As someone who spends a great deal of time reading papers in this field, I really feel the need to say that there is NO hard data that I am aware of to support the claim that the achievement gap between the rich and middle-class is *caused* by rich parents' increasing investment in extracurriculars and tutoring. If you look at the economics papers this op-ed is based on, you'll see that this is so. This is just a theory--a hypothesis--and by the way, the papers also present several other theories. Reardon doesn't talk about the other theories. I'm pretty annoyed that this is getting so much coverage when it's so pie-in-the-sky at this point. We really, really don't have the data to say that little Timmy's weekly judo classes are why he's acing the standardized tests, although I can say that we do know that involvement in the arts and music seems to be helpful academically.

I'm guessing that other people with boots on the ground in education and sociology are probably a little irked about all of this.