The Educator’S Handbook For Understanding

The Educator’s Handbook for Understanding

and Closing Achievement Gaps

Joseph Murphy

Vanderbilt University

(Copyright)

Corwin Press

(Forthcoming, 2010)

Chapter 11 Closing Achievement Gaps: A Focus on Schooling

Still, it is the schools we turn to for a solution. But we would do well to remember that we are asking schools to solve a problem not of their own making. (Porter, 2007, p. 8)

If it is possible to do so, it is essential to intervene directly in the quality of education provided to African American children while we are waiting for social and economic equity to arrive. (Slavin & Madden, 2001, p. 6)

Equity-minded educators are choosing to shift the framing of this inquiry from explaining the academic failure of students of color to exploring

alternative structures, organizations, and practices that lead to greater academic success for all students. (Cooper, 2003, p. 599)

No matter what policies are passed, what laws are enacted and what best practices are replicated, it is the teachers and principals working with individual children and their families who ultimately make the difference. (McGee, 2003, p. 45)

Introduction

The question at hand at this point in our narrative is what can schools contribute to closing racial and social class achievement gaps? “What mix of… school arrangements and educator practices would consistently produce a distribution of achievement for poor and/or culturally different minority children” (Miller, 1995, pp. 369-370). On the one side of the ledger, there is reason to be less than sanguine, especially when considering “school only” solution designs. For example, in their classic work on inequality Jencks and colleagues (1972) report that “there is no evidence that school reform can substantially reduce the extent of cognitive inequality, as measured by tests of verbal fluency, reading comprehension, or mathematical skill” (p. 8). Nearly a quarter of a century later, in his hallmark volume on the achievement gap Rothstein (2004) argues that “the influence of social class characteristics is probably so powerful that schools cannot overcome it, no matter how well trained are their teachers and no matter how well designed are their instructional programs and climates” (p. 5). As we saw in chapter 2, while at certain times across history gaps narrowed, the overall trend lines show little improvement (Lee, 2002; Lee 2004). And Ferguson (1998a) reminds us that “national data show that, at best, the black-white test score gap is roughly constant (in standard deviations) from the primary through the secondary grades” (p. 273).

As Hertert and Teague (2003) confirm, “taken as a whole research findings are inconclusive and have yet to reveal ‘what works’ to narrow the achievement gap” (p. 6).

Unfortunately, this silence reflects an absence of knowledge; relatively little research exists that examines within-school disparities in performance and assesses the prospects for school-level policies and programs to change them. (Stiefel, Schwartz, & Ellen, 2006, p. 8)

The extent to which particular school practices and policies… increase reading achievement levels in high-risk groups is still unknown. (Chatterji, 2006, p. 491)

Education research over the last 30 years has included extensive investigations of the factors influencing student achievement. The results of much of this research—especially as it pertains to public schooling—are inconclusive, if not contradictory, and provide few definitive answers on how best to improve learning for all students, in particular the lowest-performing students. (Hertert & Teague, 2003, p. 17)

Efforts to reduce gaps, in turn, have not routinely been successful, even when solution strategies are relatively clear (e.g., summer school programs). Becker and Luthar (2002) summarize the storyline as follows: “Thus, despite more than 3 decades of urban school research and reform aimed at improving disadvantaged student achievement performance, current data on urban achievement reveal that these programs have not met the task” (p. 198). Davison and colleagues (2004) weigh in here as well: “While individual students may make up lost ground, data suggest that groups of students seldom make up even small amounts of lost ground” (p. 753).

Worse still, as Cook and Evans (2000) document, the quality of schools for African-American students is on a downward not upward trajectory: “There have been substantial changes in relative school quality across different types of schools. In particular, there has been a decline in the relative quality of disadvantaged urban schools and in the relative quality of predominantly minority schools” (p. 749). Overall then, “while the push for higher levels of achievement may have increased, the tools needed to make it happen on a broad scale in high-poverty schools… have not followed in sufficient scope and magnitude” (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2006, p. 145).

