Category: Achievement Gap

Abstract

This paper seeks to explore the complex relationship between the racist policies of America’s past and the “achievement gap” as coined by James Coleman in his 1966 eponymous report, also referred to as the “Equality of Educational Opportunities” report (EEO) (Coleman et al 1966). By tracing the history of the treatment of African Americans in the United States, we can identify and address the long-lasting effects of de jure and de facto racism, such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, incarceration, and villainization of the rich creative culture of African Americans, all of which further perpetuate the achievement gap. Finally, this paper will also offer potential solutions to address these root causes, rather than the isolated remediation of superficial factors that alone cannot cause positive and potent change.

Since the 1966 Coleman Report first introduced the term “achievement gap” to the nation’s collective academic vocabulary, researchers, politicians, and educators have all sought to challenge, dissect, and repair the disparities the term represents. The focus of these efforts has largely been on the quality of classroom instruction and curriculum, but such efforts are misguided (Banks et al 2000). The achievement gap cannot be alleviated by factors such as schools or teachers, nor can we address deeper sociological causes such as socioeconomic background. Instead, we as a nation must recognize the deeply entrenched systemic racism as the most pervasive, multifaceted, and enduring cause to African American underachievement. Only then may we begin to narrow the gap and dismantle the social structures that keep power imbalances and racism alive. By understanding the historical context of the slavery and Jim Crow eras, we can better understand their residual effects on the academic achievement of African Americans today and on modern racist practices that perpetuate further disenfranchisement of their collective community.

The Achievement Gap

The term “achievement gap” was first coined by James Coleman in his 1966 report on “Equality of Educational Opportunities.” This 749-page report was commissioned by the U.S. government to fulfill section 402 of Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964, which required “a survey and report to the president and Congress ‘concerning the lack of availability of equal educational opportunities for individuals by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin in public educational institutions” (Dickinson 2016). Over the course of the following year, Coleman and his team collected data from 600,000 students and 60,000 teachers from 4,000 schools, a mammoth task unlike any research conducted before it (Hill 2016).

The results of the report validated some researchers but shocked most. Researchers anticipated, for example, the sizeable gulf between the achievement of white students and non-white students due to the privilege granted to the dominant group. What wasn’t expected and what greatly contradicted commonly accepted knowledge was how little the quality of schools affected student achievement in comparison with the far more significant factors of the child’s family background and the concentration of low-income students in schools, creating a new modus operandi of segregation, this time by socioeconomic class (Dickinson 2016).

The Coleman Report saw many adversaries in the years following it. Some wished to disprove it; others, merely to dissect and understand each piece. In 2016, a news organization, Chalkbeat, wrote of the Coleman Report: “A group of academics tried to disprove the report–and couldn’t” (Hill 2016). In 2010, researchers Borman and Dowling reaffirmed Coleman’s findings (Reardon 2016). As is natural with the age of Coleman’s findings, it hardly takes updated research to prove that a child’s home life plays a role in his or her academic success, as does the diversity of their school demographics, so perhaps it’s time that researchers ask different questions:

1. Why are African Americans four times more likely to live in poverty? (Bowman, Comer, and Johns 2018).
2. Why do African Americans underperform on measurements of achievement, even when compared to other students within the same socioeconomic class?
3. Are standardized tests written specifically to measure proficiency with white culture and standards of achievement, or do they see the value in inclusivity of student diversity?

The Problems of Poverty

Poverty is one of the largest barriers to student success. A child’s socioeconomic background often yields statistical probabilities of their eventual adult levels of educational attainment. In the 2015 Condition of Education report, data from 2012 demonstrates that children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are seven times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers from high socioeconomic backgrounds. In the same study, 60% of students from high socioeconomic backgrounds were able to attain a bachelor’s degree or higher, while only 29% of middle class and 14% of lower-class students completed a bachelor’s degree program (NCES.gov 2015).

There are many factors that lead to these outcomes. Living in poverty is known to stunt brain development due to stress, malnutrition, and low educational attainment level of the child’s parents (NAEYC 2018). Factors tied to stress, such as violence and neglect, are more prevalent in high-poverty households, which in turn hinder brain development, as well (Graham-Bermann and Sing).

Chronic absenteeism, a mainstay of educational underachievement, is more prevalent in low-income families due to lack of healthcare and reliable transportation due to affordability concerns. Children living in poverty are also less likely to participate in extracurricular activities, summer programs, or travel, meaning they have fewer opportunities to build schema that may assist with literacy and learning. Another concern with literacy is the lack of books present in the homes of low-income families, as well as the availability of public libraries or bookstores in high poverty neighborhoods (Neuman and Moland 2019). Between the lack of reading materials at home and the potentially low educational attainment level of adults in low-income families, children who live in poverty tend to be exposed to less complex language and academic vocabulary, which sets them behind their same-age cohorts from different social classes.

Socioeconomic status is undeniably a massive factor in student achievement, but it fails to account for the gap in achievement between African American and white children: Coleman’s study demonstrated that a gap is present between races at the same economic class (Dickinson 2016). Coleman attributed the disparity to segregation, which concentrated high-poverty students in schools bound to underperform, a de facto segregation to replace the preceding de jure version. While all races can be found in such high poverty neighborhoods, there is a trait that makes African American poverty unique: it is multigenerational (Rothstein 2016). This trait is a direct result of the racism of America’s past.

The Stains of Racism

One of Coleman’s most important findings was the link between a student’s academic success and his or her mother’s socioeconomic background as a child (Rothstein 2014). What is to be said, then, of mothers forbidden from formal education? During the slavery era, African American slaves were originally allowed to read in order to read the Bible, an effort at Christianizing them. Slaves took the opportunity, seeing literacy as a way of communicating more privately. However, the Nat Turner rebellion caused a massive ban from teaching slaves to read or write in order to prevent them from forging their own emancipation papers. According to the Smithsonian American Art Museum, slaves were prohibited from reading beginning in 1831 in all slave states except for Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maryland. At the time, Harper’s Weekly wrote, “The alphabet is an abolitionist. If you would keep a people enslaved refuse to teach them to read” (Smithsonian American Art Museum). Without these fundamental literacy skills, parents lacked the ability to teach their children to read and write, who in turn struggled to teach their own children the same.

