek at Stanford with his research on the effects of variance in teacher quality.

http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/content.asp?contentId=60

There is a lot yet to be done that is very feasible (well, except for politically feasible in most states of the United States) to improve the education of the most disadvantaged learners and to help them reach significantly higher levels of academic achievement.

Good points, all of which I agree with, and I'll check out those sources. The book I snapped the pic from was Equality and Achievement, which is similar to the book you're linking to.

"reviews a lot of research studies from a lot of countries and suggests that that view, although it is conventional wisdom, grossly underestimates the importance of schools. "

I do think it's important to note though that you can believe that the achievement gap is mostly coming from home factors, while also not underestimating the importance of school. That is, you can believe that all kids are basically receiving an equally crappy education. You're certainly right though about the kids from the worst home conditions getting stuck with the worst teachers within schools.

And just as importantly, stuck in classes with each other. There's an amplifier effect as a result.

It may be that parenting is more important (though I'd want to see some data there -- there's was a recent study showing that for poor children attending preschool was a very good predictor of life success; this would seem to argue counter to your assertion), but I don't see how that refutes the point. "Parenting" is not something subject to public policy, in the general case. School is. We can pass laws to make schools better. If it works (even partially), then we should. No?

A lot of this is based on assumptions, but unless the study was somehow able to seperate "parenting" from pre-school attendence as an intervening variable, I don't necessarily think it's counter to his assertion.

I would argue that pre-school attendance could be a very strong indicator of parenting quality, if we can even try to quantify such a thing.

On the other hand, lack of pre-school could indicate a parent taking the pre-schooling responsibility upon themselves and providing a rather spectacular "home pre-school" environment.

Poor children attending preschool doesn't necessarily mean that schooling is the answer. It could be that the parents who would send their kids to preschool (regardless of socioeconomic background) are the kind of parents who give their kids the skills needed to succeed later in life. There are tons of confounding variables when it comes to stuff like this, so the jump from "preschool is a good predictor of life success" to "we should invest more in preschools" isn't necessarily a logical one. Correlation does not imply causation, and all that.

It's hard to study this sort, of thing, sure, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been studied. Probably the most famous is the Perry Preschool Project in the 60s, which randomly assigned students to a control versus preschool group and followed the students until they were 40, finding significant differences in life outcomes (earnings, arrests, teen pregnancies, etc) between the two groups.

"though I'd want to see some data there -- there's was a recent study showing that for poor children attending preschool was a very good predictor of life success; this would seem to argue counter to your assertion"

In terms of data, here is the graph showing how SES effects achievement for school kids:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1655696/SES_and_school.jpg

It's a little difficult to read, but basically what you can see is that poor kids and rich kids learn roughly the same amount in school. The reason there is such a big gap is because A) there is a large gap that already exists when they get to Kindergarten and B) while rich kids are learn over the summer and get smarter, the poor kids are actually forgetting what they've learned the previous year.

If you want to learn about why there is already a 2 year gap before the kids get to kindergarten, you should read the book Meaningful Differences In The Everyday Experience of Young American Children.

The finding about within school differences vs. between school differences comes from the Coleman report, which is one of the largest social surveys ever conducted, and still one of the most important to date. I also have a blog post here explaining a bit about why within school differences are important:

http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2009/02/the-most-im...

If I remember correctly efficacy of preschool is mixed, and it depends a lot on the type of preschool. However, even the best preschools can never be as effective as good parenting at imparting language schools, for reasons that the Meaningful Difference book explains. (However, preschools may be good for other reasons.)

Can I beg we avoid the term "good parenting" as it is semantically very poor in this context. For example a kid from a loving and conscientious poor and illiterate parent may receive better parenting than a more perfunctory well-off parent - and yet the latter will undoubtedly be ahead by the time they reach kindergarten. The issue is not so much, I believe, in the "goodness" of the parenting, rather, it is in the richness of the environment.

