As several articles in this issue of Educational Leadership discuss, academic achievement gaps begin long before children enter the education system. Low-income and minority preschoolers, as a group, experience a broad range of conditions that place them at a disadvantage from the start—such as inadequate health care, poor nutrition, parents with low education levels, too much television watching, and a lack of enriching language experiences.
What would happen if we provided these children, from the time they entered school, with the most experienced teachers, the smallest class sizes, the newest physical facilities, and the most enriched curriculum materials? Could all this extra support overcome their early disadvantages and eradicate the achievement gap? Unfortunately, we don't know. Research shows that far from getting the best of everything, low-income and minority students in the United States get less than their more affluent peers do. As Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, says,<BQ>The fact is, we have organized our education system in this country so that we take children who have less to begin with and then turn around and give them less in school, too. Indeed, we give these children less of all the things that both research and experience tell us make a difference.
- Unprepared teachers;
- Serious teacher turnover problems;
- Teacher vacancies and a large number of substitute teachers;
- Inadequate facilities;
- Dirty, locked, or inoperative student bathrooms;
- Evidence of vermin (cockroaches, mice, and rats) in school buildings;
- Limited access to computers and the Internet;
- Inadequate science equipment; and
- Insufficient classroom materials and supplies.
The survey, conducted by the Lou Harris organization, sampled teachers in a cross-section of schools in three states—New York, California, and Wisconsin—asking them to describe conditions in their schools. The researchers then compared responses in schools that served high numbers of students at risk (low-income and racial/ethnic minorities) with those of teachers in schools serving low numbers of students at risk. Harris, summarizing the survey findings in the NCTAF report, concluded thatThe evidence cited by the teachers, school by school, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that children at risk, who come from families with poorer economic backgrounds, are not being given an opportunity to learn that is equal to that offered to children from the most privileged families. The obvious cause of this inequality lies in the finding that the most disadvantaged children attend schools that do not have basic facilities and conditions conducive to providing them with a quality education. (p. 7)
Here are some selected examples of the survey results in areas that have large, consistent gaps between high-risk schools and low-risk schools.
Teacher quality. In California, 48 percent of the teachers in high-risk schools reported that their schools have high numbers of uncredentialed teachers, compared with only 4 percent of the teachers in low-risk schools.
Teacher turnover. In California, 43 percent of teachers in high-risk schools reported that the rate of teacher turnover was a serious problem, compared with 11 percent of teachers in low-risk schools. In New York, the percentages were 63 percent in high-risk schools and 17 percent in low-risk schools. In Wisconsin, the gap was smaller but still substantial: 41 percent in high-risk schools compared with 25 percent in low-risk schools.
Physical facilities. Teachers in high-risk schools in New York State were nearly twice more likely than those in low-risk schools (51 percent versus 26 percent) to report that their schools' overall physical facilities were inadequate. In California, the response was 47 percent for teachers in high-risk schools and 22 percent for those in low-risk schools. In Wisconsin, the response was 39 percent for teachers in high-risk schools and 21 percent for those in low-risk schools.
Instructional resources. In all three states surveyed, teachers in high-risk schools were less likely than teachers in low-risk schools to have adequate high-quality instructional resources at their disposal. For example, in Wisconsin, 38 percent of teachers in high-risk schools reported that they did not have an adequate number of textbooks for students to take home, compared with 17 percent in low-risk schools.
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future asserts that federal, state, and local leaders must publicly acknowledge that learning opportunities in high-risk schools are unacceptable and commit to long-term improvements. The Commission hopes that this survey's fresh evidence of unequal education opportunities will help policymakers summon the political will to effect genuine change.
Fifty Years After Brown v. Board of Education: A Two-Tiered Education System (2004) was published by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Washington, DC; 202-429-2570. The report is available online at www.nctaf.org/documents/nctaf/Brown_Full_Report_Final.pdf.