Jim Crow laws also hindered literacy. In the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, for instance, the Supreme Court reinforced segregated schools, alleging that the facilities were “separate but equal.” What the court failed to recognize until the Coleman Report was that concentrated populations that lack diversity hinder academic achievement.

Despite the landmark Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education trial, segregation continued to thrive due to the longstanding redlining policies. These policies of classifying neighborhoods as “undesirable” if they hosted a large amount of minority citizens prevented said citizens from receiving mortgage loans to move into better neighborhoods (Badger 2017). Additionally, the policy of paying African American laborers less than their white counterparts reinforced social inequalities between races, enunciated poverty of African Americans, and instilled a sense of futility to rise above their circumstances due to the limitations out of their control (Carruthers and Wanamaker). Thus, despite the best efforts made by African Americans, many began long bloodlines of poverty and underachievement.

“Underachievement” Defined

Of course, the bulk of this work relies on the supposition that the material used to measure students is fair to all students measured, which is inaccurate. African Americans have a rich cultural history of creativity and innovation that has been denounced and criticized by the dominant culture. The “patois” spoken by slaves as a method of communicating evolved into the African American Vernacular English of today, which is largely dismissed as being “ignorant,” despite having its own complex system of rules and vocabulary not understood by its critics. African Americans have also been largely influential in the arts, particularly with dance and music: because of their rich cultural traditions, we have jazz, rap, rock, and many other forms of music. We have also seen athletics progress substantially with the integration of African Americans into sports (NAEYC 2018).

Modern schools also fail to consider the learned cultural behaviors of African Americans based on survival, inherited from the times of slavery and the Civil Rights Movement: “Other behaviors that were fashioned to help African Americans cope with the dangers of slavery continue today because life is still perceived as dangerous” (NAEYC 2018).

The culture and background knowledge of African Americans, as well as all races, needs to be recognized and included in standard measurements of achievement and ability, not only for the purpose of seeing the true achievement levels of African Americans, but to also acknowledge the individualist nature of achievement by students.

Currently and in the past, assessments have largely been homogenized and made to fit the knowledge deemed academically advanced, but by the standards of the dominant group. Patriann Smith et al address this in the Journal of Black Studies: “The normative standards by which such assessments are governed tend to be more aligned with those of the dominant culture that implicitly and inadvertently reinforces an autonomous model of literacy in schools” (Smith et al). The knowledge all students are expected to obtain throughout their education are based on the epistemology of the dominant white culture.

Resolving the Achievement Gap

As previously postulated, resolving the achievement gap is not a matter of simple changes to curriculum or even teacher mentality, but a total social shift to integrate neighborhoods and celebrate diversity of knowledge. As Rothstein wrote in the Economic Policy Institute Journal, “Education policy is constrained by housing policy: it is not possible to desegregate schools without desegregating both low-income and affluent neighborhoods” (Rothstein 2014). If neighborhoods could shift toward desegregation, it could resolve some of the effects of socioeconomic concentrations as reported by Coleman more than 50 years ago. Additionally, there needs to be more resources for low-income mothers to kickstart their children’s education that are accessible and affordable. These mothers should also be made aware of the benefits of educating their toddlers and themselves to give their children a competitive advantage in the academic world.

In the meantime, the epistemology of academia needs to expand to include diverse thoughts, experiences, and knowledge. There has been a recent push for publication by diverse authors in young adult literature, which is a positive shift in the right direction. Incorporating those authors into district mandated curriculum could be essential in making education more inclusive.

Finally, we need to stop disparaging the art and language styles of African Americans. We cannot enjoy parts of African American culture while simultaneously holding it at arm’s length to keep ourselves free from its problems, and we cannot pick and choose which parts of African American culture we should celebrate. As educators, it is our responsibility to let our students know the value in what they already know by integrating it into our pedagogy.

An unabashed celebration of diverse cultures, integration of affluent and impoverished neighborhoods, and a widely diverse epistemology could create an educational utopia where all students have an equal chance to excel.

Works Cited

1. Badger, Emily. “How Redliningʼs Racist Effects Lasted for Decades.” Warren Hills, The New York Times , 24 Aug. 2017, www.warrenhills.org/cms/lib/NJ01001092/Centricity/Domain/145/How%20Redlinings%20Racist%20Effects%20Lasted%20for%20Decades%20%20The%20New%20York%20Times.pdf.
2. Banks, James A, et al. “Diversity within Unity .” Education.UW.Edu, Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington, 2001, education.uw.edu/sites/default/files/cme/docs/pdf/DiversityUnity.pdf.
3. Bowman, Barbara T., et al. “Addressing the African American Achievement Gap: Three Leading Educators Issue a Call to Action.” National Association for the Education of Young Children, May 2018, www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/may2018/achievement-gap.
4. Carruthers, Celeste K. “Separate and Unequal in the Labor Market: Human Capital and the Jim Crow Wage Gap.” UCDAVIS, University of Tennessee, Sept. 2014, poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/file-attachments/carruthers_wanamaker_wageinequal_sep2014_d.pdf?1414183628.
5. Dickinson, Elizabeth Evitts. “Coleman Report Set the Standard for the Study of Public Education.” The Hub, John Hopkins Magazine, 2 Dec. 2016, hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2016/winter/coleman-report-public-education/.
6. Graham-Bermann, Sandra A., and Julia Seng. “Violence Exposure and Traumatic Stress Symptoms as Additional Predictors of Health Problems in High-Risk Children.” The Journal of Pediatrics, Mosby, 5 Mar. 2005, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347604010522.
7. Hill, Heather C. “50 Years Ago, One Report Introduced Americans to the Black-White Achievement Gap. Here’s What We’ve Learned since.” Chalkbeat, Chalkbeat, 1 Oct. 2017, www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2016/07/13/50-years-ago-the-coleman-report-revealed-the-black-white-achievement-gap-in-america-heres-what-weve-learned-since/.
8. Jensen, Eric. Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does to Kids’ Brains and What Schools Can Do about It. ASCD, 2010.
9. “Literacy as Freedom.” American Experience, Smithsonian American Art Museum , americanexperience.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Literacy-as-Freedom.pdf.
10. Neuman, Susan B., and Naomi Moland. “Book Deserts: The Consequences of Income Segregation on Children’s Access to Print – Susan B. Neuman, Naomi Moland, 2019.” SAGE Journals, 5 July 2016, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042085916654525.
11. “Postsecondary Attainment: Differences by Socioeconomic Status.” National Center for Education Statistics , 2015, nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_tva.pdf.
12. Reardon, Sean F. “School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps.” Stanford.Edu, Jan. 2016, cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp15-12v201601.pdf.
13. Rothstein, Richard. “The Racial Achievement Gap, Segregated Schools, and Segregated Neighborhoods – A Constitutional Insult.” Economic Policy Institute, 12 Nov. 2014, www.epi.org/publication/the-racial-achievement-gap-segregated-schools-and-segregated-neighborhoods-a-constitutional-insult/.

