Achievement Gap in Education Essay Example

to the educational purpose of a school but can become significant during the process of desegregation due to their noticeable physical aspect. One notable example of a mechanical effect is busing.

Busing is solely for the purpose of transporting children from one location to another and does not have any educational function or influence on academic success. Studies have indicated that there is no connection between the method of student transportation and their learning outcomes. Whether a student walks or takes a bus has no impact on their learning.

Hence, the association of educational impact with either busing or walking is erroneous. Factors like distance, health, and comfort remain important regardless of the chosen mode of transportation.

Instructional effects refer to changes in a school's educational effectiveness for individual students, which can be associated with changes in the school's climate, such as having high expectations and goals for all students.

According to the text, modifying the curriculum, enhancing student-teacher relationships and learning methods, improving educational materials, fostering respect, and implementing supportive administrative policies can help bring about these changes.

The policy effects of desegregation have been studied very rarely, while many studies use the word "busing" in their titles without actually examining busing itself. The majority of studies on the instructional effects of desegregation focus only on one narrow aspect of the topic, which is achievement test scores.

The classroom dynamics, curriculum's impact on scores, student learning modes, and school policies are often overlooked.

Before the 1950s, educators did not show interest in examining the impact of racial segregation on academic achievement. The answer appeared clear since boards of education

hardly made any efforts to enhance the academic performance of minority children. Additionally, funds originally allocated for minority children were often redirected to white schools, causing a setback for minority achievement.

Neither the national organizations of school board members, administrators, teachers, nor educational researchers objected to these practices. The schools or departments of education at universities also remained silent.

The 1954 Brown ruling and the growing civil rights movement brought about a change. Advocates for civil rights insisted on providing minority children with a quality education. Ending segregation was therefore connected to an expected improvement in academic performance. Some even believed that eliminating segregation would automatically lead to increased educational attainment.

The argument was that educators in schools, seen as unbiased experts, could equally educate all students, including those from minority backgrounds. As segregation based on race was being dismantled and replaced with integration, it was expected that not only discriminatory attitudes would vanish but also any disparities in resources and opportunities would decrease. Therefore, the belief was that academic success for minority students would thrive.

Progress was slow despite the fact that parents of impoverished and minority children were highly concerned about enhancing their children's education. The civil rights movement urged school boards in various cities to release school-specific achievement scores, allowing for the identification of weak areas and the implementation of targeted measures to address deficiencies.

Despite resistance from boards of education, demands for publication of scores were not heeded. Even in cities where scores were made public, their significance was overlooked and not seen as indicators of problems.

In light of school boards' hesitance to take

action, the inquiry emerged regarding whether achievement in desegregated schools differed from that in segregated schools. Those against desegregation firmly believed that achievement would decrease in the newly desegregated schools. Academic skeptics, unaccustomed to considering racial factors in education, overlooked their potential relevance in the current situation. Meanwhile, advocates of desegregation held onto optimism without substantial evidence or assurance of success.

In the South, desegregation in schools was minimal after Brown's decision, mostly on a symbolic level. Initially, there were no changes in the North as a result of Brown. Consequently, there was a lack of cases illustrating actual desegregation. Those searching for comprehensive studies on the impact of desegregation on academic progress were unsuccessful.

Between 1964 and 1970, Weinberg authored three works solely on desegregation effects. In his 1964 pamphlet, he analyzed limited evidence including dissertations, superintendent testimonies, and firsthand observer statements. His conclusion was that desegregation appeared to enhance the academic performance of black children without negatively impacting white children.

In 1970, Nancy St. John wrote an article that extensively analyzed studies on desegregation and achievement[1]. St. John pointed out weaknesses in the methodology of various studies, which Weinberg did not address. Some studies overlooked socioeconomic conditions and others did not properly control the factors being studied. Additionally, certain studies lacked a pretest, making it difficult to distinguish between a condition that existed prior to desegregation and an effect caused by the process of desegregation.

In 1975, St. John published a book that discussed desegregation and achievement.[2] Instead of criticizing methodological flaws in studies, St. John focused on emphasizing that these studies only demonstrated desegregation as an unpredictable process.

