Achievement gap in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Achievement gap)
Jump to: navigation, search

Achievement gap refers to the observed, persistent disparity of educational measures between the performance of groups of students, especially groups defined by socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity and gender. The achievement gap can be observed on a variety of measures, including standardized test scores, grade point average, dropout rates, and college enrollment and completion rates. While this article focuses on the achievement gap in the United States, the gap in achievement between lower income students and higher income students exists in all nations[1] and it has been studied extensively in the U.S. and other countries, including the U.K.[2] Various other gaps between groups exist across the globe as well.

In the U.S., research studies into the causes of gaps in student achievement between low-income minority students and middle-income white students have been ongoing since the 1966 publication of the report, "Equality of Educational Opportunity" (more widely known as the Coleman Report), commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education. That research suggested that both in-school factors and home/community factors impact the academic achievement of students and contribute to the gap. American education researcher David Berliner indicated that home/community influences are weighted more heavily, in part, due to the increased time that students spend at home and in their communities compared to the amount of time spent in school, and that the out-of-school factors influencing children in poverty differ significantly from those typically affecting middle income children.[3][4]

The achievement gap, as noted in the trend data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, has become a focal point of education reform efforts. Groups like The Education Trust, Democrats for Education Reform and the Education Equality Project have made it their mission to close the achievement gap. Efforts to combat the gap have been numerous but fragmented, and have ranged from affirmative action and multicultural education to finance equalization, improving teacher quality, and school testing and accountability programs to create equal educational opportunities.

Contents

Evidence of the racial achievement gap: National Assessment of Educational Progress (United States)[edit]

Evidence of the achievement gap can be found using various measures, but one assessment used nationwide is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The graphs below show the achievement gap on this assessment between black and white students and between Hispanic and white students in the U.S. over time. Although the gaps have generally narrowed in recent years according to this particular measure, there are clearly still large disparities between groups.

Math[edit]

Caucasian-African American gap[edit]

NAEP-longterm-Black-math-ss09-09.gif NAEP-longterm-Black-math-ss09-13.gif NAEP-longterm-Black-math-ss09-17.gif

Caucasian-Hispanic gap[edit]

NAEP-longterm-Hispanic-math-ss10-09.gif NAEP-longterm-Hispanic-math-ss10-13.gif NAEP-longterm-Hispanic-math-ss10-17.gif

Reading[edit]

Results of the reading achievement test:

Caucasian-African American gap[edit]

NAEP-longterm-Black-reading-ss07-09.gif NAEP-longterm-Black-reading-ss07-13.gif NAEP-longterm-Black-reading-ss07-17.gif

Caucasian-Hispanic gap[edit]

NAEP-longterm-Hispanic-reading-ss08-09.gif NAEP-longterm-Hispanic-reading-ss08-13.gif NAEP-longterm-Hispanic-reading-ss08-17.gif

Long-term trends[edit]

NAEP reading long-term trends for ages 9, 13, and 17

Reading- ages 9 (light gray), 13 (dark gray), and 17 (black).

Debate on the origins of the racial achievement gap[edit]

Researchers have not reached consensus about the a priori causes of the academic achievement gap; instead, there exists a wide range of studies that cite an array of factors, both cultural and structural, that influence student performance in school. Annette Lareau suggested that students who lack middle-class cultural capital and have limited parental involvement are likely to have lower academic achievement than their better resourced peers.[5] Other researchers suggest that academic achievement is more closely tied to race and socioeconomic status and have tried to pinpoint why.[6]

For example, being raised in a low-income family often means having fewer educational resources in addition to poor nutrition and limited access to health care, all of which could contribute to lower academic performance. Researchers concerned with the achievement gap between genders cite biological differences, such as brain structure and development, as a possible reason why one gender outperforms the other in certain subjects. For example, a Virginia Tech Study conducted in 2000 examined the brains of 508 children and found that different areas of the brain develop in a different sequence in girls compared to boys.[7]

The differing maturation speed of the brain between boys and girls affects how each gender processes information and could have implications for how they perform in school.[8] Hernstein and Murray claimed in the book The Bell Curve,[9] creating much controversy, that genetic variation in average levels of intelligence (IQ) are at the root of racial disparities in achievement. Other researchers have argued that there is no significant difference in inherent cognitive ability between different races that could help to explain the achievement gap, and that environment is at the root of the issue.[10][11][12]

The racial achievement gap in early childhood[edit]

Research shows that the achievement gap, which often is first measured (by standardized tests) in elementary school, actually begins well before students reach kindergarten as a “school readiness” gap.[13] One study claims that about half the test score gap between black and white high school students is already evident when children start school.[14]

A variety of different tests at kindergarten entry have provided evidence of such a gap, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey of Kindergarten children (ECLS-K). While results differ depending on the instrument, estimates of the black-white gap range from slightly less than half a standard deviation to slightly more than 1 standard deviation.[15]

This early disparity in performance is critical, as research shows that once students are behind, they do not catch up. Children who score poorly on tests of cognitive skills before starting kindergarten are highly likely to be low performers throughout their school careers.[16] The evidence of the early appearance of the gap has led to efforts focused on early childhood interventions (see “Narrowing the achievement gap” below).

African American culture and family structure[edit]

The culture and environment in which children are raised may play a role in the achievement gap. Jencks and Phillips argue that African American parents may not encourage early education in toddlers because they do not see the personal benefits of having exceptional academic skills. As a result of cultural differences, African American students tend to begin school with smaller vocabularies than their white classmates.[17]

However, poverty often acts as a confounding factor and differences that are assumed to arise from racial/cultural factors may be socioeconomically driven. Many children who are poor, regardless of race, come from homes that lack stability, continuity of care, adequate nutrition, and medical care creating a level of environmental stress that can affect the young child’s development. As a result, these children enter school with decreased word knowledge that can affect their language skills, influence their experience with books, and create different perceptions and expectations in the classroom context.[18]

Studies show that when students have parental assistance with homework, they perform better in school.[19] This is a problem for many minority students due to the large number of single-parent households (67% of African-American children are in a single-parent household)[20] and the increase in non-English speaking parents. Students from single-parent homes often find it difficult to find time to receive help from their parent. Similarly, some Hispanic students have difficulty getting help with their homework because there is not an English speaker at home to offer assistance.[19]

Motivation gap[edit]

Another explanation that has been suggested for racial and ethnic differences in standardized test performance is that some minority children may not be motivated to do their best on these assessments. The first explanation is that standardized IQ tests and testing procedures are culturally biased toward European-American middle class knowledge and experiences.[citation needed]

Claude M. Steele suggested that minority children and adolescents may also experience stereotype threat—the fear that they will be judged to have traits associated with negative appraisals and/or stereotypes of their race or ethnic group. According to this theory, this produces test anxiety and keeps them from doing as well as they could on tests. According to Steele, minority test takers experience anxiety, believing that if they do poorly on their test they will confirm the stereotypes about inferior intellectual performance of their minority group. As a result, a self-fulfilling prophecy begins, and the child performs at a level beneath his or her inherent abilities.

"Acting white"[edit]

Some researchers[21] also hypothesize that in some cases, minorities, especially African American students, may stop trying in school because they do not want to be accused of “acting white” by their peers.[22] It has also been suggested that some minority students simply stop trying because they do not believe they will ever see the true benefits of their hard work. As some researchers point out, minority students may feel little motivation to do well in school because they do not believe it will pay off in the form of a better job or upward social mobility.[17][23] By not trying to do well in school, such students engage in a rejection of the achievement ideology – that is, the idea that working hard and studying long hours will pay off for students in the form of higher wages or upward social mobility.

