Achievement gap in the United States

Education in the United States
Education portal
United States portal

The achievement gap in the United States is the observed, persistent disparity in measures of educational performance among subgroups of U.S. 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 around the globe as well.

Research into the causes of the disparity in academic achievement between students from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds has been ongoing since the 1966 publication of the Coleman Report (officially titled "Equality of Educational Opportunity"), commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, which found that a combination of home, community, and in-school factors affect academic performance and contribute to the achievement gap. According to American educational psychologist David Berliner, home and community environments have a stronger impact on school achievement than in-school factors, in part, because students spend more time outside of school than in school. In addition, the out-of-school factors influencing academic performance differ significantly between children living in poverty and children from middle-income households.[3][4]

The achievement gap, as reported in trend data collected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), has become a focal point of education reform efforts by a number of nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups. Attempts to minimize the achievement gap by improving equality of access to educational opportunities have been numerous but fragmented, such as affirmative action, multicultural education, finance equalization, and interventions to improve school testing, teacher quality and accountability.

Racial achievement gap

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.[5]

East Asian Americans of Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean and Han Chinese descent score the highest in all scholastic standardized tests such as the SAT, GRE, MCAT, USMLE exams and IQ tests followed by caucasian White people who score in the intermediate range followed by African-American and Hispanic students who tend to score in the lower ranges. U.S. students as whole have in general attained average scores on the International PISA test while other wealthy industrialized developed East Asian countries, such as Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and South Korea have the highest top scores. However, compared with children in some less developed countries like 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.

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

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

Caucasian-African American gap

Caucasian-Hispanic gap

Reading

Results of the reading achievement test:

Caucasian-African American gap

Caucasian-Hispanic gap


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

Debate on the origins of the racial achievement gap

Researchers have not reached consensus about the 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.[6] Other researchers suggest that academic achievement is more closely tied to race and socioeconomic status and have tried to pinpoint why.[7]

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.[8]

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.[9]

Hernstein and Murray claimed in the book The Bell Curve,[10] creating much controversy, that genetic variation in average levels of intelligence (IQ) may explain some portion of the 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.[11][12][13]

The racial achievement gap in early childhood

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.[14] One study claims that about half the test score gap between black and white high school students is already evident when children start school.[15]

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.[16]

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.[17] 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

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.[18] Hart and Risley calculated a "30 million word gap" between children of high school dropouts and those of professionals who are college educated. The differences are qualitative as well as quantitative, with differences in "unique" words, complexity, and "conversational turns."[19]

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.[20]

Studies show that when students have parental assistance with homework, they perform better in school.[21] 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)[22] 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.[21]

Hispanic views toward education

Disadvantages in a child’s early life can cultivate into achievement gaps in their education. Poverty, coupled with the environment they are raised in, can lead to shortcomings in educational achievement. Despite strong standards and beliefs in education, Hispanic children consistently perform poorly, reflected by a low average of math and reading scores, as compared to other groups except African American.[23] Hispanic and African American children have been shown to be more likely to be raised in poverty, with 33% of Hispanic families living below the economic poverty level, compared to African American (39%), Asian (14%) and White (13%) counterparts.[23] Children who are raised in poverty are less likely to be enrolled in nursery or preschool. Though researchers are seeing improvements in achievement levels, such as a decrease in high school dropout rates (from 24% to 17%) and a steady increase in math and reading scores over the past 10 years,[23] there are still issues that must be addressed.

There is a common misconception that Hispanic parents are not involved in their child’s education and fail to transmit strong educational values to their children. However, there is evidence that Hispanic parents actually hold their children’s education in high value. The majority of Hispanic children are affected by immigration. It affects recent immigrants as well as the children of immigrants.[24] Both recent immigrants and the children of immigrants are faced with language barriers and other migration obstacles. A study explored the unique situation and stressors recent Latin American immigrants face. Hispanic students showed lower academic achievement, more absences, and more life stressors than their counterparts.[25] In 2014-2015, 77.8% of Hispanic children were English Language learners. This can be problematic because children may not have parents who speak English at home to help with language acquisition. Immigration struggles can be used as a motivator for students. Immigrant parents appeal to their children and hold high expectations because of the “gift” they are bestowing on them. They immigrated and sacrificed their lives so their children can succeed, and this framework is salient in encouraging children to pursue their education. Parents use their struggles and occupation to encourage a better life.[26]

