![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Policy Memo by: Francine Segovia
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, October/November, 29-42.
The Problem
There is an achievement gap in national and state tests between Latino and African American students as compared to European American students. More specifically, Latino and African American students do considerably worse on national and state mathematic tests then their White counterparts. This issue has become more alarming as studies indicate that this achievement gap has not closed considerably over the past thirty years. Often this gap in achievement has been explained as a hierarchy of competence (Flores, 2007). Framing the problem in this perspective, however, has invited a focus on the students who lag behind. In this way the problem is framed through a deficit lens model which “explains” the low performance as an issue of cultural differences, poverty, low parental support, and lack of motivation, etc. The current study provides empirical evidence suggesting the necessity of reframing the achievement gap as an issue of unequal access to resources. The study presents data revealing that African American and Latino students as compared to White students are less likely to have access to qualified and experienced teachers, more likely to face low expectations, and less likely to have equitable per student funding. The data suggest that reframing the problem as an issue of inequitable accessibility to resources rather than one of student (in)competence can lead to a more productive investigation in understanding the causes for these disparities, in turn helping us to better address them.
Research Approach
This study uses data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Educational Trust. More specifically, to examine the mathematic score gaps Flores uses Trends in Academic Progress: Three decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics (Perie, Moran, & Lutkus, 2004), a document produced for the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, and the National Center for Education Statistics. The author also uses Yes we can: Telling truths and dispelling myths about race and education in America (Wilkins & the Education Trust Staff, 2006).
Major Findings
1. The Achievement Gap. As measured by NAEP, by eight grade 91% of African American and 87% of Latino students are not proficient in mathematics. The percentage of unprepared students lowers significantly, however, when examining Asian American (53%) and White (63%) students’ proficiency. The data also indicate that the performance of Latino and African American 12th grade students equates to 8th grade White students on NAEP’s mathematics tests. Additionally, there is a significant gap between students from poor and non-poor families. This is important to note as data also indicate the overrepresentation of African American and Latino students with family incomes below the poverty line. The gap in mathematic performance has been very slow to close. While the gap remains only slightly smaller than in the 1970s, since 1988 the gap has widened.
2. The Opportunity Gap. Data indicate that African American and Latino students are less likely to have qualified and experienced teachers, more likely to face low expectations, and less likely to receive equitable per student funding.
Access to experienced and qualified teachers is not distributed equally across ethnic groups and economic classes (Flores, 2006). Classes serving African American and Latino students or students in high poverty areas are twice as likely to be taught by inexperienced teachers as compared to classes serving White students. Data also indicate that the least prepared teachers are disproportionately represented in under-resourced schools predominately serving Latino and African American students. In addition, classes in schools with higher percentages of Latinos and African Americans are more likely to be taught by teachers who do not have at least a minor in the subject area they are teaching.
Flores reveals the low expectations that Latino and African American students encounter in educational institutions in addition to the detrimental effects such expectations have on them. First, Flores shows how different expectations influence the way teachers teach and test. For instance, teachers with at least 60% African American and Latino students are more likely to spend classroom time using multiple choice testing and other means of assessing low level cognitive objectives. Time spent focusing on these activities leads to fewer opportunities for students to learn challenging and advanced mathematics. Second, low expectations leads to teachers not giving Latinos and African American students the same type of feedback as White students. Mexican American children, for instance, are less likely to receive teacher affirmation following correct responses as compared to White classmates. Third, the author argues that low expectations are reflected in assignment of high grades for work that in other schools would earn lower grades or would be more appropriate for younger students. Fourth, low expectations have led to the unnecessary and often inappropriate placement of African American and Latino students in remedial mathematic programs. These classes limit student learning as remedial courses offer fewer topics and skills to learn putting these students at a disadvantage. The data indicate that African American and Latino children are placed in low tracks even in cases where their test scores or other measures of talent are equal to or better than White or Asian American peers. African American and Latino students are not only less likely to be placed in accelerated classes even when their scores are as high as White students but are additionally tracked out of college-level courses. Finally Flores provides data which indicate that schools serving African American and Latinos offer fewer academic courses. In fact, regardless of high school size, as the number of Advanced Placement courses decreases, the percentage of African American and Latinos in the school increases.
