Family poverty a major factor in education
David MacPhee 

Ingredient X is a powerful predictor of how well a school’s students perform on standardized tests. Whether high school graduates will need remedial instruction in college is profoundly dependent on Ingredient X. Is X a rigorous curriculum? Dedicated, well-trained teachers? Small classes?
No, Ingredient X is family poverty. Data from the Colorado Department of Education for the 1,700-plus schools in the state show that the more low-income students in a school, the less well they do on CSAP and ACT tests. Teacher experience and class size have a detectable but small effect on tests scores. The type of curriculum matters somewhat, but not much. But poverty is four to 30 times more potent than any other predictor. Even after all other factors are combined, the percentage of low-income students in a school is still two to seven times better as a predictor of test scores and the need for remedial instruction.
In concrete terms, if I know how many low-income students are in a school and whether it serves an at-risk population, I can predict test scores within 10 points and be right 70 percent of the time.
Compared with the average school, with 35 percent of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, a school with less than 15 percent low-income students stands to “gain” 22 points on the CSAPs, all other things being equal. That’s the difference between a D and an A grade in school. Schools with more than 85 percent low-income students “lose” 24 points compared with the typical school.
So test scores are not mostly about what happens at school. Let’s stop pinning all of the blame for low test scores on “bad schools” or “incompetent teachers.” Local schools such as Laurel and Putnam elementaries may get judged unfavorably by some, but they actually do better than expected given the risk profile of their students.
In many of the state’s “best schools,” the faces of poverty are rarely seen. (The average charter school enrolls just 20 percent low-income students.) I encourage these schools to see if their approach succeeds as well with a population that struggles in daily life. Offer scholarships and transportation to families who stand to benefit the most from the educational innovations you so proudly trumpet.
Some schools do quite well even though their pupils are chronically under duress, as in the Pueblo City and Harrison districts. Let’s learn lessons from them that can be transplanted elsewhere. How do they engage students and promote self-discipline? Do they use an International Baccalaureate curriculum, such as Dunn Elementary and Midland (in Colorado Springs)?
Finally, our nation must get serious about poverty. We do a disservice to our children’s future and compromise family well-being when we ignore the issue, or worse, when we blame the victims. As Lisbeth Schorr and a host of others observed, we know what works. Let’s support early childhood education, literacy programs, economic opportunity, access to mental health services and affordable child care. Stop robbing the poor to support the privileged (the gap between the rich and poor is the widest since the Census Bureau began keeping track in 1947). The future of our most vulnerable youths and the health of our great society depends on how well we educate all of our children.
David MacPhee can be contacted at macphee@lamar.colostate.edu for information about the data sets and statistical analyses used for this Soapbox.

Originally published March 3, 2006