A. Advantages of Using PLC’s

Professional Learning Communities “are not a program or an organized curriculum, but it is a way of working together so that everyone involved in a child’s educational experience is focused on improving that child’s and all children’s learning” (Hord, 1997, p.2). According to Dr. Wanda Shelton, Superintendent of Lincoln County Schools of Fayetteville, TN, teachers and school and system leaders must work together to focus instruction on student learning and engaging students in the assessment process (2013, p1). Professional Learning Communities that seek to address achievement gaps and move students towards and beyond proficiency should focus on strategic questions, including how to respond to students who are not learning and how to respond when students already know what is being taught. The first and most essential element to efficacious professional collaboration is a growth mindset, before the commencement of our collective efforts we “must focus on the idea that all students can learn” (Shelton, 2013, p.3) independent of circumstances such as learning styles and socio-economic status.

The advantages of using professional learning communities to identify possible solutions that address achievement gaps stem from the logical factor of having professional experts work together on continuous professional development that is student-centered and data-driven. Professional Learning Communities turn the information we have regarding achievement gaps into goals, these goals turn into a plan and this plan later turns into action through instruction and intervention; and ultimately all collective efforts will turn into positive results of growth for our most important stakeholders-our learners. Reaching our students which means nothing more than our students learning what they need to learn in order to be successful, this is collective efficacy; this is sustainability. All members of Professional Learning Communities are trained professionals with vocation and a common mission and there are no people more qualified to address the achievement gap than those who are on the front lines each day. Goal orientated Professional Learning Communities increase collective teacher efficacy as they address the achievement gap and determine “new teaching practices they believe are the best options to improve student learning; simultaneously, they establish new goal(s) for their own learning that will target their acquisition of new knowledge and skills required for higher-quality teaching of their students” (Hord, 2015, p.1).

“PLCs provide fertile ground for teams to build collective action” (Buttram and Farley-Ripple, 2014, p.1) that will address and defeat the achievement gap. If we were to look at our schools as a team and think of the achievement gap as our opponent, then professional learning communities play the role of collective coaches (as well as players) deciding the best strategies to beat our opponent. As with any team, we cannot “play” our best if we do not work together and if we are not focused on the same goal (to reduce and in due course eradicate gaps in student achievement). And if we reflect further, we have no other option than to win because every instructional interaction is the equivalent of “game day” and our students are counting on us every day in every classroom to help them become the champions they are meant to be.

B. Using PLC’s When Creating Interventions

As an educational leader, I would use the collaborative efforts of the Professional Learning Communities in the school under my guidance when creating interventions that address achievement gaps. Before any collaboration can begin and before any interventions can be designed or implemented, as a professional learning community we “must come to believe that it is possible for all students to achieve, for, when a given population decides it is possible, children not only learn, children not only survive, but children thrive in these settings of high expectations, no excuses, and rigorous academic environments” (Pete, 2015, p. 12). All collaboration and all subsequent instructional efforts and interventions must be established upon a growth mindset through diligence and persistence. The focus of our collective efficacy would be on literacy, this because research has established the following facts related to the achievement gap in schools across America. “There is a 30% illiteracy rate across American schools” (Joyce, 1999, p. 129); “only 1 in 50 Latino and 1 in 100 African American 17-year-olds can read and gain information from specialized text” (Haycock, 2001, p. 7); “students entering high school in the 35 largest cities in the United States read at the sixth grade level” (Vacca, 2002, p. 9); and “ achievement in literacy hasn’t risen for 70 years” (Joyce, 1999, p. 129).

When addressing achievement gaps it would be essential for PLC’s to analyze qualitative and quantitative data in regards to sub-groups and results of formal assessments in order to identify areas of growth and design prospective interventions with a focus on literacy. After identifying trends in data and sub-groups (for example students with IEP’s and ELL’s) then professional learning communities would collaborate to create SMARTe goals for interventions. Professional Learning Communities would be given time every day to collaborate regarding data-driven interventions and enrichment. A formative assessment focus to intervention would be key as individual teachers would be expected to “monitor student learning by using frequent common assessments and progress monitoring in order to identify students who need additional support” (Rentfro, 2007, p.2). Teachers would be expected to bring data results to PLC for a once a week analysis and subsequent response to intervention. Ultimately, the primary function of PLC’s and our educational institutions at large is student learning and we must be responsive to student need and put forth our collective efforts in order to meet students where they are. The work of professional learning communities is centered on student learning and we know that what most affects student learning is adult practice (more so than individual and contextual factors). “What schools do matters enormously and what matters most is good teaching” (Haycock, 2001, p. 6) and the purpose of professional communities is continual professional development in order to work for and with our students and create the learning opportunities that will meet their needs and help them perform at and above grade-level (closing the gaps).

