How Social and Economic Factors Impact Education

7/31/2019 How Social and Economic Factors Impact Education

1/51

How Social and Economic Factors 1

Running Head: HOW SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS IMPACT

How Social and Economic Factors Impact Education:

A Revealing Look at American Education Small Groups and Social Influences

Pennsylvania State University

By Anthony Amato

Peter Biedenkopf

Eli Cekovic

Ira Lerner

Sam North


2/51


Prelude

As she arrived in the classroom at the beginning of the first class, Professor Jennifer Parker-

Talwar immediately noticed how the ten students of Sociology 404 (Social Influence/Small

Groups) had formed their seating arrangements. In fact, one of the first things she did when she

stood at the front of the class was look around the room and comment on where everyone was

seated. As this was a class in the study of small groups and social interactions, the observation of

where everyone chose to sit, and with whom, was a pertinent, valid, and interesting question.

It turned out that the five organizational leadership students were all white males and that they

had all taken classes with each other before. They sat together in a spirit of friendly camaraderie

and solidarity, glad to have each other help share in this new scholarly experience. To an outside

observer, these five white men sitting together in the center of the classroom might have appeared

as if they had blatantly segregated themselves from the rest of the class. Of course, nothing could

have been farther from the truth, and when Dr. Talwar remarked on the separateness in the

classroom, the five men felt a little self-conscious.

The rest of the class was divided by two younger male students sitting together and three

female students sitting together. As was discovered in the class introductions, the two young men

were friends and had decided to enroll in this hybrid course together, as did two of the women.

The third young woman was the only person in the class not to have known someone previous to

the course. It was interesting to note that she automatically sat with the two other women as

opposed to sitting alone or with some of the men.

These observations were the first topics of conversation to be discussed as part of the course.

To the collective class, it made perfect sense to do so. After all, they were all there to learn about

the sociological ramifications of small groups and social interactions. What better way to begin


3/51


than with a pointed look at themselves as members of a small group interacting, for soon, they

would all be participating in a study that would take them to three elementary schools in three

totally different diverse school districts with varying socioeconomic conditions.

The adventure behind the study began on the third day of class. Even though it was cold and

brisk, everyone appeared to be genuinely excited about their expectations for the day. It was just

prior to eight oclock in the morning on Wednesday, January 7, 2009, at the Fogelsville campus of

The Pennsylvania State University in eastern Pennsylvania. The ten students were shuffling

around outside, patiently waiting for Dr. Parker-Talwar to arrive with the universitys passenger

van, which they would use to make the two hour trip down to inner-city Philadelphia.

The mornings cast of characters was interesting, varied, and diverse. Half of the students

were traditional college age students in their early twenties. They were a combination of Applied

Psychology and Criminal Justice majors. The other half were in the Organizational Leadership

degree program whose ages ranged from the mid-thirties to the mid-fifties. This mix of individuals

was varied and diverse by gender as well as by ethnicity and socioeconomic background. A

significant commonality between these students was their shared and mutual curiosity.

There was Ira, the fifty something father, who was looking forward to graduating on the same

day as one of his sons in the spring. Peter, a quality assurance manager at a large pharmaceutical

company, who was happily married and diligently pursuing his degree at his companys request in

order to advance further in the organization. Eli, a forty something middle manager at a local

utility company and father of one son, who spent one weekend a month in the Navy reserves,

looked every bit like the professional he was. Anthony, a thirty something intellectual Republican,

whose bearded appearance and casual dress might suggest a much more liberal political attitude.

And Sam, a married father of one, college senior, who was starting to get really excited at the

prospect of finally finishing his college education after more than twenty years. These guys


4/51


rounded out the portion of the class cohort of Organizational Leadership degree students.

The additional five students were more traditionally aged students, meaning they were in their

early to late twenties. Three were young women and two were young men. All were quite

interesting and dynamic in their own right. There was Nina, a twenty something mother of several

children, who was active in student politics and activities and was pleasantly outspoken along with

her friend and amicable competitor, Donielle, who was also active in student government and

affairs. The third woman in the group, Yahnily, was an attractive and bright young lady from

Puerto Rico. To round off the youth contingent, there were two college buddies, both of whom

were the youngest in the group. The first was Qun Lin, a Chinese American immigrant whose

family owned a Chinese restaurant on the south side of Bethlehem. The second was Jose, a

Hispanic student, who had a personal style of dress that was quite colorful and avant-garde. Qun

Lin and Jose quickly became class favorites in large part due to their quiet and friendly demeanors,

as well as their open and eager dispositions.

As this was a small, unconventional course, when the students met each other for the first time,

two days previous, on Monday, individual expectations ran a gamut from apprehension to quiet

ease. After all, this was a sociology course studying small groups and social interactions. The

Organizational Leadership students were a bit more comfortable, as Professor Parker-Talwar was

their advisor, and they all had classes with her before. Initially, the class wondered if this would

be a brutish one week cram course, or if it would be an interesting and dynamic exercise in micro-

sociology.


5/51


Introduction

As part of this study, we wanted to understand how we effected what the children would say

and do in response to a particular reading, but more importantly observe what similarities the

second grade classes shared across socioeconomic classes. During the course of the study we also

realized that we were developing tools to examine our own small group interactions as well as

the group interactions with the second grade students.

This research project on the public education system focuses on children in three elementary

schools and the problems facing American education with a particular focus on enhancing our

understanding of the relationships between small group interactive processes (second grade

students) and structures of power and influence in our society. Our report examines three diverse

school districts located in southeast Pennsylvania. We utilize two types of data: 1) empirical data

collected from the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PSSA report cards for each school) and

2) qualitative data we collected from the classrooms including field notes taken in the classrooms

and group observations. We also provide recommendations on ways to bridge the gap in

education.

With these recommendations, we include three solutions on ways to bridge the gap in

education and to bring equity to those children who are from lower social economic environments.

These analyses suggest a means for providing less fortunate students with the same education and

opportunities for success as children from more affluent schools.


6/51


Methodology

We used both qualitative and quantitative methods to gather our data, and then used content

analysis to analyze our data.

Qualitative Analysis

We conducted participant observation in each of the schools. To accomplish this research, we

traveled to three elementary schools to interact and observe second grade students. The schools

were from three different school districts in southeastern Pennsylvania. Two of the schools,

Walter G. Smith Elementary (Philadelphia School District) and Roosevelt Elementary (Allentown

School District), were located in economically challenged urban settings. The third school,

Parkway Manor Elementary (Parkland School District), was located in an upper middle-class

suburban environment. Each school varied greatly in the ethnic profiles of the children.

The number of second grade classrooms we visited differed with each school, as did the

allowable time we spent with the children. Access to the classes and time allowed was determined

by the different administrators of the schools. At Walter G. Smith, we were provided ninety

minutes with the children in one classroom. At Roosevelt, we divided into two groups and spent

approximately two hours with the second graders in two classrooms. At Parkway Manor, we

divided into groups of two and spent thirty minutes in five different classrooms.

We unanimously agreed that the best way to gather our research data was to read a story that

was age-appropriate to the children. The class reviewed several different books before selecting

The Sneetches, by Dr. Seuss. This book was selected because most children are familiar with Dr.

Seuss and the story emphasized that the obvious differences in outward appearances found among

us are meaningless when compared to the similarities that dwell within us.

In addition, we prepared questions to ask the children after the story was read. These questions


7/51


directly pertained to the story and were also used to determine the childrens general knowledge

and thoughts about more abstract issues including the importance of respecting the differences in

others, the significance of treating everyone fairly, and the value they placed on money given their

economic diversity. The questions were designed to provide both qualitative and quantitative data.

We understood that additional random questions would be asked based on the childrens responses

and reactions. The questions and responses from each school are summarized beginning on page

21 in the section titled Students Responses to The Sneetches, by Dr. Seuss, with additional

details located on pages 38 through 40 in Appendices 1 through 3.

