Education and Equity - University of Denver · James&C.&Kennedy&Institute&for&Educational&Success&...

James&C.&Kennedy&Institute&for&Educational&Success& & & & & & Position Paper #1

Douglas H. Clements, Julie Sarama, and Richard Kitchen November 14, 2013 !!Education and Equity !

The mission of the James C. Kennedy Institute for Educational Success at the

Morgridge College of Education at the University of Denver is to identify innovative and

cost-efficient solutions to the challenge of keeping vulnerable learners on the pathway to

educational success. In this position paper, we address several questions: Who are these

learners? Just how vulnerable are they? What needs to be done to put and keep them on a

path to a successful career in education and beyond?!

�1


The issue is simple but pernicious: Some children come to school far less

prepared to learn than others. For most, these differences do not disappear, and, in fact,

they increase. That is, the "achievement gap" does not close; it widens (1). To begin, we

examine differences between groups, such as those from low-resource and higher-

resource communities and those from different ethnic and racial groups (other groups,

such as those who are English Language Learners, will be discussed in future papers).

The common theme is equity. !

Poverty and Minority Status!

Children who live in poverty and who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups

demonstrate significantly lower levels of achievement (2-12). These “achievement gaps”

widened in the 1990s (13).!

The achievement gap is most pronounced for U.S. children living in economically

deprived urban communities (14-18). The differences are striking as these children

typically score .55 standard deviations below middle-income children and 1.24 standard

deviations below high-income children (16). The latter is approximately the difference

�2

The issue is simple but pernicious: Some children come to school far less prepared to learn than others.


between being at the 50th percentile and the 90th percentile.!

A lack of resources—not just educational, but nutritional, medical, and so forth—

affects children before birth and throughout their lives. Along with levels of toxic stress

(19), these factors not only negatively affect children’s learning and development, but can

become biologically embedded (14). They are most insidious in the early childhood

years. The reason is partially because these years are so important to the development of

cognitive and non-cognitive competencies, but also because schools&classify&children&

very&early,&and&a&negative&impression&due&to&perceived&low&ability&in&verbal&skills&and&

knowledge&affects&the&course&of&schooling&for&these&children&throughout&their&lives&

(14).!

These differences are, unfortunately, easily noticed. As an example, first-graders

from families with higher socio-economic status are more likely to recognize words by

sight than first-graders from poor families (20) . The same is true for addition and

subtraction; children from higher resourced families perform significantly higher on basic

skills tests involving addition and subtraction than their counterparts from poor families.

Moreover, about half as many first-graders from lower socio-economic status (SES)

households are proficient at understanding words in context and performing

multiplication and division as their higher SES peers (3). !

There are also differences by children’s race or ethnicity. White, non-Hispanic

children are more likely than Black or Hispanic children to recognize words by sight,

understand words in context, solve addition and subtraction problems, and solve

multiplication and division problems by the spring of first grade (3). Asian children are

more likely than Black or Hispanic children to recognize words by sight, understand

�3


words in context, and solve multiplication and division problems. In the spring of first

grade, Hispanic children are more likely than Black children to demonstrate proficiency

in these particular reading and mathematics areas (3).!

Of course, race and ethnicity are related to SES. For example, AfricanAAmerican&

children&are&three&times&more&likely&to&live&in&poverty&than&White&children&in&the&U.S.

(5). And low-income&AfricanAAmerican&children&are&three&times&more&likely&to&be&in&

classes&for&the&intellectually&disabled,&and&are&at&least&twice&as&likely&to&drop&out&of&

school.!

Families and Parenting!

