|
While at the University of Georgia in 1984, I was asked by the Georgia State
Department of Education to examine student performance in the aftermath of
state-wide school integration. Specifically, I was to consider how well
Georgia’s students performed when identified by race, among other issues.
Because of the sensitive, if not volatile nature of this topic at the time, the
results of this study were not expected to be widely disseminated.
To assist with the request, I was
provided a data tape that included the SAT scores for all of Georgia’s high school
seniors, a subset of 33,027 students. The tape was stored at the
University’s campus-wide computer center for use in data processing. All
analysis was performed using the University’s SAS program, and was completed
independently of Georgia’s State Department of Education. The final report of
the study was submitted to the State Department of Education in May of 1985.
At the time of the study, most of
Georgia’s high school student population consisted of two primary racial groups,
white and black, in about a two to one ratio respectively. Hispanic and Asian
students were scattered throughout the state, but were present at that time in
much smaller numbers compared with today’s student population.
Table 1 shows the average group SAT
scores when separated by race. Georgia’s average SAT score is represented by
0 on the scale. Variation above and below this average is in standard
deviation units of 200 points. Positive numbers represent average group SAT
scores above the state-wide mean, while negative numbers show group performance
below the state’s average. With this scale two thirds of all scores will fall
within plus and minus 200 points of the mean.
Table 1
Georgia SAT Scores by Race (N=33,027)

As may be seen, race
produced above average performance for white and Asian student groups. For
Hispanic, Native American, and black student groups the average scores are below
the state’s mean. Comparing the two primary racial groups in Georgia, the SAT
scores of black students, on average, is over a full standard deviation, 200
points below that of white students. These averages reflect the best and
the brightest within each group, those who may choose to attend college.
Statistically this performance discrepancy is equivalent to a
black hole in outer space. It deserves a reasoned explanation.
While the supreme court concluded in
Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) that separate schools are not equal,
this state-wide study thirty years later suggests that together is not equal.
It seems clear that the supreme court’s focus upon race is a serious diversion
of emphasis from choices that might make a difference, to choices that makes no
difference at all. If integration was intended to narrow the gap in
performance between white and black students, the first thirty years of the
experiment was a dismal failure. Unfortunately the experiment is
continuing much as before with blind faith that a miracle will appear to rescue
us all.
In the present case it is clear that
the schools in Georgia were certainly failing with a majority of black students
who, as a group, have seriously fallen out of the ranks of well educated
students. An appropriate explanation is probably that the black culture does
not value, endorse, nor support doing well in school. At its worst a
portion of the black culture actively discourages its
members from succeeding in school. This is a group generalization, but one that does not
apply to all individuals within the black student body.
Average scores, as displayed in Table
1, are excellent devices for representing a group, when in fact they
obscure the minority report that individual students, like cream, rise to the
top in every human endeavor. As Connant observed, “Each honest calling, each
walk of life has its own elite, its own aristocracy based upon excellence of
performance”. This is true of all students, regardless of their racial origin,
although rising above a host of negative influences may require unusual
character and an iron will that must persist throughout twelve years of
schooling.
In an effort to explain the scattered
SAT performance, an additional analysis was undertaken
to identify what some of the
positive and negative influences might be. At the time of testing, each
individual is given a standard questionnaire which elicits information about
each student’s circumstances. Sixty-three biographical questions were asked on the 1984 questionnaire. From these questions, a number were retained either because of
their known educational influence, or because they should be considered as part
of an educational environment. The responses to these additional questions were
then included as potential predictors of SAT combined scores within a
statistical regression procedure.