Quantitative Analysis

For the content analysis research of our project, the class examined and analyzed the PSSA

data for the three elementary schools made available to the public by the Department of Education.

The PSSA data includes statistics on school demographics as well as academic achievement. This

information begins on page 8 in the section titled Quantitative Data Analysis: Description of the

Population and continues on page 12 in the section titled Quantitative Data Analysis: Academic

Achievement - School Report Cards. Further analysis of the population and report card data is

documented in Appendix 4, beginning on page 41.


8/51


Quantitative Data Analysis: Description of the Population

Demographics

The demographic information for the three schools was taken from the Pennsylvania

Department of Educations Academic Achievement Report of 2007-2008. The descriptions of the

population include statistics on gender and ethnicity, the percentage of students with individual

education programs (IEP), and the percentage of students that are economically disadvantaged.

The information presented represents the demographic profiles of the children participating in the

PSSA exams.

Gender

The gender of the children at Walter G. Smith was divided almost perfectly even. At

Roosevelt, the male children out-numbered the female students by 6.4%, while at Parkway Manor,

the female students out-numbered the male students by 6.8%. (See figure A-1.)

49.6%

50.4%

53.2%

46.8%

46.6%

53.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

%o

fStudent

Walter G. Smith

(258 Students)

Roosevelt Elementary

(222 Students)

Parkway Manor

(350 Students)

Elementary School

Gender

Male

Female

Figure A-1


9/51


Ethnicity

Collectively, the three schools varied greatly in the ethnicity profiles of the children.

Individually, however, Walter G. Smith offered the least amount of diversity with an

overwhelming majority of the population being identified as Black (97.3%). Roosevelt reported

71.2% of their population as Latino/Hispanic with a modest percentage of Black (12.6%) and

White (15.3%) students. Parkway Manor identified the majority of students as White (73.1%) with

a small population of Asian children placing a distant second with 16%. Parkway Manor also

reported a small percentage of Latino/Hispanic children (6%) and Black children (4.6%). The

ethnic background of the remaining percentages of children at each of the schools was too low to

record. (See figure A-2.)

97.3%

15.3%

12.6%

71.2%

73.1

4.6%6.0%

16.0

0%

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100%

%o

fStudents

W alter G. S m ith

(258 Students)

Roosevelt

E lementary(222 Students)

Parkway Manor

(350 S tudents)

Elementary Sch

Ethnicit

Other

A s ia n

Latino/

Hispanic

B lack

W hite

Figure A-2


10/51


Individual Education Program (IEP) Students

Individual Education Program, or IEP was developed in accordance with the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of

2004. IEPs are written individualized plans listing the special education and other related services

students with disabilities will receive to address their unique academic and social needs. The

intent of the IEPs is to provide students with disabilities greater access to the general education

curriculums (Salend 2008).

At 15.7%, Parkway Manor had the largest percent of students enrolled in IEP. Walter G.

Smith followed closely behind Parkway Manor with 15.5% of their students in IEP, while only

7.2% of the students were in IEP at Roosevelt. (See figure A-3.)

15.5%

7.2%

15.7%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

%o

fStudents

Walter G. Smith

(258 Students)

Roosevelt

Elementary

(222 Students)

Parkway Manor

(350 Students)

Elementary School

IEP Students

% of Students

Figure A-3


11/51


Economically Disadvantaged

The most troubling information gathered by the Pennsylvania Board of Education is the

statistics on economically disadvantaged children. Walter G. Smiths student population is 99.2%

economically disadvantaged. Roosevelt also posted a high number of economically disadvantaged

children with 90.5%. Parkway Manor listed 10% of the student population as economically

disadvantaged. (See figure A-4.)

99.2%

90.5%

10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

%o

fStudents

Walter G. Smith

(258 Students)

Roosevelt

Elementary(222 Students)

Parkway Manor

(350 Students)

Elementary School

Economically Disadvantaged

% of Students

Figure A-4


12/51


Quantitative Data Analysis: Academic Achievement - School Report Cards

Report Card Data

The report card information on the three schools we visited was also taken from the

Pennsylvania Department of Educations Academic Achievement Report of 2007-08. The

information presented represents the data of the children participating in the PSSA exams. The

exams are designed to evaluate students skills in mathematics and reading.

Walter G. Smith

With only 38% of the total students rated as proficient or above in mathematics at Walter G.

Smith, the school did not meet the minimum goal of 56% set by the state. Only 5% of IEP

students and 38% of the economically disadvantaged children were able to demonstrate

proficiency to some level in mathematics. Due to the schools limited ethnic diversity and the high

economically disadvantaged ratio, the 62% of students failing to meet the proficient level for

mathematics were from the same ethnic group and socioeconomic class. (See figure B-1.)

Walter G. Smiths Overall Results in Mathematics

Figure B-1


13/51


With 32% of the total students rated as proficient or above in reading, the school did not meet

the minimum goal of 63% set by the state. Only 3% of IEP students and 32% of the economically

disadvantaged children were able to demonstrate proficiency to some level in reading. Again, due

to the schools limited ethnic diversity and the high economically disadvantaged ratio, the 68% of

students failing to meet the proficient level for reading were from the same ethnic group and

socioeconomic class. (See figure B-2.)

Walter G. Smiths Overall Results in Reading

Figure B-2

Roosevelt

With 61% of the total students rated as proficient or above in mathematics, the school

surpassed the minimum goal of 56% set by the state. Each of the ethnic categories also exceeded

the state goal individually; however, only 19% of IEP and 36% of English Language Learner

students were able to demonstrate proficiency to some level in mathematics. As for the

economically disadvantaged children, 61% met or exceeded the states goal. (See figure B-3.)


14/51


Roosevelt Elementary Overall Results in Mathematics

Figure B-3

With 41% of the total students rating as proficient or above in reading, the school did not reach

the state minimum goal of 63%. Each of the three ethnic categories struggled independently, and

none of the children in IEP were able to show proficiency in reading. Only 12% of the English

Language Learner students and 40% of the economically disadvantaged children were able to

demonstrate proficiency to some level in reading. The economically disadvantaged children that

showed proficiency in reading was just one percentage point below the overall students

percentage. (See figure B-4.)

Roosevelt Elementary Overall Results in Reading


15/51


Figure B-4

Parkway Manor

Parkway Manor surpassed the state goal with 91% of the students being proficient or above in

mathematics. In review of the data by ethnic group, 3 of the 4 ethnic groups represented at the

school were able to show proficiency in mathematics to some level. Only those students identified

as Black failed to achieve the state minimum goal of 56%. As for the IEP students, 84% were able

to demonstrate proficiency to some level in mathematics as did 71% of the economically

disadvantaged children. (See figure B-5.

Parkway Manors Overall Results in Mathematics

Figure B-5

Parkway Manor was also able to achieve the state goal with 82% of the students being

proficient or above in reading. When broken down by ethnicity, the Blacks and Latino/Hispanics

failed to obtain the goal of 63%. The IEP students also struggled to achieve the goal with only

56% of the students showing proficiency as did the economically disadvantaged children with

51%. (See figure B-6.)


16/51


Parkway Manors Overall Results in Reading

Figure B-6

Report Card Comparisons

The PSSA Report Cards administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Education shows the

differences in learning behaviors the students in each school display. The results of the PSSA

exams indicate a significant academic achievement gap associated with socioeconomics and

defacto race. At Walter G. Smith, where the student population is 97.3% Black, the students failed

to meet the state goal for demonstrating proficiency or above in both mathematics and reading. At

Roosevelt, where the student population is 71.2% Latino/Hispanic and 12.6% Black, the majority

of students exceeded the state goal for demonstrating proficiency or above in mathematics, but was

unable to meet the state goal for proficiency in reading. At Parkway Manor, only the Blacks were

unable to meet the state goal for being proficient or above in mathematics, where they account for

4.6% of the student population. In demonstrating proficient reading skills, the student population

identified as Black (4.6%), and Latino/Hispanic (6%) did not exceed the state goal.

