essay about education inequality

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Recognizing and Overcoming Inequity in Education

About the author, sylvia schmelkes.

Sylvia Schmelkes is Provost of the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City.

22 January 2020 Introduction

I nequity is perhaps the most serious problem in education worldwide. It has multiple causes, and its consequences include differences in access to schooling, retention and, more importantly, learning. Globally, these differences correlate with the level of development of various countries and regions. In individual States, access to school is tied to, among other things, students' overall well-being, their social origins and cultural backgrounds, the language their families speak, whether or not they work outside of the home and, in some countries, their sex. Although the world has made progress in both absolute and relative numbers of enrolled students, the differences between the richest and the poorest, as well as those living in rural and urban areas, have not diminished. 1

These correlations do not occur naturally. They are the result of the lack of policies that consider equity in education as a principal vehicle for achieving more just societies. The pandemic has exacerbated these differences mainly due to the fact that technology, which is the means of access to distance schooling, presents one more layer of inequality, among many others.

The dimension of educational inequity

Around the world, 258 million, or 17 per cent of the world’s children, adolescents and youth, are out of school. The proportion is much larger in developing countries: 31 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and 21 per cent in Central Asia, vs. 3 per cent in Europe and North America. 2  Learning, which is the purpose of schooling, fares even worse. For example, it would take 15-year-old Brazilian students 75 years, at their current rate of improvement, to reach wealthier countries’ average scores in math, and more than 260 years in reading. 3 Within countries, learning results, as measured through standardized tests, are almost always much lower for those living in poverty. In Mexico, for example, 80 per cent of indigenous children at the end of primary school don’t achieve basic levels in reading and math, scoring far below the average for primary school students. 4

The causes of educational inequity

There are many explanations for educational inequity. In my view, the most important ones are the following:

• Equity and equality are not the same thing. Equality means providing the same resources to everyone. Equity signifies giving more to those most in need. Countries with greater inequity in education results are also those in which governments distribute resources according to the political pressure they experience in providing education. Such pressures come from families in which the parents attended school, that reside in urban areas, belong to cultural majorities and who have a clear appreciation of the benefits of education. Much less pressure comes from rural areas and indigenous populations, or from impoverished urban areas. In these countries, fewer resources, including infrastructure, equipment, teachers, supervision and funding, are allocated to the disadvantaged, the poor and cultural minorities.
• Teachers are key agents for learning. Their training is crucial.  When insufficient priority is given to either initial or in-service teacher training, or to both, one can expect learning deficits. Teachers in poorer areas tend to have less training and to receive less in-service support.
• Most countries are very diverse. When a curriculum is overloaded and is the same for everyone, some students, generally those from rural areas, cultural minorities or living in poverty find little meaning in what is taught. When the language of instruction is different from their native tongue, students learn much less and drop out of school earlier.
• Disadvantaged students frequently encounter unfriendly or overtly offensive attitudes from both teachers and classmates. Such attitudes are derived from prejudices, stereotypes, outright racism and sexism. Students in hostile environments are affected in their disposition to learn, and many drop out early.

It doesn’t have to be like this

When left to inertial decision-making, education systems seem to be doomed to reproduce social and economic inequity. The commitment of both governments and societies to equity in education is both necessary and possible. There are several examples of more equitable educational systems in the world, and there are many subnational examples of successful policies fostering equity in education.

Why is equity in education important?

Education is a basic human right. More than that, it is an enabling right in the sense that, when respected, allows for the fulfillment of other human rights. Education has proven to affect general well-being, productivity, social capital, responsible citizenship and sustainable behaviour. Its equitable distribution allows for the creation of permeable societies and equity. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure “inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. One hundred eighty-four countries are committed to achieving this goal over the next decade. 5  The process of walking this road together has begun and requires impetus to continue, especially now that we must face the devastating consequences of a long-lasting pandemic. Further progress is crucial for humanity.

Notes  1 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , Inclusive Education. All Means All , Global Education Monitoring Report 2020 (Paris, 2020), p.8. Available at https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion . 2 Ibid., p. 4, 7. 3 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education's Promise (Washington, DC, 2018), p. 3. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018 .  4 Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, "La educación obligatoria en México", Informe 2018 (Ciudad de México, 2018), p. 72. Available online at https://www.inee.edu.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/P1I243.pdf . 5 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , “Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4” (2015), p. 23. Available at  https://iite.unesco.org/publications/education-2030-incheon-declaration-framework-action-towards-inclusive-equitable-quality-education-lifelong-learning/   The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.   

Thirty Years On, Leaders Need to Recommit to the International Conference on Population and Development Agenda

With the gains from the Cairo conference now in peril, the population and development framework is more relevant than ever. At the end of April 2024, countries will convene to review the progress made on the ICPD agenda during the annual session of the Commission on Population and Development.

The LDC Future Forum: Accelerating the Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in the Least Developed Countries

The desired outcome of the LDC Future Forums is the dissemination of practical and evidence-based case studies, solutions and policy recommendations for achieving sustainable development.

From Local Moments to Global Movement: Reparation Mechanisms and a Development Framework

For two centuries, emancipated Black people have been calling for reparations for the crimes committed against them. 

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

• Ideas for Action
• Join the MAHB
• Why Join the MAHB?
• Current Associates
• Current Nodes
• What is the MAHB?
• Who is the MAHB?
• Acknowledgments

Why Is Education So Important in The Quest for Equality?

Gerald Nelson | April 14, 2022 | Leave a Comment

Image: Pikist

Education is vital. We can all agree on this but where we fall out of the agreement is why exactly education is so necessary for equality. Without education, there can be no progress, no development, and no improvement. 

In today’s world, we are ever more aware of the issues surrounding sexism, racism, and inequality, allowing for a greater understanding of the importance of educating people to avoid these biases occurring in the first place.

What is Educational Equality and why is it necessary? 

Equality isn’t always so simple. Some may assume, for example, that educational equality is as simple as providing children with the same resources. In reality, however, there’s a lot more to it than this. We will check what governments are doing to achieve this goal. What actions they are taking to advance the cause of equality? Education is crucial because it’s a toolkit for success:

• With literacy and numeracy comes confidence, with which comes self-respect. And by having self-respect, you can respect others, their accomplishments, and their cultures.
• Education is the fundamental tool for achieving social, economic, and civil rights – something which all societies strive to achieve.

Educational Inequality is usually defined as the unequal distribution of educational resources among different groups in society. The situation becomes serious when it starts influencing how people live their lives. For example, children will be less likely to go to school if they are not healthy, or educated because other things are more urgent in their life.

Categorical Educational Inequality

Categorical Education Inequality is especially apparent when comparing minority/low-income schools with majority/high-income schools. Are better-off students systematically favored in getting ahead? There are three plausible conditions:

• Higher-income parents can spend more time and money on private tutoring, school trips, and home study materials to give their children better opportunities. Therefore, better-off students have an advantage due to access to better schools, computers, technology, etc. (the so-called opportunity gap).
• Low-income schools lack the resources to educate their students. Therefore their students tend to have worse educational outcomes.
• Although the public school system is a government-funded program to allow all students an equal chance at a good education, this is not the case for most schools across third world countries – see UNESCO statistics below:

How Educational Inequality is fueling global issues

Educational inequality is a major global crisis. It has played a role in economic problems, amplified the political deadlock, exacerbated the environmental predicament, and threatens to worsen the human rights crisis. If equality in education is not addressed directly, these crises will only deepen because: 

• Educational Inequality is also about  race and gender . Those who are less privileged are condemned to poverty and unemployment because of a lack of quality educational resources. 
• Without a sound education, people have  less knowledge  of the world around them or the issues facing their communities. They are less likely to vote or to pay attention to politics. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by those who represent narrow interests and promote fear, hatred, and violence. The result is an erosion of democratic values and an increase in authoritarianism.
• Without correction,  human rights abuses  will continue due to a lack of legal representation among those with no or low education levels.
• Poverty, unemployment, crimes, and health issues: A lack of education and skills forces children into poverty because they can’t get jobs or start a business. It also leaves them without hope and is one of the reasons for unemployment, lower life expectancy, malnutrition, a higher chance of chronic diseases, and crime rates.
• Limited opportunities: The most significant issue is that lack of education reduces the opportunities for people to have a decent life. Limited options increase the division of social classes, lower social mobility, and reduce the ability to build networks and social contacts. Students in poor countries also spend a lot of time working to support their families rather than focusing on their school work. These factors also worsen the upbringing of coming generations.
• Extremism:  Inequality can also lead to increased violence, racism, gender bias, and extremism, which causes further economic and democratic challenges.  
• Inability to survive pandemics:  Unlike developed nations after COVID, underdeveloped countries are stuck in their unstable economic cycles. Inequality causes a lack of awareness and online educational resources, lower acceptance of preventive measures, and unaffordable vaccines, for example. According to the  United Nations , “Before the coronavirus crisis, projections showed that  more than 200 million children would be out of school , and only 60 percent of young people would be completing upper secondary education in 2030”.
• Unawareness of technological advancements: The world is becoming more tech-savvy, while students in underdeveloped countries remain unaware of the latest technological achievements as well as unable to implement them. This also widens the education gap between countries.
• Gender inequality in education:  In general, developing countries compromise over funds allocation for women’s education to manage their depletion of national income. As such, they consider women less efficient and productive than men. Meanwhile, many parents do not prefer sending their daughters to school because they do not think that women can contribute equally to men in the country’s development. However, if we have to overcome this, there should be an increase in funding and scholarships for women’s education.
• Environmental crises:  People are usually less aware of the harmful emissions produced in their surroundings and are therefore less prepared to deal with increased pollution levels. This also affects climate change. The less educated the children, the more likely they are to contribute to climate change as adults. This is because education is not just about learning facts and skills but also about recognizing problems and applying knowledge in innovative ways. 
• A child who has dropped out of school will generally  contribute less to society  than a child who has completed secondary school. A child who has completed secondary school will contribute less than a child who went to university. This difference increases over time because those with higher levels of education tend to be more open-minded, flexible thinkers and are therefore better able to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Equality in education is therefore essential for addressing international issues including economic inequality, climate change, social deprivation, and access to healthcare. Many children in poor regions are deprived of education (see chart below) which is the only way out of poverty .

Proposed Solutions 

The United Nations Development Program says that access to education is a human right, and should be individually accessible and available to all by 2030. It demands:

• International collaborations to ensure that every child has the same quality education and to develop joint curricula and academic programs. The quality of teaching methodologies should not be compromised and includes providing financial assistance and tools for equal access.
• Running campaigns to discourage race, gender, and ethnicity differences, arranging more seminars to reach low-income groups, and providing adequate financial assistance, training, and part-time jobs for sole earners.  
• Modifying scholarship criteria to better support deserving students who cannot afford university due to language tests and low grades. 
• Increasing the minimum wage so that sole breadwinners can afford quality education for their children.  
• Schools should bear transportation costs and offer free grants to deserving kids from low-income families.
• Giving more attention to slum-side schools by updating and implementing new techniques and resources. 
• Allowing students to learn in their own language with no enforcement of international languages and offering part-time courses in academies and community colleges in other languages. 

Resolving educational inequality has many benefits for the wider society. Allowing children from disadvantaged backgrounds to get an education will help them find better jobs with higher salaries, improving their quality of life, and making them more productive members of society. It decreases the likelihood of conflict and increases access to health care, stable economic growth, and unlimited opportunities.

Conclusion:

It’s been said that great minds start out as small ones. To level the playing field, we need to focus on best educating our next generation of innovators and leaders, both from an individual and a societal standpoint. If we want equality to become a reality, it will be up to us to ensure that equality is at the forefront of our education system.

References:

Environmental Conscience: 42 Causes, Effects & Solutions for a Lack of Education – E&C (environmental-conscience.com)

School of Education Online Programs: What the U.S. Education System Needs to Reduce Inequality | American University

Educational Inequality: Solutions | Educational Inequality (wordpress.com)

Giving Compass: Seven Solutions for Education Inequality · Giving Compass

Science.org: Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline

Research Gate: Inequality and Economic Growth

University of Munich: pdf (uni-muenchen.de)

Research Gate: Effects-of-inequality-and-poverty-vs-teachers-and-schooling-on-Americas-youth.pdf (researchgate.net)

Borgen Magzine

United Nations: Education as the Pathway towards Gender Equality

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – Education

This article has been edited in line with our guidelines

Gerald Nelson is a freelance academic essay writer at perfectessaywriting.com who also works with several e ducational and human rights organizations. 

The MAHB Blog is a venture of the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. Questions should be directed to [email protected]

Education and inequality in 2021: how to change the system

Research Associate at the University of Geneva's department of Education and Psychology; Campus and Secondary Principal at the International School of Geneva's La Grande Boissière, Université de Genève

Disclosure statement

Conrad Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

AUF (Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie) provides funding as a member of The Conversation FR.

View all partners

Since its earliest traces, at least 5,000 years ago , formal education – meaning an education centred on literacy and numeracy – has always been highly selective. Ancient Egyptian priest schools and schools for scribes in Sumeria were only open to the children of the clergy or future monarchs.

Later on, the wealthy would use private tutors, such as the Sophists of Athens (500 - 400 BCE). Ancient Greek schools, such as Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum , were restricted to a small elite group. Formal education was reserved for male children who were wealthy, able, and privileged.

Through time, even after learning societies began to flourish, it was still an education for some and not for everybody.

In the 1800s Black people were denied access to quality education in the United States. In European colonies, education was used to strip people of their cultural heritage and relegate them to a future of menial labour.

Education has always been less accessible to women than men. Even today, over 130 million girls are still out of school. Although the difference between girls and boys is lessening, the disparity disadvantaging girls persists . From a socioeconomic perspective, in many countries, private schools continue to grow alongside compulsory state schools, offering a different style of education, sometimes at a very high price.

Today, progress to attain the dream of universal access to education is slow. UNESCO’s Education for All and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 4 , which aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”, are still far from materialising: roughly 260 million children are still not in school . The COVID-19 pandemic has made the situation worse: remote learning is inaccessible to roughly 500 million students . Estimates are that over 200 million children will still be out of school by 2030 .

In my study “Education and Elitism” , the overarching question that runs through the book is about the future of education worldwide: What are the prospects for the future? Are we facing an even more enclaved, pauperised majority while a tiny minority become more powerful and wealthy?

Certain paths could open up. On the one hand, places in selective institutions could become even more difficult to access while private education strips ahead of national standards. On the other hand, changes might make education more inclusive: this would include scholarships, cheaper private education, more robust state systems and deep assessment reform.

Prospects for the future

Scholarship programmes: These allow the brightest and poorest access to transformative learning ecosystems . However, this contributes to a brain drain and does not develop the local educational sector , particularly in Africa.

Cheaper private education: A movement of accessible private schools is growing . This allows more children to access some of the value-added features of such systems – more curriculum flexibility, smaller class sizes, more individual student tracking. However, there are reports that this is widening social divides , as the public system isn’t improving fast enough to keep up.

More robust state systems: UNESCO estimates that it would cost a total of US$340 billion each year to achieve universal pre-primary, primary, and secondary education in low- and lower-middle-income countries by 2030. The average annual per-student spending for quality primary education in a low-income country is predicted to be US$197 in 2030. This creates an estimated annual gap of US$39 billion between 2015 and 2030. Financing this gap calls for action from private sector donors, philanthropists, and international financial institutions.

Online learning: The COVID-19 lockdown has brought inequalities to the surface. However, the rise of online learning worldwide has been phenomenal. This opens up the potential to widen access to learning socioeconomically and, if delivered by skilled facilitators, academically . There is a problem, though: online instruction lacks the emotional quantum that face-to-face learning creates. Because of this, motivation levels and persistence tend to be low in online learning environments . And importantly, in many countries, many students still don’t have access to the internet.

A way forward: reforming the system

Perhaps the most substantive movement to reduce inequalities would not be to accelerate access to a broken system but to reform the system itself .

It is time to look further than narrow academic metrics as the only way of describing young people’s competences. The whole educational system across high schools, in every country, needs to change dramatically. Assessment models should recognise and nurture more varied and multiple competences, in particular, attitudes, skills and types of knowledge beyond those concentrated in constructs that are favoured by socioeconomic background, such as literacy and numeracy .

Read more: Education needs a refocus so that all learners reach their full potential

Until universities and employers look beyond traditional metrics, it will be difficult to break a circuit that favours, for the large part, middle class, socially and ethnically privileged candidates.