C. PLC’s Response to Intervention

According to Buffum and Mattos (contributors of the blog, “All Things PLC”), Professional Learning Communities must create a sound foundation on which they will establish their work and this foundation must be made up of three basic principles: a focus on student learning (a belief that all students can and will learn), a focus on professional collaboration (time to collaborate and knowledgeability of goals for best practice), and a focus on results (this includes a system of timely formative assessments to measure student learning) (2008, p.1). Response to intervention is a best practice that functions in direct alignment to the purpose and function of PLC’s. Response to intervention (RTI) is the equivalent of early response to students need and is “based upon the assumption that schools cannot wait for struggling students to fall far enough below grade level to ‘qualify’ for help” (Buffum and Mattos, 2008, p.1). Simply stated, when students are struggling, they are not learning or developing in an optimal way and therefore it becomes necessary to intervene on their behalf, meet them where they are, through differentiation and personalization of learning that is research-based and responsive to student variability.

The time invested in PLC’s is focused on student learning and creating optimal opportunities for student learning outcomes, in the same way, Response to Intervention is focused on improving the conditions of learning opportunities to also promote improved learning outcomes. This being said, it could be considered that the work and purpose of PLC’s and RTI’s are both interconnected and synonymous in terms of purpose and efforts and cannot effectively be implemented without the efficacious practice of the other. PLC’s must respond when students are not learning through carefully designed and implemented RTI’s because we are called to teach every student every day and we cannot falter in our mission. Professional Learning Communities that are student-centered and that establish their collective efforts upon a growth mindset understand the importance of perseverance in the face of the multiplicity of challenges we face in the enterprise of learning but are indefatigable in their determination to reach every learner.

D. Technology for at Distance PLC Collaboration

“The Internet and mobile communication technologies have greatly expanded opportunities for teams of educators to reflect and collaborate with each other and experts outside their schools—and even outside their districts—for learning, joint lesson planning, and problem solving” (Blitz, 2013, p. 3). Technology (digital tools) can be used purposefully in order to expand the realm of our collective efforts beyond the limitations and constraints of our educational institutions. Therefore, we no longer need to be in the same physical space in order to effectively collaborate, improve student achievement, and promote best practice. Technology tools that are widely used and that promote timely and effective professional communication include e-mails, blogging, and most recently social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter. Twitter, allows for free and real-time communication and interaction, of course in 140 characters or less, making it condensed and concise. According to associate editor for Education World, Sarah W. Caron, there is a “vast and growing contingent of educators on Twitter, discussing what’s working in their classrooms and how they’ve addressed important issues” (2011, p.1).

It is commonly known that isolation is detrimental to the institution of education; educators, in particular, strive on a fostered sense of community through professional collaboration. As an educational leader, I would use and promote the use of this technology tool as a means for the cost-effective, timely, and boundless professional collaboration of PLC’s. Twitter as a tool for professional development would additionally expand the sense of community and collaboration beyond the limitations of district and state to that of the international world. Using Twitter, I would set up chat sessions of no more than one hour in which members of PLC’s could discuss pressing and relevant topics that address achievement gaps. This, whilst they receive feedback from other each other and other professionals. Twitter as a technological tool for professional development and collaboration would support finding possible solutions to achievement gaps, particularly in terms of our focus on literacy, by allowing a forum for discussion regarding best practice in promoting literacy in struggling readers. Additionally, Twitter allows for the creation of a conversation that is inclusive of multiple perspectives, broadening our understanding of the challenges we face and how to best and most efficaciously address these challenges.

Twitter allows for immediate access to information and as educators, we have to be “constant consumers of information that is current and important because if we aren’t doing this, then we become stagnant in our work and complacent in our profession” (Caron, 2011, p.1). It is important that teachers, as members of professional learning communities, constantly learn and grow, feel their voice is heard and validated, and feel that they are part of a larger community that is collectively working towards a common goal. It is the responsibility of educational leaders to create a culture and climate conducive to the holistic professional development of teachers that as we know, will translate into best practice and ultimately the attainment of our goals for student advancement and the sustainability of our educational institutions. Meaning we will be able to breach the gaps in student achievement as we build and expand our networks of collaboration.

Disparities in education may provide some explanation for the racial wealth gap that exists in Chicago. Specifically, the process in which resources are allocated to different neighborhoods across the city widens the gap in educational achievement that may impact economic outcomes later in life. In Peter Hancock’s article, ‘Money Matters: How School Funding Inequities Affect Students, Taxpayers’, he states that in Chicago, “school districts with large amounts of property wealth were better funded than their property-poor counterparts, enabling them to spend more money per pupil”, which “ translated into higher test scores in math and English language arts” (Hancock). Since minority residents in Chicago are more commonly concentrated in areas with lower property wealth, then they are subjected to receive less funding for education when compared to more wealthy neighborhoods that are more populated by white people. The correlation between more funding and higher test scores demonstrates how significant and impactful funding is when it comes to a student’s education. If students in poor neighborhoods received more funding, then they can potentially perform higher on standardized tests and put them on a more steady path towards attaining higher education.

Furthermore, according to his article, there are substantial differences in standardized testing performance between low and high income students. He writes that “[a]t the high school level, being in a district at the top of the funding scale translates to 100 additional points on the SAT” and “[a]t the elementary level, students in districts that rank in the top 20% of the funding scale are more than twice as likely as students in the bottom 20% to meet state standards on math” (Hancock). Those with higher standardized testing scores will most likely find it easier to get into top universities that yield better student outcomes. The current method of school funding, giving more resources to districts with high property values, puts low-income students at a disadvantage when it comes to higher education which may impact their financial statuses later on in life.

Different opportunities for early childhood education may provide further reasoning for the wealth gap that exists in Chicago. The impacts of early childhood education is demonstrated in the Perry Preschool Project conducted in Michigan in which at-risk African American children were split into two groups: those who received high quality early childhood education and those who did not. Those students who were placed in better education “scored higher on achievement test, attained higher levels of education, required less special education, earned better wages, had better physical health, were more likely to own a home, and were less likely to go on welfare or be incarcerated than other children of similar backgrounds” (“Early Childhood Education Can Pay Big Rewards to Families, Society”). Low-income families may not have the resources to send their children to higher quality preschool compared to those who have higher incomes, and if the type of school has been shown to make a difference in a child’s life later on, then low-income children are put at a disadvantage. Higher wages and home ownership can increase the quality of life for many individuals and the influence of quality of preschool education demonstrates how some children cannot attain wealth as easily as their white counterparts.