African American and Latino students live in districts with significantly less funding available then districts where White students live. NAEP data from 2000, for example, show that while only 3% of White eighth-graders are in free or reduced lunch program schools, African American and Latino students go to schools where nearly 35% of the student population qualifies. Data additionally indicate that school districts educating the greatest number of African American and Latino students receive less local and state money to educate them than districts serving the fewest number of minority students. In fact, as the percentage of Latino and African American students increases, the percentage of funds per student spending significantly decreases. Because of this, such students do not have access to up-to-date books, science laboratories, materials for experiments, or access to technology. Making the issue more complex is the fact that schools with fewer financial resources are not able to compete with teacher salaries in wealthier districts making it difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. The starting salary for teachers in New York City, for instance, was 25% less than the starting salary for teachers in wealthier suburban counties.
Policy Implications
The current study casts light on the inequity of opportunities that low income African American and Latino students face. With less access to experienced teachers, low expectations, and less per student funding, how are such students expected to perform equally well as White students with significantly greater access to quality resources? Continuing to believe that the achievement gap is based on a hierarchy of competence, one that supposedly explains the disparate performance because of African American and Latino student low intelligence or because of deficits in culture, is not only naive and inaccurate, but a gross disservice to the African American and Latino communities. Flores’ study provides empirical evidence suggesting the necessity of reframing the issue as an “opportunity gap”. Viewing the issue in this way can help researchers and policy makers effectively approach, create, and design programs that can address the “achievement gap”.
References
Flores, A. (2007). Examining Disparities in Mathematics Education: Achievement Gap or Opportunity Gap? The High School Journal, October/November, 29-42.
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, October/November, 29-42.
The Problem
There is an achievement gap in national and state tests between Latino and African American students as compared to European American students. More specifically, Latino and African American students do considerably worse on national and state mathematic tests then their White counterparts. This issue has become more alarming as studies indicate that this achievement gap has not closed considerably over the past thirty years. Often this gap in achievement has been explained as a hierarchy of competence (Flores, 2007). Framing the problem in this perspective, however, has invited a focus on the students who lag behind. In this way the problem is framed through a deficit lens model which “explains” the low performance as an issue of cultural differences, poverty, low parental support, and lack of motivation, etc. The current study provides empirical evidence suggesting the necessity of reframing the achievement gap as an issue of unequal access to resources. The study presents data revealing that African American and Latino students as compared to White students are less likely to have access to qualified and experienced teachers, more likely to face low expectations, and less likely to have equitable per student funding. The data suggest that reframing the problem as an issue of inequitable accessibility to resources rather than one of student (in)competence can lead to a more productive investigation in understanding the causes for these disparities, in turn helping us to better address them.
Research Approach
This study uses data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Educational Trust. More specifically, to examine the mathematic score gaps Flores uses Trends in Academic Progress: Three decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics (Perie, Moran, & Lutkus, 2004), a document produced for the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, and the National Center for Education Statistics. The author also uses Yes we can: Telling truths and dispelling myths about race and education in America (Wilkins & the Education Trust Staff, 2006).
Major Findings
1. The Achievement Gap. As measured by NAEP, by eight grade 91% of African American and 87% of Latino students are not proficient in mathematics. The percentage of unprepared students lowers significantly, however, when examining Asian American (53%) and White (63%) students’ proficiency. The data also indicate that the performance of Latino and African American 12th grade students equates to 8th grade White students on NAEP’s mathematics tests. Additionally, there is a significant gap between students from poor and non-poor families. This is important to note as data also indicate the overrepresentation of African American and Latino students with family incomes below the poverty line. The gap in mathematic performance has been very slow to close. While the gap remains only slightly smaller than in the 1970s, since 1988 the gap has widened.