Parental involvement has been shown to increase educational success and attainment for students. For example, parental involvement in elementary school has been shown to lower high school dropout rates and improved on time completion of high school.[27] A common misconception is that Latino parents don’t hold their children’s education in high regards (Valencia, 2002), but this has been debunked. Parents show their values in education by holding high academic expectations and giving “consejos” or advice. In 2012, 97% of families reported teaching their children letters, words or numbers.[23] A study reported that parent involvement during adolescence continues to be as influential as in early childhood.[26]

Motivation gap

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. Many argue that standardized IQ tests and other testing procedures are culturally biased toward the knowledge and experiences of the European-American middle class.[28][29]

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"

Some researchers[30] 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,[31] or that some minority students simply stop trying because they do not believe they will ever see the true or deserved 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.[18][32] 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

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.[33] 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.[34]

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.[35] 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.[36]

Studies on tracking groups within schools have also proven to be detrimental for minority students.[37] 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.[38] 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.[7] In fact, many sociologists argue that tracking in schools does not provide any lasting benefits to any group of students.[39]

The practice of awarding low grades and test scores to children who struggle causes low-performing children to experience anxiety, demoralization, and a loss of control.[40][41] This undermines performance.[40][41] The effect increases across the elementary and secondary school years.[41] The effect explains why the achievement gap increases over the school years.[42] The effect may explain why the achievement gap has resisted solution.[42]

Preschool education

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.[43] 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[44] 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.[45] 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.[43]

Economic implications of the racial achievement gap

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."[46] 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).[46]

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.[47][48]

Attempts at narrowing the racial achievement gap

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. For example, the cause of the Latino education crisis is not attributable to any single factor. It is likely the result of a complex web of social, economic, and educational conditions—inadequate social services, families with exceptionally low human and social capital, a polarizing economy with few entry level jobs that provide a living wage and benefits available to those without higher education or special skills, and schools that lack the resources to meet many students' most basic educational needs.[49]

Standards-based reform and No Child Left Behind

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 incentivizes 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.[50] 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[51] 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.[52]

School-based reform

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.[53] Many schools have started implementing after-school activities such as tutoring sessions, remedial programs, and rapid assessment 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

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,[54] 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.[55][56]

Investment in early childhood

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.[57] 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.[58]

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.[59][60][61]

Effects of narrowing the racial achievement gap

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".[18] As already discussed, there is also strong evidence that narrowing the gap would have a significant positive economic and social impact.[46][62]

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).[63] Randomized experiments demonstrate that the performance of low-achieving students can be improved by using technology that adjusts the level of difficulty of the books and math problems that are presented to each student, raises the probability that each student will achieve high scores on end-of-book reading comprehension quizzes and high accuracy scores on daily math assignments, raises the probability that each student can earn high letter grades, and creates a structured environment where each student is likely to receive regular, objective, positive feedback signaling that he or she is advancing on a daily basis, promoting high self-efficacy and a strong sense of control over academic outcomes.[64][65][66] This demonstrates that it is possible to increase engagement, effort and performance, even when the tasks presented to each student become progressively more difficult, if technology is used to individualize task difficulty and create a structure where it is possible for all students to achieve high reading comprehension and math accuracy scores on a regular basis.[42] A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of this approach indicates that it is more efficient than 22 other strategies for raising student achievement.[67]

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 myriad 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 any time. “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)[68]

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).[68] Weblogs are different from 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).[68]

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

Exceptions to the achievement gap exist. Schools that are majority black, even poor, can perform well above national norms, with Davidson Magnet School in Augusta, Georgia being a prominent example. Another school with remarkable gains for students of color is Amistad Academy in New Haven, Connecticut.Additionally North Star Academy has been awarded the National Blue Ribbon School for two years in a row. 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).[69]

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.[70]

Education attainment

(Issued August 2003) Educational attainment by race and gender: 2000[71]
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's degree AD = advanced degree

African Americans lagged behind whites in 2000 by nearly a factor of two. However, it is less frequently observed 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. The African-American community is behind the curve in education but statistics show 9 out of 10 young black adults ages 25 to 29 have completed high school or its equivalent.