Structural and institutional factors[edit]

Different schools have different effects on similar students. Children of color tend to be concentrated in low-achieving, highly segregated schools. In general, minority students are more likely to come from low-income households, meaning minority students are more likely to attend poorly funded schools based on the districting patterns within the school system. Schools in lower-income districts tend to employ less qualified teachers and have fewer educational resources.[24] Research shows that teacher effectiveness is the most important in-school factor affecting student learning. Good teachers can actually close or eliminate the gaps in achievement on the standardized tests that separate white and minority students.[25]

Schools also tend to place students in tracking groups as a means of tailoring lesson plans for different types of learners. However, as a result of schools placing emphasis on socioeconomic status and cultural capital, minority students are vastly over-represented in lower educational tracks.[26] Similarly, Hispanic and African American students are often wrongly placed into lower tracks based on teachers’ and administrators’ expectations for minority students. Such expectations of a race within school systems are a form of institutional racism. Some researchers compare the tracking system to a modern form of racial segregation within the schools.[27]

Studies on tracking groups within schools have also proven to be detrimental for minority students.[28] Once students are in these lower tracks, they tend to have less-qualified teachers, a less challenging curriculum, and few opportunities to advance into higher tracks.[29] There is also some research that suggests students in lower tracks suffer from social psychological consequences of being labeled as a slower learner, which often leads children to stop trying in school.[6] In fact, many sociologists argue that tracking in schools does not provide any lasting benefits to any group of students.[30]

Preschool education[edit]

Additionally, poor and minority students have disproportionately less access to high-quality early childhood education, which has been shown to have a strong impact on early learning and development. One study found that although black children are more likely to attend preschool than white children, they may experience lower-quality care.[31] The same study also found that Hispanic children in the U.S. are much less likely to attend preschool than white children. Another study conducted in Illinois in 2010[32] found that only one in three Latino parents could find a preschool slot for his or her child, compared to almost two thirds of other families.

Finally, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), families with modest incomes (less than $60,000) have the least access to preschool education.[33] Research suggests that dramatic increases in both enrollment and quality of prekindergarten programs would help to alleviate the school readiness gap and ensure that low-income and minority children begin school on even footing with their peers.[31]

Economic implications of the racial achievement gap[edit]

In addition to the moral and social justice arguments for closing the achievement gap, there are strong economic arguments for doing so. A 2009 report by the management consulting firm McKinsey & Company asserts that the persistence of the achievement gap in the U.S. has the economic effect of a “permanent national recession."[34] The report claims that if the achievement gap between black and Latino performance and white student performance had been narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $310 billion to $525 billion higher (2–4 percent).[35]

If the gap between low-income students and their peers had been narrowed, GDP in the same year would have been $400 billion to $670 billion higher (3–5 percent). In addition to the potential increase in GDP, the report projects that closing the achievement gap would lead to cost savings in areas outside of education, such as incarceration and healthcare. The link between low school performance and crime, low earnings and poor health has been echoed in academic research.[36][37]

Attempts at narrowing the racial achievement gap[edit]

Explanations for the achievement gap—and levels of concern over its existence—vary widely, and are the source of much controversy, especially since efforts to "close the gap" have become some of the more politically prominent education reform issues.

Standards-based reform and No Child Left Behind[edit]

The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) focuses on standards, aligned tests and school accountability to ensure that all students have the same educational opportunities. As written, the legislation requires that all students in all groups eventually perform at grade level in all tests, and that schools show continual improvement toward this goal (otherwise known as "Adequate Yearly Progress," or AYP) or face sanctions. Some have noted that schools with the highest proportion of poor and minority students generally face the greatest challenges to meeting these goals, and are therefore punished unfairly by the law.

More recently, the Obama Administration has instituted the Race to the Top (RTTT) program which provides financial incentives to states to produce measurable student gains. RTTT’s primary goals are to improve student achievement, close achievement gaps, and improve high school graduation rates.[38] The initiative is similar to the No Child Left Behind Act in that it has many of the same goals, though there is a bigger emphasis on closing the achievement gap between high and low performing schools[39] The major difference between the two educational reform programs is that RTTT is a competitive grant program that provides incentives for schools to change, while the NCLB Act mandated various changes in state and local education systems.[40]

School-based reform[edit]

A number of interventions have been implemented at the school, district and state level to address the achievement gap. These have included investment in pre-kindergarten programs, class size reduction, small schools, curricular reform, alignment of pre-kindergarten through college standards and expectations, and improved teacher education programs.[41] Many schools have started using after-school tutoring sessions and remedial programs. Such efforts aim to accelerate the learning of minority students to greater than a year's growth in one year's time so that over time they catch up to their peers. Other schools have started de-tracking their students in order to provide the same quality education for all students, regardless of race.

Teacher-focused reform[edit]

Another focus of reform efforts to address the achievement gap has been on teacher development, as research shows teachers to be the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement. This reform effort has been both top-down, in the form of higher state standards for teacher education and preparation,[42] as well as bottom-up, through programs like Teach for America and AmeriCorps that aim to address educational inequity by recruiting and training teachers specifically to work in high-needs schools.[43][44]

Investment in early childhood[edit]

One policy strategy aimed at preventing, or at least mitigating, the achievement gap at its earliest stages is investment in early childhood education. Economic research shows that investment at this stage is both more effective and cost effective than interventions later in a child’s life.[45] Head Start and various state-funded pre-kindergarten programs target students from low-income families in an attempt to level the playing field for these children before school begins. In addition to increased access, there has also an increased national focus on raising quality standards for Head Start and state-funded pre-K programs, and in improving training and professional development for early care providers.[46]

The evidence in favor of investing in early childhood education as a means of closing the achievement gap is strong: various studies, including the Carolina Abecedarian study, Child-Parent Center study, and HighScope Perry Preschool study, have shown that pre-K programs can have a positive and long-lasting impact on academic achievement of low-income and minority students.[47][48][49]

Effects of narrowing the racial achievement gap[edit]

Sociologists Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips have argued that narrowing the black-white test score gap "would do more to move [the United States] toward racial equality than any politically plausible alternative".[17] As already discussed, there is also strong evidence that narrowing the gap would have a significant positive economic and social impact.[50]

Narrowing The Achievement Gap Through Technology

Computer and technology use have been linked to increased student achievement. “When teachers and administrators make a sustained commitment to the use of computers in the classroom, student achievement increases (Mann & Shafer, 1997).[51] Using technology as a tool for narrowing the achievement gap begins with a purpose, communication, listening, and collaboration. These skills can be achieved through the use of weblogs, social networking sites, feeds, and a myriad of other multimedia. In classrooms, students can communicate internally, or they can work side by side with others who are located thousands of miles away. Through the use of technology, presentations can be archived so that the material can be reviewed at anytime. “All teachers could record important parts of what they do in the classroom that can then be archived to the class Weblog and used by students who may have missed the class or just want a refresher on what happened.” (Richardson, p. 117)[52]

Having access to information on the web gives students an advantage to learning. “Students at all levels show more interest in their work and their ability to locate and reflect upon their work is greatly enhanced as are the opportunities for collaborative learning” (Richardson, p. 28).[52] Weblogs are different than posts or comments; they require students to analyze and synthesize the content and communicate their understanding with the audience responses in mind.