The impact of desegregation on achievement was influenced by various factors, such as the teacher's role.

In 1977, Weinberg published a comprehensive book analyzing evidence on desegregation and achievement. The book included several studies, some of which revealed no improvement in academic performance due to desegregation. Nonetheless, Weinberg concluded that desegregation typically had a favorable effect on minority achievement after considering all the evidence.

Both St. John and Weinberg approached the evidence fairly, acknowledging its flaws but also drawing careful conclusions. St. John was a bit more skeptical, whereas Weinberg focused on empirical and historical evidence, as well as positive results. Unfortunately, some writers in the field only cited studies that aligned with their preferred emphasis, disregarding the rest, leading to a distorted view.

During 1977-1978, there were significant developments and increased organization in the evaluation of desegregation research. Moreover, researchers began posing different inquiries instead of repeating the same questions.

In 1978, Ronald A. Krol embarked on a rare meta analysis by analyzing analyses to settle the debate on the effects of desegregation on academic achievement.

The hypotheses of the author were derived from the books of St. John and Weinberg in a more explicit manner compared to these two authors. However, unlike them, he established specific rules for accepting evidence. He found a total of 129 analyses that met the six criteria he established. To be considered in the study, it had to be of a before-after nature. Measurement of achievement could only be done by comparing it to a previous point. Quantitative measurement of achievement was necessary as without it, determining the exact effect size would not

be possible.

The study necessitated specific statistical data, including the number of students and the extent of score variability among the population being examined. Studies that solely concentrated on assessing attitudes, whether from teachers or students, were excluded. Moreover, studies that only measured a situation once ("crosssectional") were not considered.

Krol explained that most studies only examined the influence of racial composition ratios on achievement at one point in time, without considering the consequences of transitioning from segregation to desegregation over a period. Furthermore, Krol did not include studies that concentrated on determining the impact of desegregation on I.Q. scores since they perceived I.Q. and achievement as separate ideas.

A total of 129 analyses, conducted in 55 studies, provided insights into their findings.

Krol conducted a study on the impact of desegregation on academic achievement. Among seventy-one studies, most found that the experimental group (the desegregated group) had a mean score 0.16 standard deviations higher than the control group. However, there were ten cases where the experimental group scored lower than the control group. Krol also examined if the positive effect of desegregation was stronger in younger children but found no evidence to support this claim. Additionally, Krol did not find any significant relationship between the duration of exposure to desegregation and achievement in mathematics and reading.

Krol found that there were "slightly positive" effects on achievement. He also observed that using less rigorous analysis techniques led to similar conclusions. One technique, known as "voting" and used by Weinberg, showed that desegregation generally had a positive impact on minority achievement.

According to Krol's study, research that lacks a control

group yields greater impact compared to studies with a control group. Nevertheless, Krol contends against drawing adverse conclusions from these results and emphasizes that this study does not prove any detrimental effects of desegregation.

Krol criticizes the desegregation studies he has reviewed, stating that none of them are exceptional and at best they are average. Furthermore, he notes that these studies lack clarity regarding the specific experimental or other "treatment" taking place in the classroom due to desegregation.

According to Krol, the treatment in all the meta-analysis studies involves putting minority children in predominantly white schools. He points out that none of the researchers investigated the environment within these schools or whether the children were placed in integrated classes within the desegregated school.[5]

Minority children in formally desegregated schools often face segregated classes, resulting in a lack of positive achievement impact. It is possible that a stronger enforcement of desegregation requirements could lead to improved achievement.

For over a decade, the fact that desegregation researchers are hesitant to study classroom dynamics has been observed. Despite this noticeable flaw, sponsors of research still choose to disregard it.

In 1978, Robert L. Crain and Rita E. Mahard conducted a study on desegregation and academic achievement. Their analysis was groundbreaking as they explored new perspectives and raised questions beyond just comparing test scores between students in desegregated and segregated schools.

Is educational success influenced by region? A majority of fifteen studies conducted with students in the South demonstrated positive improvements for black students. Conversely, just over a third of twenty-six studies conducted with northern students showed similar gains. Is it more beneficial

to implement desegregation at a younger age? According to Crain and Mahard, the answer is unequivocal: the earlier the grade at which desegregation takes place, the greater the positive effect on academic performance.