To truly break away from a millennia of elitist, selective systems , the approach needs to move from pure academics to a credit system that captures many more stories of learning. This new credit system should be known as a passport, meaning students have stamped it with the various competences such as lifelong learning and self-agency that they have developed throughout their learning (in an out of school), allowing them to be recognised on numerous different fronts.

A coalition of schools from every continent is working on this project, now seeking universities to sit around the table in order to bring this work to its conclusion. This would mean co-designing an elegant, life worthy transcript to allow more access to more children based on more expansive criteria.

• Peacebuilding
• Education inequality
• Women and girls
• Out of school children

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Communications and Engagement Officer, Corporate Finance Property and Sustainability

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

The Hechinger Report

Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education

A decade of research on the rich-poor divide in education

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our  weekly newsletters  to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox. Consider supporting our stories and becoming  a member  today.

Get important education news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox

• Weekly Update
• Future of Learning
• Higher Education
• Early Childhood
• Proof Points

Americans like to believe that education can be a great equalizer, allowing even the poorest child who studies hard to enter the middle class. But when I looked at what academic researchers and federal data reports have said about the great educational divide between the rich and poor in our country, that belief turns out to be a myth. Basic education, from kindergarten through high school, only expands the disparities.

In 2015, during the Obama administration, the federal education department issued a report that showed how the funding gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade between 2001-2 and 2011-12. That meant that the richest 25 percent of school districts spent $1,500 more per student, on average, than the poorest 25 percent of school districts. 

I wish I could have continued to track this data between rich and poor schools to see if school spending had grown more fair. But the Trump administration crunched the numbers differently. When it issued a report in 2018 , covering the 2014-15 school year, it found that the wealthiest 25 percent of districts spent $450 more per student than the poorest 25 percent. 

That didn’t mean there was a giant 70 percent improvement from $1,500. The Trump administration added together all sources of funds, including federal funding, which amounts to 8 percent of total school spending, while the Obama administration excluded federal funds, counting only state and local dollars, which make up more than 90 percent of education funds. The Obama administration argued at the time that federal funds for poor students were intended to supplement local funds because it takes more resources to overcome childhood poverty, not to create a level playing field. 

Rather than marking an improvement, there were signs in the Trump administration data that the funding gap between rich and poor had worsened during the Great Recession if you had compared the figures apples to apples, either including or excluding federal funds. In a follow-up report issued in 2019, the Trump administration documented that the funding gap between rich and poor schools had increased slightly to $473 per student between the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years. 

It’s not just a divide between rich and poor but also between the ultra rich and everyone else. In 2020, a Pennsylvania State University researcher documented how the wealthiest school districts in America — the top 1 percent — fund their schools at much higher levels than everyone else and are increasing their school spending at a faster rate. The school funding gap between a top 1 percent district (mostly white suburbs) and an average-spending school district at the 50th percentile widened by 32 percent between 2000 and 2015, the study calculated. Nassau County, just outside New York City on Long Island, has the highest concentration of students who attend the best funded public schools among all counties in the country. Almost 17 percent of all the top 1 percent students in the nation live in this one county. 

Funding inequities are happening in a context of increased poverty in our schools. In 2013, I documented how the number of high poverty schools had increased by about 60 percent to one out of every five schools in 2011 from one out of every eight schools in 2000. To win this unwelcome designation, 75 percent or more of an elementary, middle or high school’s students lived in families poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. It’s since gotten worse. In the most recent federal report , covering the 2016-17 school year, one out of every four schools in America was classified as  high poverty. 

It’s not just that poverty is becoming more concentrated in certain schools; more students in the school system are poor. In 2014, I documented a 40 percent jump in the number of school-aged children living in poverty between 2000 and 2012 from one out of every seven children to one out of every five students. In the most recent report, for the 2016-17 school year, the poverty rate declined from 21 percent in 2010 to 18 percent in 2017. About 13 million children under the age of 18 were in families living in poverty.

When you break the data down by race, there are other striking patterns. One third of all Black children under 18 were living in poverty in 2016-17, compared with a quarter of Hispanic children. White and Asian children have a similar poverty rate of 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

Sociologists like Sean Reardon at Stanford University and Ann Owens at the University of Southern California have built a body of evidence that school segregation by income is what’s really getting worse in America, not school segregation by race. But it’s a complicated argument because Black and Latino students are more likely to be poor and less likely to be rich.  So the two things — race and poverty — are intertwined. 

In 2019, Reardon studied achievement gaps in every school in America and found that the difference in poverty rates between predominantly Black and predominantly white schools explains the achievement gaps we see and why white schools tend to show higher test scores than Black schools. When white and Black schools have the same poverty rates, Reardon didn’t see a difference in academic achievement. The problem is that Black students are more often poor and attending schools with more poor students. And other than a handful of high-performing charter schools in a few cities, he couldn’t find examples of academic excellence among schools with a high-poverty student body.

“It doesn’t seem that we have any knowledge about how to create high-quality schools at scale under conditions of concentrated poverty,” said Reardon. “And if we can’t do that, then we have to do something about segregation. Otherwise we’re consigning Black and Hispanic and low-income students to schools that we don’t know how to make as good as other schools. The implication is that you have got to address segregation.”

Previous Proof Points columns cited in this column:

The number of high-poverty schools increases by about 60 percent

Poverty among school-age children increases by 40 percent since 2000

The gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade

Data show segregation by income (not race) is what’s getting worse in schools

In 6 states, school districts with the neediest students get less money than the wealthiest

An analysis of achievement gaps in every school in America shows that poverty is the biggest hurdle

Rich schools get richer: School spending analysis finds widening gap between top 1% and the rest of us

This story about education inequality in America written by Jill Barshay and produced by  The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the  Hechinger newsletter .

Related articles

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Jill Barshay SENIOR REPORTER

(212)... More by Jill Barshay

Letters to the Editor

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

Thanks to Jill Barshay for the excellent column reminding us that there is much more to the rich/poor divide in our public schools than just the availability of digital devices and wi-fi. The real problem with equity in education is the lack of equity in school funding, which is an issue both of inequity in society and the ways in which public schools are funded (i.e., primarily local tax revenues).

Other barriers that kept the “school door blocked” for many low income students during this season of remote learning — and, presumably, next school year, as well — include: 1. Some with access to devices and wi-fi have had service disconnected at times due to unpaid (unpayable) bills. 2. Many have no private space in their homes from where to participate in synchronous learning/Zoom calls 3. With loss of family income and no child care, some have work or baby-sitting responsibilities that interfere with participation 4. Deadening effects of online learning cause many low-income students to disconnect and/or “drop out”. 5. In ability to access teacher supports and specialized instruction, esp. for English language learners and children with special needs. 6. Parent inability to assist students with computer routines, glitches, log-ins, etc

As districts address equity in the coming school year, we must also address the modes of learning that we consider both effective and valuable. If the top priority is engaging all students we need high engagement models based in trauma-informed practices, social and racial justice curricula, service learning, interdisciplinary project- and place-based learning, outdoor learning and other innovative ways to make education relevant to all students, regardless of their zip codes. Relax the standards. Cancel high stakes testing. Trust teachers to use their creativity to connect with every student and family. Otherwise, “remote” or “hybrid” learning, regardless of the availability of technology, will only be widening the gaps that structural racism has already created.

Why are we NOT reaching out to the teaching programs started by Marva Collins in Chicago and Ron Clark in Atlanta? Why are we NOT looking at a book called Schools That Work and viewing the achievements and strategies followed by successful programs. Let’s follow successful schools, successful environments in urban, rural, and suburban locations. As an eductor who started teaching in the Ocean-Hill Brownsville area of Brooklyn, N,Y. in 1971, there was a wildcat strike happening and this area was the where decentralization took place in N.Y.C. Rev. Al Sharpton’s church was down the block from I.S. 271. It took 2 years before a no nonsense, BLACK principal, took control over the choas and the movement of 125 teachers going and then coming to this “high poverty” intermediate school. There was stability of staff and the message was, you’re here to learn. I taught there for 7 incredible years and grew to understand what it was like being a minority teacher and human being. I then moved to Columbia, MD. where I lived in a planned community where diversity of color, homes, religions and belief in humanity living together as ONE took place. I taught in a white disadvantaged area for 2 years and observed the same behaviors students exhibited except there was no leadership at the top of this school. Now I teach in a suburban area for the last 31 years with limited diversity and succeeds because of innovative leadership, extraordinary teachers, and pretty high achieving students. Yes, I know every students must have access to technology as a MUST. Yes, I know urban education, rural education, and suburban education do education diffferently. Yes, I know poverty sucks, and I know distant learning may be around for a while. Change must come from the top. Let’s follow the successful educators, the successful programs, the dynamic elected officials who can shake up things so our students, our kids, our educational systems can be the change that can bring poverty to it’s knees.

I live on Long Island and know that whatever is written here about us is true. The Freeport Public School waste millions of taxpayers dollars throwing out teaching equipment, devices books that could be just given to the less fortunate schools next door-Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx; where we see children suffering because of lack of proper learning tools. I am from the Caribbean where l taught for years. Oh l wish we were as privileged as these children. Maybe one day the disparity will end. Hopefully.

I enjoy reading this post. I am currently doing my thesis and the research question is: Do California K-12 public schools in lower-income communities offer the same level of academic curriculum as those in middle-income and wealthy communities? Do you have the reference page for those studies or even any peer reviewers where you got the information? I would like to review those studies and use them for my thesis. Thank you

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Submit a letter

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

It’s on Facebook, and it’s complicated

How far has COVID set back students?

What do anti-Jewish hate, anti-Muslim hate have in common?

The costs of inequality: education’s the one key that rules them all.

When there’s inequity in learning, it’s usually baked into life, Harvard analysts say

Corydon Ireland

Harvard Correspondent

Third in a series on what Harvard scholars are doing to identify and understand inequality, in seeking solutions to one of America’s most vexing problems.

Before Deval Patrick ’78, J.D. ’82, was the popular and successful two-term governor of Massachusetts, before he was managing director of high-flying Bain Capital, and long before he was Harvard’s most recent Commencement speaker , he was a poor black schoolchild in the battered housing projects of Chicago’s South Side.

The odds of his escaping a poverty-ridden lifestyle, despite innate intelligence and drive, were long. So how did he help mold his own narrative and triumph over baked-in societal inequality ? Through education.

“Education has been the path to better opportunity for generations of American strivers, no less for me,” Patrick said in an email when asked how getting a solid education, in his case at Milton Academy and at Harvard, changed his life.

“What great teachers gave me was not just the skills to take advantage of new opportunities, but the ability to imagine what those opportunities could be. For a kid from the South Side of Chicago, that’s huge.”

If inequality starts anywhere, many scholars agree, it’s with faulty education. Conversely, a strong education can act as the bejeweled key that opens gates through every other aspect of inequality , whether political, economic , racial, judicial, gender- or health-based.

Simply put, a top-flight education usually changes lives for the better. And yet, in the world’s most prosperous major nation, it remains an elusive goal for millions of children and teenagers.

Plateau on educational gains

The revolutionary concept of free, nonsectarian public schools spread across America in the 19th century. By 1970, America had the world’s leading educational system, and until 1990 the gap between minority and white students, while clear, was narrowing.

But educational gains in this country have plateaued since then, and the gap between white and minority students has proven stubbornly difficult to close, says Ronald Ferguson, adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) and faculty director of Harvard’s Achievement Gap Initiative. That gap extends along class lines as well.

“What great teachers gave me was not just the skills to take advantage of new opportunities, but the ability to imagine what those opportunities could be. For a kid from the South Side of Chicago, that’s huge.” — Deval Patrick

In recent years, scholars such as Ferguson, who is an economist, have puzzled over the ongoing achievement gap and what to do about it, even as other nations’ school systems at first matched and then surpassed their U.S. peers. Among the 34 market-based, democracy-leaning countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks around 20th annually, earning average or below-average grades in reading, science, and mathematics.

By eighth grade, Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. noted last year, only 44 percent of American students are proficient in reading and math. The proficiency of African-American students, many of them in underperforming schools, is even lower.

“The position of U.S. black students is truly alarming,” wrote Fryer, the Henry Lee Professor of Economics, who used the OECD rankings as a metaphor for minority standing educationally. “If they were to be considered a country, they would rank just below Mexico in last place.”

Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) Dean James E. Ryan, a former public interest lawyer, says geography has immense power in determining educational opportunity in America. As a scholar, he has studied how policies and the law affect learning, and how conditions are often vastly unequal.

His book “Five Miles Away, A World Apart” (2010) is a case study of the disparity of opportunity in two Richmond, Va., schools, one grimly urban and the other richly suburban. Geography, he says, mirrors achievement levels.

A ZIP code as predictor of success

“Right now, there exists an almost ironclad link between a child’s ZIP code and her chances of success,” said Ryan. “Our education system, traditionally thought of as the chief mechanism to address the opportunity gap, instead too often reflects and entrenches existing societal inequities.”

Urban schools demonstrate the problem. In New York City, for example, only 8 percent of black males graduating from high school in 2014 were prepared for college-level work, according to the CUNY Institute for Education Policy, with Latinos close behind at 11 percent. The preparedness rates for Asians and whites — 48 and 40 percent, respectively — were unimpressive too, but nonetheless were firmly on the other side of the achievement gap.

In some impoverished urban pockets, the racial gap is even larger. In Washington, D.C., 8 percent of black eighth-graders are proficient in math, while 80 percent of their white counterparts are.

Fryer said that in kindergarten black children are already 8 months behind their white peers in learning. By third grade, the gap is bigger, and by eighth grade is larger still.

According to a recent report by the Education Commission of the States, black and Hispanic students in kindergarten through 12th grade perform on a par with the white students who languish in the lowest quartile of achievement.

There was once great faith and hope in America’s school systems. The rise of quality public education a century ago “was probably the best public policy decision Americans have ever made because it simultaneously raised the whole growth rate of the country for most of the 20th century, and it leveled the playing field,” said Robert Putnam, the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at HKS, who has written several best-selling books touching on inequality, including “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community” and “Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.”

Historically, upward mobility in America was characterized by each generation becoming better educated than the previous one, said Harvard economist Lawrence Katz. But that trend, a central tenet of the nation’s success mythology, has slackened, particularly for minorities.

“Thirty years ago, the typical American had two more years of schooling than their parents. Today, we have the most educated group of Americans, but they only have about .4 more years of schooling, so that’s one part of mobility not keeping up in the way we’ve invested in education in the past,” Katz said.

As globalization has transformed and sometimes undercut the American economy, “education is not keeping up,” he said. “There’s continuing growth of demand for more abstract, higher-end skills” that schools aren’t delivering, “and then that feeds into a weakening of institutions like unions and minimum-wage protections.”

“The position of U.S. black students is truly alarming.” — Roland G. Fryer Jr.

Fryer is among a diffuse cohort of Harvard faculty and researchers using academic tools to understand the achievement gap and the many reasons behind problematic schools. His venue is the Education Innovation Laboratory , where he is faculty director.

“We use big data and causal methods,” he said of his approach to the issue.

Fryer, who is African-American, grew up poor in a segregated Florida neighborhood. He argues that outright discrimination has lost its power as a primary driver behind inequality, and uses economics as “a rational forum” for discussing social issues.

Better schools to close the gap

Fryer set out in 2004 to use an economist’s data and statistical tools to answer why black students often do poorly in school compared with whites. His years of research have convinced him that good schools would close the education gap faster and better than addressing any other social factor, including curtailing poverty and violence, and he believes that the quality of kindergarten through grade 12 matters above all.

Supporting his belief is research that says the number of schools achieving excellent student outcomes is a large enough sample to prove that much better performance is possible. Despite the poor performance by many U.S. states, some have shown that strong results are possible on a broad scale. For instance, if Massachusetts were a nation, it would rate among the best-performing countries.

At HGSE, where Ferguson is faculty co-chair as well as director of the Achievement Gap Initiative, many factors are probed. In the past 10 years, Ferguson, who is African-American, has studied every identifiable element contributing to unequal educational outcomes. But lately he is looking hardest at improving children’s earliest years, from infancy to age 3.

In addition to an organization he founded called the Tripod Project , which measures student feedback on learning, he launched the Boston Basics project in August, with support from the Black Philanthropy Fund, Boston’s mayor, and others. The first phase of the outreach campaign, a booklet, videos, and spot ads, starts with advice to parents of children age 3 or younger.

