Last Sunday I witnessed a crowd of over a thousand kids queuing around two blocks in New York City to take a test to qualify to get into some specialised schools. It was quite an event, marshalled by police and enough to stop the traffic, and the event was repeated in other venues up and down the city. The kids were as diverse as you could ever imagine, at least in their visible traits.
Part of me was impressed with this piece of Americana. Any kid is allowed to sit the test, and the result is judged only on merit, with places offered based on the test alone, no interview or background check. It also reminded me once again of the sheer scale of this huge city. I have spent a lot of the last months standing or observing lines like these ones.
The test is designed as much as possible to look for innate ability, but of course it cannot entirely do that for twelve-year-olds. Half were comprehension questions, logic puzzles and scrambled paragraphs (sentences you had to place in the right order). The rest were maths, with a premium on speed of working and stamina.
We had spent (their) time and (our) money mugging our kids up for this event, and here my mood darkens a bit. Is it really as fair as it makes out? Actually, the test is judging most of all how well prepared the child is. It is telling that, even though effort is made to avoid the use of concepts that require teaching, nonetheless the regular US curriculum does not include everything that is required. A kid showing up in class, doing moderately well, and then attending the test, would very likely not do well unless exceptionally bright.
But then a child who was able to supplement regular classes with some tailored tutoring stood a much greater chance, since a lot of the key to success was about familiarity with the type of questions and level of practice at working through them at speed. Now how fair is that? Kids blessed with a good postal address would have attended schools where teachers could train them a bit, but most not. And otherwise, the ones with the best chance were the ones with parents wealthy enough to invest in tutors, especially those doing so over many years.
So New York City have tried really hard to create a system that equalises opportunity, but actually may have made it worse. The cream (or the wealthy?) are skimmed off into specialist schools and some other honours courses that are screened on test scores, while the rest end up in zoned schools. Now let me guess which of these schools the better teachers wish to teach in? Which ones find space in the calendar for extra educational activities, rather than remedial ones?
There is also a potential cultural commentary here. The kids with the tutors and the parent-enforced study ethic from a young age are overwhelmingly Asian. This mirrors what little I know of Asian education in general: Singapore and Hong Kong top international league tables, while South Korea is infamous for the young age that all kids start competing for places in elite institutions. India’s elite colleges create similar pressure there. Viewing the faces in that two block line in Long island City, one could be forgiven for mistaking the location as somewhere in Asia.
New York City does its best. In principle any kid can apply for any school. Schools are forced to provide statistics on graduation and college entry. They also provide a more scary statistic, that of ethnic mix, which provides a horrible proxy for attainment. When researching where to live in New York, we used a book of school statistics as a guide. I can’t say I’m proud of that, but as a parent there is only so much space for altruism. The overall outcome must work to entrench success and failure to locality.
One interesting outcome in New York is the huge range of attainment. Our kids are in a school with ten classes in their age grade (yes, it is a large school, large like everything in this city). The classes are streamed. The teachers work from a standard curriculum, including standard homework assignments. I have the uneasy feeling that the top classes already know most of what is taught and require extra stimulus, while the assignments for bottom classes are way out of their depth. Compared with Europe or Asia, I suspect the range of attainment within a school is far greater.
So the end result is entrenched inequality. And that is without even mentioning the poison (for equality of opportunity) of private, fee paying schools. Your parent’s wealth and lifestyle determine your address and your opportunity, probably more than any other factor. Many countries have attempted many schemes, but, as New York shows, the unintended consequences can outweigh the benefits. Some have managed to drag up the average attainment, but few have truly addressed the equality of opportunity issue. And what may look like higher attainment, for example in South Korea, might only be achieved at terrible cost to social development and the opportunity for kids to enjoy just being kids.
So what is to be done? Usually in this blog I have ideas I believe in, but in this case I am somewhat lost. At the heart of the question is the role of parents. All parents want the best for their kids. Getting them the best education possible is a big priority. And the most successful parents have the greatest ability to achieve their goal. Is that wrong? One can hardly object to the aspiration – that sounds like communism or worse. And by the way it will never win votes. And, oh yes, every historical attempt to take away the opportunity has led to a collapse in standards for all.
So we are left with schemes to make the playing field slightly less sloped but still far from level. Bussing. Lotteries. General tests. Quotas. All have flaws, but before we reject them, we have to reflect on the problem they are trying to address and the lack of good alternatives.
Two other policies must make sense, one for each end of the spectrum.
If money is allowed to create opportunity for kids, let us make sure we tax it heavily or at least fairly. The continued charitable status of British public (private) schools feels to me an example of the 1% taking the piss of the rest. I was a beneficiary, and my Mum could reasonably argue that she sacrificed a lot to give me the opportunity, but this sort of argument cannot trump the general one about equalising opportunity. You also can’t argue with Tony Blair and other politicians sending their own kids to public schools. You can argue if they act to perpetuate the unfair advantages of the system. Another obvious sore is the alumni advantage offered by some US colleges. That is entrenched privilege at its most ugly.
The other policy must be to focus at the bottom end to lift the opportunity for the disadvantaged. Extra incentives to teach in deprived areas, and extra budgets for schools there to face up to their extra problems. And schemes to incentivise parents to at least get their kids into school (Brazil is the role model, but such ideas have a place in the developed world too).
I think that is a fair balance. We cling onto the benefits that our own wealth gives us to give our kids a leg up, even though that wealth is probably driven largely by the leg up our own parents gave us. But in return we are ready to pay some tax to help those deprived of such opportunities as much as possible.
The test results for New York City come out in February. Wish us luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment