Translate

Showing posts with label American Educational Research Association (AERA). Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Educational Research Association (AERA). Show all posts

Tuesday, July 04, 2023

AERA Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Race in College Admissions, June 29, 2023

Friends:

I am proud of the American Educational Research Association's response to the SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action. It notes that there are clear ambiguities in the decision clearly as it did not "overrule prior rulings that allow race as a factor in admissions to achieve the benefits of educational diversity for all students." I do encourage all to read AERA's amicus brief that is highly informative on the benefits of diversity to higher education


institutions that was received by an ideological, extremist Supreme Court that cared less about the evidence. Incidentally, several on the court claim to be Constitutional originalist, but conveniently ignored the post-Civil War Reconstruction context of the 14th Amendment that would have legitimated race-based admissions.

Despite this, as noted by the editors of the New York Times, "The Supreme Court Turns ‘Equal Protection’ Upside Down.

These are sad, if not terrible and outrageous, times for current and potential students of color—and all students, indeed—in U.S. higher education. The court has turned a blind eye to structural and institutional inequality that ties the hands of lower courts and policymakers that might seek to acknowledge this. If you are not convinced, read the evidence. Read the amicus brief and learn the truth of the value and importance of diversity to our country and society.

The greatest damage may very well be symbolic in terms of the message it sends regarding the supremacy that court is giving to white citizens. Personally, I am disgusted by a Supreme Court that has been hostile not just to the idea of diversity in higher education as a public good, but also to the post-Civil War project of Reconstruction since day one. 

Truly, my dear friends, colleagues, and students, all is not lost. I do encourage you to read my earlier post today on the matter titled, "Wondering What Will Likely Happen to Higher Ed in the wake of the SCOTUS Anti-Affirmative action Ruling?" We are definitely losing ground though we are not bereft of power. There is much work ahead.

-Angela Valenzuela



For Immediate Release:

June 29, 2023



Contacts:

Tony Pals, tpals@aera.net

(202) 238-3235



Marla Koenigsknecht, mkoenigsknecht@aera.net

(202) 238-3233



AERA Statement on Supreme Court Decision
on Race in College Admissions



June 29, 2023



The following statement is from Felice J. Levine, executive director, and
Tyrone C. Howard, president, of the American Educational Research Association.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for higher education to achieve
student equity and inclusivity, but avenues remain open and higher education
must seize them. The decision is a low point that could impede equitable access
to higher education; erode campus diversity; reinforce, rather than reduce,
longstanding and pernicious patterns of bias in higher education; and hinder
the development of future workers and leaders who can thrive in an
increasingly multicultural society.

The Court did not expressly overrule prior rulings that allow race as a factor
in admissions to achieve the benefits of educational diversity for all students.
However, it invalidated the way institutions and prior Court decisions have defined
the educational benefits of diversity as insufficiently measurable and without a
necessary end point. More analysis is needed of the complex decision to
determine how it translates into institutional policies and practices. While the
Court’s decision will leave students and the country worse off, it should not
extinguish scientific and higher education efforts to pursue educational
equity and excellence for all students.

Sadly the Court’s decision fails to acknowledge the substantial body of scientific
evidence that student body diversity improves educational outcomes. Study after
study has found that alternatives to race-conscious admissions put into place by
states do not have the same impact as race-conscious policies in achieving that
crucial diversity. The constraints imposed by the Court are formidable; yet, the
scientific community and higher education need to respond by redoubling their
efforts and expanding their commitment to the hard work of creating equitable
educational systems.

Meanwhile, at a time when college opportunity is limited for underrepresented
students of color and members of other marginalized groups, we urge all
educational institutions to take all legal paths to ensure that students from all
backgrounds get equal opportunities. We furthermore urge researchers across
the country to work with colleges and universities to develop and implement
admissions criteria and processes that are as inclusionary as possible for students
of color and address systemic inequities.

In 2022, AERA and other major research associations submitted a Supreme
Court amicus brief in support of Harvard University and the University of North
Carolina, calling on the court to rely on the substantial body of research and
reaffirm the governmental interest in diversity. Joining AERA on the brief were
the American Anthropological Association, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the American Political Science Association, the
American Sociological Association, the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, and the Linguistic Society of America. Visit the AERA website for
research resources related to the case and race-conscious admission policies.