In 2008, over three million 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. Despite high educational expectations, Hispanics are among the least educated group in the United States: 11 percent of those over age 25 have earned a bachelor's degree or higher compared with 17 percent of blacks, 30 percent of whites, and 49 percent of Asian Americans in the same age group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).[72] Asians obtain more first professional degrees than any other race. A high percentage of Hispanics and American Indians/Alaska Natives own an associate's degree compared with other races. About 1–2% doctorate degrees 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)[73]

RaceAssociate's degreeBachelor's degreeMaster's degreeFirst professional degreeCumulative %
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

Between 1978 and 2008, college enrollment rates increased for all races. The college enrollment rate is determined by the percentage of high school students who enroll in two-year or four-year college and universities immediately after high school. In 2008, the college enrollment rate for all races was 69%. Although the college rate increased for each racial and ethnic group between 1980 and 2007, the enrollment rates for Blacks and Hispanics did not increase, and the college enrollment rate for Blacks 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.[74]

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%).[75]

Parenting influence

Parenting methods are different across cultures, thus can have dramatic influence on educational outcomes. 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. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Yale Professor Amy Chua 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 the “Tiger Mom” parenting method and its role in determining children's education outcomes.[76] Many Hispanic parents and their children believe that a college degree is necessary for obtaining stable and meaningful work.[77] This attitude is reflected in the educational expectations parents hold for their children and in the expectations that young people have for themselves (U.S. Department of Education, 1995b, p. 88).[72] High educational expectations can be found among all racial and ethnic groups regardless of their economic and social resources (p. 73). Although parents and children share high educational aims, their aspirations do not necessarily translate into postsecondary matriculation. This is especially the case for Hispanic high school students, particularly those whose parents have not attended college.[78][79]

Parental involvement in children’s education is influential to children's success at school.[80] Teachers often view low parental involvement as a barrier to student success. Collaboration between teachers and parents is necessary when working to help a child; parents have the necessary knowledge of what is best for their child’s situation.[81] However, the student body in schools is diverse, and although teachers make an effort to try and understand each child’s unique cultural beliefs, it is important that they are meeting with parents to get a clear understanding of what needs should be met in order for the student to succeed. School administrators must accommodate and account for family differences and also be supportive by promoting ways families can get involved. For example, schools can provide support by accommodating the needs of the family who have do not have transportation, schools may do so by providing external resources that may benefit the family.[82] As referenced by Feliciano et al. (2016), educators can also account for culture by providing education about the diversity at the school. This can be achieved by creating an environment where both teachers and students learn about cultures represented among the student population.

Larocquem et al. (2011) stated that family involvement may include visiting their children’s class, being involved with a parent teacher organization, attending school activities, speaking to the child’s class, and volunteering at school events. It is also important for families to be involved with the child’s school assignments, especially by holding them accountable for completion and discussion of the work assigned.[81] Also, educators may want to consider how parental language barriers and educational experiences affect families and the influence of contributing to their child’s education.[80] In addition, even when families want to get involved, they may not know how to collaborate with school personnel, especially for families who are Hispanic, African American, and or of low economic status.[83] A study done by Nistler and Maiers (2000), found that although different barriers for families may inhibit participation, families reported that they would want to participate nonetheless.[84] Larocque et al. (2011) suggest that teachers need to find out what values and expectations are held for the child, which should be done by involving parents in the decision making process.[81]

Illiteracy

African Americans were once denied 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 ovr14-2425-4445-6465+
Total 1.00.30.51.13.5
White 0.70.20.40.72.3
Black 3.60.51.65.516.7
Mar 1959
Total 2.20.61.22.66.5
White 1.60.50.81.85.1
Black 7.51.25.111.325.5
Oct 1952
Total 2.51.21.33.56.9
White 1.80.85.0
Black 10.23.933.3
Oct 1947
Total 2.71.01.74.06.7
White 1.80.64.9
Black 11.04.432.4

Immigrants

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.[85] 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.[86][87] 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,[87] and still continues today.

