Teaching Success / Teaching Outcomes

So.....the N & O ( or Daniel's Bugle as Ken used to call it) carried an article recently about modern teaching techniques plus the need to pay teachers more. {How New Teaching Merits Higher Pay}. Two letters to the editor followed that I found to be interesting. The writers of the letters admitted that they were older educators in their comments --- but older or not they were pretty much on target.
Initially I had not read the original article; reading those letters sent me back to find the article and read.
Of course, I was more than interested in what this/these new teaching technique(s) could be. As I recall, first there was a discussion of how teachers (today) were recording their lectures so that students could listen at their convenience or re-listen to the lecture to get or clarify information imparted by the teacher. As the article progressed it discussed how teachers were becoming more of facilitators for students' groups and student assignments or work.
Now as I recall the facilitator role came about with what was sometimes referred to as the discovery method as opposed to lecture.

Hhmmmm. thinks me. So what is new about this. It has been going on for years. Acceptance and validation for this type of teaching varies. Certainly lecture doesn't warrant any A+'s from any one I know. But some find fault with the facilitator role saying it lacks enough teacher input. I am forced to do a reality check at this point because I look at teaching through an elementary teacher's glasses all too often. Teaching Reading, for example, is altogether different from teaching one of the sciences.
Good points made by the writers include pointing out that using more technology would work well for students affluent enough to have high speed Internet access at home or those being able to afford tutors if required. Mention was made in the original article of raising class size with new teaching methods. With the size of classes increased it was mentioned that some might need tutor type help.
Face to face interaction time with the teacher, interaction electronically with the teacher, teacher motivation and counsel were all mentioned as student needs.
A comment was made about our best schools serving our most affluent communities were as good as any anywhere. Think for a moment with me ---- why would schools serving our most affluent communities not seem like our best schools if we are using test data to determine best schools.

Then the crowning comment which I cannot validate at the moment states:
Studies show that the two most important predictors of a student's success in school are 1) mother's educational level and 2) family income. Further noting.."Until we come to grips with that, everything else we do is simply tinkering about the edges and will have little real impact."

What think ye folks?? Is it really true? Are these predictors the two most important of student success.