Closing Achievement Gaps: Research-Based Lessons for

Educators

Joseph Murphy

Vanderbilt Universityjoseph.f.murphy@vanderbilt.edu

(615) 322-8038

Part A. Portrayals of Gaps

NAEP Long-Term Math (Age 13)

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

s WhiteBlackHispanic

(46) (42) (34) (25) (27) (29) (29) (29) (32) (26)

Year (Gap)

NAEP Main Math (Grade 8)

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

Hispanic

(33) (40) (41) (40) (35) (34) (31)

Year (Gap)

NAEP Long-Term Reading (Age 13)

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

s White

Black

Hispanic

(36) (31) (27) (18) (20) (28) (31) (32) (29) (22)

Year (Gap)

NAEP Main Reading (Grade 8)

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

Hispanic

(29) (30) (26) (27) (26) (28) (26)

Year (Gap)

NAEP Long-Term Math (Age 17)

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

s White

Black

Hispanic

(40) (38) (32) (29) (21) (26) (26) (27) (32)

(28)

Year (Gap)

NAEP Math (Grade 12)

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

1990 1992 1996 2000

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

Hispanic

(32) (29) (31) (33)

Year (Gap)

(52) (50) (31) (21) (30) (36) (30) (29) (31) (29)

Year (Gap)

NAEP Long-Term Reading (Age 17)

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

Hispanic

NAEP Reading (Grade 12)

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

1992 1994 1998 2002 2005

Ave

rage

s White

Black

Hispanic

(23) (29) (26) (25) (25)

Year (Gap)

Calculus AB (AP Exam)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

PuertoRican

(.85) (.96) (.97) (.99) (1.06) (1.07) (1.11) (1.10) (1.08) (1.11) (1.14)

Year (Gap)

Calculus BC (AP Exam)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ave

rage

s White

Black

Puerto Rican

(.76) (.78) (.80) (.86) (.85) (.82) (.89) (.74) (.97) (.75) (1.03)

Year (Gap)

English Language (AP Exam)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Ave

rage

s White

Black

PuertoRican

(.79) (.87) (.84) (.96) (.91) (.91) (.84) (.89) (.93) (.89) (.96)

Year (Gap)

English Literature (AP Exam)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ave

rage

s White

Black

Puerto Rican

(.90) (.87) (1.42) (.98) (.90) (.97) (.92) (.94) (1.02) (1.02) (.78)

Year (Gap)

SAT Mathematics

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

1987

1991

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

Hispanic

(103) (103) (105) (105) (111)

Year (Gap)

SAT Critical Reading/Verbal

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

1987

1991

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Ave

rage

s

White

Black

Hispanic

(96) (92) (96) (99) (98)

Year (Gap)

ACT Composite Score Trends

15

17

19

21

23

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Ave

rage

s White

Black

Hispanic

(4.3) (4.4) (4.6) (4.7) (5.2)

Year (Gap)

High School Completion

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

Per

cen

t

White

Black

Hispanic

(23.0) (17.2) (14.1) (12.5) (9.8) (6.1) (7.0) (9.8) (5.8) (5.4) (6.3) (4.5)

Year (Gap)

Drop-Out Rates (CPS)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

Per

cent White

Black

Hispanic

(9.0) (11.5) (8.3) (7.0) (4.5) (3.7) (4.2) (5.9) (5.7) (5.3) (4.8) (4.4)

Year (Gap)

B.A. Completion

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

Per

cent

WhiteBlackHispanic

(12.2) (15.3) (13.8) (13.4) (11.6) (13.4) (13.7) (16.2) (13.4) (16.5) (15.2) (17.4)

Year (Gap)

Why is it important?

• Individual• Society

Individual: Educational Attainment

• Increased chance of falling behind in school

• Higher dropout rate• Reduced enrollment in college• Less likelihood of college degree

“Over a third of the low SES group and just 3 percent of the high group are ‘permanent dropouts,’ meaning high school dropouts who at approximately age 22 still lack high school certification of any type. Whereas almost 60 percent of the high SES group attended a four-year college by age 22, just 7 percent low SES youth did.” (Alexander, et al., 2007)

“Horribly, NAEP data indicate that, on average, Black students are leaving high school ‘with less mathematical knowledge than white 8th graders possess.’” (Hughes, 2003)

Individual: Employment Opportunity

• Limited career path• Concentration in low-paying positions

Individual: Wages

• Lower wages

The gap has shifted from being an indicator of educational inequality to a direct cause of socioeconomic

inequality.

