Bias is often the assumption made when a controversial story or an uncomfortable study that points to a supposedly clear narrative emerges. Occasionally, it is what it appears to be: prejudice disguised as objectivity.
Take the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson, which affirmed public segregation in the court’s worst ruling in history. Interracial marriage remained illegal until 1967, with the stigma lasting much longer. On the other hand, gender bias in hiring decisions has also been slow to evaporate, requiring extraordinary measures — such as blind auditions for professional orchestras — to result in higher levels of successful female candidates. We have a long history of bias in the United States. Our skepticism of skewed representational statistics in any situation seems well founded. There must be prejudice involved. Right?
As our awareness of bias becomes more institutionalized and our mechanisms for selection become less corrupt, the disparity between participants and their group representation requires a much deeper level of study. Blind auditions for orchestral positions started eliminating selection bias in the 1950s. What about today? A modern example of this is the same “blind” effect of women’s participation in chess. The proliferation of online ratings for the highest levels of chess would seemingly eliminate the underrepresentation of female players. However, an inverse effect happened. Men still are overwhelmingly overrepresented in the top 100 global chess rankings.
What about educational opportunities? Statistically, and by perception of the public, higher-income students typically dominate standardized testing scores and are far more likely to attend college. The New York Times published a story in 2009 which graphically illustrates the direct correlation of parental income and higher standardized test scores. Are the children of the rich simply just more intelligent? Not exactly.
There is a significant correlation between income and test scores from kindergarten through high school. However, it isn’t exactly clear that income has much to do with it. Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University, reached a different conclusion in his 2007 study titled “Lasting Consequences of the Summer Learning Gap.”
“We find that cumulative (testing) achievement gains over the first nine years of children’s schooling mainly reflect school-year learning, whereas the high (income)–low (income) achievement gap at ninth grade mainly traces to differential summer learning over the elementary years. These early out-of-school summer learning differences, in turn, substantially account for achievement-related differences by family’s socioeconomic status in high school track placements (college preparatory or not), high school noncompletion and four-year college attendance.”
So, what is to blame? Income? Parental involvement? According to Alexander, the difference does not come from the intellectual superiority of higher-income students versus their lower-income counterparts. Much more important is how students spend their summers. Alexander’s study determined that continual educational stimulation throughout summer breaks was much more impactful when determining educational testing achievement and postgraduate success. When examining the school year gains in testing ability, surprisingly, the middle-income students took a slight lead over both high- and low-income testers.
Complex entities like America’s education system aren’t single-variable issues. They contain hundreds, if not thousands, of moving parts — each easily capable of tearing down the entire structure. When dealing with such volatile and complex problems, it is important that we leave ideology at the door. Maturity must become the most valuable tool in our modern landscape.
Josh Baker is a junior economics and mathematics major from Houston.