According to data from the 2000 United States 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."[88] 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

Completed High School age 25-29 (1998)[89]

WhiteBlackHispanicAsian
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

SAT scores vs income and race

White Black Hispanic Asian
Income x $1000verbalmathverbalmathverbalmathverbalmath
under 10409460320315330386343482
10-20418459337369349403363500
20-30428471352382369420397518
30-40433478362393384431415528
40-50439488375405399446432537
50-60446498382414409456444549
60-70453506385415415458453558
over 70475533407442430478476595
overall448498376426356388418538

Source: 1995 College Board SAT Profiles[90]

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

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.[91]

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

WhiteBlackHispanicAsianNative American
17.1% 4.0% 4.3% 15.6% 1.6%

Religion

The amount of education completed varies greatly between members of religions in the United States. Hindus and Jews, for example, are more likely than general population to have completed a college education, whereas members of Evangelical churches, historically Black Protestant churches and Jehovah’s Witness are less likely (21%, 15% and 12% respectively).[92]

US religions ranked by percentage reporting a college degree:[92]

RankNameHigh school or lessSome collegeCollege gradPost gradTotal college+
1Hindu1211294877
2Jewish1922293159
3Buddhist2033282047
4Atheist2631261643
5Agnostic2336251642
6Orthodox Christian2734211840
7Muslim3625231739
8Other faiths2938--34
9Mormon2740231033
10Mainline Protestant3730191433
11Other Christian2643--31
12Unaffiliated3832181129
General population4132171127
13Catholic4627161026
14Nothing in particular453215924
15Evangelical Protestant433514721
16Historically Black Protestant52339615
17Jehovah's Witnesses63259312

International comparisons

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

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.[93]

Special programs

Achievement gaps among students may also manifest themselves in the racial and ethnic composition of special education and gifted education programs. Typically, African American and Hispanic students are enrolled in greater numbers in special education programs than their numbers would indicate in most populations, while these groups are underrepresented in gifted programs.[94][95] Research shows that these disproportionate enrollment trends may be a consequence of the differences in educational achievement among groups.[96]

Gender achievement gap in the United States

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.[97]

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).[97] Male students consistently achieved worse school marks than female students from 1913 to 2011 in all countries for which there is data.[98]

Gender gap in literacy

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 to 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.[99] 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.[99]

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.[100] 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.[101]

All of these assessments were conducted on a 100-point scale.[99][100][101]

Gender gap in math and science

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.[102][103] 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.[104]

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.[102] 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.[105] 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.[106]

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.[107]

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.[108]

Gender gap in graduation rates

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.[109] 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.[110]

In 2014, the percentage of women with bachelor's degrees was higher than the percentage of men with bachelor's degrees for the first time in America. [111] Women also earn more master's degrees and doctorates than men. [112]

Gender gap in lifetime earnings

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.[113] Males and females also have vastly different labor market histories based on type of job and time spent in each job.[108]

Possible causes of the gender achievement gap in the United States

Teacher interactions

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.[114]

Teacher evaluations

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.[114] 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.[115]

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.[115][116] 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.[117]

A study by Fennema et al. has also shown that teachers tend to name males when asked to list their “best math students.”[118] Females are more likely than males to be negatively impacted than male students by this underestimation of their math abilities.[119] 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.[114]

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.[120]

Stereotyping

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.[121]

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.[122]

Parent socialization

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.[123] 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.[123]

Socio-economic factors

The gender achievement gap, measured by standardized test scores, suspensions, and absences, in favor of female students, is larger at worse schools and among lower-income households. So poverty and school quality are partially responsible for the gap. [124]

self-regulation and conscientiousness.

Girls tend to have better self-regulation skills than boys. Self-regulation skills correlate with time spent on homework and time spent taking notes in class. This contributes to girls getting better grades than boys in all subject. [125] See Sex differences in psychology

Implications of the gender gap

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.[121]

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.[121]

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.[108]

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.[108]

Attempts to reduce the gender gap

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.[126]

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.[126]

Barriers for disadvantaged students and efforts to close the gap   

Another explanation to address this educational gap is the lack of resources attainable by certain groups of students. A study found that there is a need for financial literacy for students enrolled in colleges and universities. Specifically, there is a need for student knowledge about loans, budgeting, and time requirements for degree completion .[127] Focus group results in the same study concluded that students in search of financial aid information believe that there will be a lack of understanding among advisors and staff regarding minority student’s cultural/identity based circumstances. As a result of this belief, many students rather just not seek any services.