“Maximize love, manage stress” is its mantra and its foundational imperative, followed by concepts such as “talk, sing, and point.” (“Talking,” said Ferguson, “is teaching.”) In early childhood, “The difference in life experiences begins at home.”

At age 1, children score similarly

Fryer and Ferguson agree that the achievement gap starts early. At age 1, white, Asian, black, and Hispanic children score virtually the same in what Ferguson called “skill patterns” that measure cognitive ability among toddlers, including examining objects, exploring purposefully, and “expressive jabbering.” But by age 2, gaps are apparent, with black and Hispanic children scoring lower in expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, and other indicators of acuity. That suggests educational achievement involves more than just schooling, which typically starts at age 5.

Key factors in the gap, researchers say, include poverty rates (which are three times higher for blacks than for whites), diminished teacher and school quality, unsettled neighborhoods, ineffective parenting, personal trauma, and peer group influence, which only strengthens as children grow older.

“Peer beliefs and values,” said Ferguson, get “trapped in culture” and are compounded by the outsized influence of peers and the “pluralistic ignorance” they spawn. Fryer’s research, for instance, says that the reported stigma of “acting white” among many black students is true. The better they do in school, the fewer friends they have — while for whites who are perceived as smarter, there’s an opposite social effect.

The researchers say that family upbringing matters, in all its crisscrossing influences and complexities, and that often undercuts minority children, who can come from poor or troubled homes. “Unequal outcomes,” he said, “are from, to a large degree, inequality in life experiences.”

Trauma also subverts achievement, whether through family turbulence, street violence, bullying, sexual abuse, or intermittent homelessness. Such factors can lead to behaviors in school that reflect a pervasive form of childhood post-traumatic stress disorder.

[gz_sidebar align=”left”]

Possible solutions to educational inequality:

• Access to early learning
• Improved K-12 schools
• More family mealtimes
• Reinforced learning at home
• Data-driven instruction
• Longer school days, years
• Respect for school rules
• Small-group tutoring
• High expectations of students
• Safer neighborhoods

[/gz_sidebar]

At Harvard Law School, both the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative and the Education Law Clinic marshal legal aid resources for parents and children struggling with trauma-induced school expulsions and discipline issues.

At Harvard Business School, Karim R. Lakhani, an associate professor who is a crowdfunding expert and a champion of open-source software, has studied how unequal racial and economic access to technology has worked to widen the achievement gap.

At Harvard’s Project Zero, a nonprofit called the Family Dinner Project is scraping away at the achievement gap from the ground level by pushing for families to gather around the meal table, which traditionally was a lively and comforting artifact of nuclear families, stable wages, close-knit extended families, and culturally shared values.

Lynn Barendsen, the project’s executive director, believes that shared mealtimes improve reading skills, spur better grades and larger vocabularies, and fuel complex conversations. Interactive mealtimes provide a learning experience of their own, she said, along with structure, emotional support, a sense of safety, and family bonding. Even a modest jump in shared mealtimes could boost a child’s academic performance, she said.

“We’re not saying families have to be perfect,” she said, acknowledging dinnertime impediments like full schedules, rudimentary cooking skills, the lure of technology, and the demands of single parenting. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

Whether poring over Fryer’s big data or Barendsen’s family dinner project, there is one commonality for Harvard researchers dealing with inequality in education: the issue’s vast complexity. The achievement gap is a creature of interlocking factors that are hard to unpack constructively.

Going wide, starting early

With help from faculty co-chair and Jesse Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree, the Achievement Gap Initiative is analyzing the factors that make educational inequality such a complex puzzle: home and family life, school environments, teacher quality, neighborhood conditions, peer interaction, and the fate of “all those wholesome things,” said Ferguson. The latter include working hard in school, showing respect, having nice friends, and following the rules, traits that can be “elements of a 21st-century movement for equality.”

In the end, best practices to create strong schools will matter most, said Fryer.

He called high-quality education “the new civil rights battleground” in a landmark 2010 working paper for the Handbook of Labor Economics called “Racial Inequality in the 21st Century: The Declining Significance of Discrimination.”

Fryer tapped 10 large data sets on children 8 months to 17 years old. He studied charter schools, scouring for standards that worked. He champions longer school days and school years, data-driven instruction, small-group tutoring, high expectations, and a school culture that prizes human capital — all just “a few simple investments,” he wrote in the working paper. “The challenge for the future is to take these examples to scale” across the country.

How long would closing the gap take with a national commitment to do so? A best-practices experiment that Fryer conducted at low-achieving high schools in Houston closed the gap in math skills within three years, and narrowed the reading achievement gap by a third.

“You don’t need Superman for this,” he said, referring to a film about Geoffrey Canada and his Harlem Children’s Zone, just high-quality schools for everyone, to restore 19th-century educator Horace Mann’s vision of public education as society’s “balance-wheel.”

Last spring, Fryer, still only 38, won the John Bates Clark medal, the most prestigious award in economics after the Nobel Prize. He was a MacArthur Fellow in 2011, became a tenured Harvard professor in 2007, was named to the prestigious Society of Fellows at age 25. He had a classically haphazard childhood, but used school to learn, grow, and prosper. Gradually, he developed a passion for social science that could help him answer what was going wrong in black lives because of educational inequality.

With his background and talent, Fryer has a dramatically unique perspective on inequality and achievement, and he has something else: a seemingly counterintuitive sense that these conditions will improve, once bad schools learn to get better. Discussing the likelihood of closing the achievement gap if Americans have the political and organizational will to do so, Fryer said, “I see nothing but optimism.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story inaccurately portrayed details of Dr. Fryer’s background.

Illustration by Kathleen M.G. Howlett. Harvard staff writer Christina Pazzanese contributed to this report.

Next Tuesday: Inequality in health care

Share this article

You might like.

‘Spermworld’ documentary examines motivations of prospective parents, volunteer donors who connect through private group page 

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize

Researchers scrutinize various facets of these types of bias, and note sometimes they both reside within the same person.

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

Excited about new diet drug? This procedure seems better choice.

Study finds minimally invasive treatment more cost-effective over time, brings greater weight loss

• Graduate School of Education
• GSE Theses and Dissertations
• Communities & Collections
• By Issue Date
• FAS Department
• Quick submit
• Waiver Generator
• DASH Stories
• Accessibility
• COVID-related Research
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• By Collections
• By Departments

Show simple item record

Essays on Educational Inequality

Files in this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

• GSE Theses and Dissertations [329]

Educational Inequality*

This chapter provides new evidence on educational inequality and reviews the literature on the causes and consequences of unequal education. We document large achievement gaps between children from different socio-economic backgrounds, show how patterns of educational inequality vary across countries, time, and generations, and establish a link between educational inequality and social mobility. We interpret this evidence from the perspective of economic models of skill acquisition and investment in human capital. The models account for different channels underlying unequal education and highlight how endogenous responses in parents' and children's educational investments generate a close link between economic inequality and educational inequality. Given concerns over the extended school closures during the Covid-19 pandemic, we also summarize early evidence on the impact of the pandemic on children's education and on possible long-run repercussions for educational inequality.

This chapter has been prepared for the Handbook of the Economics of Education Volume 6. The asterisk has been added to the title of this paper to distinguish it from NBER working paper 8206 which has the same title. We thank Kwok Yan Chiu, Ricard Grebol, and Ashton Welch for excellent research assistance and the editors, John Jerrim, Sandra McNally, Anders Björklund, Jonas Radl, Martin Hällsten, and Christopher Rauh for helpful comments. Financial support from the National Science Foundation (grant SES-1949228), the Comunidad de Madrid and the MICIU (CAM-EPUC3M11, H2019/HUM-589, ECO2017-87908-R) is gratefully acknowledged. This paper uses data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS): Starting Cohort 4–9th Grade, doi:10.5157/NEPS:SC4:1.0.0, Next Steps: Sweeps 1-8, 2004-2016. 16th Edition. UK Data Service SN: 5545 http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5545-8, Longitinal Studies of Australian Youth (LSAY): 15 Year-Olds in 2003, doi:10.4225/87/5IOBPG, Education Longitudinal Study (ELS), 2002: Base Year. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04275.v1. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Is Education No Longer the ‘Great Equalizer’?

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

There is an ongoing debate over what kinds of investment in human capital — roughly the knowledge, skills, habits, abilities, experience, intelligence, training, judgment, creativity and wisdom possessed by an individual — contribute most to productivity and life satisfaction.

Is education no longer “a great equalizer of the conditions of men,” as Horace Mann declared in 1848, but instead a great divider? Can the Biden administration’s efforts to distribute cash benefits to the working class and the poor produce sustained improvements in the lives of those on the bottom tiers of income and wealth — or would a substantial investment in children’s training and enrichment programs at a very early age produce more consistent and permanent results?

Take the case of education. On this score — if the assumption is “the more education, the better” — then the United States looks pretty good.

From 1976 to 2016 the white high school completion rate rose from 86.4 percent to 94.5 percent, the Black completion rate from 73.5 percent to 92.2 percent, and the Hispanic completion rate rose from 60.3 percent to 89.1 percent. The graduation rate of whites entering four-year colleges from 1996 to 2012 rose from 33.7 to 43.7 percent, for African Americans it rose from 19.5 to 23.8 percent and for Hispanics it rose from 22.8 to 34.1 percent.

But these very gains appear to have also contributed to the widening disparity in income between those with different levels of academic attainment, in part because of the very different rates of income growth for men and women with high school degrees, college degrees and graduate or professional degrees.

Education lifts all boats, but not by equal amounts.

David Autor , an economist at M.I.T., together with the Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz , tackled this issue in a paper last year, “ Extending the Race Between Education and Technology ,” asking: “How much of the overall rise in wage inequality since 1980 can be attributed to the large increase in educational wage differentials?”

Their answer:

Returns to a year of K-12 schooling show little change since 1980. But returns to a year of college rose by 6.5 log points, from 0.076 in 1980 to 0.126 in 2000 to 0.141 in 2017. The returns to a year of post-college (graduate and professional) rose by a whopping 10.9 log points, from 0.067 in 1980 to 0.131 in 2000 and to 0.176 in 2017.

I asked Autor to translate that data into language understandable to the layperson, and he wrote back:

There has been almost no increase in the increment to individual earnings for each year of schooling between K and 12 since 1980. It was roughly 6 percentage points per year in 1980, and it still is. The earnings increment for a B.A. has risen from 30.4 percent in 1980 to 50.4 percent in 2000 to 56.4 percent in 2017. The gain to a four-year graduate degree (a Ph.D., for example, but an M.D., J.D., or perhaps even an M.B.A.) relative to high school was approximately 57 percent in 1980, rising to 127 percent in 2017.

These differences result in large part because ever greater levels of skill — critical thinking, problem-solving, originality, strategizing​ — are needed in a knowledge-based society.

“The idea of a race between education and technology goes back to the Nobel Laureate Jan Tinbergen , who posited that technological change is continually raising skill requirements while education’s job is to supply those rising skill levels,” Autor wrote in explaining the gains for those with higher levels of income. “If technology ‘gets ahead’ of education, the skill premium will tend to rise.”

But something more homely may also be relevant. Several researchers argue that parenting style contributes to where a child ends up in life.

As the skill premium and the economic cost of failing to ascend the education ladder rise in tandem, scholars find that adults are adopting differing parental styles — a crucial form of investment in the human capital of their children — and these differing styles appear to be further entrenching inequality.

Such key factors as the level of inequality, the degree to which higher education is rewarded and the strength of the welfare state are shaping parental strategies in raising children.

In their paper “ The Economics of Parenting ,” three economists, Matthias Doepke at Northwestern, Giuseppe Sorrenti at University of Zurich and Fabrizio Zilibotti at Yale, describe three basic forms of child rearing:

The permissive parenting style is the scenario where the parent lets the child have her way and refrains from interfering in the choices. The authoritarian style is one where the parent imposes her will through coercion. In the model above, coercion is captured through the notion of restricting the choice set. An authoritarian parent chooses a small set that leaves little or no leeway to the child. The third parenting style, authoritative parenting , is also one where the parent aims to affect the child’s choice. However, rather than using coercion, an authoritative parent uses persuasion: she shapes the child’s preferences through investments in the first period of life. For example, such a parent may preach the virtues of patience or the dangers of risk during when the child is little, so that the child ends up with more adultlike preferences when the child’s own decisions matter during adolescence.

There is an “interaction between economic conditions and parenting styles,” Doepke and his colleagues write, resulting in the following patterns:

Consider, first, a low inequality society, where the gap between the top and the bottom is small. In such a society, there is limited incentive for children to put effort into education. Parents are also less concerned about children’s effort, and thus there is little scope for disagreement between parents and children. Therefore, most parents adopt a permissive parenting style, namely, they keep young children happy and foster their sense of independence so that they can discover what they are good at in their adult life.

The authors cite the Scandinavian countries as key examples of this approach.

Authoritarian parenting, in turn, is most common in less-developed, traditional societies where there is little social mobility and children have the same jobs as their parents:

Parents have little incentive to be permissive in order to let children discover what they are good at. Nor do they need to spend effort in socializing children into adultlike values (i.e., to be authoritative) since they can achieve the same result by simply monitoring them.

Finally, they continue, consider “a high-inequality society”:

There, the disagreement between parents and children is more salient, because parents would like to see their children work hard in school and choose professions with a high return to human capital. In this society, a larger share of parents will be authoritative, and fewer will be permissive.

This model, the authors write, fits the United States and China.

There are some clear downsides to this approach:

Because of the comparative advantage of rich and educated parents in authoritative parenting, there will be a stronger socioeconomic sorting into parenting styles. Since an authoritative parenting style is conducive to more economic success, this sorting will hamper social mobility.

Sorrenti elaborated in an email:

In neighborhoods with higher inequality and with less affluent families, parents tend to be, on average, more authoritarian. Our models and additional analyses show that parents tend to be more authoritarian in response to a social environment perceived as more risky or less inspiring for children. On the other hand, the authoritative parenting styles, aimed at molding child preferences, is a typical parenting style gaining more and more consensus in the U.S., also in more affluent families.

What do these analyses suggest for policies designed to raise those on the lowest tiers of income and educational attainment? Doepke, Sorrenti and Zilibotti agree that major investments in training, socialization and preparation for schooling of very young (4 and under) poor children along the lines of proposals by Nobel Laureate James Heckman , an economist at the University of Chicago, and Roland Fryer , a Harvard economist, can prove effective.

In an October 2020 paper , Fryer and three colleagues described

a novel early childhood intervention in which disadvantaged 3-4-year-old children were randomized to receive a new preschool and parent education program focused on cognitive and noncognitive skills or to a control group that did not receive preschool education. In addition to a typical academic year program, we also evaluated a shortened summer version of the program in which children were treated immediately prior to the start of kindergarten. Both programs, including the shortened version, significantly improved cognitive test scores by about one quarter of a standard deviation relative to the control group at the end of the year.

Heckman, in turn, recently wrote on his website:

A critical time to shape productivity is from birth to age five, when the brain develops rapidly to build the foundation of cognitive and character skills necessary for success in school, health, career and life. Early childhood education fosters cognitive skills along with attentiveness, motivation, self-control and sociability — the character skills that turn knowledge into know-how and people into productive citizens.

Doepke agreed:

In the U.S., the big achievement gaps across lines of race or social class open up very early, before kindergarten, rather than during college. So for reducing overall human capital inequality, building high quality early child care and preschool would be the first place to start.

Zilibotti, in turn, wrote in an email:

We view our work as complementary to Heckman’s work. First, one of the tenets of his analysis is that preferences and attitudes are “malleable,” especially so at an early age. This is against the view that people’s success or failure is largely determined by genes. A fundamental part of these early age investments is parental investment. Our work adds the dimension of “how?” to the traditional perspective of “how much?” That said, what we call “authoritative parenting style” is relative to Heckman’s emphasis on noncognitive skills.

The expansion of the Heckman $13,500-per-child test pilot program to a universal national program received strong support in an economic analysis of its costs and benefits by Diego Daruich , an economist at the University of Southern California. He argues in his 2019 paper “ The Macroeconomic Consequences of Early Childhood Development Policies ” that such an enormous government expenditure would produce substantial gains in social welfare, “an income inequality reduction of 7 percent and an increase in intergenerational mobility of 34 percent.”