In a combined analysis of the schools, the students identified with IEPs and/or English


17/51


Language Learners (ethnicities are not broken down in these categories) struggled in

demonstrating proficient skills in both mathematics and reading. With the exception of the IEP

students at Parkway Manor, which exceeded the state goal in being proficient or above in

mathematics, none of the other students in these groups were able to meet the state goal for

mathematics or reading. This is in part due to the learning challenges faced by many IEP students

as well as the language barrier that must be overcome by English Language Learners.

The same general statistics apply to the students identified as Economically Disadvantaged. In

this category, both the Economically Disadvantaged students at Roosevelt and Parkway Manor

were able to exceed the state goal for showing proficiency in mathematics, but not the students at

Walter G. Smith. All the students in this group failed to meet the state goal in exhibiting proficient

skills in reading. The reason for the disparity in this group may be attributed to the absence of

reading materials at home or the lack of involvement by the parents in the students education.

Several possibilities exist as to why the parents may not be involved with their childrens

education. The parents may work numerous jobs or have difficult work schedules that do not

allow them much time with their children, the children may be part of a single-parent family with

multiple siblings that also need cared for by the mother or father, or the parents may simply not be

interested in their childrens education.

Its also interesting to note that the female students outperformed the male students in each of

the categories at all three schools. Although the girls outperformed the boys in mathematics and

reading, the gap between the boys and girls test results were less in mathematics than reading. In a

range between 3% and 9%, the test results for the girls in mathematics surpassed the boys results.

In a range between 9% and 24%, the test results for the girls in reading surpassed the boys results.

This may be due to the fact girls mature faster than boys and take their school work more

seriously. Girls also tend to enjoy reading more than boys.


18/51


Another interesting fact is that the percentages of the economically disadvantaged children

who met or exceeded the state goals for being proficient or above in mathematics and reading at

both Walter G. Smith and Roosevelt were nearly equal to the overall percentages of the children

who met or exceeded the state goals for the two categories. This could easily be explained by the

fact that 99.2% of the students at Walter G. Smith and 90.5% of the students at Roosevelt were

classified as economically disadvantaged.

We expected the IEP students to display lower scores at Walter G. Smith and Roosevelt,

however, we did not expect the IEP student at Parkway Manor to outscore some of the other

groups of students that were tested at that school. This is because the majority of IEP students are

faced with some type of learning disability, and we just didnt expect them to fair as well.

In a closing note, the PSSA test results for each school seem to coincide with the student

graduation rates for the different school districts. This information along with a further analysis of

the PSSA report cards is documented in Appendix 4, beginning on page 41. Appendix 4 also

includes other information concerning educational statistics for the students attending these school

districts.


19/51


Quantitative Data Analysis: Observations

Students

The acceptance of our group to each class varied substantially. The students at Walter G.

Smith were the most emotionally receptive class. They seemed to want us to stay longer and

interact more. It was very difficult for them to allow us to leave. We believe that very few, if any

visitors find their way to that class. We also believe there is little, if any, interaction between the

parents/guardians and the students inside the classroom setting. It was difficult to leave for both us

and the students at Walter G. Smith as we felt the true need for them to have more adult

interaction.

Next, the students at Roosevelt Elementary seemed more receptive to us than Parkway Manor,

however, the response was not as intense as it was at Walter G. Smith. The students at Roosevelt

enjoyed our visit, readings, and interactions. They too, left us with the impression they did not get

enough parent/guardian interaction inside the classroom and wanted us to stay longer.

The Parkway Manor students showed the least attachment to us of all the schools we visited.

That is not to say they did not appreciate or enjoy our visit, but only that it felt like having adults

visit their classrooms was not an infrequent occurrence for them. The other schools, we believe,

have a more difficult time in getting parent/guardian participation in classroom activities. None of

the students at Parkway Manor became attached to any of us. In the other schools, some of the

students made us feel as if they never wanted us to leave. This was not the case at Parkway

Manor. When we were ready to leave, the students were immediately prepared to go on to their

next activity. At Roosevelt, and even more so at Walter G. Smith, we felt the students were never

ready to let us go. They wanted the experience to last much longer.


20/51


The socioeconomics of the areas where the schools are located showed in the clothing and

grooming standards of the students. It was interesting to note how much care was put in the dress

and appearance of the children in the poorer classrooms. We could plainly see this fact in the

carefully braided hair of the girls and the brushed and combed hair of the boys. Their clothes were

clean, but they were not always the most current style or name brand. The few pants or shirts

displaying popular name brands appeared faded and worn, but still in good condition. Overall, it

was obvious considerable time and pride had been taken to tend and dress the children prior to

being taken to school. While many of the luxuries in life may not be available to the students

living in lower socioeconomic areas, the unusually high grooming standards may be one way the

parents attempt to control the one aspect of the childrens lives they can affect.

In the more affluent classrooms, there was noticeably more casual attire worn by the children.

Jeans and the usual athletic attire was the order of the day. Some children appeared as if they had

just rolled out of bed, seeing that they wore rumpled clothing. A seemingly deliberate and

generally unkempt and disheveled appearance was observed in more than one student in these

classrooms. Not to say that care was not taken in the appearance of these children by their

parents/guardians, but it was apparent that in contrast to the less affluent classrooms, dress and

appearance were not as much a priority.

There was also a difference in the warmth factor in the students from the different schools.

At Walter G. Smith, it took most of the students some time to connect with us. Many of them were

quiet and reticent in answering questions and interacting with us. It was only after we separated

into smaller groups that the children began to interact with us more. When we came back together

as a single group, the level of interaction was noticeably much higher.

At Parkway Manor, there was no required warm-up time. The entire class seemed involved

and eager to participate. They connected with us from the start. There were far fewer students


21/51


who remained reserve and unsure they wanted to interact with us. They anxiously responded to

our questions during the entire time of our visit, and they appeared comfortable with the presence

of strangers in the room. They had an excellent command of the English language and could

verbalize their thoughts and ideas extremely well.

At Roosevelt, once again, the class fell somewhere in the middle between the other two

schools. Excellent interaction immediately took place between us and just two or three of the

students, which prompted other students to join in. Some of the students possessed a very strong

vocabulary. The teacher indicated one of the most impressively, well-spoken students had trouble

reading. This may have been caused by a health problem that has gone undetected, such as the

need to wear glasses. The smaller group interaction generated more openness between us and the

students as they appeared drawn mostly to one member of our group, Jose, a Latino/Hispanic.

This may have been because many of the students shared his ethnic background and they were

more comfortable being in his presence.

Another interesting fact we took from our visits concerned after school activities. None of the

children at Walter G. Smith mentioned being involved in after-school activities, while only a few

students at Roosevelt stated they participated in such events. Nearly all of the Parkway Manor

students were in involved in some type of outside or after-school activity whether it was through

the parents or a school related function.

Students Responses to The Sneetches, by Dr. Seuss

The bookThe Sneetches, by Dr. Seuss was the constant in our visits to the three schools. In

each classroom we read the story to the children and then followed the reading with a series of

questions. There were many similarities in the way the students reacted to the story.


22/51


In all three schools, the students had a good understanding of the moral of the story. Most

students were familiar with the book, but more in Parkway Manor, fewer in Roosevelt, and still

less in Walter G. Smith. The answers to the questions about the content of the story were a little

more mixed, but still generally the same. When we asked the students if the character Mr. McBean

was a hero or a villain, the students at Walter G. Smith unanimously agreed he was a villain. The

students commented on the way Mr. McBean took all of the Sneetches money, and therefore, he

had to be villain. At Parkway Manor and Roosevelt, the students were mostly in agreement that

Mr. McBean was a villain, but some were a little more uncertain and divided.

