Each spring our students take the state’s Standards Based Assessment (SBA), a test that assesses skill levels in reading, writing and math. As has been the case in the past, this year, KPBSD students’ SBA results were far better than those of their Alaskan peers. We should all feel good about this.
The SBA is a part of the No Child Left Behind accountability requirement that includes disaggregating scores by subgroups. For example, scores for students with disabilities are reported separately from the whole. One of our more unpredictable subgroups is our students who are economically disadvantaged. At some of our schools, these students score as well as their peers while at others, their scores lag behind those of their other classmates. This raises the issue of how much influence poverty plays on student achievement.
There is no question that poverty affects a student’s schooling experience. It is clear that the stresses that are placed on students who live in poverty influences their ability to learn. It is critical then, that we do all that we can to reduce these stresses by making our schools as accommodating as possible. KPBSD teachers do a great job of making all our students feel welcome at school. But it is obvious, that we need to do more to examine why some of our students in poverty do just fine while others struggle.
2 Comments
So, the question really is, “What are the schools, or communities, that have more equal test scores doing?” Are the “students in poverty,” who are succeeding, from schools that are less diverse in their population? Are they from schools that are using a particular curriculum that helps to even out the inequalities? Are small schools better for “students in poverty?” I would love more information.
As noted, our level of academic achievement for students in poverty is all over the place. I don’t think that you can pin it on curriculum, since we essentially offer the same curriculum at all schools. We do have a different reading program for the elementarty at several schools with high poverty. But there is nothing to suggest that our other reading program is less effective with students in poverty. There is probably something to your suggestion on the size of the school being an important variable in affecting student performance of those students in poverty. An associated variable is the cultural diversity of the students- those schools with a low level of diversity tend to do better with their impoverished students. The more telling story however, is that poverty simply refers to the level of gross family income and not to the other social tangibles that may or may not be closely linked to this plight. The social dysfunction of a family that is often tightly linked to poverty is probably the more telling variable when considering why some students in poverty do fairly well while others do not. Thanks for your comment