###


About AERA
The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is the largest
national interdisciplinary research association devoted to the scientific study
of education and learning. Founded in 1916, AERA advances knowledge about
education, encourages scholarly inquiry related to education, and promotes the
use of research to improve education and serve the public good.
Find AERA on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.


View this release online.


Share this release













American Educational Research Association
1430 K Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 238-3200











Thursday, April 22, 2021

Police “Reforms” You Should Always Oppose by Mariame Kaba in Truthout








 


 

I read today that President Obama has offered some measures for “reforming” the police. Here is a simple guide for evaluating any suggested “reforms” of U.S. policing in this historical moment.

1. Are the proposed reforms allocating more money to the police? If yes, then you should oppose them.
2. Are the proposed reforms advocating for MORE police and policing (under euphemistic terms like “community policing” run out of regular police districts)? If yes, then you should oppose them.
3. Are the proposed reforms primarily technology-focused? If yes, then you should oppose them because:
a. It means more money to the police.
b. Said technology is more likely to be turned against the public than it is to be used against cops.
c. Police violence won’t end through technological advances (no matter what someone is selling you).
4. Are the proposed “reforms” focused on individual dialogues with individual cops? And will these “dialogues” be funded with tax dollars? I am never against dialogue. It’s good to talk with people. These conversations, however, should not be funded by tax payer money. That money is better spent elsewhere. Additionally, violence is endemic to U.S. policing itself. There are some nice individual people who work in police departments. I’ve met some of them. But individual dialogue projects reinforce the “bad apples” theory of oppressive policing. This is not a problem of individually terrible officers rather it is a problem of a corrupt and oppressive policing system built on controlling and managing the marginalized while protecting property.

What “reforms” should you support (in the interim) then?

1. Proposals and legislation to offer reparations to victims of police violence and their families.
2. Proposals and legislation to require police officers to carry personal liability insurance to cover costs of brutality or death claims.
3. Proposals and legislation to decrease and redirect policing and prison funds to other social goods.
4. Proposals and legislation for (elected) independent civilian police accountability boards with power to investigate, discipline, fire police officers and administrators. [WITH SOME SERIOUS CAVEATS]
5. Proposals and legislation to disarm the police.
6. Proposals to simplify the process of dissolving existing police departments.
7. Proposals and legislation for data transparency (stops, arrests, budgeting, weapons, etc.)

Ultimately, the only way that we will address oppressive policing is to abolish the police. Therefore all of the “reforms” that focus on strengthening the police or “morphing” policing into something more invisible but still as deadly should be opposed.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors of College Graduation than ACT Scores

So why aren't we using students' GPAs instead of standardized test scores?

Believe me, if it were the other way around and Latinos and African Americans systematically performed better than Anglos and Asians on the ACT, the test would have gotten dropped a long time ago in a heart beat. 

Check out this piece that recently appeared in EdWeek titled, "The Dangerous Narrative That Lurks Under the 'Achievement Gap," that extends the analysis of privilege by underscoring how being a "good school" and a "White school" are synonymous.

These logics are deeply embedded and the testing system itself—that aligns to awards, privileges, race/ethnicity, and a false sense of entitlement—is squarely implicated.  For a deeper sense of how and why the system works, I encourage you to read Professors Altwerger and Strauss' classic published article titled, "The Business Behind Testing."  It shows how this is a very specific, elitist, neoliberal agenda that seeks to monetize everything education—for profit, of course.  And yes, at the expense of our children and society.  It's great reading for the college classroom.

A more valid policy framework would rely on students' grade point averages as better indicators of students' academic achievement and potential.  For all we spend on these standardized tests, we could instead be providing much more significant funding and teaching quality to public education.  We've known this.  I've blogged on this.  We must collectively work to change these policy structures at all levels.