On the high school level, a report finds that the greater the amount of people of color enrolled at any particular school, the less likely that school has any computer science courses whatsoever .[128] Nationwide economics indicate 1.3 million new jobs in the tech industry by 2022. Meanwhile, African Americans and Latinos only make up about 5 percent of the technical work force. [128]

Supplemental funding for targeted disadvantaged school districts in Ohio showed a reduction in performance gaps between disadvantaged districts and other districts. Supplementing state funds for the districts with higher amount of disadvantaged students produced benefits in the form of student achievement.[129] IDA’s or individual development account initiatives introduced in the 1990s to address poverty was found on the belief that poor family’s should have access to asset development in order to break the cycle of poverty.[130] As of now most IDA’s main focus is on home ownership or starting small businesses. There has been a push for partnerships between community agencies and higher education institutions that would offer IDA’s to encourage lower income individuals to turn towards higher education. [130]

See also

General:

References

  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" Archived March 24, 2013, at the Wayback Machine., "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. ↑ U.S. Census http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml
  6. ↑ Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships: The Impact of Cultural Capital Annette Lareau, 1987
  7. 1 2 Tracking: From Theory to Practice Maureen Hallinan 1994
  8. ↑ Hanlon, Harriet; Robert Thatcher; Marvin Cline (1999). "Gender Differences in the Development of EEG Coherence in Normal Children". Developmental Neuropsychology. 16 (3): 479–506. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1603_27.
  9. ↑ Sax, Leonard (2005). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. Portland: Doubleday.
  10. ↑ Hernstein, R. J., and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (The Free Press, 1994).
  11. ↑ "Genetic Differences and School Readiness" William T. Dickens, 2005
  12. ↑ "Race, IQ, and Jensen" James R. Flynn (London: Routledge, 1980)
  13. ↑ 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.
  14. ↑ "School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps" Cecilia Rouse, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, & Sara McLanahan, 2005
  15. ↑ 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)
  16. ↑ "Assessment Issues in the Testing of Children at School Entry" Donald A. Rock and A. Jackson Stenner, 2005
  17. ↑ "School Readiness and Later Achievement" G. J. Duncan et al, 2007
  18. 1 2 3 America's Next Achievement Test: Closing the Black-White Test Score Gap Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips 1998
  19. ↑ Sparks, Sarah D. (April 22, 2015). "Research on Quality of Conversation Holds Deeper Clues Into Word Gap". Education Week. Educational Projects in Education, Inc. p. 1.
  20. ↑ Hart and Risley (1995). Meaningful differences in the every day experiences of young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
  21. 1 2 Immigration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation Among Latino Adolescents Carola Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco 1995
  22. ↑ "Children in single-parent families by race". Retrieved May 2, 2015.
  23. 1 2 3 4 "Digest of Education Statistics". Choice Reviews Online. 51 (10): 51–5366–51-5366. doi:10.5860/choice.51-5366.
  24. ↑ Valencia, Richard R. (2002-04-01). ""Mexican Americans Don't Value Education!" On the Basis of the Myth, Mythmaking, and Debunking". Journal of Latinos and Education. 1 (2): 81–103. doi:10.1207/s1532771xjle0102_2. ISSN 1534-8431.
  25. ↑ Patel, Sita G.; Barrera, Alinne Z.; Strambler, Michael J.; Muñoz, Ricardo F.; Macciomei, Erynn (2016-04-02). "The Achievement Gap Among Newcomer Immigrant Adolescents: Life Stressors Hinder Latina/o Academic Success". Journal of Latinos and Education. 15 (2): 121–133. doi:10.1080/15348431.2015.1099529. ISSN 1534-8431.
  26. 1 2 Ceballo, Rosario; Maurizi, Laura K.; Suarez, Gloria A.; Aretakis, Maria T. "Gift and sacrifice: Parental involvement in Latino adolescents' education". Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 20 (1): 116–127. doi:10.1037/a0033472.
  27. ↑ Barnard, Wendy Miedel. "Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment". Children and Youth Services Review. 26 (1): 39–62. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.002.
  28. ↑ Reese, Ronnie (February 21, 2013). "Minority Testing Bias Persists". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 15, 2015.
  29. ↑ Rooks, Noliwe M. (October 11, 2012). "Why It's Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests". TIME. Retrieved November 15, 2015.
  30. ↑ 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 Institution, 1998).