As the debate over the effectiveness of education in reducing class and racial income differences continues, the Moving to Opportunity project stresses how children under the age of 13 benefit when they and their families move out of neighborhoods of high poverty concentration into more middle-class communities.

In a widely discussed 2015 paper, “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children,” three Harvard economists, Raj Chetty , Nathaniel Hendren and Katz, wrote:

Moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood significantly improves college attendance rates and earnings for children who were young (below age 13) when their families moved. These children also live in better neighborhoods themselves as adults and are less likely to become single parents. The treatment effects are substantial: children whose families take up an experimental voucher to move to a lower-poverty area when they are less than 13 years old have an annual income that is $3,477 (31 percent) higher on average relative to a mean of $11,270 in the control group in their mid-twenties.

There is a long and daunting history of enduring gaps in scholastic achievement correlated with socioeconomic status in the United States that should temper optimism.

In a February 2020 paper — “ Long-Run Trends in the U.S. SES-Achievement Gap ” — Eric A. Hanushek of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, Paul E. Peterson of Harvard’s Kennedy School, Laura M. Talpey of Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research and Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich report that over nearly 50 years:

The SES-achievement gap between the top and bottom SES quartiles (75-25 SES gap) has remained essentially flat at roughly 0.9 standard deviations, a gap roughly equivalent to a difference of three years of learning between the average student in the top and bottom quartiles of the distribution.

The virtually unchanging SES-achievement gap, the authors continue, “is confirmed in analyses of the achievement gap by subsidized lunch eligibility and in separate estimations by ethnicity that consider changes in the ethnic composition.”

Their conclusion:

The bottom line of our analysis is simply that — despite all the policy efforts — the gap in achievement between children from high- and low-SES backgrounds has not changed. If the goal is to reduce the dependence of students’ achievement on the socio-economic status of their families, re-evaluating the design and focus of existing policy programs seems appropriate. As long as cognitive skills remain critical for the income and economic well-being of U.S. citizens, the unwavering achievement gaps across the SES spectrum do not bode well for future improvements in intergenerational mobility.

The pessimistic implications of this paper have not deterred those devoted to seeking ways to break embedded patterns of inequality and stagnant mobility.

In a November 2019 essay, “ We Have the Tools to Reverse the Rise in Inequality ,” Olivier Blanchard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Dani Rodrik , an economist at Harvard, cited the ready availability of a host of policies with strong support among many economists, political scientists and Democrats:

Many areas have low-hanging fruit: expansion of EITC-type programs, increased public funding of both pre-K and tertiary education; redirection of subsidies to employment-friendly innovation, greater overall progressivity in taxation, and policies to help workers reorganize in the face of new production modes.

Adoption of policies calling for aggressive government intervention raises a crucial question, Autor acknowledged in his email: “whether such interventions would kill the golden goose of U.S. innovation and entrepreneurship.” Autor’s answer:

At this point, I’d say the graver threat is from inaction rather than action. If the citizens of a democracy think that “progress” simply means more inequality and stratification, and rising economic insecurity stemming from technology and globalization, they’re eventually going to “cancel” that plan and demand something else — though those demands may not ultimately lead somewhere constructive (e.g., closing U.S. borders, slapping tariffs on numerous friendly trading partners, and starving the government of tax revenue needed to invest in citizens was never going to lead anywhere good).

A promising approach to the augmentation of human capital lies in the exploration of noncognitive skills — perseverance, punctuality, self-restraint, politeness, thoroughness, postponement of gratification, grit — all of which are increasingly valuable in a service-based economy. Noncognitive skills have proved to be teachable, especially among very young children.

Shelly Lundberg , an economics professor at the University of California-Santa Barbara, cites a range of projects and studies, including the Perry Preschool Project, an intensive program for 3-to-4-year-old low-income children “that had long-term impacts on test scores, adult crime and male income.” The potential gains from raising noncognitive skills are wide-ranging, she writes in a chapter of the December 2018 book “ Education, Skills, and Technical Change: Implications for Future US GDP Growth ”:

Noncognitive skills such as attention and self-control can increase the productivity of educational investments. Disruptive behavior and crime impose negative externalities in schools and communities that increased levels of some noncognitive skills could ameliorate.

But, she cautions,

the state of our knowledge about the production of and returns to noncognitive skills is rather rudimentary. We lack a conceptual framework that would enable us to consistently define multidimensional noncognitive skills, and our reliance on observed or reported behavior as measures of skill make it impossible to reliably compare skills across groups that face different environments.

Education, training in cognitive and noncognitive skills, nutrition, health care and parenting are all among the building blocks of human capital, and evidence suggests that continuing investments that combat economic hardship among whites and minorities — and which help defuse debilitating conflicts over values, culture and race — stand the best chance of reversing the disarray and inequality that plague our political system and our social order.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall

Exploring Equity: Race and Ethnicity

• Posted February 18, 2021
• By Gianna Cacciatore
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Inequality and Education Gaps
• Moral, Civic, and Ethical Education
• Teachers and Teaching

The history of education in the United States is rife with instances of violence and oppression along lines of race and ethnicity. For educators, leading conversations about race and racism is a challenging, but necessary, part of their work.

“Schools operate within larger contexts: systems of race, racism, and white supremacy; systems of migration and ethnic identity formation; patterns of socialization; the changing realities of capitalism and politics,” explains historian and Harvard lecturer Timothy Patrick McCarthy , co-faculty lead of Race and Ethnicity in Context, a new module offered at the Harvard Graduate School of Education this January as part of a pilot of HGSE’s Equity and Opportunity Foundations course. “How do we understand the role that racial and ethnic identity play with respect to equity and opportunity within an educational context?”

>> Learn more about Equity and Opportunity and HGSE’s other foundational learning experiences.

For educators exploring question in their own homes, schools, and communities, McCarthy and co-faculty lead Ashley Ison, an HGSE doctoral student, offer five ways to get started.

1.    Begin with the self.

Practitioners enter conversations about race and racism from different backgrounds, with different lived experiences, personal and professional perspectives, and funds of knowledge in their grasps. Given diverse contexts and realities, it is important that leaders encourage personal transformation and growth. Educators should consider how race and racism, as well as racial and ethnic identity formation, impact their lives as educational professionals, as parents, and as policymakers – whatever roles they hold in society. “This is personal work, but that personal work is also political work,” says Ison.

2.    Model vulnerability.

Entering into discussions of race and racism can be challenging, even for those with experience in this work. A key part of enabling participants to lean into the challenge is being vulnerable. “You have trust your students,” explains McCarthy. “Part of that is modeling authentic vulnerability and proximity to the work.” This can be done by modeling discussion skills, like sharing the space and engaging directly with the comments of other participants, as well as by opening up personally to participants.  

“Fear can impact how people feel talking about race and ethnicity in an inter-group space,” says Ison. Courage, openness, and trust are key to overcoming that fear and enabling listening, which ultimately allows for critical thinking and change.

3.    Be transparent.

Part of being vulnerable is being fully transparent with your students from day one. “Intentions are important,” explains McCarthy. “The gap between intention and impact is often rooted in a lack of transparency about where you’re coming from or where you are hoping to go.”

4.    Center voices of color.

Voice and story are powerful tools in this work. Leaders must consider whose voices and stories take precedence on the syllabus. “Consider highlighting authors of color, in particular, who are thinking and writing about these issues,” says Ison. Becoming familiar with a variety of perspectives can help practitioners understand the voices and ideas that exist, she explains.

“Voice and storytelling can bear witness to the various kinds of systematic injustices and inequities we are looking at, but they also function as sources of power for imagining and reimagining the world we are trying to build, all while providing a deeper knowledge of the world as it has existed historically,” adds McCarthy.

5.    Prioritize discussion and reflection.

Since this work is as much about critical thinking as it is about content, it is important for educators to make space for discussion and reflection, at the whole-class, small-group, and individual levels. Ison and McCarthy encourage educators to allow students to generate and guide the discussion of predetermined course materials. They also recommend facilitating small group reflections that may spark conversation that can extend into other spaces outside of the classroom.

Selected Resources:

• Poor, but Privileged
• NPR: "The Importance of Diversity in Teaching Staff”
• TED Talk with Clint Smith: "The Danger of Silence"

More Stories from the Series:

• Exploring Equity: Citizenship and Nationality
• Exploring Equity: Gender and Sexuality
• Exploring Equity: Dis/ability
• Exploring Equity: Class

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Navigating Tensions Over Teaching Race and Racism

Disrupting Whiteness in the Classroom

Combatting Anti-Asian Racism

Equipping educators with restorative justice techniques to upend discrimination and stereotype

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 Strategies to Reduce Inequalities in Education

• Published: August 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter examines how governments define and pursue education equity. There is a broad consensus that reducing unfair education inequalities would be a good thing, but also the endurance of major inequalities, particularly in relation to a highly salient ‘attainment gap’ on leaving school. There is high contestation on the cause of inequalities and the balance between individual, school, and state responsibility, but also a tendency for a ‘neoliberal’ approach to overshadow ‘social justice’ approaches in national policy agendas. In that context, this chapter examines three key aspects. First, how policymakers define and pursue education equity policy. Second, what countries and regions can learn from allegedly leading countries. Third, the spatial dimension of education equity policy, in which there is a general tendency to decentralize policy delivery but centralize accountability, and scope for some regional governments to go their own way. The conclusion relates these findings to the idea of territorial cohesion.

Introduction

This chapter examines how governments define and pursue education equity, focusing largely on early years, primary, and secondary education. Education exhibits the hallmarks of equity policies that we describe in Chapter 1 . There is a broad consensus that reducing unfair education inequalities would be a good thing, but also the long-term endurance of major inequalities. Further, there is high contestation on the cause of inequalities and the balance between individual, school, and state responsibility. There are competing notions of ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ equity (giving everyone the same opportunity to access resources, or redistributing resources), debates on equal access to schools versus equal education outcomes, and a tendency to relate equal outcomes to a threshold of attainment or ‘attainment gap’ at school leaving age.

As in HiAP studies (Chapter 6 ), ‘social justice’ approaches focus on the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem and the need for action beyond the education sector. They suggest that ‘out of school’ factors—such as parental education and income, and poverty—have more impact on unequal outcomes than schools, and call for the greater use of joined-up policy to address the underlying causes of unfair inequalities (although few use the term ‘social determinants’). In contrast, ‘neoliberal’ approaches suggest that governments can reduce attainment gaps by improving the quality of schools while reforming education systems to make them more competitive in global knowledge economies. The latter framing of the problem dominates global and domestic policy. The economic frame is promoted successfully by large philanthropies and international organizations such as the World Bank, while the school reform agenda is associated strongly with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ( Grek, 2009 : 24; 2020 ; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010 : 128–136).

As such, there is a twin-track approach to education equity, in which national governments make vague reference to social justice in education but also retain strong commitments to accountability and performance measures. Further, the latter appears to undermine equity policy: the pressure for schools to compete comes at the expense of equal access to ‘high quality’ schools, and prompts some systems or schools to segregate marginalized populations by describing them as in greater need of ‘special needs’ education.

These competing frames of education policy feed into multiple levels of policymaking. On the one hand, EU research and advice contributes somewhat to the economic agenda of the World Bank and the performance management agenda of the OECD. On the other, its rules on human rights and social inclusion have—if implemented by member states—positive implications for marginalized populations ( Alexiadou, 2019 ). At member state level, the performance management agenda creates central-local tensions. National governments tend to delegate and retain key responsibilities: decentralizing the responsibility for school delivery to local governments and schools, but centralizing accountability via national student testing and league tables of local government and school performance.

There is also some scope for regional or devolved government autonomy, such as to oversee education system design and/or modify education spending. This is particularly the case in Germany and the UK, as well as most Belgian regions (the language communities have 100% competence for education), Spanish regions, and Trentino/Province of Trento, South Tyrol/Province of Bolzano, and Valle d’Aosta in Italy ( Garritzmann et al., 2021 : 20). This autonomy produces some potential for distinctive central-local relations. For example, the devolved Scottish Government acts as a national central government that delegates school delivery to local governments while overseeing its own curriculum and measures of student performance, and it projects the sense that its central-local government relationship is more cooperative than its UK government counterpart.

To explore these issues, we focus on three key aspects. First, how do policymakers define education equity in theory and practice ? We identify the social justice and neoliberal ideas promoted by the OECD, EU, and member states. We compare how they are defined in theory with how they interact in practice, to explore a general commitment to the former but tendency for the latter to dominate. Most education research identifies a tendency to focus on equal access to education services, giving relative inattention to inequalities of outcomes, and contributing to an enduring gap between equity rhetoric and actual practices.

Second, what can governments learn from allegedly leading countries with comparable systems ? Chapter 2 describes policy learning and policy transfer as desirable but contested political processes. Policy actors learn through the lens of their beliefs and according to the dominant ways in which policymakers define problems, and they transfer policies based not only on learning but also on perceived pressure to follow international norms. In that context, while we have designed a three-question framework to facilitate learning and potential transfer, it actually helps to identify contestation and explain a gap between expectations and practices. For example, Nordic experiences (again) provide best case examples but also cautionary tales, because neoliberal agendas appear to contrast strongly with the ideas associated with Nordic welfare states. For some, these experiences reinforce the value of resisting neoliberal reforms; for others, they show why a major rethink of policy was essential.

Third, we examine the multi-level nature of education equity policy . There are two main types of spatial politics in relation to multi-level education policymaking. The first relates to the balance between the decentralization of policymaking responsibilities to local governments and schools and the impetus to centralize key aspects, such as accountability and performance management indicators. The second relates to the scope for regional autonomy in education policy, with some regions across Europe enjoying similar powers as national governments, enjoying the potential to go their own way on education equity policy. In each case, there is some evidence that local and school policymaking matters, but in the context of a strong driver towards meeting targets and staying competitive overall. Local governments also lack the powers to address the ‘out of school’ factors that are more responsible for inequalities. To explore these issues, we draw on UK and devolved government experiences, highlighting distinctive education systems and policy styles, but within a wider context of performance management (and attention to high stakes exams) that seems to limit policy divergence.

Finally, we reflect on the overall impact of problem definition and multi-level policymaking on education equity and examine how it compares with the idea of territorial cohesion . Education provides a case study of continuous contestation over problem definition. There is a tendency for neoliberal approaches to dominate but be challenged at different levels, as well as some commitment to social justice in theory but a tendency to downplay it in practice. Education therefore provides insights relevant to the EU descriptions of ‘territorial cohesion’ that focus on equal access to services.

How do policymakers define education equity? Social justice versus neoliberal approaches

Chapter 6 describes a commonly told story in HiAP research: a coherent and well-supported strategy is undermined by the wider external ‘neoliberal’ policy agenda, defined as a way of thinking that favours individualism and market over state solutions, and prioritizes economic growth. In comparison, education research describes the framing of equity policy as relatively contested ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). HiAP research externalizes neoliberalism, while education research centres it. As such, this chapter describes neoliberal and social justice approaches as in continuous interaction or competition with each other, and both are integral to policy.

To some extent, Thorius and Maxcy’s (2015 : 118) description of ‘six transformational goals’ for ‘equity-minded policy’ highlight some shared concerns about the distribution of resources, governance, efficiency, relationships with communities, improvement, and ‘explicit emphases on equity’. However, social justice and neoliberal lenses provide different ways to understand and deliver such aims, and contrasting answers to contextual questions such as:

What is the main purpose of education ? As part of an economic narrative in which education is preparation for work, or a social narrative in which education fosters student emancipation, wellbeing, and life opportunities ( Faul, 2014 ; Vongalis-Macrow, 2010 ).

Who should deliver education ? State regulated quasi-market models are replacing traditional state-funded and delivered models. New models combine state and private school provision with market-incentive initiatives such as school vouchers (to extend state funding to non-state schools) and parental choice regarding where to send their child (‘school choice’).

What is the role of the state? Horizontal and vertical approaches to equity. ‘Horizontal equity is concerned with providing equal treatment and provisions to all schools and students whereas vertical equity is concerned with ensuring that students with greatest needs or in disadvantaged conditions will receive more resources’ ( Chu, 2019 : 5). The former relates inequalities to individual motivation and ‘merit’ and requires only equal access to schools or opportunities to learn. The latter relates inequalities to social determinants, requiring greater state support to foster more equitable outcomes. The state can intervene modestly to ensure a threshold of attainment, or maximally to redistribute (a) income and wealth or (b) education resources, to reduce geographical inequalities or pursue a greater equality of outcomes in relation to attainment ( Gilead, 2019 : 439; Bulkley, 2013 ).

