The gap between poor children and rich children is up for discussion again, this time in regards to the grades they get in school: Choice in School Widens the Grade Gap .
I'd like to provide an alternative analysis.
There is indisputably a positive correlation between having well-to-do parents and performing well in school. Therefore, I don't find it inappropriate for me to exchange the concept of well-to-do kids for the concept of talented kids.
We see on the graph that grades for all 4 categories -- what has been labeled high, fairly high, fairly low, and low income kids -- have gone up since 1990.
Parents being given the opportunity to choose an alternative to mediocre public schools has therefore, according to my analysis, not brought down the lower income children. Rather, it has helped put an end to the holding back of children who are more talented at traditional schoolwork. It has even, perhaps, created the desired effect of causing the public schools to get their butts in gear and improve themselves -- thereof the rise in grades for all categories of children.
I do believe that we need to make sure everyone can choose a better school and that income, which is only symptomatically related to success in school (but, once again, undeniably related nonetheless) is a barrier that we should make efforts to break. But there would be little point to having grades if everyone got the same, wouldn't there? If anything, I think the real story in this graph is "what's up with the general grade inflation going on here??" I don't doubt Fjelkner's analysis (she is the head of my teachers' union) about returning the responsibility for schools to the national level -- I have yet to form an opinion on that subject, and frankly think it would be 12 of one, a dozen of the other -- but I appreciate Margareta Pålsson (schools spokesperson for the ruling conservative party) saying that choice in school is critical and what we need to do is make sure that those choices are open to everyone. I'm also pleased to see that even Ylva Johansson (schools spokesperson for the socialist party) sees school choice as a part of Sweden now, and that solutions to both problems and "problems" must be found in other areas.
Either way, I don't see the benefit to Sweden of making sure everyone is equally poorly educated. But, with a bit of deja vu from the earlier article I blogged about on the subject of the growing number of "rich" children, it appears that I'm surrounded by people who feel that everyone getting the same grades is an obvious end unto itself.
Meat Filled Saturday
10 years ago
2 comments:
Well, there is one correctable flaw in the system, and that is the "inflation in grades" of some schools, that has been allowed (or at least authorities have turned a blind eye). This must be fixed asap, and it shouldn't be too hard. That's the easy part.
To the more difficult point: Swedish private schools are obviously somewhat unique to the world by being, with very few exceptions, free (no fees for the parents). Internationally it is a problem that good schools are almost exclusively there for rich kids (except for the very few that get scholarships), and hence the poor will continuously loose in every end.
Hence, the complaints of the Swedish red-green politicians are difficult to justify. It is less about who is rich and who is poor, and more about the level of education of the parents, being reflected both in the child's genes and upbringing (books, discussions, trips, ...). No matter how much you strive for equality, this is the trickiest part to even out. (There is a stroke of sarcasm in my voice now.)
Exactly, it's the "evening out" to the point of ludicrousness that is a goal I just don't understand. If one admits that Sweden needs first-class scientists and other academics, and one also admits that not everyone can choose that path, then it seems to me...
And yes, the point about how Swedish "private" schools are free is perhaps the most important detail here. It makes it difficult for me to describe my employer to my American friends, so I typically use the term charter school or privately-run school. But even then I often feel the need to explain that we are publicly funded and run under essentially the same rules as the public schools.
So the barrier to choice is about information, motivation, encouragement, and having active parents. Grouping kids by parents' income, education, or "class" (the separation of which from both income and education has always been lost on me, but it was a hot topic in our teaching courses) shows that the three are fairly interchangeable in regards to how the children perform in school, and like you said -- I don't know if Sweden can do more than it does now from the provider side in order to give the kids as clean a slate as possible. Except for helping the parents -- those that are not from academic backgrounds and not accustomed to it -- to take an active role in their children's education and educational choices. (You're going to like _Outliers_ :)
Post a Comment