The real differences in responses from the students came when we asked two additional

questions unrelated to the story. The first question we asked the students was if their mommy or

daddy read to them at home. At Walter G. Smith, all of the students replied, No. At Roosevelt,

the overwhelming majority of the students also responded, No. At Parkway Manor, most, but

not all, of the students reported that their parents read to them at home. It should also be noted that

the teacher at Roosevelt informed us that earlier in the year she sent a letter home to all of the

parents asking them if they would come to the school and read to the class. Only two parents took

the time to respond, and they both declined the offer.

The second question we asked the students was if they planned on going to college. The

students at Walter G. Smith did not seem to understand the concept of college. Some talked of

siblings going to high school, but most did not have an answer. When we told the class we were

from Penn State, one student asked if that was a football team.

The next visit to Parkway Manor brought responses from the other end of the spectrum. The

students at this school not only responded, Yes, but many of them already had a college in mind.

Harvard, Towson, Ohio State, Lehigh, Penn State, and a number of other local state schools were

among many of the colleges and universities mentioned by the children.


23/51


Roosevelt, once again, fell somewhere in the middle between Walter G. Smith and Parkway

Manor. Many of the children seemed to understand the idea and reasons people would attend

college, but none of the students named any specific colleges or universities.

For one second grade class to not even understand the concept of higher education and then

have another second grade class not even sixty miles away be capable of naming the colleges they

would like to attend is just another example of the gross inequity of the public school system.

School Administrators

The involvement of the school administrators varied between the schools. The principal of

Walter G. Smith was by far the most involved with our visits of the three elementary school

principals. We were originally supposed to visit two classrooms at Walter G. Smith, but under his

direction, it was changed to only one classroom. He appeared to be overly protective and cautious

concerning our visit to the school. There was an attitude within him indicating a lack of trust and

suspicion surrounding our reason for being there. Perhaps this was related to the schools poor

results on the PSSA exams, the unexpected interest shown by a leading university to visit his

school, or the simple fact that they rarely get visitors at Walter G. Smith.

The principal at Walter G. Smith personally escorted us to the classroom we were visiting and

demanded another school administrator, the school nurse, remain in the classroom to observe our

actions during our stay. When he noticed some of the last members of our group waiting in the

hall, he immediately hustled them into the classroom. As the visit progressed, additional members

of the school staff continued to join us. The principals actions made an uneasy feeling for many

of us during the visit.

At Roosevelt, the principal made a personal stopover to one of the classrooms we visited.

Although she did not make an appearance at both of the classrooms we were observing that day,


24/51


she did introduce herself in a friendly manner in-between exchanging pleasantries with the

children. She was courteous and welcomed our request to read to the children. We felt a sense of

gratitude from both the principal and teacher for wanting to come to their school, read to the

children, and expose them to new experiences.

The story at Parkway Manor was a little different. Only our professor, Dr. Parker-Talwar, met

with school administrators during our visit, and that was merely to sign in at the school. She was

given directions by the support staff as to how to locate one of the five classrooms we were

visiting, and then students were used to escort the remaining members of the group to the other

four classrooms. Many of us noticed there was no real interest from the administration as to what

we were doing at the school or what the true purpose of our visit was. We felt this may have been

because Parkway Manor received so many visitors to help out in the classrooms on a regular basis.

Teachers

The teachers at all three schools were White females. The teachers at Walter G. Smith and

Roosevelt were young, while the teachers at Parkway Manor appeared in general to be more

middle-aged. The teachers at Walter G. Smith and Roosevelt had no aids or assistants to help with

the children, but a student teacher was observing one of the classes at Roosevelt during the day of

our visit. At Parkway Manor, each class had a teachers assistant. One of the classes also

provided a second teacher who was trained in sign language to assist with a child who suffered

from a hearing disorder. It is easy to see how an additional person in the classroom who can assist

with lesson plans and special assignments can aid in the learning processes for second graders.

Also, one of the teachers at Roosevelt mentioned she once taught at Parkway Manor and used

to be afraid to substitute teach in the Allentown School District. Now she says she would not go

back to the Parkland School District because teaching is more rewarding and brings her greater


25/51


satisfaction at Roosevelt. We are sure the increased needs of the students in the Allentown School

District play a part in her convictions.

The Schools Physical Structure

The three schools varied in physical structure as well. Walter G. Smith was the first school we

visited and the oldest. Our view of the school was extremely limited, as we were escorted directly

from the administration office inside the front door to the classroom, which was very close in

proximity. The building was constructed in 1924, and visually looked as if it was fairly well

maintained. The first thing we noticed upon entry into the school was the heat coming from the

cast iron radiators. It was extremely warm and it felt good, for the weather outside was grim. The

building has multiple stories and houses small rooms with high ceilings. Inside the second grade

classroom the chalkboards had past their prime, as well as the desks and chairs. The room was not

equipped with computers for the children, but the instructor did have a dated Apple iMac. The

supplies provided for the students were few; this included basics such as paper and pencils. The

classroom appeared sparse of literature. There was a small reading area in the front corner of the

room, but it clearly did not have enough room for the entire class. When we were done with our

visit, we said our goodbyes and left the classroom. There was a strong odor emanating from the

boys bathroom as we made our exit.

Two days later we visited Parkway Manor. Parkway Manor is a single level school set in a

suburban setting compared to Walter G. Smith and Roosevelt. As we entered Parkway Manor the

first two things we noticed were the 32 inch LCD flat panel monitor, and the shear brightness of

the hallway. The lighting was more than adequate and the walls were lined with white tiles.

Walter G. Smiths lighting was not nearly as bright, and reflected the outside environment at the

time of our visit, which was somewhat dreary. The building was built in 1978 and was in near


26/51


perfect visual condition. The walls were heavily decorated with students works as well as the

interior classrooms. Inside the classrooms, the chalkboards appeared near new in condition, as

were the chairs and desks. The room was filled with books on three sides and there was a large

reading area provided for the children. The room contained an audio/video system as well as

multiple computers. The computers seemed to be updated and all had LCD displays. The school

smelled with a hint of chlorine and far surpassed the other two in overall appearance and other

physical amenities for the students.

Roosevelt is a large multi-level structure and the only school that was under construction at the

time of our visit. The expansion of the school will more than double the overall footprint of the

structure. Inside the school, the tile was torn up to reveal the concrete floors. School signs were in

English as well as Spanish. This was unique at Roosevelt. The classrooms were small and the

desk, chairs, and chalkboard had been well used and worn. In the back of the room, the school

provided a few outdated computers with large, power-hungry CRT monitors. The overall lighting

was poor, but adequate as were the size of the classrooms. As we left the classroom, students were

standing in line in the hallway. Since the cafeteria was closed due to the construction, students

were being served Dominos Pizza. The hallway served as a micro cafeteria check out, with the

students returning to their rooms to eat their lunch.

The three schools all provided a different atmosphere. Walter G. Smiths dark hallway and

classroom mirrored the dark clouds lingering outside its walls. Parkway Manor shined brightly

with its well lit hallways and classrooms and served in stark contrast to the other two schools.

Roosevelts appearance was difficult to evaluate, because it was under construction. Any reporting

on its overall appearance would not carry much weight because it is in the process of change. If

we had to grade the schools observable appearance, they would most likely mirror the PSSA


27/51


results. These observations provided guidance in developing a comprehensive solution to the lack

of equality seen in the physical structure and overall appearance of the three schools studied.

Dress Codes

There are numerous discussions concerning the value of dress codes in the school environment.