Thirteen variables were selected for
determining relevance to SAT scores. They are as follows:
1)
Gender (male / female)
2)
Public / non-public schools
3) Type of school program with which the student has been associated:
academic, general, career, or other
4)
Size of the student's high school class
5)
Number of hours of part-time work, if working
6) Participating in community or church organizations
7)
Level and degree of participation in athletics
8)
Level and degree of activity in school clubs and offices
9)
Race or national origin (American Indian or Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic,
Asian, White, Other)
10)
Education completed by father or male guardian
11)
Education completed by mother or female guardian
12)
Number of dependents within the family unit
13)
Approximate income of the parents or family unit
Because of known
gender differences in predicting success in school, males and females were
processed separately. To avoid getting lost within the complexities
of statistical analysis, the following results are presented based upon
significance testing, which compares each individual factor as differentiated
from sampling variation. Table 2 shows the six questions which were
related most closely to higher SAT scores among Georgia's seniors.
The F value is the significance level for each variable, while the
Positive or Negative shows whether the variable is directly or
inversely related to SAT scores.
Table 2
Male and Female Predictors of SAT Scores
|
Male
Regression / Combined SAT Score |
Female
Regression / Combined SAT Score |
|
Variable Name |
F Value |
Pos or Neg |
|
Variable Name |
F Value |
Pos or Neg |
|
Academics |
596 |
Positive |
|
Academics |
723 |
Positive |
|
Athletics |
229 |
Negative |
|
Father's Educ |
155 |
Positive |
|
Father's Educ |
140 |
Positive |
|
Mother's Educ |
113 |
Positive |
|
Caucasian |
106 |
Positive |
|
Caucasian |
69 |
Positive |
|
Working |
77 |
Negative |
|
Family Income |
68 |
Positive |
|
Mother's Educ |
65 |
Positive |
|
Working |
56 |
Negative |
The Academic Program
For both males and
females, the primary predictor of higher SAT scores is participating in the
academic programs in high school. The academic program, as compared with
the general or career tracks, is the one that is chosen by students who expect
to continue their education beyond high school. Rather than taking
fundamental courses, which provide minimum requirements for graduation and
little else, students in the academic program, particularly in the larger high
schools, take courses that provide both depth and detail in many areas. It
may include, for example, classes in chemistry, physics, solid geometry,
trigonometry, or a fourth year of English. Fifty-seven percent of
Georgia's students taking the SAT reported being in their school’s academic track.
The 43 percent who were in a different track did not do so well on the SAT.
This important choice is often
obscured by the fact that many courses are sequential, and before a student may
take solid geometry, for example, they must complete plane geometry
satisfactorily. Algebra must be taken before trigonometry, while a general
mathematics class is rarely taken by students in the academic program. Another distinction may be word on
the street that certain courses are easy grades for which one does not need to
apply oneself diligently. Avoiding actual school work or studying may be
the key to selecting high school courses that satisfy the minimum compulsory
school graduation requirements rather than participating in the academic program.
This choice is the primary factor in
doing well in school for both males and females. It is the most important
single factor that relates to obtaining higher SAT scores among high school
seniors. It is a choice that is made by default early within ones school
career, and often is expressed as a keen, positive interest in school subjects. This
choice may be pre-ordained by the record each student establishes during
prior years in school. The academic program is not alone in its importance in
producing good students with higher SAT scores.
High School Athletics
The second factor within
the male regression is participating in athletics. It is a negative predictor.
This means that athletic participation detracts from doing well on the SAT. The
interpretation may be obvious. For all males in school, the time spent
practicing, preparing for and playing in sports is time not spent preparing for
school classes. Given the attraction sports careers present for black
students, the hours spent in athletic activities is time taken away from math,
English, and other academic pursuits.
As practice makes perfect, the time
devoted to one activity is time taken away from other endeavors. This time
conflict explains some of the result for black males and SAT scores, but it
applies for all male students who choose to participate in high school
athletics. It is also a negative factor for female students, but its
significance is much farther down the list of influences. Thirty-nine percent
of those taking the SAT reported participating in school athletics.
