Asymmetrical Information

From the desk of Jane Galt:

Leaping Lizards Redistributionist balderdash from

Leaping Lizards

Redistributionist balderdash from the Washington Post in the form of an article on why poor children do worse in school. The cause, according to the article: summer vacation.

During the school year, the students in all three status categories gained the same amount on the tests. The difference between the three groups is what happened during summer vacation. When the kids came back in the fall, the tests showed that over the summer months the poor kids lost ground in reading the first two summers, then held their own, but sank in math. The middle-class kids gained in reading and held their own in math. The rich kids gained in both reading and math, but a lot more in reading

Fair enough -- seems methodologically sound, and it sounds like a new insight. Quick as a flash I thought, "well, let's make the school year longer." But the authors have anticipated this, and are quick to caution against such simplistic solutions:

The researchers, Karl Alexander, Doris Entwisle and Linda Olson of the Johns Hopkins University, are quick to point out that what poor kids need is not necessarily more school: "We found that better off children in the [study] more often went to city and state parks, fairs, or carnivals and took day or overnight trips. They also took swimming, dance, and music lessons; visited local parks, museums, science centers and zoos; and more often went to the library in summer." They also were more likely to participate in organized sports and in more types of sports.

Computation drills and work sheets in August are probably not the answer.

No, more school isn't the answer for poor kids -- they need to be sent to camp.

Notice that there is absolutely no correlation offered between any of the activities cited and reading or math skills, which are the metrics we are supposed to be discussing. No, these are just a grab bag of activities that high-culture types consider "enriching" and therefore force on their children. Not that I am against any of these things, mind you, but I am hard-pressed to identify in what way swimming improves your math skills, or taking overnight trips helps you to read. (All the children in my family spent those overnight trips reading like mad, but since we were also known for reading while walking down the street, that's not very good evidence.) Its possible that trips to the zoo, etc. have a measurable effect in stirring interests in children that they then develop reading and math skills in order to pursue -- but I want to see some data, please, not a blanket assertion. As someone who was dragged to every activity on that list on a regular basis, I have a feeling that the books piled on every flat surface in our house and the relentless math and spelling bees to which my father subjected us had more to do with our academic prowess (such as it is) than our junkets to the Planetarium.

Posted by Jane Galt at January 16, 2002 01:59 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links