This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Underachieving or Overachieving? Qui Sa?

Recently the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) reported its STAR results for academic year 2012-2013.

 One of the golden rules of public speaking is “never start out with an apology;” it preconditions your audience to have low expectations and it taints their perceptions of what follows.

 Despite the hortatory caveat borrowed from oratory, AUSD prefaced its STAR summary by reminding taxpayers that the results in general were accomplished “over several years in the midst of extremely difficult budget times.”

Find out what's happening in Alamedawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 Really?

 Is this a variant of the blame game?

Find out what's happening in Alamedawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 I.e. it’s the tight fisted taxpayers who are hobbling education in Alameda.

 Given the record high pay and perks package slathered out at AUSD Headquarters, the quarter of a million dollars spent on the seismic shrapnel fence at Historic Alameda High, and the thirty thousand being spent monthly on new administrative digs in Marina Village, I would have thought that money was only a sideshow of a sideshow.

 Budgetary priorities aside, one thing that always remains a nagging mystery is: Why do the test scores of White students serve as a baseline from which to measure minority achievement?

 According to the 2010 census, Whites in Alameda account for just 50% of the population; they would be better termed the largest minority in Alameda rather than a clear majority.

 Within Alameda schools, Whites accounted for 1,972 of 6,770 of the total STAR test takers; this constitutes 29.1% of all STAR test takers.

 Asians accounted for 2,226 of 6,770 of the STAR test takers; this amounts to 32.9% overall.

 Given the demographics of AUSD, it seems incongruous that “district officials noted the overall achievement gap between minority and White students.”

 How did Whites become the measure of all things academic?

 Because Whites are the dominant culture?

 Using Whites as the baseline or golden mean could be setting expectations too low and masking some disturbing statistics.

 While high school Whites marginally out-performed Asians in English- 

Language Arts (75.2% for Whites compared to 72.4% for Asians), it should be remembered that Asians largely come from bi-lingual homes where English is often a second language.

 In high school Algebra I, 51% of Asians scored proficient or better while only 30% of Whites scored as well.

 In high school Geometry, Asians nudged out the Whites 25.6% to 21.7%.

 In Algebra II, 46% of Asians achieved proficient or better while only 34% of Whites accomplished the same feat.

 In Summative High School Mathematics 62% of Asians scored proficient or better while 50% of Whites did the same.

 By now you’re thinking, “It’s the Asian math genes!”

 An easy out; but Asians were nearly neck and neck on the World History exam: 68% for Asians versus 69% for Whites.

 In the Sciences scores were pretty much a wash, including Physics, except the demographics of Physics classes does not match the demographics of the schools.

 Asians and Whites combined accounted for 98 of the students tested in Physics; yet of this total, only 25 were White.

 Had enrollment in Physics matched AUSD demographics, 46 Whites should have taken Physics instead of the meager 25 that did.

 Where were they instead?

 Whites were also significantly underrepresented in Algebra II, Chemistry and Earth Science.

 A secondary achievement gap involves the demographics of rigorous courses; ethnic groups underrepresented in high-end math, science or AP courses are experiencing an achievement gap even if their test scores are equal to the other ethnicities enrolled in the same course.

 For example, African Americans accounted for fewer than 4% of the Physics classes, yet they account for 10% of all test takers; this is evidence of an achievement gap regardless of how high these few African Americans scored on the STAR Physics test.

 If Whites do not comprise a majority within AUSD and seem to be side-stepping the more rigorous courses; why are minority groups still compared to them?

 If you measure the achievement gap based on Whites, Whites will never have an achievement gap.

 However, if we take the risk and use Asian academic performance as the baseline, we end up adding another achievement gap to contemplate.

 The Asian-White achievement gap ultimately manifests at the top four UC campuses: UC Berkeley 43% Asian versus 32% White; UC Davis 41% Asian versus 36% White; UCLA 38% Asian versus 34% White; UC San Diego 44% Asian versus 26% White.

 Perhaps most astounding are the demographics at UC Irvine, the fifth choice, ace in the hole and default position for high school seniors: Asian students at Irvine comprise 56%  of the undergraduates while Whites constitute just 18%.

 Maybe the gaps are not too startling until you look at California demographics: Whites 39% versus Asian 14%.

 Whites are underrepresented at every major UC.

 Is using White STAR test scores as a datum line setting the bar high enough?

 You may ask yourself: “Is this a high bar or a limbo stick?”

 As statisticians like to say: “If you torture the numbers long enough, you can get them to say anything you want them to.”

 You can even make achievement gaps disappear.

 The current ethnocentric system implies: “Any group that scores higher than Whites is over-achieving and any group that scores lower than Whites is under-achieving.

 Shouldn’t we come up with a fair measuring stick: devoid of ethnic bias, that does not camouflage underachievement or stack the deck by favoring of one ethnic group?

 Jeffrey R Smith

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?