The importance of preschool education is further demonstrated when observing the effects of the children of the test subjects within the experiment. According to the study, “new data found positive outcomes continued in the next generation” as from the subjects’ children, “60% were never addicted or arrested; and 59% were employed full-time or were self-employed” (“Early Childhood Education Can Pay Big Rewards to Families, Society”). They benefits preschool education had on future generations suggests that those who do not have the same quality of education do not have the same levels of success and wealth later on in life.

In Chicago, however, achieving higher levels of education can have a significant impact on one’s ability to accumulate wealth, but this is largely impacted by race. According to A Tale of Three Cities: The State of Racial Justice in Chicago Report by the University of Illinois at Chicago, “[s]lightly more than 40% of black and Latinx college graduates earn $30,000 or less compared to only 30% of their white peers. Meanwhile, 11% of white college graduates earn $121,001 or more, compared to only 2% and 3% of their black and Latinx peers” (Kasey et al). This data demonstrates that obtaining a higher degree does not necessarily mean that one will achieve a higher salary; education does not demonstrate a significant influence to the racial wealth gap in Chicago despite some success shown with previous data. Adding to that, the report also found that the “black-white employment gap is the smallest among those with a doctoral degree, but blacks with doctorates are still unemployed at almost twice the rate of their white counterparts’ (Kasey et al). The existing gap in unemployment despite educational success suggests that disparities in educational achievement do not significantly influence the persistence of the racial wealth gap because if it did, then people with the same degrees would have more similar employment rates.

Gentrification

The process of gentrification in Chicago provides further explanation for the persistence of the racial wealth gap. Gentrification is the process in which people are displaced from their neighborhood homes due to rises in costs of living from renovations that attract higher income residents. With rising housing costs, some residents have no choice but to move to different neighborhoods. In Carlos Bellesteros’ article Pilsen schools hollow out as neighborhood gentrifies, he states that in the Chicago neighborhood of Pilsen, a community undergoing gentrification, “one-person households rose by 30% and the number of two-or-more person non-family households nearly doubled from 2000 to 2017” and the median income in Pilsen “rose from around $35,000 in 2010 to $45,000 in 2017, adjusted for inflation” (Ballesteros). This information indicates that there have been more families with more dependents moving out of the neighborhood while those with higher incomes are pushing them away, as seen with the rise in median income over the years. From gentrification, families may find it increasingly difficult to find jobs within their community. Furthermore, the victims of gentrification are primarily minority residents. An article titled The frustrations are real: Pilsen anti-gentrification debate renewed after graffiti incident by Luisa Chu states that “10,000 Latino residents have left Pilsen since 2000” and “[i]n their stead, single, wealthier (often white) people have moved in” (Chu). The replacement of Latinx residents by wealthier white people demonstrates how gentrification targets minorities, putting them at a disadvantage when compared to their white counterparts.

People leave their homes primarily because they cannot afford to live comfortably in their homes with rising rents and costs of living, and Pilsen is not the only Chicago neighborhood that is being affected. In Bianca Sachez’s article, ‘A stranger in my own community: Mixed feelings as young Latinos move back into gentrifying neighborhoods’, she states that “[f]rom 2012-2014 to 2015-2017, the share of affordable units in Logan Square, Avondale and Hermosa dropped 12 percentage points, according to the Institute of Housing Studies” and “the three neighborhoods witnessed a 9 percentage point decline in the share of renters that are low income and nearly a 7 percentage point increase in lower-income renters who live in unaffordable housing units” (Sanchez). This data demonstrates how it is becoming more difficult for low-income residents in Chicago to obtain affordable housing, putting them at an economic disadvantage. Since gentrification happens in densely populated minority neighborhoods, then minorities will continually be subjected to financial struggles when compared to non-minority residents from other neighborhoods.

Adding to the increase in housing prices and displacement, gentrification also has a negative impact on the public schools of gentrifying neighborhoods. In the Chicago neighborhood of Pilsen, “[n]ew families come to the neighborhood and increase the housing prices but don’t leverage their political capital to improve the local public schools because that’s not where many of them are sending their kids” (Ballesteros). If new residents do not send their children to the public schools in the neighborhood, then schools would be forced to close programs that are beneficial to students due to lack of student enrollment, and for Pilsen, lack of enrollment has already become a problem for its schools. According to an article by the CST Editorial Board’s article, Gentrification, affordable housing and the fight for Pilsen’s public schools, “[a]ltogether, Pilsen’s nine public elementary schools lost 40% of their students between 2005 and 2010” and “[b]ecause [Chicago Public Schools] largely funds schools depending on how many students enroll, Pilsen’s elementary schools have lost several teachers and educational programs in recent years” (CST Editorial Board). The lack of educational resources for Pilsen’s residents sending children to public school puts children at a disadvantage for life later on as education can lead to higher economic standing in the future. Meanwhile, the non-minority residents who chose not to send their children to these underfunded schools do not face the problem of a lack of funding and will have an advantage over their minority counterparts when it comes to educational attainment.

The gentrification of minority neighborhoods does not end at causing disparities in education as local businesses by minorities are put at risk. In the Chicago neighborhood of Pilsen, “retail establishments are replacing Mexican-owned-mom-and-pop stores with upscale restaurants, bars and cafes owned by White individuals or chains … and have been joined most recently by … expensive restaurants catering to younger and wealthier populations” (Chu). Minority businesses, a source of income for families, are being taken over by wealthier, white residents who move in as a result of gentrification. The catering to “wealthier populations” also demonstrates how gentrification is significantly impacting the demographics of gentrifying neighborhoods if businesses are no longer catering to the previous minority population that once resided in Pilsen. If the market in the community is limiting to original minority residents, then they will have financial struggles compared to white businesses that can survive under the changing demographic.