On the other side of the ledger, however, there are some positive entries to record as well. Some strong theoretical work links “factors over which schools have control” (Caldas & Bankston, 1999, p. 92) and academic outcomes. There is also considerable evidence that in general schools can impact the achievement scores of youngsters, that is, “school policies can have an impact on test scores” (Bali & Alvarez, 2003, p. 487). We also know that “schools are most beneficial for those [students] who need them most” (Entwisle & Alexander, 1992, p. 83). And there are also numerous existence proofs of schools successfully educating low-income children and African-American students (Burns, Keyes, & Kusimo, 2005).

Turning to the gap issue directly, as we portrayed on the deficit side of the ledger, the analysis is mixed. Much of the research concludes that “once achievement gaps between student groups emerge, they tend to persist over time” (Davidson et al., 2004, p. 758), that “school factors can have an impact on test scores but they cannot close the race gap” (Bali & Alvarez, 2003, p. 501). Still other scholars arrive at an alternative position, holding that “in addition to the contributions of families and communities, schools can make a difference in closing the achievement gap” (Braun et al., 2006, p. 9). Thus, according to analysts such as Stiefel and associates (2006), “evidence exists to suggest that school policies… can help reduce gaps” (p. 11).

The takeaway messages here for educators and policy makers are as follows: First, while much of the heavy lifting to address the achievement gap problem must be done by those outside of education, schools have a part to play. Second, when that part is played well schools advantage historically disadvantaged youngsters. Third, any specific school-based intervention can account for only a small part of any change in the distribution of achievement scores. Fourth, therefore, a significant package of actions across the reform landscape is needed to tackle the knotty problem of achievement gaps. We turn to an analysis of helpful school-based interventions below. Our goal, is “to identify individual and school processes that lead to and foster success among students of color [and poor children] and close the achievement gap” (Cooper, 2000, p. 600). Before we do so, however, we provide ten more general rules of engagement to guide gap-reduction work.

General Rules of Engagement

Coherent and intentional actions need to be taken to create and improve the conditions needed to close the gap. (Shannon & Bylsma, 2002, p. 47)

Research indicates that from a long-term perspective, most of the solution lies in reducing the number of high-school–age students who did poorly in elementary school. (Miller, 1995, p. 57)

We begin our discussion of school-based, gap-closing strategies by expanding upon some of the strategic rules of action introduced in chapter 1. In a real sense, these are the key framing ideas that need to be followed in selecting more specific interventions for working to narrow achievement gaps.

There is no silver bullet that will solve the achievement gap problem (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2006)—and “no magic laundry list” (Baenen et al., 2002, p. 48) either. There are no “dramatic ‘breakthrough’ interventions” (Thompson & O’Quinn, 2001, p. 5). Neither is there a “detailed blueprint” (Jencks & Phillips, 1998) for educators. As Stiefel and colleagues (2006) remind us, there are no easy answers laying about to this exceedingly complex problem (Braun et al., 2006). And as Thompson and O’Quinn (2001) astutely observe, “important complexities and pitfalls” (p. 5) are associated with all gap closing reform strategies, and “none is easy to carry out” (p. 5). It is also “difficult to know precisely how much an intervention will narrow the gap” (Rothstein, 2004, p. 6).

What this tells us is that “since there is little evidence that any existing strategy can close much more than a fraction of the overall achievement gap between high- and low-SES children” (Miller, 1995, p. 334), only comprehensive, multifaceted, integrated, and coherent designs offer hope of success (Chatterji, 2005; Shannon & Bylsma, 2002; Thomson & O’Quinn, 2001). In short, an integrated, cohesive design that thoughtfully arrays multiple strategies is desirable; isolated ad hoc actions are of more limited value. A cohesive design to close achievement gaps would be characterized by the following critical elements. It would be comprehensive (Kober, 2001), a “complex combination of conditions for success” (McGee, 2003, p. 65) would be highlighted (Miller, 1995; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2004). It would provide “major efforts on many different fronts” (Kober, 2001, p. 12). It would attack problems “on several fronts simultaneously” (North Carolina, 2001, p. 11), not in linear fashion (Singham, 2003). It would afford a multi-layered and “multitiered” (Roscigno, 1998, p. 1033) approach, focusing on what actions at all levels of the educational system can accomplish (Miller, 1995; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2004): “Strong sustained leadership from many quarters is the answer” (McGee, 2003, p. 49). The design would include an “interconnected” (Roscigno, 1998, p. 1033), “coordinated” (Shannon & Bylsma, 2002, p. 48), and integrated (Reynolds, 2002) “mix of strategies” (Thompson, 2002, p. 5). It would feature what Miller (1995) calls the principle of “complementarity” (p. 376) at both the strategy and institutional levels. It would attend to both the short and the long term (Kober, 2001). It would offer “redundancy” and “backup capacity” (Miller, 1995, p. 42). A comprehensive blueprint would feature both support and pressure (Hertert & Teague, 2003).