These different answers inform the two main international agendas that have an impact on EU, national, and subnational policy ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ; Faul, 2014 ; Klees and Qargha, 2014 ). One describes a social justice and social inclusion narrative. Social justice is akin to the social determinants approach in Chapter 6 , focusing on the ‘out of school’ factors—such as parental education and income, socio-economic conditions, or the marginalization of minority groups—that influence the ability to learn, and encouraging redistribution or more resources for marginalized students. Social inclusion describes a series of initiatives promoted by organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO, 2021a ; 2021b; 2021c ) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to:

treat education as a human right;

challenge marginalization in relation to ‘sex, ethnic/social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic condition, ability’;

boost gender equity in relation to access to schools;

foster early years education;

take forward the UN Sustainable Development Goal 4 to ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’.

A second approach describes an economic narrative, identifying the role of education to boost human capital and economic competitiveness in a global knowledge economy. International organizations (most notably the World Bank), major philanthropies, and donor countries such as the US are most associated with this approach. It uses access to schools as a measure of equity, and student testing data to measure education outcomes, as part of a general promotion of new public management (NPM) measures of performance (of teachers, schools, and education systems), the role of the private sector in education provision, and quasi-market mechanisms and incentives to encourage competition between schools.

While vocational, further education (FE) and higher education (HE) are a less visible part of either agenda; there are equivalent narratives on more equal access to post-secondary learning via major expansions in capacity, often connected to regional equality agendas ( Pinheiro et al., 2016 ; Pinheiro and Antonowicz, 2015 ).

The role of the OECD: transcending neoliberal and social justice approaches?

The OECD has an unusually wide remit that transcends this social justice/neoliberal dichotomy. Its coherent description of both approaches to equity suggests that, in theory , they are not necessarily mutually exclusive ( OECD, 2008 ; 2012 ; Field et al., 2007 ; Levin, 2003 ; compare with Haugen, 2011 ). For example, it describes the ‘lack of fairness’ caused by the enduring and highly unequal impact of ‘socioeconomic background’ on school completion and attainment ( OECD, 2012 : 9), and identifies cross-sectoral working and supportive social security as essential: ‘education policies need to be aligned with other government policies, such as housing or welfare, to ensure student success’ ( 2012 : 10). Further, multiple reports describe equity in relation to opportunity and inclusion arguing that everyone should have the chance to receive good education, social background should not obstruct education potential, and the costs of inequalities are both individual (relating to income and citizenship) and social (including economic, public service, and democratic costs) ( OECD, 2008 : 2; 2012 : 3; Field et al., 2007 : 33). In that context, the OECD supports reforms to encourage:

an equitable distribution of budgets in relation to regional disparities and each stage of education, emphasizing high quality early education and free or reduced-fee compulsory education, rather than funding higher education ( OECD, 2012 : 3–11; 117–8; 2008 : 5; 2015 ; Field et al., 2007 : 23; 122–126);

multiculturalism and antiracism via curriculum reform, language training for immigrant students, and rejecting measures such as ‘tracking’ (segregating students by alleged ability) at an early age ( OECD, 2008 : 2; Field et al., 2007 : 150–151; 20);

school governance to ‘ help disadvantaged schools and students improve ’, including financial incentives and training to redistribute teacher provision, discourage lower teacher expectations for marginalized students, and form more meaningful relationships with their parents or guardians ( OECD, 2012 : 11–12; 2008 : 5; Field et al., 2007 : 19).

Nevertheless, among education academics, OECD influence tends to be associated with the neoliberal approach ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). This perception results partly from OECD attempts to combine elements from two narratives, such as when:

relating inequitable outcomes to a combination of ‘deprived backgrounds’ and ‘weak schooling’ ( Field et al., 2007 : 26);

arguing that school governance and performance, coupled with an equitable distribution of school resources, can address the social determinants of education inequalities ( OECD, 2012 : 9; 3; 2008 : 2; 6–7; 2015 : 1–2; Field et al., 2007 : 22; 39);

emphasizing individual motivation when describing the need to exploit equal opportunities to learn ( Levin, 2003 : 5)

presenting a working definition of equitable outcomes—everyone should reach a minimum standard of education or training at school leaving age—as ‘workable’ in relation to the context of neoliberal approaches ( Levin, 2003 : 5; Field et al., 2007 : 31; 46–51).

The OECD’s role in performance management and evaluation, via PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), is largely the reason that it has become so associated with neoliberalism. The OECD uses PISA to gauge the knowledge and skills—e.g. in reading or mathematics—of 15 year old students in participating countries (the 2018 exercise focused on reading in 79 countries). Participating students complete a test to gauge how they use their knowledge in everyday life and a questionnaire to establish their social and economic background (OECD, 2021). PISA’s focus on lifelong learning is also part of a wider narrative of individual motivation and responsibility ( Grek, 2009 : 27).

The OECD proposes that governments use PISA results to reflect on their schools’ and education system’s performance, such as to identify unequal early-dropout rates and attainment at school leaving age, and ‘give strong support to those schools with weak results’ ( OECD, 2008 : 7; Field et al.,2007 : 23–24). However, there is a wider tendency for governments and commentators to use the results crudely, focusing on international league tables to identify good and bad country performance, often prompting lagging countries to pursue NPM reforms to catch up, and crude league tables of good versus bad schools that emphasize competition and do not take into account the socioeconomic composition of each school ( Field et al., 2007 : 131).

As such, PISA contributes to politically salient debates on the relationship between economic growth/competitiveness and school performance, underpinned by the idea that we can quantify and compare the relative performance of each country’s education system ( Rizvi and Lingard, 2010 : 133–136; Grek, 2009 : 27). This process is part of a wider ‘governing by numbers’ effect, associated with the ‘effect that numbers have in bringing together national and organizational storylines on the status of education’ ( Grek, 2020 : 140–141; 146; see also Lawn, 2011 ; Lingard, 2011 ; Ozga et al., 2011 ; Ozga, 2017 ; Spillane, 2012 ).

The EU approach to education equity: performance versus inclusion?

The EU does not have the power to design or deliver education systems directly. However, it contributes to the global economic agenda that extends well beyond the nation state, while its focus on the human rights implications of education (to challenge discrimination and ensure the equal distribution of high value public goods) gives it an influential role ( Alexiadou, 2017 : 112–115).

EU-driven research and policy reflects the global picture in which economic and social justice ideas interact, with the potential for the former to undermine the latter. The European Commission (2006 : 2) describes equity as the extent to which (1) ‘individuals can take advantage of education and training, in terms of opportunities, access, treatment and outcomes’, and (2) ‘the outcomes of education and training are independent of socio-economic background’. Further, it describes equity policy as a cross-sectoral initiative ‘to link education and training policies with those related to employment, the economy, social inclusion, youth, health, justice, housing and social services’, and fosters policy ‘to correct regional imbalances in education and training’ ( 2006 : 4). This definition relates primarily to an economics lens, describing the role of equity in human capital investment, to aid (a) ‘competitiveness’, economic growth, and taxable income, and (b) ‘social cohesion’, political participation, population health, and reduced crime ( European Commission, 2006 : 2; Woessmann and Schuetz, 2006 : 2–9). In that context, education should be ‘both efficient and equitable’ ( 2006 : 2).

  Efficiency is the best time to invest in human capital:

using the famous ‘Heckman curve’ to support the earliest possible investment in high quality education (by well-trained teachers using evidence-informed methods), particularly for ‘children from low socio-economic background’;

noting the inequity of higher education investment, since participation is limited and the tax system does not offset their higher earnings, and;

noting the public and private underinvestment in vocational education and training (VET) despite its value as a second chance at equity ( 2006 : 4–5; Woessmann and Schuetz, 2006 : 10–14).

Equity relates to two elements:

Human capital . Low investment in education reforms now means lower productivity later, since existing systems exacerbate inequalities in relation to the socio-economic challenges—including globalization, digital economies, demographic change (ageing, migration), and labour market changes—that affect low-skilled people with a basic education ( European Commission, 2006 : 3).

The governance of schools and education systems . Member states have decentralized key aspects of school governance, which requires a parallel commitment to centralized accountability and distributional measures—such as standardized formal examinations to monitor attainment outcomes, evaluations of school progress, and motivating the most experience and skilled teachers ‘into the most challenging schools’—to ‘avoid the potentially inequitable local consequences of decentralized decisions’ ( 2006 : 6–7). Woessmann and Schuetz (2006 : 16; 20; 31) also describe the potential value of competition between state and private schools (accompanied by school choice and voucher schemes), public-private partnerships, and performance-related pay.

In that context, critical commentary describes the relative inattention to social justice. Demeuse et al.’s (2007 : iii) report for the European Parliament criticizes Commission work for:

Its narrow definition of equity . It conflates (a) equality of opportunity to access education (the potential for equal outcomes) and (b) ‘actual equality of access, treatment and results’. It does not identify a minimum threshold of achievement to which everyone is entitled. It uses the term equity, but does not ‘define unfair inequalities in education’ or ‘make a statement on the model of fairness’. It focuses narrowly on socio-economic inequality, which does not acknowledge the role of gender, race, ethnicity, or disability.

  Its problematic discussion of efficiency . It presupposes ‘agreement on an ideal relationship between the investments and the results’ in a field where preferred outcomes are contested ( 2007 : iii).

Its call for a market of competing schools . ‘A market of more and more diversified schools is a vector for social segregation’, exacerbated by implicit and explicit mechanisms of self—and external selection, and by the inequality of school choices when there is high local autonomy ( 2007 : iv–v; see also EGREES, 2005 on measuring education inequalities across the EU).

Hippe et al.’s (2016 : 5) updates to Commission work recognize these criticisms to some extent, such as by paying more attention to gender, immigration, and regional disparities ( Braga et al., 2013 : 73). However, they largely maintain the original definition of equity in relation to schools and focus on school quality and performance as the main vehicle for equity, recommending that:

school systems foster ‘autonomy coupled with accountability’ and ‘competition sponsored by public funding’ (without encouraging ‘tracking’ to segregate students according to predicted attainment);

teachers receive ‘rewards for their performance’ (while recognizing that the evidence is mixed on teacher quality);

initiatives such as school choice can boost performance via competition (but exacerbate inequality via segregation) ( Hippe et al., 2016 : 9; 14–20; drawing on Braga et al., 2013 : 51–54).

One rationale for this neoliberal focus is the political context: redistributional policies could address head-on the relationship between income and education attainment, but remain ‘controversial’ and less amenable to public policy; and, policies to foster equal ‘opportunities’ to access high quality education would be more popular ( 2016 : 7). Therefore, like the OECD, the Commission highlights the profound impact of socio-economic background on education outcomes in each country’s education systems, but primarily:

relates equity to a minimum threshold of (a) good education and (b) attainment when leaving school. For example, Eurydice (2020 : 42) measures each system’s achievement gaps between highest and lowest performing students, compared with the proportion categorized as ‘low achievers’ (the ‘least inclusive education systems’ have large attainment gaps and high percentages of ‘low achievers’);

focuses policy recommendations on increased spending (particularly on early years and primary provision), school governance , and distributional measures , to provide targeted support for ‘disadvantaged schools’ that enrol ‘high proportions of students from low socio-economic backgrounds’ ( Eurydice, 2020 : 13–19).

Overall, the EU oversees policymaking in which social justice agendas are rhetorically important and often enshrined in regulations, but difficult to find in the strategies or practices of member states. This general picture is also a feature of European Commission analysis of member states.

From EU policy to EU analysis of member states

Eurydice’s (2020) analysis of education systems in EU member states (and some regions) reinforces the finding that governments combine vague rhetorical support for education equity with specific OECD-style initiatives. Some education systems do not have an ‘official top-level definition’ of education equity (‘Bulgaria, Germany, Cyprus, Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Norway, and Turkey’) while most make some kind of reference to equity in policy documents without ‘having a formal or explicit definition of equity in education or related concepts’ ( 2020 : 50–52). There is also wide variety in the use of terminology, including who defines what:

Five education systems (Denmark, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden) refer to equity, but not to disadvantage, while for others (Belgium—Flemish Community, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, the United Kingdom—England, Wales and Northern Ireland) it is the other way around, that is, they refer to educational disadvantage, but not to educational equity. A few, namely Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, the United Kingdom (Scotland) … have defined both concepts (2020: 50).

Of the systems declaring an equity goal, Eurydice (2020 : 50–51) identifies a variety of approaches, including: a general statement of fairness (in Malta, ‘the education of each student is of equal importance’); connecting equity to merit and motivation (in Estonia, ‘equal educational opportunities commensurate with their abilities’), or; emphasizing socio-economic inequalities (Denmark emphasizes reducing ‘the significance of social background with regard to academic results’) and reducing attainment gaps (in Scotland, ‘closing the poverty-related attainment gap … by ensuring every child has the same opportunity to succeed’).

This variety extends to defining a ‘disadvantaged student’. Examples include students: with low cultural, linguistic, financial, and/or social capital (Belgium, Flemish Community); in a disadvantaged ‘social, economic, cultural, ethnic or geographic’ situation (Spain); who are ‘at risk of social exclusion such as immigrants and children with special educational needs’ (Lithuania); ‘from rural, social-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, Roma children and students with special education needs’ at highest risk of dropping out or repeating a school year (Romania), or; entitled to free school meals (a proxy for low income) (UK). In some cases, disadvantage connects strongly to ‘special needs’ and ‘inclusive’ education, widening its definition beyond a specific focus on mental or physical disabilities towards including socio-economic, cultural, or linguistic barriers to learning (e.g. in Greece and Italy) (2020: 52).

These rather general understandings of equity and unfair disadvantage feed into a range of initiatives to ‘address low achievement or underperformance among students’, often to focus specifically on a threshold of performance to ‘reduce the numbers leaving education or training early or without a formal qualification’ (2020: 52–53). They include strategies to: provide additional support for students from ‘migrant backgrounds’ or compensate for ‘a lack of student support at home’ (Germany); ensure that ‘disadvantaged students will be more evenly distributed among schools’ (Spain, Hungary); increase ‘school choice’ by expanding provision, and centralize the ‘allocation of resources for student support’ (Luxembourg); oblige school attendance from age 3, and introduce an ‘early warning system’ for students at risk of leaving school without achieving a ‘baseline performance’ (Hungary); defer the choice of school or vocational ‘pathway’ until age 14 (Netherlands), and; give greater financial and school support to ‘students from a disadvantaged socio-economic background, including Roma children, children living in rural areas, and also children with special education needs’ (Romania) (2020: 54).

The impact of neoliberalism on social justice approaches

Education research, on global and domestic agendas, describes the uneasy coexistence between competing approaches to education equity ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). Hajisoteriou and Angelides (2020) describe global policymaking as two-headed. One helps to produce ‘global policies of social justice and equity’ and ‘may play a substantial role in the development of minority and immigrant rights, while also moving citizenship debates beyond the idea of the nation state’ (2020: 278; 282). Another fosters benchmarking, privatization, and NPM to produce policies including ‘school-based management, teachers’ accountability, public-private partnerships and conditional fund-transfer schemes’ (2020: 277). Further, ‘Market oriented education seems to overrule policy reforms aiming to achieve equity in education … [producing] educational policies preoccupied with efficiency, “excellence”, “standards” and “accountability”’ (2020: 282; 277).

Most articles in Cairney and Kippin’s (2021) review suggest that the economic narrative dominates international and domestic policy agendas and undermines social justice policies. There is high rhetorical support to address unfair inequalities, but not at the expense of economic development or competitiveness. Equity relates primarily to minimum standards: to promote equal access to sufficiently high quality schools and teachers, and equal opportunities to achieve a threshold of attainment when leaving school. Further, the competition to provide and receive ‘high quality’ teaching guarantees unequal access (often accompanied by advice for parents on how to compete for places— Exley, 2009 : 254).

