When Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, while discussing academic performance, say, “Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It?,” you might think their point is a conservative one — but their use of “advantaged” and “disadvantaged” makes it clear they’re coming from the left:
No one seriously disputes the fact that students from disadvantaged households perform less well in school, on average, than their peers from more advantaged backgrounds. But rather than confront this fact of life head-on, our policy makers mistakenly continue to reason that, since they cannot change the backgrounds of students, they should focus on things they can control.
Perhaps we should enumerate the advantages high-SES students enjoy? Because I don’t think educational spending comes anywhere near the top of the list. Or are all the children of grad students doomed by their early years in poverty?
The New York Times‘ readers disagree on how this “achievement gap” should be addressed: nationwide universal public all-day preschool and kindergarten, subsidizing poor school districts with more federal money, providing social services through the schools, changing society top to bottom outside the schools, getting more qualified teachers, etc. I’m sure they’ll come together and fix the problem.