Parenting&behaviors&matter.&Families&that&are&stressed&often&do&not&provide&

highAquality&learning&experiences,&such&as&problem&solving&with&emotional&and&

cognitive&support&(citation).&Such&stress&also&provokes&harsh,&punitive&interactions,&

which&are&strongly&related&to&lower&IQ&scores&in&children (14).&Both&general&parent&

attitudes,&such&as&expectations&for&academic&success,&as&well&as&speciLic&parent&

behaviors,&such&as&monitoring&and&scaffolding,&predict&children’s&development&(5,

21-24). These can be changed. !Optimistic&parent&appraisals&of&achievement&may&serve&

as&a&protective&factor&for&children&in&general&(5)&.&Such&positive&appraisals&may&serve&

as&a&model&of&motivation&and&persistence (5). In addition, it is important that families

have access to educational resources. The number of books in the home is a predictor of

later reading and school success (5).!

Although sensitive, we believe it is important to address another issue about

parents—could it be that they simply have lower IQ scores themselves and that is the real

“problem”?!

�4


The IQ Myth!

"We advise the editor to reject this article simply because the authors haven't seen the obvious: differences between the low- and higher-income groups stem from IQ. The parents are low-income because they are not intelligent enough to get better jobs. They pass their low IQ to their children." [from a review of one of the author’s research papers]!!What is the role of ability, or IQ, in explaining lower achievement of certain

groups? Genetic factors that in part determine ability, such as IQ, probably influence

achievement. Among middle-class students, such factors, rather than family or

neighborhood, correlate with academic performance (25). But that is not true for the

lowest income groups. Poverty and lack of opportunities to learn that accompany it are

strong predictors. Even small reductions in poverty lead to increases in positive school

behavior and better academic performance (25). Income, even more than parental

education and other indicators of lower SES, is the most powerful (26). Indeed, SES is a

better predictor of future school performance in the U.S. than in other countries.

Furthermore, even when IQ is controlled, children’s cognitive functioning is influenced

by their mother's income and the home environment she provides (and, incidentally, her

IQ is affected by these same factors). Finally, these effects are strongest in early

childhood (citation). This is important, as schools classify children right out of preschool,

and being identified as low achieving affects their entire course of schooling (14). Thus,

some have argued that the achievement gap should be reframed as an opportunity gap

(27, 28).!

The lack of early learning might even change brain structure—early deficits in

opportunities to learn may become biologically embedded (14, 29). Children's

environments, of course, determine what they have the opportunity to learn. That does

�5


not mean these children have no competencies, far from it. Allowing children to be "off

by one" eliminated differences between groups in one study of early mathematics (30).

This is why high-quality education, in additional to support for parents, is critically

important.!

Schools and Educational Equity!

Compared&to&schools&serving&middleA&and&highAincome&students,&schools&

serving&lowAincome&students&receive&fewer&resources,&have&far&greater&difLiculties&

attracting&qualiLied&teachers,&must&attend&to&many&more&challenges&in&addressing&

students'&needs,&and&receive&less&support&from&parents&(16).&

Further,&schools&serving&lowAincome&students&are&facing&inequality&“at&the&

starting&gate”&(16).&They&need&more&resources&to&close&these&gaps.&However,&the&

children&they&serve&are&relegated&to&lowAresource&schools,&magnifying&the&initial&

inequality.&This&leads&to&the&gaps&widening&(1, 16, 31). Nevertheless, there are

examples of schools that serve poor communities in the U.S. that have demonstrated that

high achievement in mathematics does not occur only in high-resourced communities and

schools (citation #). Such exemplary schools offer insights into how teachers, parents and

community leaders can work together to structure schools to productively serve poor and

diverse student populations.!

We can address these problems. For instance, centerAbased&programs&for&young&

children&with&academic&content&reduce&inequalities&(16, 32). We need to dramatically

increase children’s access to these programs. Note that school&choice&does&not&appear&to&

help.&In&some&cases,&it&actually&hurts,&as&it&always&leads&to&greater&social&stratiLication&

of&educational&programs&and&outcomes,&not&less&(16, 32). Instead we need more

�6


resources to these programs. “There&is&a&serious&mismatch&between&the&preparation&

(and&the&compensation)&of&the&average&early&childhood&professional&and&the&growing&

expectations&of&parents&and&policy&makers”&(7,'p.'261).&&That&is,&educators&of&young&

children&are&being&asked&to&do&more,&but&their&resources&and&wages&are&low&and&not&

increasing.&

A&good&early&start&is&necessary,&but&not&sufLicient.&The&“fadeAout”&of&early&gains&

is&due&to&the&lack&of&wellAfunded,&highAquality&schools&throughout&students’&lives&(8).