Society: Economic

• Reduced economic competitiveness• Lower standard of living• Impediment to productivity and

performance• Contribution to decline in economic

health

• If the minority-white gap had been closed between 1983 and 1998: • GDP would have been $310 - $525 billion

higher (2 - 4% of GDP) in 2008 dollars

• If the SES gap had been closed between 1983 and 1998:• GDP would have been $400 - $600 billion

higher (3 - 5% of GDP) in 2008 dollars

Society: Social Well-Being

• Reinforces social inequality and exacerbates social justice problems

• Reduces ties that bind society• Damages political fabric of democracy

Part B.Insights and Rules for Closing

Achievement Gaps: General Rules of Engagement

Four Sets of Findings

• Big Picture Conclusions• Factors to Emphasize• Timing• Cautions

Big Picture Conclusions

By and large,

schools do not cause achievement gaps.

K 4 8 12

WhiteBlack

50% 75% 100%

+25% +25%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

(Preschool)

Period A

(Age 0-5)

(K – 5)

Period B

( Age 6 – 11)

(6 – 12)

Period C

(Age 12 – 18)

4

3

2

1

2

1

3

2

1

Summer

K – 1

Summer

1 – 2

Summer

2 – 3

Summer

3 – 4

Summer

4 – 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5/6 9/10.

White

Black

K 3 – 4

50% of gap 25% of gap

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5/6 9/10.

White

Black

K 3 – 4

50% of gap 25% of gap

school

Summer effect

Schools cannot close achievement gaps alone.

social policy

schooling

schools have a part to play.

Much of the solution is to be found in factors external to the school, but

Schools have not been

especially effective in

helping close

achievement gaps.

Deep-Seated, Long-Standing, Hard-to-Solve Problem

• Historically not a front-burner issue

• An unwillingness to see the issue in ethical terms

• A reluctance to re-set priorities and re-allocate resources

Since low-income and minority

students are more school-

dependent than their more

advantaged peers, there is

potential for schools to help

solve the problem.

What School Dependency Means

• These youngsters are more advantaged in general when schools do things well

• These youngsters are more disadvantaged in general when schools do not do things well

Factors

A focus on both

out-of-school and

in-school factors

is required.

Schools did not

cause the gaps.

They cannot solve gap

problems alone.

A combination of factors

is required to close

achievement gaps.

Silver Bullet

Better instruction

Stronger culture(academic press)

Lower class size

More personalization

Greater curricular rigor

Students do not need

“different” types of interventions.

They require more intensive support.

Academic and Environmental Factors Need to be Addressed in Tandem

• Instructional program• Culture

“Ultimately, programs that rely entirely on increasing academic standards without parallel attention to social-emotional factors associated with achievement motivation and performance will be less likely to improve student achievement outcomes.” (Becker and Luther, 2002)

We need to concentrate on those

factors that disproportionately

advantage low-income and

minority students.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

factors disproportionately advantage low-income and minority students

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

factors help all students the same

• Preschool programs• Cooperative instructional strategies• Smaller class sizes• Quality instruction• Co-curricular/extra curricular activities• More rigorous courses• Placement in high SES schools (school composition)• Minority teachers/working class teachers• Parent help with homework• Protective, supportive, risk-free environment• Service learning• High teacher expectations

Smaller Class Size• Ferguson, 1998• Finn, 1998• Finn & Achilles, 1990• Grissmar, 1998

• Kruger & Whitmore• Rothstein, 2004• Slavin & Madden, 2006

• More beneficial for minority than non-minority students

• Largest for disadvantaged students

• Greater for students attending inner-city schools

Quality Instruction

“The impact of the teacher is far greater for minority students…Good teachers can have a differentially positive effect on minority students.” (Singham, 2003)

Curricular Rigor• Minority and low-income students see to benefit

more than others from stronger course requirements. (Thompson, 2002)

• Content standards have a positive effect on average achievement; the gains [are] especially large more minority students. (Harris & Hertert, 2006)

• The gains from taking a more demanding mathematics curriculum are even greater for African American and Latino students than for white students. (Thompson & O’Quinn, 2001)

Service Learning• “Service learning may be especially attractive to

principals of low SES schools, in part because it may be related to higher achievement generally and to smaller achievement gaps between higher and lower income students.” (Scales, et al., 2006)

• “[C]ommunity service appears to be related to a smaller achievement gap between students from lower and higher income backgrounds. Moreover, experiencing service-learning for at least a few weeks appears to be related to a smaller gap in most academic outcomes between low and high-SES students.” (Scales, et al., 2006)

Some factors carry more

weight than others.

