Description
Read the Education Week article posted on Blackboard, “The Achievement Gap”, http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/ and review Chapters 7 through 10. For the response, access three school district profiles or “report cards” online: one urban, one suburban and one rural. Analyze and compare the data from the three districts. Report key differences in demographics (population characteristics/ finances) and differences in student achievement levels (MCAS, PPI, PARCC, graduation rates, etc.). Discuss the implications of data by commenting on the specific factors that contribute to possible disparities in student achievement. Be sure to comment on the status of ELLs. What are some views regarding the persistence of the achievement gap in American schools? Be ready to contribute insights to a classroom discussion. (Minimum of 5 pages, to include response and supporting graphic/tabular data)
Reflective Practitioner Writing Rubric
Reflective Practitioner Writing Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Context and Purpose
view longer description
2 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work.
1.8 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context).
1.6 pts
Competent
Demonstrates awareness of context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned tasks(s) (e.g., begins to show awareness of audience’s perceptions and assumptions).
1.4 pts
Novice
Demonstrates minimal attention to context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned tasks(s) (e.g., expectation of instructor or self as audience).
/ 2 pts
Content Development
view longer description
2 pts
Advanced
Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject, conveying the writer’s understanding, and shaping the whole work.
1.8 pts
Proficient
Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to explore ideas within the context of the discipline and shape the whole work.
1.6 pts
Competent
Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work.
1.4 pts
Novice
Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop simple ideas in some parts of the work.
/ 2 pts
Genre and Disciplinary Conventions
view longer description
2 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task (s) including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices
1.8 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates consistent use of important conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s), including organization, content, presentation, and stylistic choices
1.6 pts
Competent
Follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) for basic organization, content, and presentation
1.4 pts
Novice
Attempts to use a consistent system for basic organization and presentation.
/ 2 pts
Sources and Evidence
view longer description
2 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates skillful use of high- quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing
1.8 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.
1.6 pts
Competent
Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
1.4 pts
Novice
Demonstrates an attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing.
/ 2 pts
Control of Syntax and Mechanics
view longer description
2 pts
Advanced
Uses graceful language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error- free.
1.8 pts
Proficient
Uses straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to readers. The language in the portfolio has few errors.
1.6 pts
Competent
Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing may include some errors.
1.4 pts
Novice
Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage.
/ 2 pts
Total Points: 0
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Published: August 3, 2004
Achievement Gap
Updated: July 7, 2011
The “achievement gap” in education refers to the disparity in
academic performance between groups of students. The
achievement gap shows up in grades, standardized-test scores,
course selection, dropout rates, and college-completion rates,
among other success measures. It is most often used to describe
the troubling performance gaps between African-American and
Hispanic students, at the lower end of the performance scale,
and their non-Hispanic white peers, and the similar academic
disparity between students from low-income families and those
who are better off. In the past decade, though, scholars and
policymakers have begun to focus increasing attention on other
achievement gaps, such as those based on sex, English-language
proficiency and learning disabilities.
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
closing achievement gaps among these various student groups
became a focus of federal education accountability, and schools
and districts were required to disaggregate student test scores
and other performance data by student characteristics to enable
better comparisons between groups. This created both to greater
awareness of racial disparities and to rising concern about other
kinds of achievement gaps. The attention led to more targeted
interventions for different groups of students, but had not closed
most achievement gaps to an appreciable degree a decade of the
law passed.
While National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
results show that, over time, black and Hispanic students have
made great strides in improving performance in reading and
mathematics, a breach still separated them from their white
peers. For example, special analyses by the National Center for
Education Statistics in 2009 and 2011 showed that black and
Hispanic students trailed their white peers by an average of more
than 20 test-score points on the NAEP math and reading
assessments at 4th and 8th grades, a difference of about two
grade levels. These gaps persisted even though the score
differentials between black and white students narrowed between
1992 and 2007 in 4th grade math and reading and 8th grade
math (NCES, 2009, 2011).