Case study examples relate these dynamics to country-level experiences in which vague equity strategies do not change social inclusion practices, and are undermined by greater commitment to neoliberal reforms (e.g. Grimaldi, 2012 on Italy; Simmie, 2012 on Ireland; Teasley, 2020 on early years education in Spain). For example, in Cyprus, a general focus on equal access to schools, combined with vagueness in government aims (to respect ‘diversity and cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism’) ensures that schools reproduce ‘cultural domination, non-recognition and disrespect’ and do not adapt their equity policies to the social background or cultural practices of marginalized: ‘it appears that policy-makers themselves do not value their own policy rhetoric for social justice, thus failing to get schools to take such policy priorities seriously’ (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2014: 159; 168). This lack of progress is part of a more general commitment to ‘neoliberal policy imperatives’ at the expense of attention to ‘issues of difference and diversity’ ( Liasidou and Symeou, 2018 : 151).

Studies also relate the neoliberal/social justice tension to the impacts on particular social groups, such as in relation to gender, minority ethnicity, and immigration.

Education equity and gender

Vaughan’s (2019 : 494–496) discussion of financial support for gender-based education equity identifies the potential to focus on social inclusion (such as to challenge violence against women and girls) in the context of a neoliberal policymaking environment. There are new opportunities for women’s rights groups to influence policy (2019: 500–508), but not to shift dominant economic frames of equity supported by ‘multilaterals, bilateral agencies, national governments, and, more recently, private sector organizations’ (2019: 494). These organizations measure ‘gender disparities in access, attendance, completion, and achievement’, drawing ‘heavily on human capital perspectives concerned with the economic significance of getting girls into school, particularly in terms of poverty reduction’ (2019: 509; 496). They do not favour the development of alternative approaches, such as ‘capabilities’ approaches that foster learning environments (a) more tailored to students’ needs and (b) more able to empower them to learn when they are subject to differences in power, culture, and resources ( Wahlström, 2014 ; Molla and Gale, 2015 ).

Education equity and the Roma minority

Alexiadou (2019 : 427–428) identifies the mixed impact of neoliberal and social justice approaches in relation to ‘the Roma minority in Europe’, in a context of (a) ‘high absenteeism and alienation’ and early school leaving among Roma students, even when (b) EU actors such as the Commission are committed to addressing the problem ( Alexiadou, 2019 : 423). On the one hand, EU member states are potentially subject to legal sanctions if they do not fulfil their legal and human rights obligation to promote ‘equality of outcomes’ in relation to Roma students (2019: 425–432). On the other, the strategically-worded ‘on paper’ strategies by states and regions may never leave the page. National or subnational governments can subvert these aims by using, for example, their ‘special needs’ categorization to segregate and discriminate against Roma students. Three common measures are:

using linguistic, psychological, and pedagogic tests—and socio-economic disadvantage—to describe proportionately more Roma children as in need of ‘preparation opportunities to enter mainstream education’ (the listing of language and cultural barriers as disabilities also features in studies of ‘the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, and Japan’— Chong, 2018 : 502);

providing low quality education in those classes, which limit progression to mainstream education, and/or;

boosting school choice to attend allegedly higher quality schools outside of a local area, which requires resources to access and attend schools.

Education equity and immigration

There is rather mixed research on the impact of EU rules on the education of immigrant students. Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller’s (2012 : 1046) quantitative comparison of West European states finds a strong relationship between unequal educational attainment in mathematics in the PISA 2006 assessment and immigration. However, curiously, a government’s greater commitment to ‘EU standards of good practice’ (‘educational programmes for migrant children and anti-discrimination policies’ to enable ‘equal participation in the education system and to gain the same achievements as their native counterparts’) is associated with higher inequality (2012: 1049; 1056). Further, the only countries that exhibit minimal inequalities are the (majoritarian) UK and Ireland, which challenges the argument that consensus democracies are ‘kinder’ and more conducive to equal outcomes (2012: 1056). Rather, they ‘enable the representation of large minorities in the political process’ (2012: 1060–1061, countering Lijphart, 1999 ).

Intentional and unintentional barriers to equity policies

While these examples vary in focus, a common approach is to (1) juxtapose the relatively low commitment to social justice strategies and high commitment to the neoliberal policies, often to show that (2) the latter undermines the former. The rhetoric of equitable access to services intentionally or unintentionally undermines attention to social justice agendas and the social determinants of inequalities. A tendency towards ‘equity for all’ strategies without specific support for marginalized populations, combined with quasi-market competition to segregate marginalized students, exacerbates the ‘achievement gap’ related strongly to minoritization and the social determinants of education (e.g. Gorard, 2018 ; Felix and Fernandez Castro, 2018 ; Reid, 2017 ). Further, governments prioritize education system performance in relation to the economy or to high stakes exams, often at the expense of attention to equity.

As the following section suggests, Nordic experiences illustrate key aspects of this argument, since research describes a shift away from social justice—associated with social democracy, universalist welfare states, and comprehensive schooling—towards neoliberal approaches to education.

What can governments learn from each other?

Chapter 2 provides a contrast between the pursuit versus the explanation of policy learning and policy transfer processes. The former would use our three-question framework to identify success stories, the evidence for their success, and their applicability to an importing government’s context. The latter would examine how actors learn through the lens of dominant ways to define problems, and transfer policies to address pressure to follow international norms. For example, Rizvi and Lingard (2010 : 80–91; 121–122) describe how governments import ideas (on human capital and the global knowledge economy), techniques (NPM), and programmes (the privatization of education and promotion of school choice), without evidence that they improve outcomes.

In that context, we use this framework to set up a brief comparison of Nordic experiences whose lessons are highly contested.

What story do policymakers tell about the problem they seek to solve?

The neoliberal/social justice comparison suggests that policymakers are often telling very different stories about their overall aims, and there are multiple aspects to each aim. As such, questions regarding neoliberal reforms could include: how did this government achieve a high or low PISA ranking, or adopt new central accountability measures to address concerns with decentralization? Social justice questions could include: how did this government deliver social inclusion measures for marginalized students, or design an effective and inclusive early years education system? However, since both agendas exist simultaneously, more meaningful questions would examine how governments were able to balance competing aims or ensure that, say, national performance management measures did not undermine local government and school inclusion agendas. For example, how did Finland maintain an effective comprehensive education system while its neighbours felt more pressure to reform?

Põder et al. (2013) show how such tensions between policy aims may be incorporated in pragmatic research. On the one hand, they use evidence from 28 European countries (and Nordic countries in particular) to describe the absence of school choice and tracking measures as most likely to produce equitable (and efficient) outcomes (2013: 24). On the other, they accept the likelihood that school choice measures serve a political and ideological purpose—‘indicating that the state’s role has shifted from redistribution to empowerment, responsibility and respect’—and are here to stay (2013: 25). In that context, ‘the question is not whether to tolerate choice or not, but rather how to minimize the harm caused by choice policies’, such as to highlight ‘good choice models—Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, and Ireland’ (2013: 25).

What is the evidence for one government’s success?

We are unlikely to find straightforward evidence of success when approaches to equity are so contested. Rather, governments have a general incentive to provide selective evidence of their successful neoliberal reforms, while critical education research challenges their claims and identifies the adverse consequences of neoliberal reforms on education inequalities ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). In other words, governments are describing their race to the top, while their critics decry their race to the bottom, and both interpret new evidence through the lens of those beliefs ( DeBray et al., 2014 ).

Do they have comparable political and policymaking systems?

Our use of Nordic country experiences demonstrates considerable problems regarding the comparability of experience. To some extent, describing experiences of countries with similar backgrounds helps to extract and compare lessons in a systematic way, but subject to limited information about their policymaking contexts (as opposed to their—far more knowable—political system rules). However, most other countries have limited comparability with Nordic countries. As such, any discussion of country experiences provides ideas to discuss in reference to different situations rather than blueprints for emulation.

In that context, Nordic experiences are often described as best case examples and cautionary tales because new neoliberal agendas contrast strongly with older ideas associated with Nordic welfare states built on social democratic values, trust and social capital, their maintenance of comprehensive education systems, and their tendency to decentralize policy to municipal governments without highly centralized accountability measures ( Chong, 2018 : 502; Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). This general narrative suggests that, while Nordic approaches to education are under threat, experiences vary, with Finland largely retaining its system but Scandinavian countries undergoing major change.

Finland’s maintenance of a comprehensive system

Finland has an international reputation for pursuing equity via lifelong learning and a comprehensive schooling system (staffed by well-paid and respected teachers), supported by a Nordic welfare state ( Niemi and Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015 ; Lingard, 2010 : 139–140; Grek, 2009 : 28; 33). Equity means ‘minimizing the influence of social class, gender, or ethnicity on educational outcomes’ while making sure that everyone achieves a threshold of basic education and skills via: ‘active social investment through universal early childhood education’; ‘a comprehensive education model’ in which every school has a near-identical standard, and; ‘the provision of support to lower-performing or at-risk students’ ( Chong, 2018 : 502–505).

Consequently, Finland has enjoyed praise from (1) the OECD for investing early, avoiding tracking, minimizing the number of people leaving school without adequate skills, and maintaining a high PISA ranking ( Field et al., 2007 : 26; Møller, 2017 : 377), and (2) from education researchers welcoming its resistance to neoliberal, market-based reforms that foster individualism and competition ( Chong, 2018 : 502–505). However, this praise is not uniform. For example, Zilliacus et al. (2017 : 232) contrast Finland’s reputation with its historic favouring of national integration and ‘othering’ of immigrant populations, and only recently pivoting to ‘support cultural diversity and social justice as well as counter marginalization and discrimination in education and society’.

Finland’s contrast with Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

Sweden’s attempts to recentralize accountability, manage a quasi-market of state and private schools, and emphasize equal access to high quality schools, provides the biggest departure from the old Nordic ideal ( Pettersson et al., 2017 : 732; Camphuijsen et al., 2020 : 12–14; Varjo et al., 2018 ; Wahlström, 2014 ). As such, Sweden has an education system that is simultaneously committed unusually strongly to equity as a value, and pursuing policies that undermine it ( Andreasson et al., 2015 : 267–268).

Varjo et al. (2018: 481; 483) compare how Finnish and Swedish local education authorities deal with the pressure to adopt neoliberal approaches that combine decentralization, market-based reforms, and quasi-market incentives such as school choice policies. In Finland, decentralization is in the context of the maintenance of comprehensive schooling and no tradition of ‘mandatory national testing … school inspections and school league tables’ (2018: 486). School assessments remain unpublished to prevent media stories of the ‘weakest’ schools (2018: 489). In contrast, Swedish governments:

encouraged a larger private sector: in 2015, 26% of students attended government-subsidized private schools, with a marked spread by geography (50% in large cities, 3% in rural areas) and class (55% in highest and 5% in lowest socio-economic decile);

fostered school choice via vouchers for students, which contributed to competition between state and private schools (2018: 486–489). There is also evidence of rural student commutes to cities but not the other way, prompting some rural schools to sell themselves as more welcoming to local immigrant populations (2018: 490–491);

contributed to tensions between the trust in versus audit of teachers in Sweden when checking how fairly they grade national student tests ( Novak and Carlbaum, 2017 : 673). The choice to introduce an inspectorate and regrading programme contributed to a government and media narrative on ‘teachers’ assessments as incorrect, unfair, and as jeopardizing the credibility of the grading system, thus justifying increased central control and authority over teacher assessments’ (2017: 673; Wahlström, 2014 ).

Camphuijsen et al. (2020 : 4) identify comparable developments of ‘test-based accountability (TBA)’ in Norway, which previously seemed ‘immune’ to neoliberal agendas since it maintained a social democratic welfare state and comprehensive education system with strict limits on private schools and school choice (over 96% of students attend state schools— Nortvedt, 2018 : 433). Indeed, while an OECD report in 1988 questioned its ability to hold a decentralized school system to account, reforms were largely resisted by ‘key political actors, parliamentarians and the main teacher’s union’ (2020: 5). Things changed following the ‘PISA shock’: poor performances in PISA 2000 and 2003 ruined Norway’s self-image as ‘the best school in the world’, highlighted inequitable outcomes, and showed that 17% of students left school without basic competencies (2020: 7). The reform-push coincided with rising NPM and outcome-based management (encouraged by the OECD) (2020: 12).

In Denmark, Engsig and Johnstone (2015 : 472) identify the contradictions of educational ‘inclusion’ policies with two different aims: (1) social inclusion and student experience (the UNESCO model, adapting to students), and (2) mainstreaming in public education coupled with an increased focus on excellence and quality, via high stakes student testing to meet targets (the US model, requiring students to adapt). In that context, they argue that the focus on student testing to aid performance management, coupled with a reduction in funding per student, was ‘directly inspired’ by US policy (2015: 472).

Contested lessons from Nordic (and wider European) experiences

To some extent, these experiences provide practical lessons for governments and education researchers. For example, Finland has been in a unique position of receiving praise by social justice advocates and the OECD. As such, a common question may be: how does Finland maintain its education system despite pressure to respond to a global neoliberal agenda? However, the lessons learned by other governments are highly contested. For some, Finland’s experience shows other countries that neoliberal reforms can be resisted without major adverse consequences for its international image, and that policy continuity helps avoid the unintended consequences of reforms on education equity. For others, poor international performances by Scandinavian education systems necessitated a major rethink of policy and a need to catch-up with many other countries (a ‘lesson’ also taken by many European countries or systems, including France and England— Power and Frandji, 2010 : 394).

Further, these experiences reinforce a tendency in empirical studies to highlight the role of external agendas in policy change. Almost all of these developments relate not to a voluntary lesson-drawing process (such as described by Rose, 2005 ), but rather the perceived pressure to respond to neoliberal agendas and poor performances in international benchmarking exercises. In that sense, Nordic experiences provide extreme examples of wider trends in Europe. For example, Grimaldi (2012 : 1135) shows that, in Italy, neoliberal reforms were described by key supporters as, ‘the Anglo-Saxon ones’, describing countries that ‘have high quality performances, thanks to systems based on a strong culture of evaluation and responsibility’ and viewing equity through the lens of economic policy.

While such neoliberal global and national agendas are pervasive, their impact varies markedly ( Apple, 2001 ; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010 : 42). ‘Generic solutions’ are translated and transformed in local contexts ( Ball, 1998 : 126–127). Borrowing from PISA leaders takes place if a lesson ‘fits their own domestic policy agenda’, and comes with the need to translate into local contexts ( Steiner-Khamsi, 2014 : 154; 2012: 4; Vandenbroeck, 2007 ). For example, Nortvedt (2018 : 427; 437–438) argues that, while there was some attention to the ‘PISA shock’ in Norway, policymakers used it largely to reinforce policy changes already in progress, while maintaining a relatively decentralized education system. More generally, varying levels of national government indifference to international benchmarks suggests that ‘international studies like PISA are often used merely to validate existing policy directions’ (2018: 431). The time it takes to borrow also varies markedly, particularly if countries rely on international organization funding to make it happen, thus highlighting a major difference between policy transfer as a commitment and as an implemented reform ( Steiner-Khamsi, 2006 : 674; Rizvi, 2016 : 5).

How would governments learn?

As Chapters 2 and 3 show, multi-level and multi-sectoral policy learning is easier said than done. To demonstrate, we follow Chapter 6 in using an illustrative example to ask an ostensibly simple question: how would policymakers in Finland and Ireland share lessons from comparable experiences?

Finland is often treated as the exporting country, as a world-leading education system in terms of attainment, equity, and lifelong learning, supported by a generous social welfare state, and showing that coherent policy is possible ( Grek, 2009 : 28; 33; Lingard, 2010 : 139–140; Niemi and Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015 ). Table 7.1 , shows the distribution of relevant policy instruments. Competences are distributed widely across tiers of government, and across different agencies at the national level. Different organizations carry out functions such as curriculum development and monitoring spending. Strong roles are evident for regional councils, which play a coordination role and support local and national education efforts, and local government, responsible for the running of schools, aspects of their funding, interpretation of curricula ( Helsinki-Uusima Regional Council, 2020 ), and indirect competences such as over local care services and youth service provision.

Our preliminary research also highlighted the perception within policy communities in Ireland that its equity policies showed substantive progress ( Cairney et al., 2018 ). As such, it may seek to export and import lessons. However, which organizations would lead processes of policy learning? The Ireland-Finland comparison is instructive since their multi-level responsibilities differ markedly (see Table 7.2 ). For example, the Irish system grants most powers to the national level, including formal competences over compulsory and higher education systems. National agencies also play a role in school inspection and quality assurance. A key role accrues at the regional level in the shape of regional Education and Training Boards (ETBs), which manage several types of schools and FE colleges. An approach to pursue a social justice equity strategy in Ireland, focused on equitable funding, inclusivity, and diversity, and resisting neoliberal reforms, would need to be directed from the national level. If so, mutual cross-country learning on policy would also require learning about their differences in policymaking.