Technology has been incorporated into the Standards. Even though the NCLB Act holds school districts accountable for student achievement, there are still many students who do not have the resources at home to fully take part in these excellent educational tools. Some teachers feel that technology is not the solution and see it as a risk. Therefore, technology is not always being used to its fullest potential by teachers and students do not gain the advantages technology offers. “Given the fact that the amount of information going online shows no sign of slowing, if they are unable to consistently collect potentially relevant information for their lives and careers and quickly discern what of that information is most useful, they will be at a disadvantage.” (Richardson, p. 73).[52]

According to the U.S. Census, by 2012, it is estimated that 70% of homes will have broadband access. While this is a large percentage, it still leaves 30% of households without internet access. The government has lent its hand in closing the Global Achievement Gap by granting funding for low-income school districts for programs such as one-on-one computing, however, the fact that many of these students do not have online capability at home is still a main issue. This digital divide may cause the achievement gap to increase as technology continues to become heavily integrated in the daily coursework for school children. Students need to have Internet access outside of school on a regular basis to successfully complete challenging courswork.

High-performing high-poverty and high-minority schools[edit]

Exceptions to the achievement gap exist. Schools that are majority black, even poor, can perform well above national norms, with Davidson Magnet School[citation needed] in Augusta, Georgia being a prominent example. Another school with remarkable gains for students of color is Amistad Academy in New Haven, Connecticut. These schools offer more rigorous, traditional modes of instruction, including Direct Instruction. In one study, Direct Instruction was found to be the single most effective pedagogical method for raising the skill levels of inner-city students (Project Follow Through). [3]

High performing Black schools are not unique to the twentieth century. In Washington, DC in the late 19th century, a predominantly low income Black school performed higher than three White schools in yearly testing. This trend continued until the mid 20th century, and during that time the M Street School exceeded national norms on standardized tests. [4]

In addition, each year the Education Trust identifies and honors high-performing high-poverty and high-minority schools. All of the "Dispelling the Myth" schools, as they are called, have made significant strides in narrowing achievement gaps, attaining proficiency levels that significantly exceed the averages in their states, or improving student performance at an especially rapid pace. These schools do not offer simple answers or easy solutions, but several common strategies emerge from their practices. They provide a rich curriculum coupled with strong, focused instruction. They have high expectations for all students. They use data to track student progress and individual student needs. And they employ purposeful professional development to improve teachers’ skills.[citation needed]

Racial achievement gap[edit]

The education of African Americans and some other minorities lags behind those of other U.S. ethnic groups, such as Whites and Asian Americans, as reflected by test scores, grades, urban high school graduation rates, rates of disciplinary action, and rates of conferral of undergraduate degrees. Indeed, high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates are comparable to those of whites 25 or 30 years ago. It should also be noted that the category of African immigrant population (excluding Haitians and other foreign-born blacks born outside of Africa) has the highest educational attainment of any group in the United States, but they represent a small group within the larger African American population.[53]

Although African Americans generally lag behind Asian Americans in test scores, so do Whites to a lesser degree. However, compared with children in areas of China and India where some children, especially girls end their education after the elementary level, education in the United States is compulsory to age 16 regardless of race or class. It is expected that over half of public education students will be required to pass standards-based assessments which expect that all students to be at least exposed to algebra by high school and exit prepared for college. In many other nations, such as Germany and Japan, those with lower test scores may be tracked as skilled tradepersons or unskilled laborers.

Education attainment[edit]

(Issued August 2003) Educational attainment by race and gender: 2000[54]
Census 2000 Brief
Percent of Adults 25 and over in group
Ranked by advanced degree                   HS   SC   BA   AD
Asian alone . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80.4 64.6 44.1 17.4
Men . . . . . . . . . . . . .               80.1 52.5 26.1 10.0
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.. . . . 85.5 55.4 27.0  9.8
White alone... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  83.6 54.1 26.1  9.5
Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    80.7 51.1 22.8  7.8
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . .    73.3 48.1 19.6  7.0
Black or African American alone . . . . .   72.3 42.5 14.3  4.8
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander  78.3 44.6 13.8  4.1
American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . 70.9 41.7 11.5  3.9
Hispanic or Latino (of any race).. . . . .  52.4 30.3 10.4  3.8
Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . 46.8 25.0  7.3  2.3
HS = high school completed SC = some college
BA = bachelor degree AD = advanced degree

African Americans lagged behind whites in 2000 by nearly a factor of two. However, it is less frequently observed[citation needed] that whites lag behind Asians by nearly as large a ratio. The group with the least education is not the African Americans, but the American Indians, Hispanic or Latino or other groups who have quite a different legacy of discrimination.[citation needed]

In 2008, over three millions degrees were awarded throughout the United States. Half of all degrees earned were bachelor's degrees. The bachelor's degree is one of the most awarded degrees for all ethnicities and races. Asians obtained bachelor's degrees more than any other race, followed by Whites. Asians obtains more first professional degree than any other race. A high percentage[clarification needed] of Hispanics and American Indians/Alaska Natives own an associate's degree compared with other races. About 1–2% doctorate degree are awarded to all races. The table below shows the number of degrees awarded for each group.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: United States Department of Education - 2008) [55]

Race Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree First professional degree Cumulative%
Asians 6.9% 31.6% 14.0% 6.4% 58.9%
Whites 9.3% 21.1% 8.4% 3.1% 41.9%
Blacks 8.9% 13.6% 4.9% 1.3% 28.7%
American Indians/Alaska Natives 8.4% 9.8% 3.6% 1.4% 23.2%
Hispanics 6.1% 9.4% 2.9% 1.0% 19.4%

College and University enrollment[edit]

Between 1978 - 2008, college enrollment rates increased for all races. The college enrollment rate is determined by the percentage of high school students who enroll in 2 year or 4 year college and universities immediately after completing high school. In 2008, the college enrollment rate for all races was 69%. Although the college rate increased for each racial and ethnic groups between 1980 and 2007, the enrollment rates for Blacks and Hispanics did not increase, the college enrollment rates for Blacks have increased from 44% to 56%. Between 1980 and 2007, the college enrollment rates for Hispanics have increased from 50% to 62%. In comparison the same rate increased from 49.8% to 77.7% for Whites. There are no data for Asians or American Indians/Alaska Natives regarding enrollment rates from the 1980s to 2007.[56]

In 2009, the enrollment rate of high school graduates reached a historical high of 70.1% (see above for statistics on the racial gap in graduation rates). Asian Americans have the highest enrollment rate (92.2%), followed by Whites (69.2%), Blacks (68.7%), and Hispanics (59.3%).[57]

Parenting Influence[edit]

Parenting methods are different across cultures, thus can have dramatic influence on education outcomes.[citation needed] For instance, Asian parents often apply strict rules and parental authoritarianism to their children while many white American parents deem creativity and self-sufficiency to be more valuable.[citation needed] The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom by Yale Professor Amy Chua, especially highlights some of the very important aspects in Asian parenting method in comparison to the “American way”. Chua’s book has generated interests and controversies in “Tiger Mom” parenting method and its role in determining the education outcome of the children.[58]

Illiteracy[edit]

African Americans were once denied equal educations. Even as late as 1947, about one third of African Americans over 65 were considered to lack the literacy to read and write their own names. However, by 1969, illiteracy as it had been traditionally defined, had been largely eradicated among African Americans—the number of among young adults was less than one percent, though African Americans still lag in more stringent definitions of document literacy. Inability to read, write or speak English in America today is largely an issue for immigrants, mostly from Asia and Latin America.