The impact of desegregation on black children's education varies depending on the curriculum. Although the quantitative evidence is inconclusive, Crain and Mahard suggest that in numerous instances, the improved academic performance of desegregated black children is a result of using a superior curriculum rather than increased racial interaction.

The researchers concluded that both voluntary and mandatory desegregation plans can positively impact black learning. However, they cautioned against quickly applying this unexpected finding without further analysis.

Crain and Mahard generally contend that the academic achievement of black students can be positively affected by desegregation. Nevertheless, this result is not certain and can be influenced by classroom dynamics.

Desegregation brings about numerous benefits, such as advancements in curricula and facilities, along with improved access to highly trained and intellectually capable teachers for black students. Furthermore, there is usually a concentrated endeavor to enhance the overall quality of education. Above all else, desegregation almost invariably results in socioeconomic integration. With the presence of these factors during desegregation, it is anticipated that there will be substantial academic advancements in 50% to 66% of instances.

According to estimates, the average achievement gain of blacks within the first one or two years of desegregation is approximately equivalent to half a grade.

In 1977, Laurence and Gifford Bradley conducted a study that mirrored another study by Crain and Mahard [7] to evaluate the effect of desegregation on achievement. Both studies were carried out

simultaneously, although Crain and Mahard's publication was delayed for a year. It appears that neither pair was aware of each other's research.

The Bradleys inquired if open enrollment, which allows students to choose a school regardless of where they live, promoted growth in black academic achievement.

All four studies on this technique showed a positive achievement effect. Although the Bradleys pointed out that two of the studies had significant methodological shortcomings, the other two were more advanced. It could be inferred, although not explicitly stated by the Bradleys, that research on open enrollment corroborated a positive achievement effect.

The Bradleys thoroughly examined the evidence on central schools as a method of desegregation. Central schools are institutions where students go to after their original schools have shut down in order to achieve a more desirable racial balance. The Bradleys found that all investigations into central schools led to an enhancement in black achievement following desegregation. However, they did criticize certain studies for having weak methodology.

Several studies have been conducted on school closures and student dispersal, but the findings have not provided conclusive results. The Bradleys contend that these studies suffer from significant methodological flaws, which prevent accurate conclusions from being drawn.

Although there have been many studies on the impact of desegregation plans through busing, the Bradleys did not come to a definite conclusion about them. However, when discussing the well-known Pettigrew-Armor debate on this topic, they stated that Armor's conclusion regarding the ineffectiveness of busing should be considered uncertain.

During their examination, the Bradleys assessed a solitary experimental study conducted by Frary and Goolsby in Gulfport, Mississippi. The Bradleys concurred

that this study provided "fairly compelling evidence indicating that desegregation could potentially have positive impacts on the academic performance of black students."

Throughout, the Bradleys emphasized the significant methodological deficiencies in nearly all desegregation studies. They regarded most of these deficiencies as severe, though not insurmountable. Consequently, we are left with imperfect evidence. A few of the weaknesses include comparisons lacking a satisfactory control group; as a result, any academic improvement observed in a desegregated school could potentially have occurred in a segregated school as well.

Considering both schools, a potential common factor could be the formative factor. However, some studies didn't administer a test before desegregation, making it difficult to determine the importance of a test score obtained at the end of the study period [8].

Numerous single studies are being continuously published, and many of them are particularly interesting.

The Systems Development Corporation (SDC) conducted the first assessment of the federal Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA), which evaluated its efficacy in allocating funds to school districts. The funds were designated for either supporting desegregation plans (Basic program) or improving educational services in predominantly minority districts (Pilot program).

The study aims to assess the educational impact of federal funds. It was carried out between 1973-1974 and 1975-1976, spanning three years.

The study faced a hindrance that was not its own fault - an inherent flaw. The comparison involved schools that received ESAA funds and similar schools in the same district without such funds. It is believed that if the ESAA grants were of significant magnitude, certain characteristics would emerge, providing an advantage to the ESAA schools over the non-ESAA schools.