The discussions often revolve around the lessening of any differences between students. In

addition, rules that forbid clothing with inappropriate sayings or pictures are developed with the

hopes of keeping improper or offensive material out of the classrooms. Each school district we

visited has a documented dress code policy with different specifications. Each district uniquely

manages their accepted student dress code.

The Philadelphia School District, where the Walter G. Smith Elementary School resides, has

the most elaborate dress code of the three schools we visited. Here, they expect the students to

wear a type of uniform to school each day. The school district is specific in the color of shirts and

pants the boys may wear as well as the color of shirts, blouses, slacks, and skirts the girls may

wear. Navy blue, black, white, and khaki are the only colors permitted. All shirts must have a

collar with the exception of a school logo embossed t-shirt, which has been deemed appropriate for

both boys and girls. Minimum lengths for slacks, skirts, and shorts are also detailed along with a

restriction that bans head coverings in the school. A regulation prohibiting ripped or torn clothing

is also listed (The, 2001).

In the Allentown School District, Roosevelt Elementary School has a specific dress code;

however, there is no precise color or style indicated. The school district lists both appropriate and

inappropriate clothing, but it is more liberal than the Philadelphia School Districts dress code.

Skirts must be a minimum length and clothes may not have holes in them. A directive also exists

that require pants to be pulled up to the waist (Allentown, 2008-2009).


28/51


In the Parkland School District, Parkway Manor Elementary School has a very liberal dress

code. The school districts guideline discusses modern styles and trends and suggests appropriate

choices should be made, but provides no other details. It is the least specific of any of the dress

codes for the three school districts we visited (Parkland, 2008-2009).

It was surprising to see the school that did the best in the PSSA Report Cards had the least

restrictive dress code while the school district showing the least successful results had the most

restrictive dress code. We also noticed a lack of policing of the dress code at Walter G. Smith,

which was the school with the lowest PSSA scores of the three schools we visited. This was not an

issue, however, because we did not encounter any distractions while conducting our research due

to clothing issues. In addition, in none of the schools did it appear the dress codes had any impact

on our interactions with the children.

Additional Comparison Information

Additional comparisons concerning general information and observations of the schools begin

on page 45 in Appendix 5.


29/51


Bridge the Gap

No Child Left Behind has its critics, but there is a hidden gem inside the legislation; the

standardized test. Although some people are not in favor of standardized testing, no one can argue

the fact that it provides a score. Because of the standardized testing that is associated with No

Child Left Behind, the PSSA tests; there is now empirical evidence of the systemic failure of our

nations schools. A major restructuring of the school system needs to take place and hopefully this

study will serve as a guide. The solution to bridge the gap in education is divided into three

components. The first component is the physical standardization of all public schools. The second

component is the nationalization of the education systems curriculum and new methods in the way

we teach teachers. The third component is student health and wellness. These three concepts

working together will not only fix the problem, but serve as a model for other nations to follow.

By implementing the changes associated with these concepts, America can once again lead the

world in the education of our youth.

The physical standardization idea is based on the concept of the computer desktop model. You

walk into any Internet caf anywhere in the world and sit down at a windows based computer and

you will know instinctively how to use it. This is because the windows desktop is universally

standard throughout the world and we have all been trained on using this format. The American

classroom needs that same kind of standardization. Our research found there were many

differences in the various classrooms we visited as well as the school structure and its faculties.

A second grade classroom that is intended to educate twenty students should have certain

dimension requirements. The lighting should be adjusted for optimal learning, the chairs and desks

should be ergonomically designed to prevent fatigue, and the right number of technological

devices should be present. This could include a notebook for every student, a reader (such as the

Kindle), an audio video system, and a technology package for the teacher.


30/51


The room should have a minimum number of books and a specific location within the

classroom for reading to the students. The physical standardization would also include personal

computers for the students and teacher to use. In Parkway Manor there were two school

employees in the classroom; one teacher and one assistant. But the standardization of the

classroom will only go so far; and the concept needs to include the entire school. Hallways should

be bright and large enough to accommodate the students. The same attention should be given to

the Library, the cafeteria, the gymnasium, the auditorium, and even the bathrooms. Whether you

walk into a second grade classroom in Chula Vista, California, Fargo, North Dakota, or Walter G.

Smith Elementary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the classrooms should be nearly identical and

ready for students to learn. This recommendation was born directly out of our observations of the

physical structures of the schools. Walter G. Smiths physical structure was not nearly as well

maintained or supplied as Roosevelts or Parkway Manors and their PSSA test results were the

lowest. Roosevelts physical structure was not as well maintained or supplied as Parkway

Manors, but the school was undergoing major renovations. Roosevelts PSSA test results faired

somewhere between Walter G. Smiths and Parkway Manors test results. Parkway Manors

physical structure was by far the best maintained and supplied and their high PSSA test results

reflected the high quality of the structure.

The second segment of the solution is the federal government takeover of the public school

curriculum. School curricula are maintained at the local level. This means that the problem with

the system is disseminated throughout the entire country and therefore, can only be fixed as a

whole if it is centralized. Students attending the second grade in the second marking period should

be studying the same curriculum regardless of the area of the country they live. The three schools

we observed were all at different points in their students second grade education. Without a

centralized curriculum, it could not be said that the education one student receives is equal to the


31/51


education of another. The entire school curriculum should not be mandated, however, and 20%

should be designed by the local school districts to teach important aspects of the region in which

they are located. For example, Bethlehem Steel was as major industry during most of the twentieth

century in the Pennsylvania Lehigh Valley. This would be a relevant education topic for the local

school system. It would not be relevant for a school district in El Paso, Texas.

But its not only what is taught in the schools, another factor is how the information is taught to

students. A recent study by the Department of Education found that it doesnt matter where a

teacher obtained their degree or what kind of degree they received, it serves as no measure as to

their teaching capabilities. This demonstrates the teacher certification process is flawed and needs

to be reexamined. Although the law requires teacher certification, the specific requirements for

certification are determined by the individual states (Constantine et al., 2009). The university

curricula for education also need to be reviewed and readjusted upwards. The education

requirements to teach math is a good example. In most other developed countries as well as some

underdeveloped countries, a teacher must attain a high level of mathematics, such as calculus,

before they are certified to teach math. Even at Penn State, students pursuing a teaching degree are

only required to take Math 200 (Problem solving in Mathematics). The course description is as

follows:

This is a course in mathematics content for prospective elementary school teachers.

Students are assumed to have successfully completed two years of high school algebra and

one year of high school geometry. Students are expected to have reasonable arithmetic skills.

The content and processes of mathematics are presented in this course to develop

mathematical knowledge and skills and to develop positive attitudes toward mathematics.

Problem solving is incorporated throughout the topics of number systems, number theory,

probability, and geometry, giving future elementary school teachers tools to further explore


32/51


mathematical content required to convey the usefulness, beauty and power of mathematics to

their own students (Pennsylvania, n.d.).

This is not nearly enough of a foundation to be able to teach math to elementary school

students, which is evidenced by the poor PSSA test scores. This is one reason why the United

States is consistently outperformed in mathematics. This example also applies to many other

subjects taught from K through twelve.

A tenth grade science teacher should have at least a masters degree in the field of study they

are teaching. This, however, is not the requirement, which leaves the teacher without a solid

foundation of the topic they are teaching. For this reason, they are often forced to lecture from a

text book and have difficulty expanding on the knowledge of the subject. It is about time that we

take the training of teachers seriously, because you cannot really teach without a true

understanding of the subject. The current university system in this country does not as of yet

require it. Also, once a teacher is tenured it is too late to do anything to change the situation.