Education of Father and
Mother
For female and male students the
second and third most significant predictor is the educational level of the
father. As a positive influence, the greater the educational achievement of the
father, the better the students did on the SAT. This would seem to
identify a climate or cultural factor within the student’s household or
out-of-school environment. Fathers who went farther in school themselves
encourage their children to be good students. While one does not choose ones parents, the
household influence becomes an ever present, daily exposure. Well educated
parents offer encouragement and support for their children to do as they did.
For female students, the educational
levels of both the father and the mother contribute positively to their
daughters’ doing well in school. These are the second and third most
significant predictors for all female students. For black students in
Georgia’s schools in 1984, this predictor was often half missing, as a large
number of households had no fathers at all, and the influence of the single
mothers did little to compensate for the missing father’s influence. As both fathers
and mothers contribute positively to their children doing well in school, this
speaks volumes to broken and single parent homes, and the importance of all
parents to support the schools’ programs for their offspring to do their best.
The Culture of Race
Race is a predictor for both males and females. Whether it is positive or
negative depends upon the race, and whether that race performs above the average
or below the average as shown in Table 1. Minority status does not seem to
interfere with Asian student achievement within integrated schools. Being
black is clearly a substantial negative influence for earning high SAT scores. This factor should not
be elevated above the more substantial influences discussed above. Choosing to
compete in the academic program is by far the single most important factor in
doing well on the SAT, and any racial component, with the proper family or
cultural influences, can be overcome.
Working Part Time
Part time work is fifth and sixth in
the male and female regressions respectively, and is also a negative predictor.
Like athletics, time spent working in the evenings or weekends is time not spent
studying, and interferes with doing well in school. This applies across all
races. If a student works, and also participates in athletic activities, the
academic work at school is very likely to suffer. The greater the number of
hours spent in these distractions, the greater will be the damage to doing those
things that good students do. Somewhat surprisingly, 46% of Georgia’s seniors
who took the SAT reported working outside the home.
Family Income: The Tail of the Dog
Finally, estimated family income is a positive predictor, of the six most
significant predictors, for female students only. As a minor factor, it
may contribute to the female sensitivity to dress style, grooming, and the
personal image presented at school, much of which is supported by the family’s
income. It may fail to rise as a factor for male students because they
simply do not place as much credibility upon appearance. It appears that family income, coming from a wealthy neighborhood, or ones
socio-economic status as a powerful influence simply carries little weight for
good students. Good students may rise above their family’s status in life, and
dedication to performing well in school is tied to being poor much as the tail
is tied to the dog. It may have little influence over the choices the dog
makes.
The Real Predictors: The Dog
All of these predictors, singly and
in combination, explain only a third of doing well in school, as measured by SAT
scores in 1984. There are no reasons to presume that any of these influences
are different today than they were two decades ago, except possibly for the
major restrictions on the support of single welfare mothers with children. In many respects, the
primary predictors are not even included within the current study. What
remains, then, is to identify what the other factors may be, and how they may
be managed to improve the performance of students in the schools.
The primary contributors to doing
well on the SAT are not included directly as variables in the present study.
Every capable teacher, administrator, and most parents know good students when
they see them. Intelligence is one of the predictors that is not included
directly in the above. Most educators would include the SAT itself as a measure
of intelligence, as it represents the cumulative work-product of ones academic
experience over a 12 year period. As such, the interpretation speaks for itself
about doing well in school.
One does not choose to participate in
the academic programs in high school for remedial training, as the competition
among the students is keen. Honors courses are not intended for the weak of
heart, and those students without the proper background quickly find themselves
in deep water and unable to swim. Intelligence is present indirectly in
the student regressions, as the genetic link with both parents is a primary
factor. The genetic link remains in the child regardless of the physical
presence of the parent in the home, while parents who are absent from the
household are powerless to have much influence on a daily basis.
A second major predictor of success
is accepting schooling as a cumulative experience. This is a painful
notion when viewed day-by-day for twelve years. What a student learns on
one day often becomes the background for what happens the next day. Like
building blocks in any complex construction, the foundation comes first and much
of the rest depends upon it. When the foundation is faulty or missing the
time spent catching up or in remedial work is time not spent on task.