2. The Opportunity Gap. Data indicate that African American and Latino students are less likely to have qualified and experienced teachers, more likely to face low expectations, and less likely to receive equitable per student funding.
Access to experienced and qualified teachers is not distributed equally across ethnic groups and economic classes (Flores, 2006). Classes serving African American and Latino students or students in high poverty areas are twice as likely to be taught by inexperienced teachers as compared to classes serving White students. Data also indicate that the least prepared teachers are disproportionately represented in under-resourced schools predominately serving Latino and African American students. In addition, classes in schools with higher percentages of Latinos and African Americans are more likely to be taught by teachers who do not have at least a minor in the subject area they are teaching.
Flores reveals the low expectations that Latino and African American students encounter in educational institutions in addition to the detrimental effects such expectations have on them. First, Flores shows how different expectations influence the way teachers teach and test. For instance, teachers with at least 60% African American and Latino students are more likely to spend classroom time using multiple choice testing and other means of assessing low level cognitive objectives. Time spent focusing on these activities leads to fewer opportunities for students to learn challenging and advanced mathematics. Second, low expectations leads to teachers not giving Latinos and African American students the same type of feedback as White students. Mexican American children, for instance, are less likely to receive teacher affirmation following correct responses as compared to White classmates. Third, the author argues that low expectations are reflected in assignment of high grades for work that in other schools would earn lower grades or would be more appropriate for younger students. Fourth, low expectations have led to the unnecessary and often inappropriate placement of African American and Latino students in remedial mathematic programs. These classes limit student learning as remedial courses offer fewer topics and skills to learn putting these students at a disadvantage. The data indicate that African American and Latino children are placed in low tracks even in cases where their test scores or other measures of talent are equal to or better than White or Asian American peers. African American and Latino students are not only less likely to be placed in accelerated classes even when their scores are as high as White students but are additionally tracked out of college-level courses. Finally Flores provides data which indicate that schools serving African American and Latinos offer fewer academic courses. In fact, regardless of high school size, as the number of Advanced Placement courses decreases, the percentage of African American and Latinos in the school increases.
African American and Latino students live in districts with significantly less funding available then districts where White students live. NAEP data from 2000, for example, show that while only 3% of White eighth-graders are in free or reduced lunch program schools, African American and Latino students go to schools where nearly 35% of the student population qualifies. Data additionally indicate that school districts educating the greatest number of African American and Latino students receive less local and state money to educate them than districts serving the fewest number of minority students. In fact, as the percentage of Latino and African American students increases, the percentage of funds per student spending significantly decreases. Because of this, such students do not have access to up-to-date books, science laboratories, materials for experiments, or access to technology. Making the issue more complex is the fact that schools with fewer financial resources are not able to compete with teacher salaries in wealthier districts making it difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. The starting salary for teachers in New York City, for instance, was 25% less than the starting salary for teachers in wealthier suburban counties.
Policy Implications
The current study casts light on the inequity of opportunities that low income African American and Latino students face. With less access to experienced teachers, low expectations, and less per student funding, how are such students expected to perform equally well as White students with significantly greater access to quality resources? Continuing to believe that the achievement gap is based on a hierarchy of competence, one that supposedly explains the disparate performance because of African American and Latino student low intelligence or because of deficits in culture, is not only naive and inaccurate, but a gross disservice to the African American and Latino communities. Flores’ study provides empirical evidence suggesting the necessity of reframing the issue as an “opportunity gap”. Viewing the issue in this way can help researchers and policy makers effectively approach, create, and design programs that can address the “achievement gap”.
References
Flores, A. (2007). Examining Disparities in Mathematics Education: Achievement Gap or Opportunity Gap? The High School Journal, October/November, 29-42.