-Angela Valenzuela

For Immediate Release: January 28, 2020
  
Contact:
Tony Pals, tpals@aera.net
(202) 238-3235, (202) 288-9333 (cell)
  
Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors of College Graduation than ACT Scores
  
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2020—Students’ high school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new published today in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.
  
The authors of the new study, Elaine M. Allensworth and Kallie Clark, both of the University of Chicago, also found that the predictive power of GPAs is consistent across high schools. The relationship between ACT scores and college graduation depends on which high school a student attends; at many high schools there is no connection between students’ ACT scores and eventual college graduation.
  
“It was surprising not only to see that there was no relationship between ACT scores and college graduation at some high schools, but also to see that at many high schools the relationship was negative among students with the highest test scores,” said Allensworth, who is the director of the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. 
  
Across all high schools in the study, each incremental increase in GPA is associated with an increase in the odds of graduating college. The chance of graduating from college ranges from 20 percent for students with high school GPAs under 1.5 to about 80 percent for those with GPAs of 3.75 or higher, after controlling for student backgrounds and college characteristics.
  
“While people often think the value of GPAs is inconsistent across high schools, and that standardized test scores, like the ACT, are neutral indicators of college readiness because they are taken by everyone under the same conditions, our findings indicate otherwise,” Allensworth said. “The bottom line is that high school grades are powerful tools for gauging students’ readiness for college, regardless of which high school a student attends, while ACT scores are not.”
  
According to the authors, their study confirms prior research that finds high school GPAs are more predictive than SAT and ACT scores of college freshman GPA and college graduation. This study is the first to explicitly test whether standardized assessments are comparable across high schools as measures of college readiness. 
  
The study examined 55,084 students who graduated from the Chicago public school district between 2006 and 2009 and immediately enrolled in a four-year college. The Chicago district contains schools with varying academic profiles, ranging from extremely high-achieving, selective schools to schools with very low average test scores. At the time the study students were in high school, all students in Illinois took the ACT in the spring of 11th grade.
  
In the authors’ view, the fact that high school GPAs are based on many factors—including effort over an entire semester in many different types of classes, demonstration of academic skills through multiple formats, and different teacher expectations—might be why GPAs are strong indicators of college readiness. 
  
“GPAs measure a very wide variety of skills and behaviors that are needed for success in college, where students will encounter widely varying content and expectations,” said Allensworth. “In contrast, standardized tests measure only a small set of the skills that students need to succeed in college, and students can prepare for these tests in narrow ways that may not translate into better preparation to succeed in college.”
  
“Extensive time spent preparing for standardized tests will have much less pay-off for postsecondary success than effort put into coursework, as reflected in students’ grades,” said Clark, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago. “The more that middle and high school educators can support strong engagement in school—helping students overcome barriers to engagement in class, helping them succeed at different types of academic tasks, so that they earn strong grades—the better these educators are supporting academic skills broadly and preparing students for college.”
  
The authors also note that most states and districts in the United States rely heavily on standardized test scores in their accountability systems as indicators of whether students are meeting state college readiness goals. Because the relationship of test scores with college graduation is not strong or consistent, states and districts that choose this metric may misestimate the effects of policies and school practices on students’ college readiness. The authors suggest that measures of students’ actual performance in college would provide better information. 
  
Above and beyond students’ individual achievement on high school coursework and the ACT, Allensworth and Clark found that students are more likely to graduate college if they come from some high schools rather than others. These school effects may be the result of more rigorous academic programs at some high schools, different non-academic supports for preparing students for college, or simply a tendency of families with more resources for college to send their students to particular high schools.
  
“There are large high school effects on college graduation that are not explained by students’ high school GPA, their individual ACT scores, or the two of them combined,” Clark said. “Understanding why students from some high schools succeed in college more than students at other schools is an important next step for better supporting all students’ ability to earn a college degree.”
  
Funding note: This research was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  
###
  
About AERA
The  (AERA) is the largest national interdisciplinary research association devoted to the scientific study of education and learning. Founded in 1916, AERA advances knowledge about education, encourages scholarly inquiry related to education, and promotes the use of research to improve education and serve the public good. Find AERA on , and .
  
This release can be found online.