Multi-level policymaking: centralization and decentralization

Chapter 2 describes a broad tension between two often-contradictory policymaking aims:

to centralize . To prioritize a common purpose, directed from a single authority and formalized in multiple levels of government, expecting fidelity to a general aim of reducing unfair inequalities.

to decentralize . To prioritize the legitimacy of multiple forms of governance, directed by local policy actors in collaboration with stakeholders and communities to make sense of policy aims, expecting that the results will be different from a central agenda.

In education, most ‘neoliberal’ attention to this dynamic relates to centralized accountability and performance management. For example, Eurydice’s (2020 : 13–19) review of education equity policies across Europe identifies the same governance and performance indicators highlighted by the OECD (2012) , including the extent to which education systems:

avoid harmful academic segregation, such as via tracking and a too-early age at which students enter academic or vocational pathways (2020: 16; 125);

find alternatives to students repeating an entire grade (2020: 22; 142–143);

avoid school selection processes based too much on academic performance (rather than residence) (2020: 117; 130–132);

manage school autonomy to foster the positive effects of decentralization while avoiding ‘a hierarchization of schools, which can have detrimental effect on equity’ (particularly when a system has a high proportion of private autonomous schools) (2020: 15; 152).

Social justice approaches may devote their primary focus to the policy instruments that remain a national government (or EU) responsibility, including taxing and spending to redistribute resources, or regulations to protect human rights and challenge discrimination (Chapter 3 ). However, there is some international research attention being paid to the classic focus on ‘top down’ versus ‘bottom up’ approaches to policy change ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). In particular, a recurring theme is the extent to which local policy actors can reinforce or subvert national priorities, or take responsibility for the equity issues that national governments do not prioritize ( Molla and Gale, 2019 ). In other words, is central or local direction more conducive to social justice approaches to equity?

Studies of the United States context (a disproportionately large source of international lessons) suggest that both levels of government provide insufficient impetus for social justice reforms: school or school district leaders need (but do not receive) strong federal support to overcome local parental opposition to policy change, or local leaders respond primarily to the high stakes federal neoliberal policies at the expense of low stakes efforts to target racism or minoritization ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ; Michener, 2019 ). Although an extreme case, it is difficult to find studies of EU countries that contradict its general findings, or even describe how governments use national financial or regulatory powers in practice. Rather, a general finding in education research is that policy change is more apparent on paper than practice at national and local levels. Country governments express rhetorical support for a multi-faceted approach to improving education equity, but generally without saying which policy instruments they will use. At the same time, tracking and other inequitable local practices endure despite widespread criticism from organizations such as the OECD.

The ability of regional or devolved governments to manage education policy

Some regions across Europe enjoy similar powers as national governments, and therefore the potential to go their own way on education equity policy. Does this delegation of policymaking responsibility make a difference, such as by challenging the dispiriting lack of equity policy progress that we describe? Under specific circumstances, there are two reasons to think so.

First, Garritzmann et al. (2021 : 3; 7–11) explore the idea that regional autonomy combined with a left-wing government in office can make a difference, based on the hypotheses that (1) ‘leftwing parties increase public education spending, because education can contribute to upward mobility, foster equality of opportunities, and decrease educational and socio-economic inequalities’, and (2) ‘the more authority over education is decentralized to the regional level, the more the ideological standing of the regional governments matter’. They find that left-wing governments are more likely to increase education spending, not only at a national level but also in regions with significant powers. As such, if a left-wing government is in office, the European countries most open to regional government impacts are Germany and the UK, followed by all Swiss, most Belgian, and a few Italian regions (2021: 20).

Second, regional or devolved governments may pursue policymaking styles that improve central-local relations. This idea of distinctive ‘territorial policy communities’ and devolved government policy styles is a regular feature of UK policy research, suggesting that devolved governments (in Scotland, Wales, and—to some extent—Northern Ireland) make policy in a more consensual manner and place more trust in organizations such as local authorities (which oversee school governance) ( Keating et al., 2009 ; Cairney, 2008 ; 2013; 2019).

In that context, Chapman and Ainscow (2019 : 899) describe a common ‘equity policy challenge’ to secure ‘sustainable improvement in schools serving learners from disadvantaged communities’ and relate it to UK (governing education in England), Scottish, and Welsh government case studies. In each case, there is scope for each government to fund education and negotiate the central-local relationship in different ways. For example, the Scottish and Welsh governments oversee education systems that favour comprehensive schooling, largely opting out of UK government reforms for England that (a) differentiate strongly between school types (including grammar schools based on academic selection), and (b) encourage school autonomy from local authority control (while giving many schools the ability to cap their recruitment of ‘children with special educational needs and disabilities’— Rayner, 2017 : 30; West, 2006 ). Further, the Scottish Government describes a distinctive focus on (a) reducing an attainment gap in relation to poverty, (b) some redistribution of funding in relation to ‘most disadvantaged backgrounds’ via a £1200 per child ‘Pupil Equity Fund’ sent directly to schools, (c) shifting levels of school resources, such as teacher numbers and class sizes, and (d) performance and leadership (2006: 907; in England the equivalent fund, albeit with limited impact, is the Pupil Premium—BenDavid-Hadar, 2018: 562). Still, Chapman and Ainscow (2019 : 899; 909) highlight broad similarities in each government’s pursuit of ‘bottom-up leadership within a context of top-down political mandate’:

the routine use of centralized accountability measures regarding quality and performance to help improve school management (following an OECD-style agenda);

central government attempts to place high quality teachers in schools in ‘disadvantaged communities’, and;

national-local government tensions in relation to who should drive the policy agenda and how much variation in processes to tolerate (2019: 899; 909).

More generally, the Scottish Government has not found a magic formula to combine social justice and neoliberal approaches. It emphasizes commitment to the aim of a ‘more egalitarian education system in Scotland’ ( Mowat, 2019 : 67), often with reference to myths of Scottish education distinctiveness, connections to Nordic social democracy, and First Ministerial ambitions to ‘close the attainment gap completely’ ( Arnott, 2017 : 5). However, it also produces ‘competing policies and imperatives acting against each other’, with a tendency for Scottish Government policy to be ‘driven largely by OECD rhetoric’ ( Mowat, 2019 : 67), which suggests that ‘attainment gaps’ may relate primarily to minimum thresholds.

Further, Kippin and Cairney (2021) find that all four nations oversaw very similar policy ‘fiascos’ when they sought new exam policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. All four pursued a ‘four nations’ approach to education policy, and followed a similar process:

cancelling school exams but seeking a replacement mechanism to allocate final grades (largely to allow students to secure university places);

delegating the moderation of teacher-estimated grades to an exams authority, which used an algorithm to standardize the results with reference to historic schools data;

announcing and defending the results, then;

overseeing a ‘U turn’ by reverting to teacher-estimated grades after public, media, and parliamentary criticism regarding the unfairness of the outcomes (focusing on schools with high proportions of students from low income backgrounds).

To some extent, these experiences highlight the ability of each government to go its own way, and to engage voluntarily in policy coordination. However, the UK government’s decision to change policy quickly (which took place after a similar decision in Scotland) caused the governments in Wales and Northern Ireland to follow suit. Their experience reflects a general ‘tendency for UK government choices to spill over to—and limit the options of—the others’ (2021: 8). In this case, UK decisions for students and university places in England limited the ability of devolved governments to pursue a different policy for students and universities in the rest of the UK.

Conclusion: lessons from education equity for territorial cohesion

The EU, along with its member states and regions, has many vague ambitions to foster greater equity and it is generally difficult to tell if they are complementary or contradictory. In the case of education, policymakers are incorporating social justice and neoliberal approaches to the same sector. While these approaches may be described as complementary in theory, they are contradictory in practice. They describe different functions for education, models of education system governance, and ideas about the appropriate role of the state. One approach emphasizes the need for social inclusion and redistributional measures to foster greater equity of outcomes, while the other emphasizes individual merit and the equal opportunity to attend a high quality school. Organizations such as the OECD and European Commission seek ways to combine these general ideas, to relate equity to social background and school performance. While they describe the relationship between social and economic disadvantage and unequal attainment, their main focus is on fostering reforms to increase the proportion of students reaching a threshold of attainment, aided by international benchmarks to compare attempts to meet that aim.

Similarly, national governments pursue a vague rhetorical commitment to social justice ideas, but a tangible commitment to performance measures designed to foster decentralized delivery and centralized accountability. Country level examples, and case studies of gender, minority ethnic, and immigrant populations suggest that the end result is a tendency for neoliberal reforms to undermine social justice commitments. While Finland represents a model to resist such reforms, it has proven to be exceptional, even among Nordic states. Regional or devolved government autonomy offers the potential to bolster social justice approaches, and improve central-local dynamics. However, the UK experience suggests that the ability of devolved governments to go their own way is tempered strongly by the perceived need to keep up with international practices, particularly in relation to high-stakes measures of performance and the school exams that determine university entry.

These experiences inform approaches to territorial cohesion that relate equity to equal access to public services (Chapter 1 ). They offer a cautionary tale for territorial cohesion policy, since most education equity researchers criticize the negative impact of neoliberal approaches that emphasize equality of access or opportunities, place the onus on individuals to exploit those opportunities, and encourage competition between schools that, by definition, precludes equal access to the same quality of education ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). For some, these outcomes are unintended consequences of the relative attention to neoliberal approaches and NPM-style performance agendas. For others, they are the intentional result of approaches that use social justice and equity rhetoric as a way to hide the limited progress towards reducing inequalities of education outcomes.

As such, there is great potential to learn from such experiences, to inform not only the study of education equity policy, but also the wider collection of policies—including territorial cohesion—designed ostensibly to foster equity. However, it is difficult for policymakers to learn from others if they are not sure what they are trying to do. Indeed, the veneer of equity rhetoric takes attention from not only the contestation to define the problem and offer solutions, but also the tendency for EU and national policymakers to blunt the power of radical initiatives by incorporating them into routine government business.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education

Subscribe to governance weekly, linda darling-hammond ld linda darling-hammond.

March 1, 1998

• 13 min read

W.E.B. DuBois was right about the problem of the 21st century. The color line divides us still. In recent years, the most visible evidence of this in the public policy arena has been the persistent attack on affirmative action in higher education and employment. From the perspective of many Americans who believe that the vestiges of discrimination have disappeared, affirmative action now provides an unfair advantage to minorities. From the perspective of others who daily experience the consequences of ongoing discrimination, affirmative action is needed to protect opportunities likely to evaporate if an affirmative obligation to act fairly does not exist. And for Americans of all backgrounds, the allocation of opportunity in a society that is becoming ever more dependent on knowledge and education is a source of great anxiety and concern.

At the center of these debates are interpretations of the gaps in educational achievement between white and non-Asian minority students as measured by standardized test scores. The presumption that guides much of the conversation is that equal opportunity now exists; therefore, continued low levels of achievement on the part of minority students must be a function of genes, culture, or a lack of effort and will (see, for example, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom’s America in Black and White).

The assumptions that undergird this debate miss an important reality: educational outcomes for minority children are much more a function of their unequal access to key educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality curriculum, than they are a function of race. In fact, the U.S. educational system is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status. In contrast to European and Asian nations that fund schools centrally and equally, the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. school districts spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent, and spending ratios of 3 to 1 are common within states. Despite stark differences in funding, teacher quality, curriculum, and class sizes, the prevailing view is that if students do not achieve, it is their own fault. If we are ever to get beyond the problem of the color line, we must confront and address these inequalities.

The Nature of Educational Inequality

Americans often forget that as late as the 1960s most African-American, Latino, and Native American students were educated in wholly segregated schools funded at rates many times lower than those serving whites and were excluded from many higher education institutions entirely. The end of legal segregation followed by efforts to equalize spending since 1970 has made a substantial difference for student achievement. On every major national test, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the gap in minority and white students’ test scores narrowed substantially between 1970 and 1990, especially for elementary school students. On the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the scores of African-American students climbed 54 points between 1976 and 1994, while those of white students remained stable.

Related Books

Dick Startz

January 15, 2019

Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

July 10, 2018

Tom Loveless

October 22, 2000

Even so, educational experiences for minority students have continued to be substantially separate and unequal. Two-thirds of minority students still attend schools that are predominantly minority, most of them located in central cities and funded well below those in neighboring suburban districts. Recent analyses of data prepared for school finance cases in Alabama, New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, and Texas have found that on every tangible measure—from qualified teachers to curriculum offerings—schools serving greater numbers of students of color had significantly fewer resources than schools serving mostly white students. As William L. Taylor and Dianne Piche noted in a 1991 report to Congress: Inequitable systems of school finance inflict disproportionate harm on minority and economically disadvantaged students. On an inter-state basis, such students are concentrated in states, primarily in the South, that have the lowest capacities to finance public education. On an intra-state basis, many of the states with the widest disparities in educational expenditures are large industrial states. In these states, many minorities and economically disadvantaged students are located in property-poor urban districts which fare the worst in educational expenditures (or) in rural districts which suffer from fiscal inequity.

Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the striking differences between public schools serving students of color in urban settings and their suburban counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student for populations with many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.

Even within urban school districts, schools with high concentrations of low-income and minority students receive fewer instructional resources than others. And tracking systems exacerbate these inequalities by segregating many low-income and minority students within schools. In combination, these policies leave minority students with fewer and lower-quality books, curriculum materials, laboratories, and computers; significantly larger class sizes; less qualified and experienced teachers; and less access to high-quality curriculum. Many schools serving low-income and minority students do not even offer the math and science courses needed for college, and they provide lower-quality teaching in the classes they do offer. It all adds up.

What Difference Does it Make?

Since the 1966 Coleman report, Equality of Educational Opportunity, another debate has waged as to whether money makes a difference to educational outcomes. It is certainly possible to spend money ineffectively; however, studies that have developed more sophisticated measures of schooling show how money, properly spent, makes a difference. Over the past 30 years, a large body of research has shown that four factors consistently influence student achievement: all else equal, students perform better if they are educated in smaller schools where they are well known (300 to 500 students is optimal), have smaller class sizes (especially at the elementary level), receive a challenging curriculum, and have more highly qualified teachers.

Minority students are much less likely than white children to have any of these resources. In predominantly minority schools, which most students of color attend, schools are large (on average, more than twice as large as predominantly white schools and reaching 3,000 students or more in most cities); on average, class sizes are 15 percent larger overall (80 percent larger for non-special education classes); curriculum offerings and materials are lower in quality; and teachers are much less qualified in terms of levels of education, certification, and training in the fields they teach. And in integrated schools, as UCLA professor Jeannie Oakes described in the 1980s and Harvard professor Gary Orfield’s research has recently confirmed, most minority students are segregated in lower-track classes with larger class sizes, less qualified teachers, and lower-quality curriculum.

Research shows that teachers’ preparation makes a tremendous difference to children’s learning. In an analysis of 900 Texas school districts, Harvard economist Ronald Ferguson found that teachers’ expertise—as measured by scores on a licensing examination, master’s degrees, and experienc—was the single most important determinant of student achievement, accounting for roughly 40 percent of the measured variance in students’ reading and math achievement gains in grades 1-12. After controlling for socioeconomic status, the large disparities in achievement between black and white students were almost entirely due to differences in the qualifications of their teachers. In combination, differences in teacher expertise and class sizes accounted for as much of the measured variance in achievement as did student and family background (figure 1).

Ferguson and Duke economist Helen Ladd repeated this analysis in Alabama and again found sizable influences of teacher qualifications and smaller class sizes on achievement gains in math and reading. They found that more of the difference between the high- and low-scoring districts was explained by teacher qualifications and class sizes than by poverty, race, and parent education.

Meanwhile, a Tennessee study found that elementary school students who are assigned to ineffective teachers for three years in a row score nearly 50 percentile points lower on achievement tests than those assigned to highly effective teachers over the same period. Strikingly, minority students are about half as likely to be assigned to the most effective teachers and twice as likely to be assigned to the least effective.