Remedial work is time going
back to fill in the blanks that other students acquired earlier.
When new learning is based upon
previous learning that is faulty, the entire structure becomes fragile. Like
Humpty Dumpty, fragile students eventually fall off the wall. Humpty Dumpty is history in a cumulative schooling
experience.
Unlike Humpty Dumpty, most students
do not drop out of school suddenly, but are required to suffer remedial work
over and over until they get it right, or don’t get it at all. After a few or
repeated failures with school coursework, every normal response is to find
a different road. Compulsory education laws prevent realistic alternatives that
are not endorsed by the schools, at least until the student has put in twelve
years.
Such inflexibility in
programming produces students who thoroughly detest school in all its forms, and
see no hope in any other direction in their lives. This
unpleasantness in ones personal experience often radiates to
the students around them, and the climate for others to learn is likewise
degraded. When such students drop out of school physically their disruptive
influence allows those remaining to return to the task at hand. Looking
carefully at the miserable attendance records of students who care little about
school should be a wake-up call for all administrators to develop programs in
which academic dropouts can achieve new life through totally new, non-academic
learning.
The world can be an exciting place,
and a great deal more of the real world should be a part of each and every
school for those students who show little interest in academic subjects.
It would appear that the pervasive anti-school culture within the black
community has not been improved through school integration into a single
academic mold.
Brink Lindsay writing in the Wall
Street Journal (The Culture Gap, July 9, 2007) captures the cultural influence
within the failing school community precisely when he states:
“The problem is not lack of
opportunity….. The problem is a lack of elementary self-discipline: failing to
stay in school, failing to live within the law, failing
to get and stay married to the mother or father of your children. The
prevalence of all these pathologies reflects a dysfunctional culture that fails
to invest in human capital….. At the upper end of the socioeconomic scale….
parents intensively oversee kids schoolwork, and stuff their after school hours
and weekends with organized enrichment activities.”
The current study provides the
supporting data that was learned over 20 years ago, and due to racial
interference and cultural enabling, the courts continue to divert attention
within the schools from those choices that can make a difference to the racial
divide in student performance that has very little to do with failing schools.
What is described as the failure of America’s schools is most clearly the
direct byproduct of a pervasive cultural dysfunction within the lower
socio-economic classes as exemplified by the school performance of most black
students.
Gaming the SAT
System
A final observation is
essential regarding a pattern of test behavior among the student respondents in
1984. Almost one out of six, over 5,500 students who took the SAT appear to
have been gaming the system. At the time, Georgia colleges required taking the
SAT as a condition of admission, while at the same time the admission of black
students with very low SAT scores was almost assured. Most all of these
students did not bother to answer the 64 questions providing biographical
information. The SAT scores of these 5,500 students was at the same level
as the Native American group. A startling observation was also the hundreds of students
who were assigned minimum scores for their effort. Such scores can
be achieved simply by signing one’s name, or some other person's name without answering a single question
right.
Under pressure to admit black
students to college campuses to document compliance with racial guidelines,
actually answering the questions on the SAT was widely known to be wasted
effort. Pay the fee, sign your name on the form, and leave testing.
It really didn’t matter to a large number of students who were smart enough to
know it wouldn't influence their
college admission. This system of admission is called racial preferences.
After fifty years of togetherness,
the Supreme Court finally decided in 2007 that race, by itself, was an
insufficient and illegal basis for assigning students to programs within the
schools. It took them over 50 years to get it right, but that was by a
five to four decision.
* * * * * * * * *
Bob Settles was on the faculty in the
Counselor Education Department of the College of Education, University of Georgia
from 1966 till 1993. His area of specialization was Rehabilitation
Counseling which focuses upon serving physically and mentally handicapped
adults.
|