Illiteracy by Age And Race: 1947 to 1969
In thousands except percent
Civilian noninstitutional population 14 yrs and over
Source: US census

Nov 1969 14 ovr 14-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Total 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.1 3.5
White 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.7 2.3
Black 3.6 0.5 1.6 5.5 16.7
Mar 1959
Total 2.2 0.6 1.2 2.6 6.5
White 1.6 0.5 0.8 1.8 5.1
Black 7.5 1.2 5.1 11.3 25.5
Oct 1952
Total 2.5 1.2 1.3 3.5 6.9
White 1.8 0.8 5.0
Black 10.2 3.9 33.3
Oct 1947
Total 2.7 1.0 1.7 4.0 6.7
White 1.8 0.6 4.9
Black 11.0 4.4 32.4

Governmental policies[edit]

Successive U.S. governments have implemented many policies aimed at improving African American education.[citation needed] Schools were once legally segregated, and African American children often assigned to inferior schools, before people like Ruby Bridges challenged these policies in the 1960s.[citation needed] However, scholars, such as Gary Orrfield of Harvard, observe that many African Americans continue to be effectively segregated from other races in low-scoring schools.[citation needed] Some desegregation programs, such as that in Seattle, Washington, have been opposed as stepping over the original goal of simply creating freedom to attend schools nearby their communities to making certain politically determined racial percentages a goal in itself.[citation needed]

Multiculturalism has been introduced to be more inclusive of African American and other minority cultures and history.[citation needed] Most school districts have also adopted diversity policies to encourage the hiring of more minority teachers and staff.[citation needed] Many progressive education curriculum reform policies, such as reform mathematics and inquiry-based science, were designed to be more inclusive of minority students and cultures and learning styles.[citation needed]

As in the larger majority community, there remains a split between conservatives who believe that individuals should concentrate on a race-blind programs to master the same content as the most educated ethnic groups, and liberals who believe that the long historical legacy of discrimination and exclusion remains the largest impediment to equality in education. They emphasize race-conscious policies and the continued application of affirmative action and desegregation principles.

Private school education for African Americans[edit]

In Chicago, African American Marva Collins created a low cost private school specifically for the purpose of teaching low income African American children whom the public school system had labeled as being "learning disabled."[59] One article about Marva Collins' school stated, "Working with students having the worst of backgrounds, those who were working far below grade level, and even those who had been labeled as 'unteachable,' Marva was able to overcome the obstacles. News of third grade students reading at ninth grade level, four-year-olds learning to read in only a few months, outstanding test scores, disappearance of behavioral problems, second-graders studying Shakespeare, and other incredible reports, astounded the public."[60]

During the 2006-2007 school year, Collins' school charged $5,500 for tuition, and parents said that the school did a much better job than the Chicago public school system.[61] Meanwhile, during the 2007-2008 year, Chicago public school officials claimed that their budget of $11,300 per student was not enough.[62]

Immigrants & Foreign-born[edit]

Educational attainment rates change when it comes to comparing the same races against immigrants or foreign born students. Black African and Caribbean immigrant groups to the U.S report having higher levels of education than any other group.[63] Of all foreign-born U.S. residents, foreign born Africans (those who come from the African continent) nowadays have a higher level of educational attainment than any other racial or ethnic group in the United States.[64][65] They tend to be highly educated and be fluent in English. This trend was first reported in the 1990s' by the Journal of blacks in Higher Education and still continues today.[65][65]

According to the U.S census, "43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian Americans, 28.9 percent of immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole."[66] The educational attainment amount varies by group. According to the U.S. Census, out of the African populations, Nigerians reported to having the highest level of education.

High school graduation[edit]

Completed High School age 25-29 (1998)[67]

White Black Hispanic Asian
25+ 88% 77% 56% 85%
25-29 93% 89%

US Census surveys showed that by 1998, 89 percent of African Americans age 25 to 29 had completed high school, lagging only slightly behind 93 percent for whites. For all over the age of 25, clear majorities of whites, Asian Americans and African Americans had graduated at 88 percent, 85 percent and 77 percent, respectively. 56 percent, or barely over half of Hispanics 25 and over, had completed high school.

Income and class[edit]

SAT Test scores vs income and race

White Black Hispanic Asian
Income x $1000 verbal math verbal math verbal math verbal math
under 10 409 460 320 315 330 386 343 482
10-20 418 459 337 369 349 403 363 500
20-30 428 471 352 382 369 420 397 518
30-40 433 478 362 393 384 431 415 528
40-50 439 488 375 405 399 446 432 537
50-60 446 498 382 414 409 456 444 549
60-70 453 506 385 415 415 458 453 558
over 70 475 533 407 442 430 478 476 595
overall 448 498 376 426 356 388 418 538

Source: 1995 College Board SAT Profiles[68]

Conservative African American scholars such as Thomas Sowell observe that while SAT scores are lower for students with less parental education and income. Asian Americans who took the SAT with incomes below $10,000 score 482 in math in 1995, comparable to whites earning $30–40,000 and higher and blacks over $70,000. Test scores in middle-income black communities, such as Prince George County, are still not comparable to those in non-black suburbs.

State standards[edit]

Most state tests showing African American failure rates anywhere from two to four times the rate of whites, such as Washington State's WASL test, and only half to one-quarter as likely to achieve a high score, even though these tests were designed to eliminate the negative effects of bias associated with standardized multiple choice tests. It is a top goal of education reform to eliminate the Education gap between all races, though skeptics question whether legislation such as No Child Left Behind truly closes the gap just by raising expectations. Others, such as Alfie Kohn, observe it may merely penalize those who do not score as well as the most educated ethnic and income groups.[69]

Scored Level 3 on WASL Washington Assessment of Student Learning, Mathematics Grade 4 (1997) Data: Office Washington State Superintendent of Instruction

White Black Hispanic Asian Native American
17.1% 4.0% 4.3% 15.6% 1.6%

Religion[edit]

The amount of education completed varies greatly between members of religions in the United States. Over 74% of Hindus, 59% of Jews and 51% of Unitarians have 4 or more years of college, compared with 27% of the total population. Members of evangelical churches, historically black Protestant churches and Jehovah’s Witness are just 20%, 16% and 9%, respectively.[70]

US Religions Ranked by percentage with 4 or more years of college From “Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream,” Pew Research Center, 2007 Due to rounding, rows may not add to 100.

College+ Name Less High School High school grad Some college College grad Postgraduate Sample College
1 Hindu 4 12 10 26 48 253 74
2 Jewish Reform 1 17 17 31 35 315 66
3 Jewish 3 19 19 24 35 676 59
4 Jewish Conservative 4 18 21 23 35 218 58
5 Unitarian and Other Liberal Faiths 3 16 30 22 29 296 51
6 Buddhist 3 23 26 22 26 408 48
7 Orthodox 6 26 22 28 18 362 46
8 Greek Orthodox 2 33 21 25 18 168 43
9 Agnostic 5 22 29 23 20 825 43
10 Atheist 8 28 23 21 21 509 42
11 Other Christian 12 22 27 20 20 129 40
12 Other Faiths 7 25 28 18 21 448 39
13 Mainline Protestant 9 34 24 20 14 7429 34
14 Secular Unaffiliated 10 35 24 17 13 1995 30
15 Unaffiliated 13 34 24 16 13 5009 29
16 Mormon 9 30 32 18 10 578 28
17 Total Population 14 36 23 16 11 35298 27
18 Catholic 17 36 21 16 10 7990 26
19 Total Protestants 14 38 24 15 9 18825 24
20 Muslim* 21 32 23 14 10 1031 24
21 New Age 13 38 25 13 11 118 24
22 Members of Evangelical Protestant Churches 16 40 24 13 7 9411 20
23 Religious Unaffiliated 21 40 22 11 6 1680 17
24 Historically Black Protestant Churches 19 40 25 11 5 1985 16
25 Jehovah's Witnesses 19 51 22 6 3 211 9

International Comparison[edit]

As a whole, students in the United States lagged the best Asian and European nations in the TIMSS international math and science test. However, broken down by race, US Asians scored comparably to Asian nations, white Americans scored comparably to the best European nations. Although some racial generally score lower than whites in the US, they scored as well as whites in other European nations. Hispanic Americans averaged 505, comparable to students Austria and Sweden, while African Americans at 482 were comparable to Norway, and Ukraine.