Students’ high school course-taking patterns provide a slightly
more positive progress picture. Data from the U.S. Department
of Education show that students across the board greatly
increased the average number of course credits they earned by
graduation by 2009. Black students went from taking the least
credit-hours in 1990, 23.5, to the most of any student group in
2009, 27.4. Hispanic students increased their average credits
from 24 to 26.5; white students from 23.7 to 27.3; and Asian
American and Pacific Islander students from 24.2 to 27 credits
during the same time period. All student groups likewise
improved the number of core academic courses they took during
that time, with black students overtaking white students in their
participation in core academic courses. But all other student
groups continue to trail Asian American students in core
coursework. However, both white and Asian American students
were at least twice as likely to take classes considered
academically rigorous in those subjects than black and Hispanic
students. Fewer than 10 percent of black or Hispanic students
participated in rigorous courses in 2009 (NCES, 2009).
Such disparities have also been evident in graduation-rate and
college-success statistics. Changes in 2008 to federal regulations
on educating students in poverty required school districts to be
held accountable for the graduation rates of students in different
racial, language, poverty, and disability groups. According to
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center’s annual Diplomas
Count report, while each major racial and ethnic group had more
students graduate as of the class of 2008, massive gaps
remained between different groups of students. While 82.7
percent of Asian students and 78.4 percent of white students in
the class of 2008 graduated on time, that was the case for only
57.6 percent of Hispanic, 57 percent of black and 53.9 percent of
American Indian students. Likewise, only 68 percent of male
students graduated on time in 2008, compared with 75 percent
of female students. Over the long term, only about one half of
male students from minority backgrounds graduate on time
(Education Week, 2011).
Under President Barack Obama’s Administration, the U.S.
Department of Education also stepped up attention on gender
and racial gaps in students’ college enrollment and success rates,
toward a goal that the United States will lead the world in college
graduates by 2020. According to the American Council on
Education’s 24th annual status report on minorities in higher
education, as of 2008, 38 percent of Americans age 25-34 had
earned at least an associate degree, while only 26 percent of
African-Americans ages 25-37 obtained a two-year degree and
18 percent of Hispanics 25- to 34-year olds. Moreover, the U.S.
Census Bureau reports that as of 2010, 36 percent of women
ages 25 to 29 held a bachelor’s degree or better versus only 28
percent of men in the same age group.
Achievement disparities are often attributed to socioeconomic
factors. According to 2009 data from the Census Bureau, of all
children younger than 18 living in families, 15.5 million live in
poverty, defined as a family of four with less than $21,947 per
year. This includes 4.9 million, or about 10 percent, of nonHispanic white children, and one in three black and Hispanic
children, at 4 million and 5.6 million, respectively (Annie E.
Casey Foundation 2011). According to a seminal study of
language development in 1995, by age 3, children in poverty
have smaller vocabularies and lower language skills than children
from middle-income families. Research has also shown that
dropout rates tend to be higher for children who live in poverty.
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2011 Condition
of Education report, about 68 percent of 12th-graders in highpoverty schools graduated with a diploma in 2008, compared
with 91 percent of 12th-graders in low-poverty schools (NCES,
2011). A recent studyhttp://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that children who both
live in poverty and read below grade level by 3rd grade are three
times as likely to not graduate from high school as students who
have never been poor (Hernandez, 2011).
Researchers have tried to pinpoint why race and class are such
strong predictors of students’ educational attainment. In the
1990s, the controversial book, The Bell Curve, claimed that gaps
in student achievement were the result of variation in students’
genetic makeup and natural ability—an assertion that has since
been widely discredited. Many experts have since asserted that
achievement gaps are the result of more subtle environmental
factors and “opportunity gaps” in the resources available to poor
versus wealthy children. Being raised in a low-income family, for
example, often means having fewer educational resources at
home, in addition to poor health care and nutrition. At the same
time, studies have also found that children in poverty whose
parents provide engaging learning environments at home do not
start school with the same academic readiness gaps seen among
poor children generally (U.S. Department of Education, 2000;
Viadero, 2000, Sparks, 2011).