You're right about good parenting being a bad term. However, it is the qualities (value neutral) of the parenting that determines outcome rather than the richness of the environment. To quote Paul Tough, who gives a good summary of the research:

"The disadvantages that poverty imposes on children aren't primarily about material goods. True, every poor child would benefit from having more books in his home and more nutritious food to eat (and money certainly makes it easier to carry out a program of concerted cultivation). But the real advantages that middle-class children gain come from more elusive processes: the language that their parents use, the attitudes toward life that they convey. However you measure child-rearing, middle-class parents tend to do it differently than poor parents; and the path they follow in turn tends to give their children an array of advantages. As Lareau points out, kids from poor families might be nicer, they might be happier, they might be more polite; but in countless ways, the manner in which they are raised puts them at a disadvantage in the measures that count in contemporary American society."

> For example a kid from a loving and conscientious poor and illiterate parent may receive better parenting than a more perfunctory well-off parent - and yet the latter will undoubtedly be ahead by the time they reach kindergarten.

Undoubtedly?

> The issue is not so much, I believe, in the "goodness" of the parenting, rather, it is in the richness of the environment.

In the US at least, there are free yet rich environments. If you're poor, you do have to get out of the house and seek them out.

So, what definition of "better parenting" are you using?

Education and schooling are not synonymous. I don't think that entrepreneurs can help schooling but they can certainly help education. To be honest, most 'education' startups are really about 'schooling'. The problem that for the most part schooling is designed to educate people for manufacturing jobs in the industrial revolution and service in the military. That kind of education (aka. schooling) is completely inappropriate in the information age where ingenuity and critical thinking are far more important than blind rule following. We're not building nations anymore, we're building individuals. To paraphrase Wilde we're producing "people who know the answer to everything, but the meaning of nothing"

I think Khan Academy is honestly about education more so than schooling.

The general public can tell the difference which is why choice in education is a no-go, and the compulsory system remains in place.

I agree with your point on education vs. schooling. If you want to focus on building individuals then you really have to think about education in terms of being a part of the larger psychospiritual development process, rather than just an ongoing series academic content. Although people in the west like to make fun of gurus, and often rightly, I think there is good reason to reconceptualize education in a way that's more connected to the various life stages a person goes through, a la the four life stages of hinduism.

That's the problem I have with Khan academy. That is, the lessons are factually correct, but they have no soul, and at the end of the day I think that's bad pedagogy.

Could you explain how to measure the various concepts you are describing in your post? It would help the rest of us understand what you are talking about.

I.e., if we "reconceptualize education" to connect it to hinduism's 4 life stages [1], what outcomes will change? How can we measure the "soul" of a lesson, and what happens when a lesson lacks "soul"?

[1] As far as I know this is only a meaningful concept for Brahmin and Kshatriya men. But I guess since they are the highest castes, they are the ones who's mysticism we should adopt.

"How can we measure the 'soul' of a lesson, and what happens when a lesson lacks 'soul'?"

A good proxy would be just looking at whether something was made by an artist, or a committee. E.g. Feynman's lectures were those of an artist, whereas most textbooks are created by a committee. (And then they get someone with a PhD to add their name as the author after the fact.) It's clear to me that Kahn's lessons are more in the style of the typical textbook, rather than in the style of someone like Feynman. You can't measure it, that's the point. If you could measure it then that's the first sign that something is wrong.

"But I guess since they are the highest castes, they are the ones who's mysticism we should adopt."

I'm not advocating the hindu model per se, only using them as an example of a society where schooling is framed in terms of a larger model... In their case one that includes work, marriage, wisdom seeking, preparation for death, etc. It's not clear to me that this is the right approach for western society, but I do think it's worth looking at for inspiration.

If you could measure it then that's the first sign that something is wrong.

In that case, I can tell you that you are very wrong. Khan's lessons have lots of soul. Not only soul, but also invisible dragons that breath the fire of knowledge!

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

I think Sagan's rant is cute, but ultimately wrong. And besides, when I talk about soul in this context, I'm obviously not talking about anything metaphysical. I'm just saying that his lessons are rather prosaic.

I think Feynman captures the essence of what I meant by "the answer to everything but the meaning of nothing". In his teachings in Brazil IIRC Feynman talks about Physics students who knew the refactory index of water but couldn't tell you why the ocean sparkled in the sun.

Most of the credentialed "experts" in education theory or research that I've encountered have been the last people I'd want designing or administering an educational program.

I'm sure this isn't universally true, but just like many other fields, expertise in technology should let new people disrupt the field. Education, being highly regulated, lacking real feedback mechanisms, government funded, etc., is perfect to disrupt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com