  31. ↑ Black Students' School Success: Coping with the "Burden of 'Acting White'" Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu 1986
  32. ↑ Black Students' School Success: Coping with the "Burden of 'Acting White'" Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu 1986
  33. ↑ Education and the Inequalities of Place Vincent J.Roscigno, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley 2006
  34. ↑ Gordon, Kane & Staiger (2006). 'Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job.' Brookings Institution.
  35. ↑ Why Do Some Schools Group By Ability? Peter G. VanderHart 2006
  36. ↑ Detracking: The Social Construction of Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform Jeannie Oakes, Amy Stuart Wells, Makeba Jones, and Amanda Datnow 1997
  37. ↑ Urban Teachers' Beliefs on Teaching, Learning, and Students: A Pilot Study in the United States of America Kim Hyunsook Song 2006
  38. ↑ Social Class in Public Schools Jennifer L. Hochschild 2003
  39. ↑ Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Adam Gamoran 1992
  40. 1 2 Crooks, Terence J. (1988). The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
  41. 1 2 3 Hill, Kennedy T. and Wigfield, Allan (1984). Test Anxiety: A Major Educational Problem and What Can Be Done about It. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 105-126.
  42. 1 2 3 Yeh, Stuart S. (2017). Solving the achievement gap: Overcoming the structure of school inequality. New York: Palgrave.
  43. 1 2 Magnuson, Katherine A.; Waldfogel, Jane (2005). "Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness". The Future of Children. 15 (1): 169–196. JSTOR 1602667.
  44. ↑ Bruce Fuller, 2010 (referenced in: "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 7, 2010. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
  45. ↑ "Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does it Matter?" W. Steven Barnett & Donald J. Yarosz, 2007
  46. 1 2 3 "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap on America's Schools". McKinsey & Company. 2009. Archived from the original on April 24, 2009.
  47. ↑ Lochner, L.; Moretti, E. (2004). "The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence From Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-reports". American Economic Review. 94 (1): 155–189. doi:10.1257/000282804322970751.
  48. ↑ Krueger, Alan B.; Whitmore, Diane M. (2002). "Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap?". Bridging the Achievement Gap. The Brookings Institution.
  49. ↑ "The Crisis in the Education of Latino Students". NEA. Archived from the original on February 15, 2010. Retrieved November 23, 2015.
  50. ↑ "Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top". The White House. Archived from the original on April 9, 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  51. ↑ Lohman, Judith. "Comparing No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top". Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  52. ↑ Lohman, Judith. "Comparing No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top". Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  53. ↑ "Bridging the Achievement Gap" John E. Chubb & Tom Loveless, 2002
  54. ↑ "Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching" Linda Darling-Hammond(prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1997)
  55. ↑ "Teach for America: Our Approach". Retrieved April 13, 2011.
  56. ↑ "Federal Way Public Schools AmeriCorps team". Archived from the original on April 19, 2012. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
  57. ↑ "Investments in Early Childhood as a Means for Deficit Reduction" James Heckman, 2010
  58. ↑ "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 April 17, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011.
  59. ↑ 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 (4): 743–772. doi:10.3102/00028312032004743.
  60. ↑ "The Chicago Child-Parent Centers: A Longitudinal Study of Extended Early Childhood Intervention" Arthur J. Reynolds, 1997
  61. ↑ "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 Archived October 9, 2009, at the Portuguese Web Archive)
  62. ↑ Yeh, Stuart S. (2009). Shifting the Bell Curve: The Benefits and Costs of Raising Student Achievement. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(1), 74-82.
  63. ↑ Mann, D.; Shafer, E. (1997). "Technology and Achievement". The American School Board Journal.
  64. ↑ Ysseldyke, Jim; Bolt, Daniel M. (2007). "Effect of Technology-Enhanced Continuous Progress Monitoring on Math Achievement". School Psychology Review. 36 (3): 453–467.
  65. ↑ Ross, Steven M., Nunnery, John, & Goldfeder, Elizabeth (2004). A Randomized Experiment on the Effects of Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance in an Urban School District: Final Evaluation Report. (Memphis, TN: University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy).