All factors are not equal in closing the gap.

Some have more power to reduce discrepancies.

• Opportunity to learn• Quality instruction

An integrated, coherent, cohesive, overlapping design works best.

ninth grade academy

summer support, grades 8 and 9

acceleration + remediation design

extra services…double sessions

service learning

co-curricular involvement

after school tutoring program

master teachers

faculty advisors extended schooling

Issues

There is no short-term solution.

Early interventions trump later interventions.

The place to solve the “9th grade problem”

is in preschool.

ball ball

hill

hill

8th grade vs. 12th grade

Later:

• Problems are harder• Problems are more entrenched• Problems are less malleable• Problems have infected multiple domains

(e.g., reading problem motivation engagement); an early problem of 1

or 2 things becomes a later problem of 5 or 6 things

Some factors carry more weight in certain periods

of the school career.

• High teacher expectations are more powerful in PreK-4

• High personalization is more powerful in grades 8-12

Length of time intreatment is important.

Quality Instruction (concept portrait)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Units of Benefit

Grades

instruction units added 2 5 9

eighth grade eighth & ninth gradeseighth, ninth, & tenth

grades

Prevention trumps remediation.

Acceleration + remediation trumps remediation.

lesson #1 lesson #2

instruction learning instruction

problem

arises

lesson #1 lesson #2

instruction learning instruction

problem

arises

One rarely arrives --

do not withdraw supports.

Cautions

Use of Categories

• Lumping minorities together• Aggregating diverse groups within categories• Ignoring individual differences

Lumping groups into “minority” status is

problematic.

Sub-Group Scores Mask Differences

• Many groups in Hispanic and Asian designations

We need to remember that we are talking about averages.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Black White

Factors are not uniformly effective

for all forms of the gap.

There is a need to surface potential unintended

consequences.

move: enhance accountability via testing

strategy: move most effective teachers to “tested” grades

consequences: ???

move: enhance academic rigor

strategy: detrack

consequence: ???

move: create culturally responsive culture

strategy: establish AA center/club

consequence: ???

Costs as well as benefits of gap reduction strategies

need to be weighed.

Ninth grade academy? Salary supplement for teachers working in schools with high concentrations of low-income students? Additional AP courses?

Do not lose sight of the real goal (forest)

when focusing on the gaps (trees).

The core issue is

addressing underachievement.

Three Dimensions of Achievement

• Level• Equity• Value added

0

1.2

2.4

3.8

0

0.6

1.2

2.4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

K 1 2 3

Years of School

Gra

de

Eq

uiv

alen

t Ach

ieve

men

t

WhiteBlack

gap .6 1.2 1.4

VALUE ADDED

0.6

1.2

1.6

0.4

0.8

1.3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

K 1 2 3

Years of School

Gra

de

Equ

iva

lent

Ach

ieve

men

t

WhiteBlack

gap .2 .4 .3

LEVEL

Absolute vs. Relative Gain

Relative vs. Absolute Change

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

8 12

Grade Level

Gra

de-

Lev

el E

qu

ival

ent

white

black

Absolute 3.0 3.5 +.5Relative

• Rate of change: black

60%white

44%• Black achievement as % of white achievement 63% 70%

Do not count on luck, prayer,

magic, or martyrs to solve the problem.

ACTIONS

FocusEnhancement Actions Barrier-Removal Actions

Help All Equally Help Low-SES More Help All Equally Help Low-SES More

All Students

[1]

• Align curriculum• Deepen PD for Teachers

[2]• Provide academic summer school• Use cooperative learning strategies• Raise teacher expectations• Add time to school day

[3] [4]• Detrack• Re-culture discriminatory discipline culture• Remove transportation barriers for more co-curricular opportunities• Reduce class size

Targeted Students

[5] [6]

• Provide supplemental tutoring• Target additional instructional time• Form cultural similar clubs (AA)

[7] [8]• Remove barriers that prevent parents from participating with school

Part C.

Causes of Achievement Gaps

I. Introduction

A. Starting point

B. Frames of investigation1. Categorical

2. Theoretical

3. Core framea) family/society (non-school)

b) school

4. Our frame

a) SES

b) family

c) community

d) individual factors

e) peers

f) racial discrimination

g) ???

h) schooling

Achievement

Gap

Social and Economic Context

Family

Context

Community Context

Racial

Context

Peer

Context

Individual

Context

Out-of-School Educational Experiences

K-12 Educational

Context

Figure 3.1 Causes of the Achievement Gap