[71]

International educational math scores (2007)
(4th graders average score, TIMSS
International Math and Science Study, 2007)
American students:
(by origin)
Maths
Score
Asian American 582
European American 550
Hispanic American 504
African American 482

Highlights From TIMSS 2007


Gender achievement gap in the United States[edit]

For the past fifty years, there has been a gap in the educational achievement of males and females in the United States, but which gender has been disadvantaged has fluctuated over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s, data showed girls trailing behind boys in a variety of academic performance measures, specifically in test scores in math and science.[72]

Data in the last twenty years shows the general trend of girls outperforming boys in academic achievement in terms of class grades across all subjects and college graduation rates, but boys scoring higher on standardized tests and being better represented in the higher-paying and more prestigious STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math).[72]

Gender gap in literacy[edit]

Achievement gaps between boys and girls in the United States are more pronounced in reading and writing than in math and science.

Traditionally, girls have outperformed boys in reading and writing. Although this gap may be minimal in kindergarten, it grows as students continue their education. According the 2004 National Reading Assessment measured by the US Department of Education, the gap between boys and girls, only slightly noticeable in 4th grade, left boys 14 points behind girls during their 12th grade year.[73] On the 2008 test, female students continued to have higher average reading scores than male students at all three ages. The gap between male and female 4th graders was 7 points in 2008. By 12th grade, there was an 11 point gap between males and females.[73]

On the 2002 National Writing Assessment, boys scored on average 17 points lower than girls in 4th grade. The average gap increased to 21 points by 8th grade and widened to 24 points by senior year in high school.[74] In the more recent 2007 National Assessment of Writing Skills, female students continued to score higher than male students, though margins closed slightly from previous assessments. The average score for female eighth-graders was 20 points higher than males, down 1 point from the 2002 score. For twelfth-graders, females outscored males by 18 points as opposed to 21 points in 2002.[75]

All of these assessments were conducted on a 100-point scale.[73][74][75]

Gender gap in math and science[edit]

Which gender is disadvantaged by the gap in math and science achievement largely depends on how academic achievement is being measured. Female students generally have better grades in their math classes, and this gap starts off very minimal but increases with age.[76] However, males score higher on standardized math tests, and these score gaps also increase with age. Male students also score higher on measures of college readiness, such as the AP Calculus exams and the math section of the SAT.[77]

The differences in National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) math scores between boys and girls nearly double from the 9-year olds to the 17-year olds.[78] This inconsistency in which gender shows more achievement could be due to the fact that class grades, especially in middle and high school, usually depend on a student’s completion of homework assignments, and studies have shown that girls report spending more time on homework than boys.[79] The gender gap in mathematics is particularly large among the highest-achieving students; for example, there is a 2.1 to 1 male-female ratio among students who score an 800 on the math portion of the SAT.[80]

At least one study has challenged the existence of the gender gap in mathematics. In 2008 Janet Hyde and others published a study showing that male and female students did equally well on No Child Left Behind standardized tests that were administered in second through eleventh grades in ten states. However, Hyde and her team did find gaps that favored males at the upper end of the achievement distribution and tried to examine gaps on more difficult test questions (previous research has shown that males outperform females on more challenging items), but the tests they examined lacked adequately challenging items. This raised questions about whether there is still a gender gap in math achievement.[81]

There is also a large discrepancy between the number of men and women working in STEM fields. Women have been, and continue to be, underrepresented in these fields. This underrepresentation is evident in the distribution of college majors among men and women; from 1997 to 2007, women earned only 18% of engineering bachelor’s degrees.[82]

Gender gap in graduation rates[edit]

According to recent data, 55 percent of college students are females and 45 percent are males. From 1995 until 2005, the number of males enrolled in college increased by 18 percent, while the number of female students rose by 27 percent.[83] Males are enrolling in college in greater numbers than ever before, yet fewer than two-thirds of them are graduating with a bachelor’s degree. The numbers of both men and women receiving a bachelor’s degree have increased significantly, but the increasing rate of female college graduates exceeds the increasing rate for males.[84]

A higher proportion of men (29.4%) hold bachelor’s degrees than women (26.1%). In 2007, the United States Census Bureau estimated that 18,423,000 males ages over the age of 18 held a bachelor’s degree, while 20,501,000 females over the age 18 held one. In addition, fewer males held master’s degrees: 6,472,000 males compared to 7,283,000 females. However, more men held professional and doctoral degrees than women. 2,033,000 males held professional degrees compared to 1,079,000, and 1,678,000 males had received a doctoral degree compared to 817,000 females.[85]

Gender gap in lifetime earnings[edit]

Although more women are graduating with undergraduate degrees, men are still earning disproportionately more in their lifetimes. This could be due to many factors, including different types of jobs for males and females. Females are greatly underrepresented in science and engineering fields, which are typically correlated with high lifetime earnings.[86] Males and females also have vastly different labor market histories based on type of job and time spent in each job.[82]

Possible causes of the gender achievement gap in the United States[edit]

Teacher interactions[edit]

How a student interacts with and is evaluated by his or her teachers is closely correlated with that student’s future academic achievement. According to researcher Thomas Good, there are two competing views of how teachers can indirectly impact the achievement of their students. The first is that teachers are more likely to give special attention and extra assistance to students who appear to be struggling in their class. In reading and writing classes, male students are often behind female students in terms of achievement. Therefore, male students are more likely to get more teacher attention, and this extra interaction could give males an advantage in terms of future achievement. The second view is that teachers demand more and show more respect toward students who they view to be high achievers, which creates a cycle in which only students who are perceived to be intelligent receive extra help and teacher attention.[87]

Teacher evaluations[edit]

How teachers perceive students’ knowledge and abilities varies by gender and influences classroom processes and student achievement in both reading and math. Teachers usually have higher expectations for students they view as higher achievers and treat these students with more respect.[87] A study by Tach and Farkas has also found that when students are split into reading groups based on their abilities, the students in the higher-ability reading groups are more likely to demonstrate positive learning behaviors and higher achievement.[88]

Teachers are more likely to favor girls when evaluating what types of readers students seem to be. Because studies have shown that teacher perceptions of students can determine how much individualized attention a student receives and can serve as an indicator of future academic progress, if teachers underestimate males’ reading abilities and use ability grouping in their classrooms, male students might be put at a disadvantage and have their learning in reading classes be negatively affected.[88][89] The opposite trend has been found in math classes. Teachers still tend to view math as a “masculine” subject and tend to have higher expectations for and better attitude towards their male students in these classes.[90]