The third and final segment of our three-part solution is student wellness. In the second grade

classroom at Walter G. Smith, not a single student was wearing glasses. Maybe some students in

the class left their glasses at home that day, but in contrast, 10% of the students at Roosevelt and

nearly 30% of the students at Parkway Manor were wearing glasses the days of our visits. You can

deduce from this observation that the students at Walter G. Smith are being underserved in

necessary health care. Not being able to see properly will not only hinder the students ability to

learn, but also makes us wonder what other basic health care needs they may be lacking. A healthy

student learns at a higher rate than an unhealthy one. You can correlate this with a study done on

eating breakfast at school. In an article written in The Journal of School Health, Howard Taras,

M.D., supports this claim by stating, school breakfast programs seem to improve attendance

and decrease tardiness. Offering a healthy breakfast is an effective measure to improve academic


33/51


performance and cognitive functioning (Taras, 2005). This is a small part of the health of a

student, but it is relative. Therefore, in order to maintain an equal education platform across

socioeconomic levels you would have to ensure the health of all students.

We would propose that all students enrolled in public school have their health monitored and

maintained by the government. First, breakfast and lunch should be provided by the school system

as mentioned in The Journal of School Health (Taras, 2005). The foods should be of high quality

and as natural as possible. Preservatives and chemicals should be avoided as well as unnatural

sugars. An example of this would be high fructose corn syrup. Health clinics should be

constructed on school property, and if a student needed to see a doctor, one would only be a short

walk away.

The time for status quo and cheap solutions is over. Either we are going to provide an equal

education to every student enrolled in a public school in America or we are not. If we make the

commitment to finally implement the ruling of Brown v. The Board of Education, it will not come

easy. It will require citizens to give up some of their land for the greater good, give up their time

to volunteer, and give up more of their tax dollars to educate the children. In return, they will be

able to demand better results from their government than has been achieved so far. Perhaps an

amendment to the Constitution is needed making education a right for all citizens regardless of

where they live or how much money they possess. The road to solve this problem will be long, but

these solutions are not insurmountable. We must demand true educational equality from our

leaders in Washington.


34/51


Discussion

Between our interactions and observations, we identified key differences in the childrens

school environment, community, and social activities that attributed to the varying qualities of

encouragement they received to increase their learning and the education they were provided.

In the focus for our final project, Dr. Parker-Talwar stated, On one level your group paper is

about the use of disruptive stories in classrooms in three different demographic contexts

examining what children say and do when presented with disruptive stories. By disruptive stories

we mean stories that challenge the world as it is and suggest a better world that might be.

This is a grand idea, especially for idealistic college students of any age or background. Let us

challenge our world, and suggest a way our world could be better. Especially as students, we

strive to understand our own worlds and aspire to make a difference, any kind of difference, large

or small, as long as that difference is positive and has merit.

When we read Dr. Seusss, The Sneetches, among the other examples of disruptive stories we

shared, there was a shared commonality within the population of second grade students at each of

the three elementary schools we visited.

We discovered that there was a striking similarity in the reactions by the young students. They

all understood the stories were about the differences in the characters and how they were able to

overcome those differences and even come to accept and be proud of their differences.

The second grade students were able to equate the morals in the stories to their own lives.

However, there did appear to be a slight difference in the sensitivities to the stories by the students

in the poorer schools. The differences may exists in part due to the childrens ability to translate

the adverse effects of being different in their own lives, as opposed to students in a more affluent

classroom who have access to vastly more educational resources. This was measured in part by the

levels of enthusiasm and participation by the second graders to the visitors who read to them.


35/51


Our professor went on to emphasize that, This study is also about the study of contexts in

the organization of the American school system and how contexts affect not simply what children

say and do in response to particular texts (as we may find more similarities than differences) but

also how contexts affect or alter processes of social reproduction in our society, in general.

As a college group, we found that in a social context, the more affluent the classroom of

second graders, the less they were impressed by visitors reading to them. This is due in large part

to the educational resources they have at hand. In the less affluent, poorer schools, having visitors

come to read to them was visibly a treat, a special occasion, something they wanted to have go on

and on without end. As a group, we were touched that our presence would elicit such a positive

response. A sight to remember was when a young girl hugged our colleague, Anthony, and had a

hard time letting go.

There are telling statistics in the numbers we studied. As these hopeful and innocent second

grade children grow older, their opportunities for continued academic success grows exponentially

varied. They are significantly dependent on the relative affluence of their school district and/or

neighborhood.

Even their respective goals for the future are markedly different. The affluent students in

second grade express aspirations to go to college. They can even name certain colleges that they

would like to attend, whereas the students in the poorer schools expressed that they hope someday

to have a regular job, any job. Of note, the schools we visited are all within a sixty mile radius of

one another in the same state. This note is important because these disparities were very much in

our mind the entire time we considered our subjects.

Our professor helped us understand that, We are not simply studying the group dynamics

associated with responses to disruptive stories. We are also analyzing the empirical contexts in

which these dynamics take place in order to enhance our understanding of the relationships


36/51


between small group interactive processes and structures of power and influence in our society.

As our professor stressed, our job for this paper was to make these connections. Those

between small group processes, and the larger reality that helps define inequalities and structures

of power. In addition, our professor encouraged us to, come up with a proposal of what could be

done on an organizational level to bridge the gap in school performance based strictly on our

observations and our class discussions.

This was a wonderful enterprise. This exercise in social influence and small groups allowed us

as students to form our own small group in order to exercise these ideas and implement and

employ our own forms of social influence directly. Remarkably, this exercise continues to

influence, and will do so as long as the participants continue their interaction. This is how we are

able to challenge our world as it is, and suggest a better world that might be.


37/51


Conclusion

This paper examined what we as a group learned from this study. More importantly, we

evaluated our experiences as a group and as individuals from this research. To bridge the

inequality gap in education we need to provide a standardized approach to education. This new

approach includes a national educational program with a standardized curriculum and a national

student testing standard. Our national program provides equal funding to all public school

students, a restructuring of the university curricula for teacher certifications, and a comprehensive

national healthcare program. Without adequate funding for these children, they will not graduate

from high school nor will they have the opportunity to further their education.


38/51


Walter Smith Classroom Questions and Answers - Appendix 1

Story Book Questions Response

Have you ever heard ofTheSneetches Most children heard ofThe Sneetches.

Would you like to have astar?

Two children specifically didnt want a star. All the other childrenwanted a star.

How much would you payfor a star?

None of the children would pay for a star. One boy said, Id save mymoney. Another boy shook his head and said All that money atthe picture of Mr. McBean driving away.

Was Mr. McBean a hero orvillain? Everyone considered Mr. McBean a villain.

Why were the star bellySneetches so happy?

The star-bellied sneetches were happy because they thought they werebetter than the sneetches without stars.

Why were the starlessSneetches so unhappy? Because the star-bellied sneetches wouldnt play with them.

Have you ever felt like a

Sneetch with a star? Yes. Sometimes.Have you ever felt like aSneetch without a star? Yes. Its no fun.

What lesson did McBeanteach the Sneetches? In the end, the stars didnt matter.

General observationconcerning the story:

The children had a good understanding of the purpose of the book andthe moral of the story.

Informational Questions

Does your mommy or daddyread to you at home? Very few, if any, of the parents read to them.

Can you name any otherbooks by Dr. Seuss? Some of the children could name a few other Dr. Seuss books.

Do you plan on going tocollege?

Their understanding of college was very basic if existent at all. Onechild thought PSU was just a football team.


39/51


Roosevelt Classroom Questions and Answers - Appendix 2


Have you ever heard ofTheSneetches? Most children heard ofThe Sneetches.

Would you like to have a

star? All of the children wanted a star.How much would you payfor a star?

None of the children would pay for a star. One girl said she wouldsave her money to buy a house before she would buy a star.

Was Mr. McBean a hero orvillain?

Some children saw Mr. McBean as a person teaching the sneetches alesson, but they all considered him a villain. One girl said Mr.McBean could buy a house with the money he made.



