It's tough to be a kid in the U.S. --or the U.K., for that matter

A recent study by UNICEF of developed countries names the United States and the United Kingdom --the former coalition of the willing in Iraq-- as "the worst places to be a child."

Ironically, the U.S. earned its highest ranking  in the six categories measured --12th-- in education, which means if you're a kid in America, you're better off in school.  Or Sweden. 

The director of the study explained the disparity between the relative wealth of a nation, like the United States, and the welfare of its children, by pointing out that the poorer countries achieved their higher rankings with

"...a more equitable distribution of wealth and higher relative investment in education and public health."

Should that surprise anyone?

Educational researcher Gerald Bracey links that study with two others to argue that American public schools, despite what you read in the newspapers, are actually overachieving given what they they have to work with.  The second of those studies shows convincingly that test scores --NAEP assessments, specifically-- correlate perfectly state by state with poverty rates.  The higher the state's poverty, the lower the scores. 

Bracey concludes that because American students in low poverty schools "outperform the top nations in international comparisons of reading, mathematics and science", as he has pointed out repeatedly, then it follows that it's the conditions associated with poverty --poor health, poor vision, lead poisoning-- that we as a nation must deal with first in order to improve educational outcomes.

We could start by spending less money on war and the military, and more on domestic programs.  Like healthcare.

Comments

[howard]

Your headline should start with: It is tough to be a POOR kid.....

Public education springs from the Jeffersonian belief that most parents would see to the education of their children. Jefferson felt there would be a need for government to educate children whose parents could not or would not provide for their education. There was a later compromise for government to offer a Common School education to children of rich and poor alike side by side in the same classrooms.

The affluent in the US demanded separate and unequal schools in affluent, middle income and poor communities at government expense (along with racial segregation as well). The politicians and educators allowed the affluent to have their way to keep the support of the affluent at funding time.

That is why US students of affluence slightly lag foreign HS students of affluence while low income HS students in the US trail both their more affluent bretheren and low-income foreign students by wide margins in achievement.

[Terry]

Perhaps you're right, Howard, but the point of the post is that poverty is the issue, not the quality of instruction at our public schools.

I'm not sure that the second half of your concluding sentence is absolutely accurate. But even so, our poor kids are apparently more disadvantaged --and poorer-- than their foreign cohort.