Effects of Poverty on U.S. Children’s Educational Achievement Redux

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Effects of Poverty on U.S. Children’s Educational Achievement Redux” [Hake (2013b)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Barriers to Better K-12 Math Education: Poverty and the Inadequate Undergraduate Education of Prospective K-12 Teachers” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/V6azOZ. Ed Wall (2013b), in his Math-Learn post at http://yhoo.it/10CO8af, made 2 points: (1) My statement that Wall implied that the dumbing down of elementary school mathematics in the U.S. is due to Math Education Researcher's preoccupation with the secondary years is “more than a little un-thoughtful.” (2) His post “Re: Do We Learn All the Math We Need For Ordinary Life Before 5th Grade?” [Wall (2013a)] at http://yhoo.it/W6fn5y had more to do with (a) his agreement with David Hawkins - see signature quote - which Wall assumes I have refuted, and (b) people such as myself who “ ‘imply’ that children are less than capable because of their socioeconomic status.” [Non-subscribers to Math-Learn can access Wall’s post by taking a minute to “Join this List” at the Math-Learn archives http://yhoo.it/fF6D9w.]

Here I refute Wall’s 2 points with emphasis on Wall’s incorrect point 2b: “people such as myself ‘imply’ that children are less than capable because of their socioeconomic status.” On the contrary, I implied that children in poverty are less capable of academic achievement than children not in poverty.

I think that children in poverty are probably just as inherently capable as children not in poverty, but societal and home factors conspire against their academic achievement. For example many of them: (a) are subjected to poor teaching, (b) attend dilapidated schools with high student and teacher turnover, (c) have academically uninvolved parents, (d) partake of few out-of-school enrichment activities, (e) have limited access to books, (f) receive inadequate nutrition, (g) live in slums, (h) come from broken families, (i) are threatened by gang violence, (j) have few academic role models, and (k) suffer from environmental hazards such as lead poisoning.
*********************************************

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VC0jza.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

“. . .I will look primarily at our traditions and practices of early schooling through the age of twelve or so. There is little to come after, whether of joys or miseries, that is not prefigured in these years.”
- David Hawkins (2001) in The Roots of Literacy, p. 3.

“Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that more than 40 percent of the variation in average reading scores and 46 percent of the variation in average math scores across states is associated with variation in child poverty rates. . . . . Can anyone credibly believe that the mediocre overall performance of American students on international tests is unrelated to the fact that one-fifth of American children live in poverty”
- Ladd & Fiske (2011)

“For the short term, preparing teachers in mathematics and science is a wise and useful step toward improving schools. As quickly as possible, we must understand the link between poverty and educational outcomes in the U.S., devise solutions, and finally test and implement them. . . . . I hope that proponents of teacher quality and charter schools will recognize the weakness of a single-minded approach before it is too late, and that we will not damage public education, let down our most vulnerable students, and lose technical leadership we take for granted.”
- Michael Marder (2012)


REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 Jan 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013a. “Barriers to Better K-12 Math Education: Poverty and the Inadequate Undergraduate Education of Prospective K-12 Teachers,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/V6azOZ. Post of 16 Jan 2013 15:40:33 -0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/SPOkQ8 with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2013b. “Effects of Poverty on U.S. Children's Educational Achievement Redux,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VC0jza. Post of 19 Jan 2013 09:49:56-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Hawkins, D. 2001. The Roots of Literacy. University of Colorado Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/h3cbtf.

Ladd, H.E. & E.B. Fiske. 2011. “Class Matters. Why Won't We Admit It?” New York Times Opinion Piece, 11 Dec.; online at http://nyti.ms/vx3nub.

Marder, M. 2012. “Failure of U.S. Public Secondary Schools in Mathematics,” Journal of Scholarship and Practice 9(1): 8-25; the entire issue is online as a 2.7 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/KPitWM, scroll down to page 8.

Barriers to Better K-12 Math Education: Poverty and the Inadequate Undergraduate Education of Prospective K-12 Teachers

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Barriers to Better K-12 Math Education: Poverty and the Inadequate Undergraduate Education of Prospective K-12 Teachers” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Do We Learn All the Math We Need For Ordinary Life Before 5th Grade?” [Hake (2013)] at http://bit.ly/10sYmKl. Ed Wall, on Math-Learn at http://yhoo.it/W6fn5y bemoaned the “dumbed down elementary school mathematics education curriculum.” [Non-subscribers can access Wall’s post by taking a minute to “Join this List” at the Math-Learn archives http://yhoo.it/fF6D9w.]

I argue that the dumbing down of elementary school mathematics in the U.S. is not due to Math Education Researchers’ preoccupation with the secondary years, as implied by Wall, but primarily because of “The Overriding Influence of Poverty on Children's Educational Achievement” [Hake (2011b)] at http://bit.ly/tUU65W; and secondarily because U.S. Mathematics Education Researchers (MER’s) have not devoted enough attention to the POSTsecondary years, as dramatized by an excerpt from a Galilean dialogue in “Re: Math Education Research” [Hake (2003)] at http://bit.ly/LKpg4G.
*********************************************

To access the complete 16 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/V6azOZ.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

“. . . I will look primarily at our traditions and practices of early schooling through the age of twelve or so. There is little to come after, whether of joys or miseries, that is not prefigured in these years.”
- David Hawkins in The Roots of Literacy, p. 3.