Why were the starlessSneetches so unhappy?

Because the star-bellied sneetches wouldnt let them join them becausethey were different.

Have you ever felt like aSneetch with a star? Yes. Sometimes.

Have you ever felt like aSneetch without a star? Yes. When some people wont let me play with them.

What lesson did McBeanteach the Sneetches?

The children realized Dr. Seuss was teaching us a lesson aboutdifferences and how appearances shouldnt matter.


The children had a terrific understanding of the purpose of the bookand the moral of the story. One girl even stated, youre trying toteach us something.


Does your mommy or daddyread to you at home?

The overwhelming majority answered no. Teacher sent out arequest to parents to have them come in to the school and read to thestudents. Only two parents responded, and they both said no.

Can you name any otherbooks by Dr. Seuss? Most children could name a good number of other Dr. Seuss books.

Do you plan on going tocollege?

About 2/3 of the children indicated they wanted to go to college. Nospecific colleges were named.


40/51


Parkway Manor School Classroom Questions and Answers - Appendix 3


Have you ever heard ofTheSneetches? All of the children heard ofThe Sneetches..

Would you like to have a

star?

Only two children wanted a star at the beginning of the story in one

classroom, however, the desire for a star was much more prevalent inother classrooms.

How much would you payfor a star?

Most children were willing to pay $3 for a star. One boy was willingto pay a little more to be nice.

Was Mr. McBean a hero orvillain?

Mr. McBean was a villain in some classrooms. Mixed responses weregathered in other classrooms.



Why were the starlessSneetches so unhappy? Because the star-bellied sneetches were mean.

Have you ever felt like aSneetch with a star? Yes. Sometimes.

Have you ever felt like aSneetch without a star? Sometimes.

What lesson did McBeanteach the Sneetches? Its okay to be different and it shouldnt matter.


Most children understood the moral of the story and felt the sneetcheshad learned their lesson. Some still thought it was better to be a star-bellied sneetch, though.


Does your mommy or daddyread to you at home? Most children, but not all of them answered yes.

Can you name any other

books by Dr. Seuss? The children could name almost all of the other Dr. Seuss books.Do you plan on going tocollege?

All of the children indicated they would be going to college. Some ofthem even had a college picked out already. The locations of thecolleges spanned across the U.S.


41/51


Additional PSSA Report Card Analysis and Other Educational Statistics - Appendix 4

Grades 3-8, 11 District Level Results of PSSA AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) Targets

School District Philadelphia SD Allentown SD Parkland SD

Attendance Graduation Met AYP Target Met AYP Target Met AYP Target

Academic PerformanceDid not meet AYP

TargetDid not meet AYP

TargetMet AYP Target

Test Participation Met AYP Target Met AYP Target Met AYP Target

Status LevelCorrective Action

2-6th YearCorrective Action

2-1st YearMet AYP Target

Attendance Results

School /

School District

Walter G. Smith /

Philadelphia SD

Roosevelt /

Allentown SD

Parkway Manor /

Parkland SD

State

Avg

Attendance -all students

90% (WGS)89% (PSD)

92% (R)90% (ASD)

96% (PM)95% (PSD) 94%

Attendance -male

90% (WGS)91% (PSD)

92% (R)92% (ASD)

96% (PM)95% (PSD) 95%

Attendance -female

90% (WGS)92% (PSD)

92% (R)93% (ASD)

96% (PM)95% (PSD) 95%

Graduation -all students

-73% (PSD)

-67% (ASD)

-98% (PSD) 90%

Graduation -male

-68% (PSD)

-64% (ASD)

-99% (PSD) 89%

Graduation -female

-78% (PSD)

-72% (ASD)

-97% (PSD) 91%

* The target attendance is 90%** The target graduation is 80%

Math Results

School /

School District

Walter G. Smith /

Philadelphia SD

Roosevelt /

Allentown SD

Parkway Manor /

Parkland SD

State

Avg

Total number ofstudents assessedand % taken

**258/100% (WGS)***80,081/99% (PSD)

*222/100% (R)***8,170/99% (ASD)

*350/100% (PM)***4,862/100% (PSD)

Result for all

students assessed

38% (WGS)

49% (PSD)

61% (R)

56% (ASD)

91% (PM)

87% (PSD) 56%Result for malestudents assessed

36% (WGS)49% (PSD)

57% (R)56% (ASD)

90% (PM)87% (PSD) 56%

Result for femalestudents assessed

40% (WGS)50% (PSD)

66% (R)56% (ASD)

93% (PM)86% (PSD) 56%

* Grades 3 - 5** Grades 3 - 8

*** Grades 3 8, and 11


42/51


Reading Results

School /

School District

Walter G. Smith /

Philadelphia SD

Roosevelt /

Allentown SD

Parkway Manor /

Parkland SD

State

Avg

Total number ofstudents assessed

and % taken

**258/100% (WGS)

***79,858/99% (PSD)

*222/100% (R)

***8,160/99% (ASD)

*350/100% (PM)

***4,860/100% (PSD)Result for allstudents assessed

32% (WGS)45% (PSD)

41% (R)47% (ASD)

82% (PM)85% (PSD) 63%

Result for malestudents assessed

26% (WGS)40% (PSD)

30% (R)44%(ASD)

77% (PM)82% (PSD) 63%

Result for femalestudents assessed

38% (WGS)50% (PSD)

54% (R)50% (ASD)

86% (PM)87% (PSD) 63%



Ethnicity Comparisons Accountability

Math Results

School /

School District

Walter G. Smith /

Philadelphia SD

Roosevelt /

Allentown SD

Parkway Manor /

Parkland SD

State

Avg

Total number ofstudents assessedand % taken

**258/100% (WGS)***80,081/99% (PSD)

*222/100% (R)***8,170/99% (ASD)

*350/100% (PM)***4,862/100% (PSD) 56%

Result for Whitestudents assessed

- (WGS)69% (PSD)

71% (R)71% (ASD)

95% (PM)87% (PSD) 56%

Result for Black

students assessed

38% (WGS)

43% (PSD)

61% (R)

52%(ASD)

44% (PM)

87% (PSD) 56%Result for Hispanicstudents assessed

-% (WGS)45% (PSD)

59% (R)52% (ASD)

81% (PM)86% (PSD) 56%

Result for Asianstudents assessed

-% (WGS)80% (PSD)

-% (R)82% (ASD)

93% (PM)93% (PSD) 56%

Result for Nat Amerstudents assessed

-% (WGS)53% (PSD)

-% (R)67% (ASD)

-% (PM)-% (PSD) 56%

Result for Mult-Racestudents assessed

-% (WGS)61% (PSD)

-% (R)-% (ASD)

-% (PM)-% (PSD) 56%

Result for IEPstudents assessed

5% (WGS)18% (PSD)

19% (R)23% (ASD)

84% (PM)59% (PSD) 56%

Result for ELLstudents assessed

-% (WGS)39% (PSD)

36% (R)27% (ASD)

-% (PM)56% (PSD) 56%

Result for Migrantstudents assessed

-% (WGS)38% (PSD)

-% (R)-% (ASD)

-% (PM)-% (PSD) 56%

Result for Econ Disstudents assessed

38% (WGS)47% (PSD)

61% (R)54% (ASD)

71% (PM)73% (PSD) 56%




43/51


Reading Results

School /

School District

Walter G. Smith /

Philadelphia SD

Roosevelt /

Allentown SD

Parkway Manor /

Parkland SD

State

Avg

Total number ofstudents assessed

and % taken

**258/100% (WGS)

***79,858/99% (PSD)

*222/100% (R)

***8,160/99% (ASD)

*350/100% (PM)

***4,860/100% (PSD) 63%Result for Whitestudents assessed

- (WGS)64% (PSD)

41% (R)63% (ASD)

