To the Editor:,  The New York Times, May 6, 2013
In “No Rich Child Left Behind” (Sunday Review, April 28), Sean F. Reardon reminds us of the growing educational divide not only between the poor and the middle class but increasingly between the middle class and the very rich. Only a significant infusion of federal money for early childhood programs will address this issue.
But Mr. Reardon doesn’t mention compelling research (for example, the work of the Education Trust) that shows that having a top-flight teacher year after year dramatically reduces the effect of social class on a child’s achievement, while ineffective teaching can undermine educational success for any child.
Failing to note the difference that individual teachers make returns the debate to 1966, when the Coleman Report allowed educators to say, “I can’t do anything about it; the issue is poverty,” and misdirects us from all-important efforts to foster excellence in teaching through stronger teacher preparation, mentoring and professional development.
JAMES W. FRASER
New York, April 28, 2013
The writer, a professor of history and education at N.Y.U., is an adviser to the Woodrow Wilson Foundation.
To the Editor:
While Sean F. Reardon is to be commended for exposing the growing achievement gap between the poor and the middle classes and the middle and upper classes, his recommendation that as a society we should begin to behave more like the rich in their approach to education ignores the decades’ worth of research that strongly suggests otherwise.
While the rich do invest more in early childhood education, their strategies for raising their children are often based more on outsourcing their child rearing to nannies, tutors, coaches and teachers than on having “stable home environments” and spending time reading to their children, as Mr. Reardon claims.
Suniya Luthar’s research, and that of many others, including my own, finds that adolescents raised in rich families report higher rates of depression, anxiety and substance abuse than those from other socioeconomic groups.
Yes, as a society, we need to invest more in early childhood education, but let’s not use the strategies of the rich to achieve our goals. Let’s borrow those old-fashioned strategies of the working and middle classes that include high-quality, community-based child care centers, sit-down family dinners and stickball street play to help our children succeed in and out of school.
NIOBE WAY
New York, April 28, 2013
The writer is a professor of applied psychology at New York University.
To the Editor:
Sean F. Reardon recommends early childhood interventions to address inequalities in achievement among rich, middle-class and poor students. Yes, expand Head Start. But let’s not turn our backs on this generation.
I run a summer science program for children from schools in poor and working-class neighborhoods. Our participants all go to college. About half of them study science or engineering, and many of them receive merit scholarships, so critical to getting through four years of higher education.
We put our students in peer teams that take on long-term projects, conducting field and lab work, analysis and presentation of scientific data. The intensity of the experience and the deep peer and mentoring relationships change the students’ sense of self and address learning deficits that run deeper than missing skills.
If every science department or engineering firm adopted a team of students through their last two years of high school, you’d be shocked at how fast the achievement gap narrowed.
ROBERT NEWTON
Palisades, N.Y., April 29, 2013
The writer is a research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.
To the Editor:
The evidence that rich children do better on achievement tests than poor children is overwhelming. The disparity also holds for children in charter schools.
The data are not in the slick news releases that go to editorial boards, education writers and the mass media. Charter school proponents trumpet “growth,” not that the achievement-test levels of poor and minority students are much lower than those of the rich.
Charter school proponents blame teachers and unions for dismal urban school achievement levels. They claim that a great teacher in every classroom will overcome poverty. No excuses! They claim to have those great teachers in charter school classrooms because they hire teachers without regard to formal credentials or experience and have no union constraints.
The Michelle Rhees and the Joel Kleins (former schools chancellors in Washington and New York) are very wrong, but don’t expect them to admit it any time soon.
MURRAY LEVINE
Buffalo, April 28, 2013
The writer, professor emeritus of psychology at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, is collaborating on a book about school reform.