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 Jan 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Barriers to Better K-12 Math Education: Poverty and the Inadequate Undergraduate Education of Prospective K-12 Teachers,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/V6azOZ. Post of 16 Jan 2013 15:40:33 -0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Hawkins, D. 2001. The Roots of Literacy. University of Colorado Press. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/h3cbtf.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” [Hake (2012a) at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3, Clyde Greeno at http://bit.ly/RW0fFF wrote that his statement that the six principles which, according to Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV, p. 2: “underlie all scientific inquiry (including educational research)” are “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science” was simply an observation that those six principles in no way suffice as criteria (i.e., are both necessary and sufficient) for distinguishing scientific from non-scientific educational research.

Greeno continued “Tragically, much of educational research now can use the NRC report as a basis for so polluting the name of ‘scientific educational research’ that distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest will be a very cumbersome task.”

I wonder if Greeno would consider assisting the math community in “distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest” by setting forth his own necessary and sufficient conditions for “genuine scientific research”?

BTW, I attempted to address the two crucial questions: (a) “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’?” and (b) “What's ‘Scientific’?” in a 75 kB post “Can Education Research Be ‘Scientific’? What’s ‘Scientific’?” [Hake (2012b)] at http://bit.ly/Ujaogk containing over 100 references and over 180 hot-linked URL’s, but, as far as I know, no substantive responses were forthcoming.
**********************************

To access the complete 8 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 07 Nov 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w. Post of 7 Nov 2012 13:49:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

****************************************
ABSTRACT: MathEdCC’s Alain Schremmer at http://bit.ly/VNUvPV opined that: (a) research in mathematics education does not exist; (b) physics cannot be taught as lecture only; (c) Hake (2002b) at http://bit.ly/VtXvAV disagreed with Greeno (2002a) at http://bit.ly/T64H49 because Hake is unfamiliar with math education and thinks its problems are similar to those in physics education.

I argue in opposition to the above that:

(a) Research in mathematics education does exist, see e.g., the 18 entries preceded by double asterisks ** in the REFERENCE list of my complete post at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.

(b) Physics has been taught essentially as lecture only (where taught does not mean learned), witness the fourteen “traditional” (T) courses (N = 2084) in Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG.

(c) I disagreed with Greeno, not because of my unfamiliarity math education, but because Greeno denounced as “glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science” the six guiding principles suggested in Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV, as underlying all education research; whereas I think those principles are consistent with the nature of science as I have experienced it and as has been explained by Ziman (2002) at http://bit.ly/VtdoHR.
****************************************

To access the complete 21 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/U7dJi3.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

“He . . . .[or she]. . . . that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Edmund Burke (1790)


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 06 Nov 2012.]
Burke, E. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Available as a 2006 edition by Dover; Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/c4wbfS. Online at http://bit.ly/fjYUfD thanks to Questia. See also the Wikipedia entry at http://bit.ly/hMaGfn.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/U7dJi3. Post of 6 Nov 2012 11:12:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2” [Hake (2011b)].

The abstract reads:

****************************************

ABSTRACT: In response to “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” [Hake (2011a)], Math-Teach’s Robert Hansen wrote (paraphrasing):

“Is there a complete high-school assessment endorsed by PER [Physics Education Research]? The FCI [Force Concept Inventory] assesses only one component of physics and I think that keeps people, especially physicists, from getting too excited over normalized gains on the FCI.”

Hansen is either dismissive or oblivious of the fact that PER is concerned with (a) students’ conceptual understanding, (b) students’ ability to solve non-algorithmic problems, and (c) at least 10 other capabilities listed in this post. I suggest over 30 references to the PER literature that might reduce Hansen’s confusion.

****************************************

To access the complete 24 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/eh6sge.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which

Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRI)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

“The premium so often put in schools upon external ‘discipline,’ and upon marks and rewards, upon promotion and keeping back, are the obverse of the lack of attention given to life situations in which the meaning of facts, ideas, principles, and problems is vitally brought home.”

John Dewey (1916)

REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 14 April 2011 and shortened by http://bit.ly/.]

Dewey, J. 1916. “The Nature of Realization or Appreciation” in Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, online at http://bit.ly/evICPb, Chapter 18, Educational Values, Section 1.1.

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Is the ‘Teacher Effect’ the Dominant Factor in Students’ Academic Gain?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/g6UWUZ. Post of 7 Apr 2011 17:51:59-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ifvkSz.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “The ‘Teacher Effect’ - Response to Hansen #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/eh6sge. Post of 16 Apr 2011 13:43:41 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.