If we underscore the dominant understanding of closing the achievement gap as an increase in equity—or improving the rate of learning of targeted students at a faster rate than for other pupils (Davison et al., 2004; Kober, 2001), then it is apparent that closure requires actions that disproportionately advantage these students (Braun et al., 2006; Harris & Harrington, 2006; Myers, Kim, & Mandala, 2004; Spradlin et al., 2005): “Disadvantaged students cannot catch up to their initially higher scoring peers by making the same progress as those peers” (Ding & Davison, 2005, p. 94); “as long as the same level of improvement occurs, the gap will not close” (Shannon & Bylsma, 2002, p. 48).

Equity can only be achieved if reform design features strategies that disproportionately advantage children on the wrong side of the achievement gap. That is, to narrow gaps the “gains required of initially low achieving students will [need to be] greater than the gain required of initially higher achieving students” (Ding & Davison, 2005, p. 83): Low-income and “minority students need to accelerate achievement at a faster rate” (Shannon & Bylsma, 2002, p. 8).

The advantaging process can occur in two ways. First, as Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2001) remind us, “to address the achievement gap specifically, programs will need to target disadvantaged students specifically” (pp. 176-177). Interventions made available to all youngsters are likely to help minority and low-income students (Hedges & Nowell, 1998). However they may also maintain or even exacerbate learning differentials (e.g., universal preschool). This logic throws into question the gap-reduction approach of closing gaps by improving the education and the learning outcomes of all students, regardless of race or social class (Becker & Luthar, 2002).

Second, policy makers and educators can underscore interventions that “influence the test scores of groups differentially” (Bali & Alvarez, 2003, p. 486). That is, they can spotlight strategies that provide greater gains to targeted students. Because low-income and minority youngsters, on average, are more school dependent (Haycock, 1998; Shannon & Bylsma, 2002), or more accurately “the impact of school is more determinate” (Heyns, 1978, p. 188), that is, “within-school factors have a greater impact on the achievement of students of color than they do on white students’ achievement” (Symonds, 2004, p. 7), many quality educational interventions applied generally (e.g., small class size) have the potential to accelerate their learning vis-à-vis more advantaged youngsters (Slavin & Madden, 2001): “We need to realize that implementing remedies that are good for all can be even better for those who are currently falling behind” (Singham, 2003, p. 591).

The key guidelines for educators and policy makers here are as follows: (1) raising student achievement generally and reducing the achievement gap are not the same thing; (2) if equity is the goal, focusing on reform strategies that power higher achievement for all youngsters along similar trajectories will not ameliorate the gap problem; (3) “most school policies have a small effect on test scores, impacting all racial groups in a similar manner, without redistributing benefits across groups” (Bali & Alvarez, 2003, p. 485); and (4) different policies are required for different goals (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005).

3. At the same time, while there is some support for the belief that strategies to reduce achievement gaps should be different, the bulk of the evidence suggests that these youngsters do not need different types of interventions (Ferguson, 1991; Rothstein, 2004; Singham, 2003). Rather, they require “much more intensive support” (Thompson, 2002, p. 19) and much more of the quality educational factors (e.g., rigorous curriculum) that promote higher levels of student achievement whenever they are found (Haycock, 1998; Rothstein, 2004):

4. When the portfolio of school-based, gap-narrowing strategies is filled, both academic (e.g., student grouping practices) and environment or cultural (e.g., clubs for African-American students) factors need to be emphasized (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2006; Rothstein, 2004). Indeed “a combined emphasis [is] especially important for disadvantaged students’ achievement” (Becker & Luthar, 2002, p. 209).