Follow-through into the elementary, middle, and high schools is critical (32, 33). That is,

early (usually academic) gains often weaken as children progress through the primary

grades, disappearing by fourth grade (8, 34-37). Consider the educational trajectories of

children who benefited from a successful pre-K experience as they move into

kindergarten. The kindergarten curriculum they experience often assumes little or no

mathematical competence when they start school, so low-level skills are taught, often

unnecessarily. Their teachers are often required to follow such curricula rigidly and

remain unaware that some of their students have already mastered the material they are

about to “teach” (32, 38-40). Further, biases may negatively affect the subsequent school

experiences of children during pre-K. For example, kindergarten teachers rated Head

Start children’s mathematics ability as lower than that of other children, even though

direct assessments showed no such differences (37). Even if the children are assigned to a

kindergarten teacher who recognizes their competencies, pressure to increase the number

of children passing minimal competency assessments may lead this teacher to work

mainly with (and/or mainly at the level of) the lowest performing children—that is, to

work mainly with children who have the best change of “making the grade” on minimal

�7


competency requirements. Within this context and without continual, progressive support,

early gains are frequently “lost.” In this way, we believe the present U.S. educational

system unintentionally but insidiously reinforces the gap between students from low- and

higher-resource communities.!

In summary, the notion of early gains "fading" usually ignores the lack of follow-

up planned and implemented for these children. We believe this mistakenly treats initial

effects of interventions as independent of the future school contexts. That is, they treat

the gains as something the child “has” and should “hold on to” unless they are too

"weak.” This is nonsense. No early gains can inoculate students against poor formal

schooling experiences. We need consist, well-funded, high quality schools from early

childhood through college.!

Final Words!

We are racing against catastrophe (8). More children are in deep poverty in the

U.S. than other countries. The effects are devastating (14). There is no time to wait, no

time to debate. We need action, now.!

Many&things&can&wait.&Children&cannot.&Today&their&bones&are&being&formed,&their&blood&is&being&made,&and&their&senses&are&being&developed.&To&them&we&cannot&say&tomorrow.&Their&name&is&today.& Gabriella'Mistral,'a'famous'Chilean'poet'who'won'the

Nobel'Prize'of'Literature'in'1945'!!

�8


References( !1.! D. C. Geary, in Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception,

and language (6th ed.), D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, Eds. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2006), pp. 777-810.!

2.! P. F. Campbell, E. A. Silver, Teaching and learning mathematics in poor communities. (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 1999).!

3.! K. Denton, J. West, “Children's reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade” (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 2002).!

4.! D. R. Entwisle, K. L. Alexander, Beginning school math competence: Minority and majority comparisons. Child Development 61, 454 (1990).!

5.! T. G. Halle, B. Kurtz-Costes, J. L. Mahoney, Family influences on school achievement in low-income, African American children. J. Ed. Psych. 89, 527 (1997).!

6.! I. V. S. Mullis et al., TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report. (The International Study Center, Boston College, Lynch School of Education, Boston, 2000).!

7.! National Research Council, Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. B. T. Bowman, M. S. Donovan, M. S. Burns, Eds., (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).!

8.! G. Natriello, E. L. McDill, A. M. Pallas, Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. (Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 1990).!

9.! C. Rouse, J. Brooks-Gunn, S. McLanahan, Introducing the issue. The Future of Children 15, 5 (2005).!

10.! W. G. Secada, in Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, D. A. Grouws, Ed. (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1992), pp. 623-660.!

11.! K. Sylva, E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, B. Taggart, “The effective provision of pre-school education [EPPE] project: A longitudinal study funded by the DfEE (1997-2003)” (EPPE Project, Institute of Education, University of London, London, 2005).!