A study by Fennema et al. has also shown that teachers tend to name males when asked to list their “best math students.”[91] Females are more likely than males to be negatively impacted than male students by this underestimation of their math abilities.[92] These gender-specific evaluations from teachers are implicit; usually the teachers have no idea that they are favoring one gender over the other until they are shown concrete evidence, such as a video recording of their classroom. However, even though the discrimination is implicit, it still has negative effects on both male and female students.[87]

There is conflicting evidence about whether teacher assessments of student performance and ability are consistent with cognitive assessments like standardized tests. Teacher assessment evidence comes from a relatively small number of classrooms when compared to standardized tests, which are administered in every public school in all fifty states.[93]

Stereotyping[edit]

There is speculation that gender stereotyping within classrooms can also lead to differences in academic achievement and representation for female and male students. Math and science are often perceived as “masculine” subjects because they lead to success in “masculine” fields, such as medicine and engineering. English and history, on the other hand, are often perceived as “feminine” subjects because they are more closely aligned with “feminine” jobs, such as teaching or care work. These stereotypes can influence student achievement in these areas.[94]

Research on stereotype threat has shown that gender stereotypes decrease the mathematical self-esteem of many female students, and that this lack of academic confidence leads to anxiety and poorer performance on math exams.[95] If self-esteem declines throughout a student’s schooling, the achievement gap between genders will increase.

Parent socialization[edit]

How a child's parents view his or her skills can also contribute to the gender achievement gap in education. A study by Jacobs and Eccles has shown that adults rate female children as having better social skills than male children, and that girls are more likely to be seen as "good children" than boys.[96] These gender-based stereotypes can perpetuate the gender achievement gap in education by influencing parents' perceptions of their children's skills, and these perceptions can influence the types of activities and subjects parents steer their children toward.[96]

Implications of the gender gap[edit]

It is important to address the gender achievement gap in education because failure to cultivate the academic talents of any one group will have aggregate negative consequences. If women are underrepresented in STEM fields, and if men are underrepresented in the social sciences and humanities, both genders are missing opportunities to develop diverse skill sets that can help them in the workplace.[94]

If the gender achievement gap in education continues to exist, so does the stereotype that medicine, science, and engineering are all “masculine” fields and that women belong in fields like teaching, counseling, or social work. This stereotype can lead to the image that women who pursue careers in the STEM fields are seen as “nerdy” or “geeky,” and this can have a detrimental effect on the self-esteem of females who do choose to enter these fields.[94]

Researchers have found that the gender achievement gap has a large impact on the future career choices of high-achieving students. Part of this is a result of the college majors that men and women choose; men are more likely to major in engineering or the hard sciences, while women are more likely to receive degrees in English, psychology, or sociology. Therefore, men are statistically more likely to enter careers that have more potential for higher long-term earnings than women.[82]

The careers that are aligned with these majors have different levels of prestige and different salaries, which can lead to a gender wage gap. U.S. Census data indicates that women who work full-time earn only 77% of what their male counterparts earn. For men and women who are ten years out of college, women earn only 69% of the salaries of their male workers.[82] The perpetuation of the gender achievement gap will also lead to the perpetuation of this gender wage gap.

Attempts to reduce the gender gap[edit]

There have been several studies done of interventions aimed at reducing the gender achievement gap in science classes. Some interventions, such as instituting mentoring programs aimed at women or restructuring the course curriculum, have had limited success. The most successful interventions have been a form of psychological interventions called values affirmation. In a famous study of women's achievement in college science by Miyake et al., values affirmation was successful in reducing the differences between male and female academic achievement in college-level introductory physics classes, and it has been particularly effective at combating the psychological phenomenon known as stereotype threat.[97]

Values affirmation exercises require students to either write about their most important values or their least important values two times at the beginning of the 15-week course. After this intervention, the modal grades of women enrolled in the course increased from a C to a B. Psychological interventions such as this one show promise for increasing women's achievement in math and science courses and reducing the achievement gap that exists between the genders in these subject areas, but further research will need to be done in order to determine whether the positive effects are long-lasting.[97]

LGBT achievement gap[edit]

The LGBT achievement gap refers to the difference in academic performance and achievement between LGBT youth and their heterosexual peers. Historically, the circumstance of LGBT youth in education has received little attention from scholars and the media.[98] The term LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons but often is understood to encompass the sexual minority. Before the turn of the century, little research went into the topic of the LGBT population in schools. However, with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's (GLSEN) recurring study on school climate in the U.S. for LGBT students, there is now more information indicating the existence of an achievement gap. LGBT students in the U.S. tend to have lower GPAs than their heterosexual peers, as well as higher truancy and dropout rates. There are many supposed causes of this achievement gap, as well as efforts to alleviate the disparity.[99]

In United States secondary schools, LGBT youth often have more difficult experiences compared to their heterosexual peers, leading to observed underachievement, though current data is limited. In Massachusetts, LGBT youth are 12% less likely to make A and B grades than their heterosexual peers.[100] The GLSEN reports that 92.3% of LGBT youth report experienced harassment in 2011, compared to about 25% of the general youth population (as reported by the United States Department of Justice).[99][100][101] Among LGBT youth, those who endure more severe harassment report significantly lower GPAs than LGBT youth who endure less harassment (2.9 to 3.2, respectively). Less-harassed LGBT youth are also twice as likely to plan for higher education than their highly victimized peers, indicating a general lack of interest in school among LGBT youth.[99]

Dropping out and absenteeism are also concerns with LGBT youth. According to the National Education Association’s report on LGBT students, gay and bisexual students are almost twice as likely to consider dropping out as heterosexual students, and transgendered students are even more likely.[100] High instances of dropping out prevent LGBT students from pursuing higher education. Because most studies focus on students enrolled in school and it is hard to find a sample of student youth out of school, an accurate count of LGBT youth who have dropped out of school is hard to obtain.[99] While many LGBT students do not drop out, they often miss school because they feel unsafe. Nationwide, about 50% of students enduring severe verbal harassment, and 70% of students enduring severe physical harassment miss school once a month out of concern for their safety.[99] Studies in Massachusetts schools indicate that LGBT students are up to six times more likely than heterosexual students to miss school. Likewise, students in California who endure harassment "because of actual or perceived sexual orientation" are three times as likely as non-harassed heterosexual students to miss school, meaning even heterosexual students harassed for suspected sexual orientation endure some of these problems.[100]

Despite such evidence of negative experiences, some LGBT find positive benefits in coming out. Students who are out, while receiving increased harassment from homophobic peers, have lower instances of depression and a greater sense of belonging, a phenomenon well documented in other LGBT studies as well.[99][102]

Though popular belief attributes homosexuality to higher education levels, more current studies suggest otherwise.[103] An extensive nationwide survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that, among women, LGBT identity is inversely related to education level, meaning that for every progressive education level, the percentage of women identifying as LGBT steadily decreases. For instance, while 6.7% of women with no high school diploma identify as lesbian, bisexual, or something else, only 2.9% of women with a bachelor’s degree or higher identify that way. The same study showed no statistically significant correlation between LGBT identity and education for men.[104] Studies on LGBT students in college show that LGBT students, while not enduring the same harassment and struggles as LGBT youth in high schools, still have different experiences than their heterosexual peers, sometimes for the better: gay men in college have significantly higher GPAs and are more involved in extra-curricular activities than their heterosexual peers. Lesbian and bisexual women, however, report being much less satisfied with their education than heterosexual women in college.[105]

Causes of the LGBT achievement gap[edit]

There are many possible explanations for the LGBT achievement gap. With extensive studies into the personal experiences of LGBT youth by the GLSEN, the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and other organizations, some issues relevant to LGBT youth stand out as affecting academic outcomes.