Conclusion

If the city of Chicago is supposed to be representative of our nation’s success in economic development, then the racial wealth gap should not be as prevalent as it is now in the city. Although education can lead to higher incomes, obtaining the same level of degree as a white person is still not enough for a minority to close the gap between the two groups; nevertheless, the current funding system for public schools in Chicago puts minorities at a disadvantage. Also, the difference in methodology for reducing drug presence in neighborhoods between urban and suburban areas leads to higher incarceration rates of black and hispanic people which negatively impacts a family’s income. Meanwhile, gentrification contributes to educational inequalities and harms local minority businesses. Stemming from the history of racial segregation and disrimination, the racial wealth gap is an important issue because it unjustly puts minority groups at a disadvantage in comparison to their white counterparts. Given the negative effects it has on minorities, there should be continuous government action to reverse the processes that are behind the continuation of the racial wealth gap in Chicago.

If there’s something we’ve learnt from the ever so long chronicles of human history, it’s that that we can’t set boundaries to the benefits of knowledge/ education. And how far humanity has come in light of this realization is irrefutable. In the UK, for example there are currently 32,418 schools; among which 3,714 are nurseries, 20,832 are primary schools, 19 are middle schools, 4,188 are secondary schools, 2,408 are independent schools and 1,257 are special schools. These schools accommodate about 10,320,811 full and part time students, with 8,819,765 in England, 468,838 in Wales, 693,251 in Scotland, 338,957 in Northern Ireland.

According to the Department for Education, in 2016/2017 the average primary school budget in the UK was reported to be £1,048,000. And the average secondary school budget was £4,617,000. This report also stated that the average primary school spends about £41,780 on school resources. And the average secondary school spends about £172,560 on resources.

Considering the aforementioned, it’s quite fair to say that almost everyone in the UK has access to education, regardless of one’s social class. So the problem in question is not access to education but access to resources/ guidance required to increase a student’s educational achievements/ attainment.

As stated in the statistics the Department for Education published, there are only 2,408 independent schools and 1,257 are special schools in the UK which, compared to the remaining 28,753 public schools, is quite small. But the discrepancy between the educational achievements of students in public schools and private schools is evidently massive.

Diane Reay, a professor at University of Cambridge published a book ‘Miseducation: Inequality, Education and the Working Classes’, that shed light on this discrepancy and how the gap in social class is making an impact on widening the gap in students’ achievement level. In this book she writes about the research she conducted in two private schools; and after interviewing several students attending these schools and their parents, she came to a rather interesting conclusion.

“What was striking …was the certainty and confidence with which these privileged parents approached their children’s schooling. There was neither the hyper-anxiety of many middle-class parents sending their children to state schools nor the doubts and lack of confidence of working-class parents. In their place was an almost unassailable belief that their children were, and would continue to be, educational successes. I was told that their children were ‘incredibly bright’, ‘destined for academic heights’, ‘bound for Oxbridge’ and ‘simply brilliant at sciences’.

There’s no denying the fact that one of the elements fueling the inequality in educational achievement/ attainment in the UK is the widening gap in social class. “The working classes have never had a fair chance in education… and they definitely do not have one in a 21st-century England that is scarred by growing inequalities” – Diane articulates her view. “The damage is now very different in appearance and texture to that suffered by my generation, but its scale and intensity has not diminished. The way class works in education has shifted and changed, but the gross inequalities that are generated through its workings do not change” – she added.

Multiple reports have been published on how disadvantaged pupils, or ones who are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), have a different educational experience than those with better socio-economic status- those with parents who are able to use financial, social and cultural resources to boost their child’s school performance and life chances.

So why do the most advantaged pupils achieve the highest test scores while those living in the most disadvantaged conditions achieve the lowest?There are two elements playing a role in instigating and widening this gap – cognitive and non-cognitive factors. Scholars have stated that children feel their deprivation/disadvantage in their family and community at a very young age. Their physical environment, stress level in their family, material deprivation and so forth add up to affect a child’s psychological and physical health, ability to retain information and perform under pressure.

Epidemiological studies have also linked a child’s educational outcome to their mothers’ health before, during and after pregnancy. It’s stated that a mother’s stress level, which results from challenging economic conditions, during pregnancy, would lead to poor fetal and cognitive development. Furthermore, smoking during pregnancy, a consequence of higher levels of stress associated with economic hardship and lack of support and resources to assist them in quitting, would lead to preterm birth and low birth weight. Low birth weight infants are at increased risk of negative long-term cognitive outcomes, including behavioral problems. Breastfeeding has also been linked to cognitive development and a range of health benefits throughout childhood and later life. And scholars argue that a mother’s ability to breastfeed is leveled according to her environment and support she’s able to access. Surprisingly, data show that UK has the lowest global prevalence rate of breastfeeding.

There are also other factors such as gender, ethnicity, first language, special educational needs and disability (SEND) status, family history of disadvantage, geography, and education policy that are playing a part in determining a student’s educational experience and outcome.

One of the most notable impacts these factors have on attainment, is teachers’ assessments/ the unconscious bias they display in the classroom. According to the longitudinal survey conducted by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies at the University of London – The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) – attainment level in literacy and numeracy varied in accordance to ethnicity, family income, special educational needs, gender and language. The data shows that teachers tend to mark down black Caribbean and white British pupils in contrast to their Key Stage results, while marking up Chinese and Indian pupils after evaluating their characteristics and school effects.

Another factor determining a student’s educational experience is attainment grouping. According to the Education Endowment Fund, grouping, whether within classes, sets or streams, had an adverse effect on students in lower attainment groups and a positive effect on those in higher attainment groups.

Not only is the teaching quality and educational opportunities low for those in lower attainment groups, but it’s also discouraging, stigmatizing and damaging to one’s self – confidence. And this has a massive impact on students’ educational experience and outcome.