Education and school funding policies can exacerbate these
opportunity gaps. Analyses by The Education Trust, a
Washington-based research and advocacy organization, and
others have found that students in poverty and those who are
members of racial minority groups are overwhelmingly
concentrated in the lowest-achieving schools. For example, in
California, black students are six times more
likelyhttp://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html than white
students to attend one of the bottom third of schools in the state,
and Latino and poor students are nearly four times as likely as
white students to attend one of the worst-performing third of
schools (EdTrust West, 2010). Likewise, research has shown that
good teaching matters (The Teaching Commission, 2004;
Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 1998), and that poor and minority
students tend to have less access to the most effective,
experienced teachers with knowledge in their content field. One
study of 46 industrialized countries found the United States
ranked 42nd in providing equitable distribution of teachers to
different groups of students: For example, while 68 percent of
upper-income 8th graders in the U.S. study sample had math
teachers deemed to be of high-quality, that was true for only 53
percent of low-income students (Braeden, 2008).
Some researchers are also exploring more subtle factors that can
contribute to achievement gaps such as peer pressure, student
tracking, negative stereotyping, and test bias. Research also has
shown that students from a disadvantaged group can perform
below their normal ability when confronted with negative
stereotypes about their group. For example, in 2009 the Institute
for Research on Education Policy and Practice at Stanford
University found that specific student groups
underperformed in stereotypical ways on state exit exams—
girls performed worse on math, for example, or students from
Asian-American backgrounds scored lower on reading—
suggesting that the high-stakes nature of the tests could
contribute to students’ performance anxiety (Viadero, 2009).
In principle, the public has been behind closing the achievement
gap, and schools have employed a variety of tactics to address it.
Common reform recommendations have included reducing class
sizes, creating smaller schools, expanding early-childhood
programs, raising academic standards, improving the quality of
teachers provided to poor and minority students, and
encouraging more minority students to take high-level courses.
Still, progress in reducing academic divides has been slow or
nonexistent.
Achievement gaps seem likely to remain a focus in the next
authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The requirement that schools, districts and states disaggregate
students’ test scores and graduation rates by race, gender,
language and socio-economic status remains one of the few parts
of NCLB with broad bipartisan support for reauthorization.
Moreover, the economic-stimulus law passed by Congress in
2009 required states to close achievement gaps and provide
more equitable distribution of high-quality teachers for poor and
minority students. Policymakers and educators hope to find new
ways to close achievement gaps faster in the decade to come.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011, July 7). Issues A-Z:
Achievement Gap. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/
Annie E. Casey Foundation, “2011 Kids Count Data Book,” 2011.
Breaden, M.C., “Teacher-Quality Gap Examined Worldwide,” Education Week,
Feb. 6, 2008.
Education Trust, “The Funding Gap: Low-Income and Minority Students Receive
Fewer Dollars,” 2002.
Education Trust West, “Access Denied: 2009 API Rankings Reveal Unequal
Access to California’s Best Schools,” 2010.
Education Week, “Quality Counts,” 2011.
Engle, J., “Top Gap Closers: Some Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities
Have Made Good Progress in Closing Graduation-Rate Gaps,” The Education
Trust, 2010.
Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., and Rivkin, S.G., “Teachers, Schools, and Academic
Achievement,” (NBER Working Paper No. w6691), National Bureau of Economic
Research, 1998.
Hernandez, D.J., “How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High
School Graduation,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011.
National Center for Education Statistics, “NAEP 2009 High School Transcript
Study,” 2009.
National Center for Education Statistics, “Condition of Education 2011,” 2011.
Ryu, Mikyung, “Minorities in Higher Education 2010,” 2010.
Sparks, S.D., “Study Finds Gaps Remain Large for Hispanic Students,”
Education Week, June 23, 2011.
The Teaching Commission, “Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action,” 2004.
U.S. Department of Education, “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” full text,
2001.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics,
“Digest of Education Statistics,” 2000.
Viadero, D., “Scholars Probe Diverse Effects of Exit Exams,” Education Week,
April 29, 2009.
Viadero, D., “Lags in Minority Achievement Defy Traditional Explanations,”
Education Week, March 22, 2000.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
