From the Daily Herald article here.

The main point of the article -

quote:

While Glenbard South passed, the remaining three high schools in District 87 - Glenbard East, West and North - all fell short.

Just sayin'...

This is ridiculous. Not to say that I'm not proud of the South students (big kudos to them, btw), but the entire concept of high school is lost in the bureaucracy of all of this.

High school is supposed to prepare kids for college and/or entering the real world as adults. This entire concept of tailoring and/or revamping the curriculum lineup to the requirements of the standardized test does absolutely nothing to prepare these kids for either the real world nor the college world.

We need to adjust schools to more reflect the concept of learning, rather than preparing for one particular event.

South has a pretty homogeneous population...who tend to do well on standardized measures....but with NCLB and the "all" will meet they too will eventually fall short as anytime you expect all students to perform the same you are simply setting yourself up for failure.

I live south of Roosevelt - and was quite pleased about South's performance, especially as I had the impression that it was facing an increasingly diverse population, and more lower income students as well. Is South really less diverse that than the other three schools by a significant percentage?

YES
South does not have enough minorities or low income for them to be counted as a subgroup by the state if they did it is likely they would not be looking any rosier than the other schools. I am sure that over the recent years South has gotten an increase but that increase has also been seen at the other Glenbards too
you can check out the state report cards for each of the Glenbards.

thanks - when I looked quickly at the Tribune chart, it didn't look all that terribly different to me, but I'm not a statistician or directly involved in how they count for schools.

The most important predictor of a child's academic achievement is their parents income, educational level.
Illinois Report Cards

Perhaps I'm being a bit too idealistic here, but I fail to see a direct correlation between a parent's income-level and a child's academic successes. The parent's educational level makes complete sense, but the income has nothing to do with a child's potential and his or her ability to reach it. There are other underlying factors that play more of a role in that, such as the amount of time a parent spends encouraging and teaching said child.

For example, I am college-educated on an undergrad level and am nearing the end of graduate degree courses. However, my income level is rather small considering the size of my family. My children attend a school where being fair-skinned IS the minority. According to statistics, based on my income level and the prevelance of minorities in their district, my children (and most of their classmates) should not perform well on standardized tests, nor should their educational levels be high. Yet my children (and a LARGE percentage of their classmates) always score in the 90th percentile on standardized tests, are involved in a gifted program (predominantly inhabited by "low-incomes" minorities) that has only encouraged their education and presented them with opportunities to continuously enhance their education, and are at least one to two grade levels above where they "should be" at their ages. Why is this? Not because of my education, income, or majority status, but because I (as well as my supportive family members and friends) have always taken the time to teach them and help them to develop a thirst for knowledge.

Point being, statistics will show what they're designed and interpreted to show. Parental income and minority status have absolutely nothing to do a child's educational successes or failures.

Sure since there is usually a direct correlation between educational level and income then it follows that there will in the end be a correlation between a parents educational/income level and their children's .

Actually, income level and educational level don't have a direct correlation either. Again, I am college-educated and I know many people who are high school-educated whose income is higher than mine. Not to mention the difference between a single-income household and a double-income household is huge, so in these studies showing a direct correlation is parental income separated in those sub-categories at all?

Sure they do. On average a College Graduate will make a 1M more in earnings than a HS graduate. So there is your direct correlation.

Going to bet as well that two income or two parent households do better than single parent households.

While there is obviously anecdotal evidence that does not agree with broader statistics. The point is that for the majority those numbers are pretty accurate.

I suppose the difference lies in one's definition of majority....simply because that's what you've seen as a majority (and what this particular study has shown as a majority), doesn't mean that is an accurate representation of the population.

Oftentimes in "statistical studies" known among the masses, they end up being disproven because the sample size is not an accurate representation of the population. Of course, those you never hear about after the fact....you only hear about the studies' supportive results before being disproven as fact.

GESM2- In which district do your kids attend school? It sounds like they don't live with you...

Their legal address is not mine, it's a long story, but suffice it to say the stability of my kids has been greater because of it.

They currently attend school in the Bensenville School District 4.

Not sure what this all has to do with No Child Left Behind?

The difference here is “correlations” verses “causal relationships”. Having parents in a high income bracket does not “cause” a student to perform well on standardized tests. However, high standardized test scores do “correlate” with upper income parents. And yes, there are always statistical outliers.

Please, I do not mean this in a derogatory way, but do not be fooled by having children in a gifted program. YES, THIS IS A GREAT THING. However, ask your school what percentage of the school is in gifted programs, and are those opportunities even made available to all the students. What percentages of the students are on the honor role, and is that even statistically possible (can there be that many data points at the tail of our population curve). Maybe this is Lake Wobegon.

I agree that statistics will show what they're designed and interpreted to show – they are bias neutral (they only carry the bias of the questioner). Asking how many students are failing is not the same as asking students to fail. That being said, parental income and minority status have absolutely nothing to do a child's educational successes or failures, in that they do not cause them, yet they do correlate very well.

Thanks, FRYs. I appreciate your definitiveness. I believe that was sort of what I was actually referring to, I just couldn't figure out how to properly word it. And yes, I know that you were not actually supporting what I said, but clarifying all of it helps regardless of the points supported (or not).

I actually did much research on the school and it's gifted programs when my oldest daughter got invited into the programs. Because of pre-conceived notions on income level and educational successes, I was concerned about my childrens' involvement in said program. (Sidenote: this can be paralelled by a classroom university degree - such as NIU - compared with an online University degree - such as University of Phoenix).

It is available to all students, but is based primarily on the students' homeroom teacher, unless a parent inquires. The only percentage that I intended to represent was the 90th percentile that a large portion of my children's classmates end up in according to standardized tests. I don't agree with basing so much on standardized testing, I was simply using that as an example as to how the previously-mentioned "statistics" may not be as accurate as many think.

Can anyone who believes there is a direct correlation in income and minority status with educational successes and/or failures suggest some studies that have shown this? Or has most of this been based solely on individual interpretation of such?

P.S.
I apologize, I may have inadvertantly hijacked the thread :s

Trib Story

Again read the Tribs article and interpretation. A disparity exists at least in the State of Illinois and I would guess in the nation as a whole.

One reason for NCLB was to attempt to raise the scores of low income and minority students.

Here's a study that directly addresses the correlation with income and race.

Thank you. After much searching through the entire first article, I finally found a cited source hidden in the graphical representations. I will attempt to find the actual study and am interested in the details of such.

Given the amount of time it took me to even find the citation from the first article, I haven't had a chance to find the actual study from the second. I do however, fully intend on doing the same with that one.