The most highly documented and widely studied cause of underachievement by LGBT students is the problem of bullying in schools.[99][100] Out of students of any sexual identity who feel unsafe at school, 60% feel so because of their sexual orientation. More specifically, a bully’s perception of a student’s sexual orientation or gender-nonconformity—not necessarily the individual’s actual sexual identity—leads to bullying. Because of this, a gender-nonconforming yet heterosexual student could experience some of the same academic outcomes attributed to the LGBT students.[100] 33% of LGBT students nationwide have skipped school at lease once in a single month for personal safety, and these students who have missed school are three times more likely to attempt suicide than those who have not missed school.[100]

In addition to their schooling experience, LGBT youth often have negative home environments. LGBT youth have a very unique situation in that the may not find any support from their family. Upon coming out to their parents, 50% of LGBT teens met a negative reaction.[100][106] Two studies indicate that approximately 30% of LGBT youth encountered physical violence and 26% were kicked out of the house. This risk is higher for transgender teens.[106] Because of these negative home environments, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, based on studies in Seattle, estimates that 40% of all homeless youth in the United States are LGBT, compared to roughly 3.5% of the general population.[106][107] In addition to these homeless youths’ higher risk for sexual violence, drug abuse, and prostitution, all of which would affect performance (or general attendance) in school, these youth may not be able to enroll in school at all. Some public schools are either reluctant to or ignorant about enrolling homeless students, significantly thwarting a teen’s pursuit of educational opportunities.[100][106]

Proposed solutions to the LGBT achievement gap[edit]

Government-based as well as independent organizations focusing on education or LGBT issues have proposed solutions to improving the experiences of LGBT youth in schools. One such solution is the inclusion of LGBT-related subjects in a school's curriculum, shown to improve LGBT youths' performance in school. When surveyed, school personnel in California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota ranked lesson plans as the top need in addressing LGBT concerns.[100] The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States proposes including LGBT curriculum in school health and sex education classes. Their proposed curriculum would aim to teach students, over the course of their K-12 education, to understand sexual orientation as well as gender roles, and treat others with respect, among other key concepts.[108] However, many states in the U.S. including Alabama, Texas, Arizona, and others, have laws explicitly prohibiting the inclusion of homosexuality in education. Alabama and Texas laws even requirement of teaching that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. Significant opposition to changing these statutes exist in these states, preventing the inclusion of LGBT curriculum.[109]

The NEA recommends the inclusion of specific school policies protecting LGBT from harassment and bullying. LGBT students in Massachusetts who attend schools with safety policies explicitly regarding LGBT students are 3.5 times more likely to make A and B grades than LGBT youth in other schools.[100] Additionally, student organizations such as gay-straight alliances (GSAs) can improve the experience of LGBT youth in schools. Even when LGBT students don't participate in their school's GSA, the very presence of the organization can reduce threat and injury of LGBT students by one-third, and reduce LGBT suicide attempts by almost 50%. LGBT students in Massachusetts schools with GSAs were twice as likely to earn A and B grades than LGBT students in schools without GSAs.[100]

See also[edit]

General:

References[edit]

