Response Paper 1 Notes

Response Paper 1 Notes It’s mostly going to be about bringing this kind of inquiry back down to the scale I care about. What’s behind the test abstractions? Even when test scores do rise, is the reality getting better?

Struggle to figure out what to do with these data. Definitely important, and my efforts in learning environments should have studies like these as ultimate metrics. 

• What is our goal as social reformers? If racial achievement gaps can be almost fully explained by multi-generational SES, then we have a case for a system which perpetuates institutional racism (Tatum: producing racially-correlated unequal outcomes) only because it recapitulates past racially-correlated inequalities. Should we care? On the one hand, perhaps not: if we’re not changing the structure of the system, how much does it matter that this group of people or that is on top? One is tempted to succumb to the weariness of Ecclesiastes: history is just a process of one group and then the next in a position of dominance; there is nothing new under the sun. 

On the other hand, perhaps the temptation to indifference is driven by racism as well. As a society, we are keenly aroused by some injustices and shrug off others. 

Our reform efforts do not seem to be aimed at changing the system: we do our work in areas where “getting ahead” does not conflict with “staying ahead”. (Labaree) Being in a higher-achieving percentile of a racial group is associated with greater achievement gaps across racial groups. Due to accountability pressure? (P. 500) “Racial disparities at the top of the achievement distribution have become increasingly salient in shaping labor market inequalities."   (p. 505)

This suggests that if we wanted to see the achievement gap continue to narrow, we might want to choose a small number of minority students and invest hugely in them, to further populate       -> In a sense, this is exactly the what happens in need-blind admissions to elite private universities. We tend to think of these as being besides the point, or even generating competing narratives, but they may be the most effective thing in changing these numbers.       -> Internship/Startup culture is an example of multigenerational SES providing advantages. Only some people can afford to do unpaid work; only some people have the fallback buffers in case their long-odds risks don’t pay off.       -> huge market for expensive tutoring (Why does being a Stanford Grad entitle you to earn $150/hr sitting wit a kid while he does math homework?)

Research community not particularly invested in exploring this either. An ironic consequence of the regularity of this pattern is that we tend to think of the relationship between socioeconomic status and children’s academic achievement as a sociological necessity, rather than as the product of a set of social conditions, policy choices, and educational practices. (3)

** Wealth disparity is even steeper than income disparity (Pikkety)      -> affecting attitudes toward risk-taking?      -> We could do a 90/10, 50/10, and 90/50 analysis of family wealth to see whether these patterns correlate closely with achievement. 

What about stereotype threat? This would have an effect of artificially lowering minority students’ scores, making them appear less cognitively gifted than they are in other contexts. This in turn would suggest that less of the income differences was explained by cognitive skills (and perhaps more was explained by institutional racism). Particularly if repertoires of practice are distinguished along racial lines. —> Particularly in highest-earning areas.