87% (PM)86% (PSD) 63%

Result for Blackstudents assessed

31% (WGS)40% (PSD)

54% (R)46%(ASD)

38% (PM)67% (PSD) 63%

Result for Hispanicstudents assessed

-% (WGS)38% (PSD)

38% (R)42% (ASD)

52% (PM)73% (PSD) 63%

Result for Asianstudents assessed

-% (WGS)68% (PSD)

-% (R)72% (ASD)

82% (PM)88% (PSD) 63%

Result for Nat Amerstudents assessed

-% (WGS)53% (PSD)

-% (R)60% (ASD)

-% (PM)-% (PSD) 63%

Result for Mult-Race

students assessed

-% (WGS)

58% (PSD)

-% (R)

-% (ASD)

-% (PM)

-% (PSD) 63%Result for IEPstudents assessed

3% (WGS)12% (PSD)

@0% (R)14% (ASD)

56% (PM)52% (PSD) 63%

Result for ELLstudents assessed

-% (WGS)25% (PSD)

12% (R)13% (ASD)

-% (PM)32% (PSD) 63%

Result for Migrantstudents assessed

-% (WGS)46% (PSD)

-% (R)-% (ASD)

-% (PM)-% (PSD) 63%

Result for Econ Disstudents assessed

32% (WGS)42% (PSD)

40% (R)44% (ASD)

51% (PM)7365% (PSD) 63%


*** Grades 3 8, and 11@ 16 IEP students took the exam

From the Pennsylvania Department of Education, in explaining the Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP), it reads:

For a school to meet AYP, all AYP targets must be met. Note that the number of targets used

for AYP can vary. This is because the targets associated with subgroups that have fewer than 40

students in the school do not apply. However, schools with fewer than 40 students are still

accountable and are evaluated at the overall level.


44/51


District targets are assessed in three grade spans: Grades 35, 68, and 912. To meet AYP

goals in Academic Performance or Test Participation, the district needs to achieve all targets for

both subjects in one grade span only. Districts must meet both targets in school attendance and

graduation (Pennsylvania Department, 2007).


45/51


Additional School Comparison and Observations Appendix 5

The group made observations of each school setting. We considered the physical layout of the

school and classroom, the teacher-student relationships, and the interactions the students had with

our class.

School Walter G. Smith Roosevelt Parkway Manor

Address1900 Wharton St.at 19th St.Philadelphia, PA 19146

210 W. Susquehanna St.Allentown, PA 18103

768 Parkway Rd.Allentown, PA 18104

Principal Robert L. Frazier Heather Bennett Scott Bartman

School District /No. of schools

Philadelphia /265 Total Schools

Allentown /20 Total Schools

Parkland /10 Total Schools

No. of studentsper class 20 22 17

No. ofclassroomsvisited 1 2 5

No. of teachers /teachersassistance perclass 1 1 2

Building /Facility

Built in 1924 andacceptably maintained.

Multiple stories.

Small rooms, highceilings.

Bathroom had an odor.

Well-worn chalkboards.

Clock on wall did notwork.

Old chairs and desks.

Teachers desk washumble in size.

No space to havechildren sit away fromtheir desks to read tothem.

Very limited schoolsupplies, even thebasics such as paperand pencils.

Limited number of

Expansion andrenovations were inprogress.

Two stories.

High ceilings.

Well-worn chalkboards.

Poor / inadequatelighting in many areas.

Old chairs and desks.

Signs in both Spanishand English.

Exposed conduit andplumbing indicating

the age of the building.

Special area forreading with a sittingchair for the teacher.

Room was still smallfor the class size.

The walls weredecorated with the

Approximately 40 yearsold, but much newerthan the other two

schools.

Single story.

Bright, but low ceilings.

Newer chairs and desks,all matched.

Smell of chlorine orother cleaning agents.

Large sitting area andreading chair.

Walls heavily decoratedinside and outside the

classroom withchildrens work.

Chalk boards were ingood shape.


46/51


books to read. childrens work.


47/51



Security Wire mesh onwindows.

Front door locked.

All visitors wererequired to sign in andbe escorted to theclassrooms.

A sign readingtrespassers would bearrested was visiblypresent at the top ofthe entrance.

No bullying signs were

posted.

Fencing and barriersexisted, but more forthe safety of thestudents due to the on-going renovations.

Door was unlocked,and only the professorsigned in.

We were givendirections to theclassrooms we wouldbe attending.

No bullying signs were

posted.

No fences, wire mesh,or barricades.

Door was unlocked,and only the professorsigned in.

A student took us tothe individualclassrooms we wouldbe attending.

No bullying signs wereposted.

Technology Only the teacher had aPC, and it was an oldermodel.

Four PCs of mixedage were available forthe childrens use.

The teacher had a newPC.

Six PCs in each roomalong with a laserprinter.

All PC were the samemake and model.

The teacher had a PCwith a flat panelmonitor.

Playground Fenced off area withmacadam surface.

Gates for entry. No playground

equipment.

No playground area,this may be due to the

building renovations.

Large play area,including a baseball

field. Grass and dirt mix

with equipment.

Atmosphere There were nointroductions from thestaff.

The principal seemeduncomfortable, evenannoyed at ourpresence.

Most students, if not

all, walked to school. Large, urban school

district.

The teacher introducedherself to us, and thenintroduced us to theclass.

A teachers assistantwas working with fourchildren in one of theclassrooms.

Teacher monitored therooms activities.

Most students walkedto school or usedpublic transportation.

Small, urban schooldistrict.

Teacher introducedherself to us, and thenintroduced us to theclass.

Each teacher had anassistant to help in theroom.

Teacher mistook us for

student teachers. Each class had its own

bathroom.

Most students took abus or were driven toschool.

Mid-size, suburbanschool district.


48/51


Student Comparisons and Observations


Observations ofthe children

The class waswelcoming.

Two or three studentsanswered the majorityof the questions whenparticipating in a largegroup.

The boys were moreoutspoken andinquisitive than thegirls.

The children enjoyed

the smaller groupdialogue when we readindividually to them asopposed to the largergroup reading.

Some children wereoverly clingy and inneed of attention.

Everyone enjoyed theschool supplies webrought with us on thevisit.

One boy, Hezekiah,was veryparticipative andoffered manycomments. Teachersaid it was veryuncharacteristic ofhim.

In another readingabout the President,one child referred to

McCain and theimpact it would haveon his family if taxeswere raised.

None of the childrenmentioned after-school activities.

Three or four childrenwere very responsiveto us at the beginningof our visit.

The rest of the classquickly joined in theconversation.

Some of the childrenused very impressivevocabularies.

The teacher indicatedone of the most

impressive studentshad trouble reading.Perhaps there is ahealth problem, suchas a need for glasses.

Most children wereless hungry forattention than thechildren at WGS.

The children enjoyedthe individual readingtime we spent withthem, but also enjoyedthe larger groupreading.

Reading abilityseemed to be behindthe other schools.

The teacher informedus that some of thechildren could notread at a kindergartenlevel. This was a

product of No childleft behind.

Some after schoolactivities werementioned, but notmany.

The students were verycomfortable with ourgroup and did notrequire any of ourindividual attention.

The boys and girlsshared equally inproviding responses toour questions.

We did not have theopportunity to breakinto smaller groups

with these students.


49/51



Dress /Grooming

The children wereclean and properlydressed.

They appearedphysically healthy.

There were fewchildren wearing theprescribed uniform.

The children were themost groomed of thethree schools visited.

The children wereclean and well dressed.

The school has nospecific dress code,but does list acceptableand unacceptableitems on their webpage.

The children wereclean and well dressed,but less groomed thanthe other two schools.

The school maintainsthe

How Social and Economic Factors Impact Education

Documents

Transcript of How Social and Economic Factors Impact Education