  1. ^ Carnoy & Rothstein, "International Tests Show Achievement Gaps in All Countries", Economic Policy Institute, January 15, 2013
  2. ^ Joseph Rowntree Bawlls vs Lunch "Education and Poverty", "How Does Poverty Affect Children's Education?"
  3. ^ Berliner, D., "Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success", Education Public Interest Center, 2009
  4. ^ Berliner, D., "Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform", Teachers College Record, 2006
  5. ^ Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships: The Impact of Cultural Capital Annette Lareau, 1987
  6. ^ a b Tracking: From Theory to Practice Maureen Hallinan 1994
  7. ^ Hanlon, Harriet; Robert Thatcher; Marvin Cline (1999). "Gender Differences in the Development of EEG Coherence in Normal Children". Developmental Neuropsychology 16 (3): 479–506. 
  8. ^ Sax, Leonard (2005). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. Portland: Doubleday. 
  9. ^ Hernstein, R. J., and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (The Free Press, 1994).
  10. ^ "Genetic Differences and School Readiness" William T. Dickens, 2005
  11. ^ "Race, IQ, and Jensen" James R. Flynn (London: Routledge, 1980)
  12. ^ Nisbett, Richard. “Race, Genetics, and IQ,” in The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (Brookings, 1998), pp. 86–102.
  13. ^ "School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps" Cecilia Rouse, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, & Sara McLanahan, 2005
  14. ^ Meredith Phillips, James Crouse, and John Ralph, “Does the Black-White Test Score Gap Widen after Children Enter School?” in The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Jencks and Phillips (Brookings, 1998)
  15. ^ "Assessment Issues in the Testing of Children at School Entry" Donald A. Rock and A. Jackson Stenner, 2005
  16. ^ "School Readiness and Later Achievement" G. J. Duncan et al, 2007
  17. ^ a b c America's Next Achievement Test: Closing the Black-White Test Score Gap Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips 1998
  18. ^ Hart and Risley (1995). Meaningful differences in the every day experiences of young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
  19. ^ a b Immigration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation Among Latino Adolescents Carola Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco 1995
  20. ^ http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107
  21. ^ Steele, C., and J. Aronson, “Stereotype Threat and the Test Performance of Academically Successful African Americans” (pp. 401–430), in C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1998).
  22. ^ Black Students' School Success: Coping with the "Burden of 'Acting White'" Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu 1986
  23. ^ Black Students' School Success: Coping with the "Burden of 'Acting White'" Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu 1986
  24. ^ Education and the Inequalities of Place Vincent J.Roscigno, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley 2006
  25. ^ Gordon, Kane & Staiger (2006). 'Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job.' Brookings Institution.
  26. ^ Why Do Some Schools Group By Ability? Peter G. VanderHart 2006
  27. ^ Detracking: The Social Construction of Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform Jeannie Oakes, Amy Stuart Wells, Makeba Jones, and Amanda Datnow 1997
  28. ^ Urban Teachers' Beliefs on Teaching, Learning, and Students: A Pilot Study in the United States of America Kim Hyunsook Song 2006
  29. ^ Social Class in Public Schools Jennifer L. Hochschild 2003
  30. ^ Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Adam Gamoran 1992
  31. ^ a b "Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness" Katherine A. Magnuson & Jane Waldfogel, 2005
  32. ^ Bruce Fuller, 2010 (referenced in: http://www.mccormickfoundation.org/pdf/press%20release%20-%20NJLC%20Illinois%20as%20Trailblazer.pdf
  33. ^ "Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does it Matter?" W. Steven Barnett & Donald J. Yarosz, 2007
  34. ^ "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap on America's Schools" McKinsey & Company, 2009
  35. ^ "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap on America's Schools" McKinsey & Company, 2009
  36. ^ "The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence From Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-reports" L. Lochner & E. Moretti, 2004
  37. ^ Krueger, Alan B. & Diane M. Whitmore. "Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap?" in Bridging the Achievement Gap (The Brookings Institution, 2002).
  38. ^ "Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top". The White House. Archived from the original on 9 April 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011. 
  39. ^ Lohman, Judith. "Comparing No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top". Retrieved April 9, 2011. 
  40. ^ Lohman, Judith. "Comparing No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top". Retrieved April 9, 2011. 
  41. ^ "Bridging the Achievement Gap" John E. Chubb & Tom Loveless, 2002
  42. ^ "Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching" Linda Darling-Hammond(prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1997)
  43. ^ "Teach for America: Our Approach". Retrieved April 13, 2011. 
  44. ^ "Federal Way Public Schools AmeriCorps team". Retrieved October 17, 2011. 
  45. ^ "Investments in Early Childhood as a Means for Deficit Reduction" James Heckman, 2010
  46. ^ "The Changing Landscape of Pre-K: Examining the changes and impacts of quality standards in prekindergarten at the national, state, district and program levels". Archived from the original on 17 April 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. 
  47. ^ Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772.
  48. ^ "The Chicago Child-Parent Centers: A Longitudinal Study of Extended Early Childhood Intervention" Arthur J. Reynolds, 1997
  49. ^ "Long-term Study of Adults who Received High-Quality Early Childhood Care and Education Shows Economic and Social Gains, Less Crime" (http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=282)
  50. ^ "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap on America's Schools" McKinsey & Company, 2009
  51. ^ Mann, D. & Shafer, E. (1997). Technology and Achievement. The American School Board Journal. Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/achievement/cilcilo.html
  52. ^ a b c Richardson, W. (2010), Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms
  53. ^ U.S. Census http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml
  54. ^ [1] Education Attainment in the United States 2000
  55. ^ U.S. Department of Education
  56. ^ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf
  57. ^ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/college-enrollment-rate-at-record-high/
  58. ^ "Tiger Moms: Is Tough Parenting Really the Answer?". Time Magazine. 
  59. ^ Marva Collins Seminars, Inc.
  60. ^ Excerpts from Ordinary Children, Extraordinary Teachers and Marva Collins’ Way
  61. ^ Marva Collins School to close, ABC News, June 05, 2008
  62. ^ Chicago students skip school in funding protest, Associated Press, September 2, 2008
  63. ^ http://www.uwec.edu/geography/ivogeler/w188/datarace.htm
  64. ^ http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/DoesAffirmativeActionAddressIntraRacialDivides.htm
  65. ^ a b c http://www.aracorporation.org/files/14._africans_most_educated.pdf
  66. ^ http://www.africaresource.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235:african-immigrants-are-the-most-educated&catid=135:immigration&Itemid=348
  67. ^ Public Information Office, U.S. Census Bureau. High School Completions at All-Time High, Census Bureau Reports. 15 September 2000.
  68. ^ [2] Hu's Index of Diversity
  69. ^ See 2006 Wall Street article by Charles Murray which claims NCLB punishes minority students and does not close basic skill differences
  70. ^ data from 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Lif US Religious Landscape Survey Educational Level by Religious Tradition
  71. ^ Asian Week Dec 24, 2008 "Math Gap"
  72. ^ a b Kafir, Krista (April 2007). "Taking the Boy Crisis in Education Seriously: How School Choice can Boost Achievement Among Boys and Girls." Independent Women's Forum.
  73. ^ a b c Perie, M. (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
  74. ^ a b Persky, H. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2002. US Department of Education.
  75. ^ a b Salahu-Din, Debra (2008). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007. US Department of Education.
  76. ^ Dee, T. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 1–28; Adeleke, M. (2007). Gender disparity in mathematical performance revisited: can training in problem solving bring difference between boys and girls?. Essays in Education, 21.
  77. ^ Amelink, C. (2009). Information sheet: gender differences in math performance . Assessing Women in Engineering, 1–4.
  78. ^ Dee, T. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 1–28.
  79. ^ Lubienski, S. T., McGraw, R., & Strutchens, M. (2004). NAEP findings regarding gender: Mathematics achievement, student affect, and learning practices. In P. Kloosterman, & F. K. Lester Jr. (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 305–336). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  80. ^ CollegeBoard.com. 2010. “SAT Percentile Rank or Males, Females, and Total Group, 2007 College-Bound Seniors—Mathematics.” A table. h t t p : // w w w . c o l l e g e b o a r d . c o m / p r o d _ d o w n l o a d s /highered/ra/sat/SAT_percentile_ranks _males_females_total_group_mathematics.pdf.
  81. ^ Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize mathematics performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495.
  82. ^ a b c d Dey, J. G., & Hill, C. (2007). Beyond the pay gap. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
  83. ^ Digest of Education Statistics 2007
  84. ^ Mead, Sara. (2006). The Evidence Suggests Otherwise: The Truth About Boys and Girls. Washington: Education Sector.
  85. ^ U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2007.
  86. ^ Bedard, Kelly and Insook Cho. (2010). Early gender test score gaps across OECD countries. Economics of Education Review, 29(1): 348-363.
  87. ^ a b c Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32–47.
  88. ^ a b Tach, L. M., & Farkas, G. (2006). Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when schooling begins. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1048–1079.
  89. ^ Nigro, G., M. Tappan, and S. Desrochers. (2008). The gender divide in academic engagement: Perspectives from Maine boys and young men. Report presented at the annual meeting of the Maine Boys Network conference, Bates College, Lewiston, ME.
  90. ^ Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41(1), 63–76.
  91. ^ Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(1), 55–69.
  92. ^ McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gen- der in children’s differential response to teacher expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 159–184.
  93. ^ Robinson, Joseph Paul and Sarah Theule Lubienski. (2010). The Development of Gender Achievement Gaps in Mathematics and Reading During Elementary and Middle School: Examining Direct Cognitive Assessments and Teacher Ratings. American Education Research Journal 48(268): 268-302.
  94. ^ a b c Ellison, Glenn and Ashley Swanson. (2010). The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2): 109-128.
  95. ^ Amelink, C. (2009). Information sheet: gender differences in math performance. Assessing Women in Engineering, 1–4.
  96. ^ a b Jacobs, Janis E. and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. (1992). The Impact of Mothers' Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers' and Children's Ability Perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(6): 932-944.
  97. ^ a b Akira Miyake, Lauren E. Kost-Smith, Noah D. Finkelstein, Steven J. Pollock, Geoffrey L. Cohen, and Tiffany A. Ito. (2010). Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation. Science 330(6008): 1234-1237.
  98. ^ Harrell, J. (2013, September 10). The LGBT Achievement Gap Needs to Get Out of the Closet. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-harrell/the-lgbt-achievement-gap-needs-to-get-out-of-the-closet_b_3890764.html
  99. ^ a b c d e f g Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nation's Schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). 121 West 27th Street Suite 804, New York, NY 10001.
  100. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Kim, R. (2009). A report on the status of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in education: Stepping out of the closet, into the light. National Education Association.
  101. ^ http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-statistics.html
  102. ^ Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. A. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing and measuring stress-related growth associated with coming out to others as a sexual minority. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 94-109.
  103. ^ Lewin, T. (2011, March 17). Study undercuts view of college as a place of same-sex experimentation. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/education/18sex.html?_r=0
  104. ^ Mosher, W. D., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
  105. ^ Carpenter, C. S. (2009). Sexual orientation and outcomes in college. Economics of Education Review, 28(6), 693-703.
  106. ^ a b c d Ray, N., & Berger, C. (2007). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: An epidemic of homelessness. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
  107. ^ Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender?.
  108. ^ McGarry, R. (2013). Build a curriculum that includes everyone. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(5), 27-31.
  109. ^ Hoshall, L. (2013). AFRAID OF WHO YOU ARE: NO PROMO HOMO LAWS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SEX EDUCATION. Texas Journal Of Women & The Law, 22(2), 219-239.

Further reading[edit]

  • Arrow, Kenneth; Bowles, Samuel; Durlauf, Steven, eds. (2000). Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00468-6. Lay summary (September 29, 2010). 
  • Shapely, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and Its Relationship with Student Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

External links[edit]