60 INVITED CHAPTERS
of the state average for Ohio youngsters. As the Superintendent for that district noted,
“economically disadvantaged students ... are traditionally lower performing than other
student groups” (Gildow, 2007, A4). Those who fail to address pundits attempting to decry
the power of these statistics must realize or be called to the realization that they are unable
even to solve problems already existing, those with known solutions. How will these
education leaders ever be seen as capable of confronting problems that are not yet
identified?
WHAT ELSE MATTERS BEYOND FINANCES?
Critics who frequently ignore or simply disregard data pertaining to elements of effective
school improvement often do so from the perspective of generalized cost containment. In
addition to the overall assertion that financing P-12 education is irrelevant, it is habitually
stated (again, most generally from those on the political right) that the debate on large class
size versus small class size is, likewise, a non-entity in the school reform movement.
Achilles and Molnar (2000) have reported, though, in a rather clear and concise manner, that
students involved in the STAR experiment (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio)
outperformed students who had been in regular-size classes on tests in all subject areas.
These STAR students, approximately 7,000 in number, were assigned to classes with
enrollment parameters of 13 to 17 or 22 to 25. Students assigned to the small classes from
Kindergarten to Grade 3 outperformed regular-class students on all tests, every year, and the
gap between small and regular-class test results increased each year. As an example of this
performance growth, an average STAR student in a small class in grades K-3 outperformed a
regular-class student, at grade 4, by 6.6 months and 8.7 months at grade 8 -- fully five years
after leaving the small-class environment (Achilles, 1999). Reanalysis of STAR data
indicated that minority children experienced significantly enhanced outcomes when placed in
small classes (Krueger, 2002). Thus, we know that money matters and class size matters – to
act as if these are not the case is simply dereliction of duty.
In addition to the importance of significant levels of investment capital provided to/for
schools and the need for reduced class size, we also know that poverty has a forceful
deleterious affect on learning at all stages of growth and development. Research that spans
the decades from the Johnson administration to the G. W. Bush administration consistently
indicates that even mild under-nutrition, as experienced by young children, can impact their
behavior, their school performance, and their overall cognitive development (see
http://www.secondharvest.org/learn_about_hunger/fact_sheet/child_hunger_facts.html)..)
However, poverty continues to grow at an astounding rate in this most prosperous of nations.
According to the 2006 Kids Count Data Book, nearly 13.8 million U.S. children lived in food
insecure households in 2004, an increase of more than 1 million from the previous national
study conducted in 2001. The documented rural poverty rate for children, in 2003, was
20.1%, while the urban/metro areas were a bit more than 17%. Poverty and food insecurity
are growing in this nation, especially rapidly in rural environments. Can there be any doubt
that such growth in food insecurity has an obvious and recursive impact on learning and
academic success?
As a final element in this section, I would be remiss not to mention that, as an
important companion to my phrases “money matters”, “class size matters”, and “poverty
matters”, we must include and consider the equally powerful phrase, “race matters.” In June
of 2006, The Schott Foundation for Public Education announced that nearly 60% of African-
American males did not receive diplomas with their high school cohorts (Oates, 2006). Even