  66. ↑ Nunnery, John A.; Ross, Steven M.; McDonald, Aaron (2006). "A Randomized Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance Implementation on Reading Achievement in Grades 3 to 6". Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 11 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1101_1.
  67. ↑ Yeh, Stuart S. (2010). "The Cost-Effectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement". Journal of Education Finance. 36 (1): 38–75. doi:10.1353/jef.0.0029.
  68. 1 2 3 Richardson, W. (2010), Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms
  69. ↑
  70. ↑ Liu, Na. "Thomas Sowell - "The Education of Minority Children"". www.tsowell.com.
  71. ↑ Education Attainment in the United States 2000
  72. 1 2 Schhneider, Barbara; Martinez, Sylvia; Ownes, Ann (2006-01-01). "Barriers to Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the United States".
  73. ↑ U.S. Department of Education
  74. ↑ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf
  75. ↑ Rampell, Catherine (April 28, 2010). "College Enrollment Rate at Record High". The New York Times.
  76. ↑ "Tiger Moms: Is Tough Parenting Really the Answer?". Time Magazine. January 20, 2011.
  77. ↑ Schneider, Barbara; Stevenson, David. The Ambitious Generation: America's Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07982-6.
  78. ↑ Nuñez, Cuccaro-Alamin, and Carroll, 1998
  79. ↑ "National Center for Education Statistics" (PDF).
  80. 1 2 Epstein, J. L.; Coates, L.; Salinas, K. C.; Sanders, M. G.; Simon, B. S. (1997). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (PDF). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  81. 1 2 3 LaRocque, M.; Kleiman, I.; Darling, S. M. (2011). "Parental involvement: the missing link in school achievement". Preventing School Failure. 55 (3): 115–122. doi:10.1080/10459880903472876.
  82. ↑ Flakes, B. M. (2007). Teacher and parent perceptions of parental involvement at W. S. Hornsby Elementary School. (Doctoral dissertation). (Order No. 3278095). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304722541
  83. ↑ Barton, A. C.; Drake, C.; Perez, J. G.; St. Louis, K.; George, M. (2004). "Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education". Educational Researcher. 33 (4): 3–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X033004003.
  84. ↑ Nistler, R. J.; Maiers, A. (2000). "Stopping the silence: hearing parents' voices in an urban first-grade family literacy program" (PDF). The Reading Teacher. 53 (8): 670–680.
  85. ↑ "U.S. Population: Ethnicity, Race, Gender, Income". University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Archived from the original on December 14, 2013.
  86. ↑ Nadra Kareem Nittle. "Ethnicities Eligible for College Affirmative Action". About.com News & Issues. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
  87. 1 2 "African-Born U.S. Residents are the Most Highly Educated Group in American Society". Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 13: 33–34. 1996. doi:10.2307/2963153.
  88. ↑ Africa. "African Immigrants are the Most Educated". Retrieved May 2, 2015.
  89. ↑ Public Information Office, U.S. Census Bureau. High School Completions at All-Time High, Census Bureau Reports Archived March 27, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.. 15 September 2000.
  90. ↑ Hu's Index of Diversity
  91. ↑ See Murray, Charles (July 25, 2006). "Acid Tests". Wall Street Journal. He claims NCLB punishes minority students and does not close basic skill differences.
  92. 1 2 Pew Research Center (May 12, 2015). "America's Changing Religious Landscape" (PDF). The Pew Forum. p. 56. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 18, 2015. Retrieved May 20, 2015.
  93. ↑ "Odds and Ends". Archived from the original on April 4, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
  94. ↑ Elliott, R. (1987). Litigating intelligence: IQ tests, special education, and social science in the courtroom. Dover, MA: Auburn House.
  95. ↑ Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136. doi:10.1177/0016986208330564
  96. ↑ Warne, R. T., Anderson, B., & Johnson, A. O. (2013). The impact of race and ethnicity on the identification process for giftedness in Utah. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 487-508. doi:10.1177/0162353213506065
  97. 1 2 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.
  98. ↑ Voyer, Daniel; Voyer, Susan D. (2014). "Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 140 (4): 1194.
  99. 1 2 3 Perie, M. (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
  100. 1 2 Persky, H. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2002. US Department of Education.
  101. 1 2 Salahu-Din, Debra (2008). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007. US Department of Education.
  102. 1 2 Dee, T. (2007). "Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement". Journal of Human Resources. 42 (3): 1–28. doi:10.3368/jhr.XLII.3.528.
  103. ↑ Adeleke, M. (2007). "Gender disparity in mathematical performance revisited: can training in problem solving bring difference between boys and girls?". Essays in Education. 21.
