The New York Times published today the results of a Stanford survey on performance of students grades 3-8 on standardized tests. For once the investigators did not point to the characteristics of the schools, but the prosperity of the test-takers as clues to the disparity across races. The scatter-plots published showed Black students lagging behind White and Hispanic students, with White students dominating the region where two or three grade levels above expected performance were designated.

The investigators pointed out all the advantages that prosperous students have over impoverished students in school, factors that put urban schools at a disadvantage.
The real news, however, was the interview with the superintendent of Union City, NJ schools who beat the odds against them.

In one school district that appears to have beaten the odds, Union City, N.J., students consistently performed about a third of a grade level above the national average on math and reading tests even though the median family income is just $37,000 and only 18 percent of parents have a bachelor’s degree. About 95 percent of the students are Hispanic, and the vast majority of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Even a sound-bite of the reform strategies reveals the effective practices that may have raised their scores above the mean performances across class and race.

Silvia Abbato, the district’s superintendent, said she could not pinpoint any one action that had led to the better scores. She noted that the district uses federal funds to help pay for teachers to obtain graduate certifications as literacy specialists, and it sponsors biweekly parent nights with advice on homework help for children, nutrition and immigration status.

Professional development in literacy education makes common sense, but so many schools choose single events or technology quick-fixes for professional development. This shows investment in teachers with an eye to their retention.

The district regularly revamps the curriculum and uses quick online tests to gauge where students need more help or whether teachers need to modify their approaches.

Attention to formative assessment, not practice on standardized tests. This shows a laser focus on academic needs, not artificial attempts to goose the test scores. “Quick tests” shows that testing is used properly as a barometer of progress, not displacing the curriculum.

“It’s not something you can do overnight,” Ms. Abbato said. “We have been taking incremental steps everywhere.”

The superintendent refused to reduce the work to a magic bullet. You can see the comprehensive effort in engaging parents, addressing social needs, and recruitment of appropriate federal aid. The addressing of issues across the spectrum of the students’ lives shows a level of caring absent in many high-needs schools. The real lessons of the study are found in its outlier.

I have to admire a study that avoids simplistic conclusions and pays attention to the poverty of students. It finally reckons with the primary causes of failure in public education and even recognizing paths to success like the story of Union City. Perhaps the federal government and private foundations can align their support to programs like Union City’s, instead of the quasi-experimental and test-driven studies that emphasize the trivia of learning. The fundamental needs of students in poverty are driven by habits, personal literacy, and the collaboration of families with the goals of their schools.