But why is narrowing the gap important? Why is increasing the number of pupils with high educational achievement/attainment level important

According to the research paper The Department for Business Innovation and Skills published ‘The Benefits of Higher Education Participation for Individuals and Society: key findings’ and reports ‘The Quadrants’, there are a plethora of benefits to have a society rife of individuals with high levels of educational achievements. The paper inspects the market and non-market benefits to society and individuals. In regards to the benefits to society on a non-market basis, the research notes outcomes such as reduced crime rates, increased social capital and mobility, political stability and above all increased social cohesion, trust and tolerance. Research has found that highly educated individuals are found to be more trusting and are more tolerant towards migrants than the poorly educated with consequent benefits to society as a whole. And on a market basis, the benefits to society are economic growth, increased tax revenues, reduced burden on public finances from better co-ordination with other social policy areas such as health and crime prevention and much besides. According to Holland, D., Liadze, I., Rienzo, C. & Wilkinson, D., around 20% of UK economic growth between 1982 and 2005 came as a direct result of increased graduate skills accumulation. Furthermore, the benefits for individuals on a market and non-market basis are even more extensive. The long term outcome of individuals with higher educational achievements is that they are less likely to commit crime, more engaged in society, have longer life expectancy, have greater life satisfaction, less likely to drink excessively, smoke or suffer from obesity and mental health. And from an economical standpoint, such individuals are noted to have higher earnings and increased entrepreneurial activity and productivity. Their employability is also quite high and it’s unlikely for them to be exposed to unemployment.

According to a research conducted by Walker & Zhu, BIS (2013) the lifetime premium for men and women is estimated as follows: men – £168,000, women – £252,000.

Considering the benefits of having a society with high educational achievements and the detriments of having the opposite, I believe that many would support the pursuit of narrowing this gap. But the question is, how can it be executed? Some believe that, considering the current rate, it might take 500 years to close the gap in the UK. And other scholars such as the leader of the National Association of Head Teachers, Paul Whiteman says ‘Schools and colleges need an immediate multibillion-pound emergency investment’, and Professor Diane Reay says “The convention in a book like this is to set out the problems and then to offer solutions. But our current situation defies any formulaic approach. What is needed is a sea-change in hearts and minds, not just better policy in education”.

Notable progress in closing this gap has been made and as long as scholars continue their research and push for educational policy reforms, there’s no doubt that this gap will continue to get narrower.

References

1. Miseducation: Inequality, Education and the Working Classes by Diane Reay.
2. Education in England: Report 2018 by Whitney Crenna-Jennings https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EPI-Annual-Report-2018-Lit-review.pdf
3. ‘The Quadrants by The Department for Business Innovation and Skills: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254101/bis-13-1268-benefits-of-higher-education-participation-the-quadrants.pdf

While a wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to the gender gap in mathematics, it is interesting to examine the brain composition of both males and females and the effects it has on overall performance. However, experience alters brain structures and functioning (Benbow, Geary, Gernsbacher, Gur, Halpern, & Hyde, 2014), so explanations regarding cognitive ability and its effects on females’ and males’ math ability are circular. Research shows that the gender differences in mathematics and science achievement are smaller for students performing in the middle of the distribution compared to those at the right end with the highest level of achievement (Degol & Wang, 2016). Explanations for this could be due to the differences in cognitive abilities between men and women. Majority of research has investigated cognitive abilities in three categories: verbal, visuospatial, and quantitative abilities. All of these abilities are necessary for learning and success in mathematics.

Successful careers in science and math require a wide collection of cognitive abilities. Studies show that females tend to excel in verbal abilities compared to males. This advantage should be helpful across all academic subjects, including math. However, males outperform females on most measures of visuospatial abilities, which has been identified as a large factor impacting the gender difference on standardized test scores in mathematics. Males are more variable on most measures of quantitative and visuospatial ability, supporting the patterns showing males at both high and low ability extremes (Benbow, Geary, Gernsbacher, Gur, Halpern, & Hyde, 2014).

Recent evidence is leaning towards the notion that gender differences in mathematics and other STEM courses are not reflective of the absolute cognitive ability as described in the previous paragraph, but rather the range of cognitive ability (Valla & Ceci, 2014). Having an increased ability profile is suggested to affect career choices. In some studies, researchers conclude that women are offered a greater variety of career options due to their likeliness to be highly skills in verbal and math domains, whereas boys are more likely to demonstrate higher math relative to verbal ability. Men, often having one dominant cognitive aptitude, are likely to invest time in it and pursue that domain as a future career. Having multiple cognitive strengths, as some cognitive studies suggest women often do, is likely to lead less specific career goals (Degol & Wang, 2016). This could explain why math-talented women choose non-STEM careers as opposed to the math-intensive interests. However, this does not answer the question why women who have all of these options are still choosing to not pursue math-intensive fields. Relative cognitive strengths cannot fully explain this phenomena, hence the research studies into additional motivators such as early experiences, biological factors, educational policy, and more.

Gender Stereotyping and Self Efficacy

The beliefs that individuals have about genders may actually be an influencing factor of the gender gap in mathematics. Many studies have been conducted exploring the relationships between male and female stereotypes and their performances on norm-referenced achievement tests, classroom grades, and curriculum based measurements. The differences on standardized test scores, however, are not universal, although the majority of the data suggest that girls, on average, receive lower scores on standardized mathematics tests but have higher grades in math class (Hulac, Schweinle, & Schwery, 2016). If people are not careful, they might begin making inferences about this data that suggests girls lack the innate capability to become good at math and be successful in high level STEM careers. The stereotype threat can have negative consequences when it comes to a female’s confidence in the mathematics classroom.

According to one study, women who were told prior to taking a mathematics test that the test had previously shown gender differences in the past did significantly worse than women who were not told this prior to test taking (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). On the other hand, women who were told before taking a test that both men and women performed equally on the test resulted in significantly higher scores. These stereotype threats continue into adulthood and are a contributing factor as to why less women pursue careers in the field of mathematics compared to men.