  104. ↑ Amelink, C. (2009). Information sheet: gender differences in math performance . Assessing Women in Engineering, 1–4.
  105. ↑ 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.
  106. ↑ "SAT Percentile Rank or Males, Females, and Total Group, 2007 College-Bound Seniors—Mathematics" (PDF). CollegeBoard.com. A table. 2010.
  107. ↑ 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. doi:10.1126/science.1160364.
  108. 1 2 3 4 Dey, J. G.; Hill, C. (2007). Beyond the Pay Gap. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
  109. ↑ Digest of Education Statistics 2007
  110. ↑ Mead, Sara. (2006). The Evidence Suggests Otherwise: The Truth About Boys and Girls. Washington: Education Sector.
  111. ↑ "Women Now at the Head of the Class, Lead Men in College Attainment" Wed Oct 07 2015. Written By: Kurt Bauman and Camille Ryan. https://census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2015/10/women-now-at-the-head-of-the-class-lead-men-in-college-attainment.html.
  112. ↑ Women earning more doctoral and master's degrees than men by Ashe Schow September 19, 2016 03:51 PM. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/women-earning-more-doctoral-and-masters-degrees-than-men
  113. ↑ Bedard, Kelly; Cho, Insook (2010). "Early gender test score gaps across OECD countries". Economics of Education Review. 29 (1): 348–363. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.015.
  114. 1 2 3 Good, T. L. (1987). "Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions". Journal of Teacher Education. 38 (4): 32–47. doi:10.1177/002248718703800406.
  115. 1 2 Tach, L. M.; Farkas, G. (2006). "Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when schooling begins". Social Science Research. 35 (4): 1048–1079. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.08.001.
  116. ↑ 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.
  117. ↑ Li, Q. (1999). "Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review". Educational Research. 41 (1): 63–76. doi:10.1080/0013188990410106.
  118. ↑ 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. doi:10.1007/BF00311015.
  119. ↑ McKown, C.; Weinstein, R. S. (2002). "Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gender in children's differential response to teacher expectations". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 32 (1): 159–184. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01425.x.
  120. ↑ Robinson, Joseph Paul; Lubienski, Sarah Theule (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 (2): 268–302. doi:10.3102/0002831210372249.
  121. 1 2 3 Ellison, Glenn; Swanson, Ashley (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. doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.109.
  122. ↑ Amelink, C. (2009). "Information sheet: gender differences in math performance" (PDF). Assessing Women in Engineering.
  123. 1 2 Jacobs, Janis E.; Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932.
  124. ↑ Guo, Jeff. "The serious reason boys do worse than girls." The Washington Post. January 28, 2016. https://archive.today/20180722233207/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/28/the-serious-reason-boys-do-worse-than-girls/?utm_term=.4f067a226d42&noredirect=on
  125. ↑ GNAULATI, ENRICO. "Why Girls Tend to Get Better Grades Than Boys Do." The Atlantic. SEP 18, 2014. https://archive.today/20170328190455/https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/09/why-girls-get-better-grades-than-boys-do/380318/#selection-1251.0-1251.12.
  126. 1 2 Miyake, Akira; et al. (2010). "Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation". Science. 330 (6008): 1234–1237. doi:10.1126/science.1195996.
  127. ↑ Eichelberger, Brenda, Mattioli, Heather, & Foxhoven, Rachel. (2017). Uncovering Barriers to Financial Capability: Underrepresented Students' Access to Financial Resources. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(3), Journal of Student Financial Aid, 2017, Vol.47(3)
  128. 1 2 Zelinski, N. (2015, May). "Path not found": Report says low-income students lack computer access. Oakland Post Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.csun.edu/docview/1686085124?accountid=7285
  129. ↑ Henry, Gary T., Fortner, C. Kevin, & Thompson, Charles L. (2010). Targeted Funding for Educationally Disadvantaged Students: A Regression Discontinuity Estimate of the Impact on High School Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 183-204.
  130. 1 2 Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Yang, H. (2010). Nonprofits Partnering With Postsecondary Institutions to Increase Low-Income Student Access. Educational Policy, 24(3), 500-533.

Further reading

  • 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
  • Yeh, Stuart S. (2017). Solving the Achievement Gap: Overcoming the Structure of School Inequality. New York: Palgrave.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.