12.! G. Thomas, A. Tagg, An evaluation of the Early Numeracy Project 2003. (Ministry of Education, Wellington, NZ, 2004).!

13.! J. Lee, Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher 31, 3 (2002).!

14.! J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, P. R. Britto, in Developmental health and the wealth of nations, D. P. Keating, C. Hertzman, Eds. (Guilford, New York, NY, 1999), pp. 94-124.!

15.! D. C. Geary, C. C. Bow-Thomas, L. Fan, R. S. Siegler, Even before formal

�9


instruction, Chinese children outperform American children in mental addition. Cognitive Development 8, 517 (1993).!

16.! V. E. Lee, D. T. Burkam, Inequality at the starting gate. (Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, 2002).!

17.! G. B. Saxe, S. R. Guberman, M. Gearhart, Social processes in early number development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 52, (1987).!

18.! R. S. Siegler, in Contributions of psychology to science and mathematics education, L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, D. L. Nelson, Eds. (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1993), pp. 341-366.!

19.! C. C. Raver, paper presented at the SREE, Washington, DC, Sep 27, 2013 2013.!

20.! J. West, K. Denton, L. Reaney. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 2001), vol. 2004.!

21.! D. R. Entwisle, K. L. Alexander, Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review 57, 72 (1992).!

22.! C. S. Huntsinger, P. J. Jose, Chinese American and Caucasian American family interaction patterns in spatial rotation puzzle solutions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 41, 471 (1995).!

23.! S. Jimerson, B. Egeland, A. Teo, A longitudinal study of achievement trajectories: Factors associated with change. J. Ed. Psych. 91, 116 (1999).!

24.! M. W. Pratt, D. Green, J. MacVicar, M. Bountrogianni, The mathematical parent: Parental scaffolding, parent style, and learning outcomes in long-division mathematics homework. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 13, 17 (1992).!

25.! D. C. Berliner, Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record 108, 949 (2006).!

26.! G. J. Duncan, J. Brooks-Gunn, P. K. Klebanov, Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development 65, 296 (1994).!

27.! A. Flores, The opportunity gap. TODOS Research Monograph 1, 1 (2007).!28.! R. S. Kitchen, J. DePree, S. Celedón-Pattichis, J. Brinkerhoff, Mathematics

education at highly effective schools that serve the poor: Strategies for change. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2007).!

29.! R. Case, S. Griffin, W. M. Kelly, in Developmental health and the wealth of nations, D. P. Keating, C. Hertzman, Eds. (Guilford, New York, NY, 1999), pp. 125-149.!

30.! S. B. Ehrlich, S. C. Levine, in Biennial Meeting of the Society of Research in Child Development. (Boston, MA, 2007).!

�10


31.! National Mathematics Advisory Panel, Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Washington D.C., 2008).!

32.! D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. (Routledge, New York, NY, 2009).!

33.! D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, C. B. Wolfe, M. E. Spitler, Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies: Persistence of effects in the third year. American Educational Research Journal 50, 812 (2013).!

34.! R. Fish, Masters Thesis, University of Buffalo, State University of New York (2003).!

35.! Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, “Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness (NCER 2008-2009)” (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2008).!

36.! R. C. Turner, G. W. Ritter, in American Educational Research Association. (San Diego, CA, 2004).!

37.! U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services — Administration for Children and Families, “Head Start impact study. Final report” (Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2010).!

38.! N. Bennett, C. Desforges, A. Cockburn, B. Wilkinson, The quality of pupil learning experiences. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1984).!

39.! National Research Council, Mathematics in early childhood: Learning paths toward excellence and equity. C. T. Cross, T. A. Woods, H. Schweingruber, Eds., (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2009).!

40.! J. Sarama, D. H. Clements, Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. (Routledge, New York, NY, 2009).!!

&

!

�11

Education and Equity - University of Denver · James&C.&Kennedy&Institute&for&Educational&Success&...

Documents

Transcript of Education and Equity - University of Denver · James&C.&Kennedy&Institute&for&Educational&Success&...