This stereotyping may result from a reduction in self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy refers to the beliefs students hold about their own academic capabilities (Usher & Pajares, 2009), and studies find that women often feel a reduction in self-efficacy due to presumptions that their math skills are not as capable as those of their male peers. Research supports that males often feel a higher level of self-efficacy when it comes to mathematics, even if they are performing at the same level as their female colleagues. This lowered self-efficacy in females may be more likely to cause the attribution of unpleasant experiences with mathematics. Even if a female has adequate mathematics skills, a lowered self-efficacy could result in the selection of less challenging math courses and an avoidance of majors that require any mathematics (Hulac, Schweinle, & Schwery, 2016).

According to a study conducted by Pajares in 1996, when accounting for other variables like cognitive ability and prior achievement, self-efficacy had a direct effect on mathematics performance for students in regular education. It also indicated that amongst these same students, gender had a direct effect of self-efficacy, and self-efficacy was the most predictive variable of mathematics performance. Having a strong sense of self-efficacy also allows students to adopt mastery goal orientations, which ultimately helps contribute to students being less likely to be discouraged when receiving a bad grade or not performing as well as others on tests. Researchers have hypothesized that girls experience lower mathematics self-efficacy than boys due to outside factors such as home life, culture, societal influences and more. These all wind down to the stereotype threat that suggests boys are better at mathematics than girls.

The Role of Competition

Niederle and Vesterlund (2010) argue that the differences in male and female test scores at the right end of the distribution are not due to nature versus nurture, but rather explained by the differences in the ways men and women respond to competitive test-taking environments. Researchers found that the response to competition differs for men and women, and in the examined environment, gender difference in competitive performance does not reflect the difference in noncompetitive performance (Niederle & Vesterlund, 2010). This study can help support the arguments that competitive pressures in test-taking environments such as the American Mathematics Competitions, SATs, and even the PSSAs do not reflect the results gathers from less-competitive environments such as the every day classroom. The differences in response to competition may prevent females from realizing their full potential or may cause society to not recognize their potential in STEM careers.

The effect competition has on math test scores in particular is eye-opening. Traditionally, test scores were thought to measure an individual’s cognitive ability. However, researchers have established that they also measure noncognitive abilities such as motivation, drive, and obedience. These noncognitive abilities can affect the student’s cognitive skills, ultimately affecting their test score performance. One of these noncognitive skills, in particular, that played a role in test scores is an individual’s response to competitive pressure. Studies show that men and women differ in their response to competition when they are performing in environments with both males and females (Niederle & Vesterlund, 2010). For this reason, caution is needed when using test scores to infer gender differences in skill. However, it is unclear for researchers why this competitive environment would have a greater effect on females on math tests rather than on other assessments as well. Part of that may be explained by the differences between a male and female’s confidence and attitude in response to competitive environments.

So why are gender differences in confidence and attitude particularly large in mathematics? Some argue that it is due to the greater fraction of male teachers in math compared to any other subject. Others argue it stems from stereotypes about male and female math performances. This effect is likely to intensify for those females at the tail end of the distribution for whom the gender gap in confidence is profoundly large. Niederle and Vesterlund (2010) conclude that sensitivity to competitive pressure is also likely to influence the investment in and selection into male-dominated or math-intensive fields where there is a strong stereotype threat that females do not perform as well as their male peers. They believe that a vital question to answer is whether or not it is possible to alter how women react to competition. Without the highly competitive environments, would women outperform men at the tail end of the distribution? Their results suggest that it may be important to examine whether changes in testing would allow more females to realize their full potential and pursue their math interests rather than avoid the highly competitive environments.

Impact of the Teacher

A more recent study of the gender gap in mathematics suggests that teachers actually overrate the performance of girls relative to boys, and hold more positive attitudes towards girls’ mathematics abilities. However, Cimpian, Ganley and Lubienski (2013) suggests that these prior assumptions can potentially be misleading because they confound achievement with teachers’ perceptions of behavior and effort. They find evidence that suggests by teachers underrating girls’ mathematics proficiency based on classroom behaviors of both genders, they are contributing to a substantial portion of the development of the gender gap. These gaps in achievement can begin emerging early in a child’s education. Data collected by the U.S. Department of Education indicates that although both genders show average achievement in kindergarten, males begin to have an advantage about one quarter of a standard deviation by the spring of third grade (Fryer & Levitt, 2010). Past research shows that a large fraction of the gender gap is due to socially constructed circumstances, with parents and teachers being the socializing agents in the formation of the gap.

Unlike gaps based on race and socioeconomic status, which in part can be explained by which school a student attends, gender gaps in elementary school are unlikely due to males and females being places in different classrooms. One possible origin could be, however, an elementary teacher’s rating of girls’ and boys’ mathematics abilities. Earlier research on teacher interactions with students identified multiple ways in which boys tend to have an advantage over girls. Teachers tended to hold higher expectations for male students compared to their female students (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978). Other studies show that teachers believe that males have a natural gift for math, while their female peers’ success in mathematics is attributed to their work ethic and effort. However, more current research suggests that teachers actually rate the performance of females higher than males even when boys outperform girls on a direct cognitive assessment of mathematics (Fryer & Levitt, 2010).

One potential explanation for why girls might be perceived as more proficient in mathematics by their teachers could be found in the differences in a teacher’s perception of boys’ behaviors and effort and girls’ behaviors and effort. Girls tend to be more task-oriented and focused when in the classroom (Ready, LoGerfo, Burkam, & Lee, 2005), If teachers use positive behavior as an indicator of mathematics proficiency, this may lead to an overrating of female performances in the classroom, but does not adequately prepare them for direct cognitive assessments like the SAT or American Mathematics Competition. Cimpian, Ganley, and Lubienski (2013) conclude that teachers rate mathematics proficiency of girls as equal to boys only if they perceive the girls as working harder and being better behaved than the boys. They found this pattern unique to the mathematics classroom. It was not found in reading or language arts classrooms. This tendency for teachers to underrate girls’ mathematics performance relative to boys who perform and behave similarly appears to have a great impact on the formation of the gender gap in early grades.