Minority students are put at greatest risk by the American tradition of allowing enormous variation in the qualifications of teachers. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future found that new teachers hired without meeting certification standards (25 percent of all new teachers) are usually assigned to teach the most disadvantaged students in low-income and high-minority schools, while the most highly educated new teachers are hired largely by wealthier schools (figure 2). Students in poor or predominantly minority schools are much less likely to have teachers who are fully qualified or hold higher-level degrees. In schools with the highest minority enrollments, for example, students have less than a 50 percent chance of getting a math or science teacher with a license and a degree in the field. In 1994, fully one-third of teachers in high-poverty schools taught without a minor in their main field and nearly 70 percent taught without a minor in their secondary teaching field.

Studies of underprepared teachers consistently find that they are less effective with students and that they have difficulty with curriculum development, classroom management, student motivation, and teaching strategies. With little knowledge about how children grow, learn, and develop, or about what to do to support their learning, these teachers are less likely to understand students’ learning styles and differences, to anticipate students’ knowledge and potential difficulties, or to plan and redirect instruction to meet students’ needs. Nor are they likely to see it as their job to do so, often blaming the students if their teaching is not successful.

Teacher expertise and curriculum quality are interrelated, because a challenging curriculum requires an expert teacher. Research has found that both students and teachers are tracked: that is, the most expert teachers teach the most demanding courses to the most advantaged students, while lower-track students assigned to less able teachers receive lower-quality teaching and less demanding material. Assignment to tracks is also related to race: even when grades and test scores are comparable, black students are more likely to be assigned to lower-track, nonacademic classes.

When Opportunity Is More Equal

What happens when students of color do get access to more equal opportunities’ Studies find that curriculum quality and teacher skill make more difference to educational outcomes than the initial test scores or racial backgrounds of students. Analyses of national data from both the High School and Beyond Surveys and the National Educational Longitudinal Surveys have demonstrated that, while there are dramatic differences among students of various racial and ethnic groups in course-taking in such areas as math, science, and foreign language, for students with similar course-taking records, achievement test score differences by race or ethnicity narrow substantially.

Robert Dreeben and colleagues at the University of Chicago conducted a long line of studies documenting both the relationship between educational opportunities and student performance and minority students’ access to those opportunities. In a comparative study of 300 Chicago first graders, for example, Dreeben found that African-American and white students who had comparable instruction achieved comparable levels of reading skill. But he also found that the quality of instruction given African-American students was, on average, much lower than that given white students, thus creating a racial gap in aggregate achievement at the end of first grade. In fact, the highest-ability group in Dreeben’s sample was in a school in a low-income African-American neighborhood. These children, though, learned less during first grade than their white counterparts because their teacher was unable to provide the challenging instruction they deserved.

When schools have radically different teaching forces, the effects can be profound. For example, when Eleanor Armour-Thomas and colleagues compared a group of exceptionally effective elementary schools with a group of low-achieving schools with similar demographic characteristics in New York City, roughly 90 percent of the variance in student reading and mathematics scores at grades 3, 6, and 8 was a function of differences in teacher qualifications. The schools with highly qualified teachers serving large numbers of minority and low-income students performed as well as much more advantaged schools.

Most studies have estimated effects statistically. However, an experiment that randomly assigned seventh grade “at-risk”students to remedial, average, and honors mathematics classes found that the at-risk students who took the honors class offering a pre-algebra curriculum ultimately outperformed all other students of similar backgrounds. Another study compared African-American high school youth randomly placed in public housing in the Chicago suburbs with city-placed peers of equivalent income and initial academic attainment and found that the suburban students, who attended largely white and better-funded schools, were substantially more likely to take challenging courses, perform well academically, graduate on time, attend college, and find good jobs.

What Can Be Done?

This state of affairs is not inevitable. Last year the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future issued a blueprint for a comprehensive set of policies to ensure a “caring, competent, and qualified teacher for every child,” as well as schools organized to support student success. Twelve states are now working directly with the commission on this agenda, and others are set to join this year. Several pending bills to overhaul the federal Higher Education Act would ensure that highly qualified teachers are recruited and prepared for students in all schools. Federal policymakers can develop incentives, as they have in medicine, to guarantee well-prepared teachers in shortage fields and high-need locations. States can equalize education spending, enforce higher teaching standards, and reduce teacher shortages, as Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, and North Carolina have already done. School districts can reallocate resources from administrative superstructures and special add-on programs to support better-educated teachers who offer a challenging curriculum in smaller schools and classes, as restructured schools as far apart as New York and San Diego have done. These schools, in communities where children are normally written off to lives of poverty, welfare dependency, or incarceration, already produce much higher levels of achievement for students of color, sending more than 90 percent of their students to college. Focusing on what matters most can make a real difference in what children have the opportunity to learn. This, in turn, makes a difference in what communities can accomplish.

An Entitlement to Good Teaching

The common presumption about educational inequality—that it resides primarily in those students who come to school with inadequate capacities to benefit from what the school has to offer—continues to hold wide currency because the extent of inequality in opportunities to learn is largely unknown. We do not currently operate schools on the presumption that students might be entitled to decent teaching and schooling as a matter of course. In fact, some state and local defendants have countered school finance and desegregation cases with assertions that such remedies are not required unless it can be proven that they will produce equal outcomes. Such arguments against equalizing opportunities to learn have made good on DuBois’s prediction that the problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the color line.

But education resources do make a difference, particularly when funds are used to purchase well-qualified teachers and high-quality curriculum and to create personalized learning communities in which children are well known. In all of the current sturm und drang about affirmative action, “special treatment,” and the other high-volatility buzzwords for race and class politics in this nation, I would offer a simple starting point for the next century s efforts: no special programs, just equal educational opportunity.

Governance Studies

Katharine Meyer

May 7, 2024

Jamie Klinenberg, Jon Valant, Nicolas Zerbino

Thinley Choden

May 3, 2024

Report | Children

Education inequalities at the school starting gate : Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them

Report • By Emma García and Elaine Weiss • September 27, 2017

Download PDF

Press release

Share this page:

This report was produced in collaboration with the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education .

What this study finds: Extensive research has conclusively demonstrated that children’s social class is one of the most significant predictors—if not the single most significant predictor—of their educational success. Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that performance gaps by social class take root in the earliest years of children’s lives and fail to narrow in the years that follow. That is, children who start behind stay behind—they are rarely able to make up the lost ground.

Using data from two academic cohorts, the kindergarten classes of 1998 and 2010, this study examines the relationship between children’s socioeconomic status (SES) and their cognitive and noncognitive skills when starting school. We find that large performance gaps exist between children in the lowest and highest socioeconomic-status (SES) quintiles and that these gaps have persisted from the 1998 cohort to the 2010 cohort. The positive news is that the gaps have not grown, even as economic inequalities between these two groups of students have grown. The negative news is that the gaps have not narrowed, despite the fact that low-SES parents have substantially increased their engagement in their children’s early education.

Why it matters: These performance gaps reflect extensive unmet needs and thus untapped talents among low-SES children. The development of strong cognitive and noncognitive skills is essential for success in school and beyond. Low educational achievement leads to lowered economic prospects later in life, perpetuating a lack of social mobility across generations. It is also a loss to society when children’s talents are allowed to go fallow for lack of sufficient supports. The undeniable relationship between economic inequalities and education inequalities represents a societal failure that betrays the ideal of the “American dream.”

What can be done about it: Greater investments in pre-K programs can narrow the gaps between students at the start of school. And to ensure that these early gains are maintained, districts can provide continued comprehensive academic, health, nutrition, and emotional support for children through their academic years, including meaningful engagement of parents and communities. Such strategies have been successfully implemented in districts around the country, as described in this report, and can serve to mitigate the impact of economic inequalities on children’s educational achievement and improve their future life and work prospects.

For further discussion of policy solutions, see the companion to this report,  Reducing and Averting Achievement Gaps: Key Findings from the Report ‘Education Inequalities at the School Starting Gate’ and Comprehensive Strategies to Mitigate Early Skills Gaps .

Executive summary

High and rising inequality is one of the United States’ most pressing economic and societal issues. Since the early 1980s, the total share of income claimed by the bottom 90 percent of Americans has steadily decreased, with the majority of income gains going to the top 1 percent. These trends would not be such a major concern if our education system compensated for these inequities by helping level the playing field and enabling children to rise above their birth circumstances.

But that is hardly the case. Rather, the fraction of children who earn more than their parents (absolute mobility) has fallen from approximately 90 percent for children born in 1940 to 50 percent for children born in the 1980s. And the tight links between economic inequalities and achievement gaps cast doubt on asserted equality of opportunity that promotes social mobility and puts the “American Dream” within viable reach.

Extensive research has conclusively demonstrated that children’s social class is one of the most significant predictors—if not the single most significant predictor—of their educational success. Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that performance gaps by social class take root in the earliest years of children’s lives and fail to narrow in the years that follow.

Much is known about the determinants and mechanisms that drive early skills gaps among children of different backgrounds, but our failure to narrow social-class-based skills gaps from one generation of students to the next calls for further analysis to determine the degree of influence these factors have and how interventions employed in recent years to address these factors have or have not worked and why. Moreover, shifting economic and demographic landscapes emphasize the need for more robust policy strategies to address the gaps. This three-part study thus combines a statistical analysis of early skills gaps among a recent cohort of children and changes in them over time with a qualitative study of multifaceted, school-district-level strategies to narrow them.

What we do: Questions, data and methodology

In this paper, we:

• Use data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 to measure gaps in skills by social class. To measure gaps by social class, we use the socioeconomic status (SES) metric (primarily), a composite of information on parents’ educational attainment and job status as well as household income. We compare the average performance of children in the top fifth of the socioeconomic status distribution (high-SES) with the average performance of children in the bottom fifth (low-SES). Skills measured include reading and mathematics, as well as self-control and approaches to learning as reported by both teachers and parents.
• Examine SES-based gaps at kindergarten entry among the most recently surveyed cohort (the kindergarten class of 2010–2011). We study how gaps manifest in both cognitive and so-called noncognitive skills, as both skill types are important components of children’s development.
• Compare these SES gaps with those of an earlier cohort (1998–1999), with a focus on changes in the skills gaps between children in the high- and low-SES quintiles. We also analyze how sensitive gaps are to the inclusion of key determinants of student performance, such as family composition, children’s own characteristics, pre-K participation, and parental and educational practices at home.
• Review a set of 12 case studies of communities that have employed comprehensive educational strategies and wraparound supports to provide more children (especially low-income children) with strong early academic foundations, and to sustain and build on early gains throughout their K–12 school years.
• Based on examples from these diverse communities, we discuss implications: strategies that districts can employ and district and state policy changes to make those strategies easier to adopt and more sustainable. The report ends with conclusions and recommendations for further research, practice, and policy.

What we find

Our quantitative research produces a broad set of findings:

• Very large SES-based gaps in academic performance exist and have persisted across the two most recent cohorts of students when they start kindergarten. The estimated gaps between children in the highest and lowest fifths of the SES distribution are over a standard deviation (sd) in both reading and math in 2010 (unadjusted performance gaps are 1.2 and 1.3 sd respectively). Gaps in noncognitive skills such as self-control and approaches to learning are roughly between one-third and one-half as large (unadjusted performance gaps are about 0.4 sd in self-control, and slightly over 0.5 sd in approaches to learning in 2010).
• SES-based gaps across both types of skills among the 2010 kindergartners are virtually unchanged compared with the prior academic generation of students (the class of 1998). The only unadjusted cognitive skills gap between children in the high-SES and low-SES fifths that changed significantly over this period was the gap in reading skills, which increased by about a tenth of a standard deviation. Gaps in approaches to learning as reported by teachers and in self-control as reported by parents shrank between 1998 and 2010 by roughly the same amount (0.1 sd). Gaps in mathematics, in approaches to learning as reported by parents, and in self-control as reported by teachers did not change significantly.
• This means that though part of the SES gap is attributable to differences in these characteristics and in family investments between children in the high and low parts of the SES distribution, a substantial share of SES-related factors is not captured by these controls, but is important to explaining how and why gaps develop, and thus how to narrow them.
• Moreover, the capacity for these other factors to narrow gaps has decreased over time—as a whole, they accounted for a smaller share of the gaps in 2010 than they had in 1998. This suggests that, while such activities as parental time spent with children and center-based pre-K programs cushion the negative consequences of growing up in a low-SES household, they can do only so much, and that the consequences of poverty are increasingly hard to compensate for. This resistance of gaps to these controls is thus a matter of serious concern for researchers and policymakers alike.
• These children’s likelihood of attending center-based pre-K did not change significantly across generations (about 44 percent for both cohorts: 44.3 percent in 2010 vs. 43.7 percent in 1998). However, in 2010 their parents reported having a somewhat larger number of books at home for the children, and there was also an increase in both indices of activities (literacy/reading activities and other educational and engagement activities).
• In addition to doing more for their children, low-SES parents have greater expectations for their children’s educational attainment—a much smaller share saw them going no further than high school graduation, while a much greater share anticipated their children attaining bachelor’s and even advanced degrees in 2010.
• They were slightly more likely to live with two parents (the share not living with two parents decreased from 11.1 percent in 1998 to 9.6 percent) and to have attended center-based pre-K (the share in center-based pre-K increased from 65.8 in 1998 to 69.9 percent in 2010).
• The share of high-SES homes reporting having more than 200 children’s books slightly increased in 2010, as did parents’ expectations for their children’s educational attainment.
• Although research uses various indicators to measure individuals’ social class, from composite measures such as the socioeconomic status index we use to single indicators such as mother’s education or income, some sensitivity of the results to the indicator used is found. In our analyses, we find that all are equally reliable social-class proxies for the estimation of early achievement gaps, though absolute gaps and trends in them vary slightly depending on the indicator used.

Our qualitative review of community interventions also provides valuable information:

• A growing number of school districts across the country have embraced systems of comprehensive enrichment and supports for many or even all their students, based on the understanding that nurturing healthy child development requires leveraging the entire community. These districts took different approaches to enacting those comprehensive strategies, based on each community’s particular mix of needs and assets, ideological leaning, available sources of funding, and other factors. But all begin very early in children’s lives and align enriching school strategies with a targeted range of supports for children and their families.
• Moreover, school districts embracing what we refer to as “whole-child” approaches to education are seeing better outcomes for students, from improved readiness for kindergarten to higher test scores and graduation rates and narrower achievement gaps. They thus can provide guidance to other districts and to policymakers regarding how to implement such approaches, what to expect in terms of benefits, and which policies at the local and state levels can advance those approaches.

Conclusions

While the persistence of large skills gaps at kindergarten entry is troubling, the fact that, by and large, they did not grow in a generation—despite steadily increasing income inequality compounded by the worst economic crisis in many decades—is a good thing. But we must still be very concerned about these gaps. We would have liked to see evidence that parents’ increased dedication to and investments in their children’s early development, and increased investments in pre-K programs and other early education and economic supports, closed these gaps. However, the data suggest that these efforts simply contained them, and that these positive trends were insufficient to narrow the skills gaps at kindergarten entry. This failure to narrow gaps points to a lack of appropriate policy response at all levels of government, the neglect of decades of research across multiple disciplines on child development, and the resulting waste of critical opportunities to nurture an entire generation of children.

The policy recommendations of this report strengthen the idea that we need much greater investments in pre-K programs and continued comprehensive support for children through their academic years, including meaningful engagement of parents and communities, if we are to substantially improve the odds for disadvantaged children, in light of their extensive unmet needs and untapped talents.

Introduction: Facts about income inequality and its growth over time

One of today’s most pressing economic issues is the worrisome level of income inequality. Since 1979, the total share of income claimed by the bottom 90 percent of Americans has steadily decreased (Bivens 2016). In 1979, that 90 percent received about 67 percent of cash, market-based income (i.e., pretax income). By 2015, their share had decreased to about 52 percent of pretax income. The majority of income gains during this period went to the top 1 percent (EPI 2013; Mishel and Schieder 2016; Saez 2016). Polls reflect widespread concern about income and wage inequalities and associated trends and the desire for policies to address these inequalities ( New York Times 2015).

Rising inequality might not be such a major concern if our education, economic, and social protection systems acted as compensatory mechanisms, helping individuals, and especially children, rise above their birth circumstances and improve their mobility. But that is hardly the case. Rather, the fraction of children who earn more than their parents (a measure of what social scientists refer to as absolute mobility) has fallen from approximately 90 percent for children born in 1940 to 50 percent for children born in the 1980s (Chetty et al. 2016). Children of certain ethnic and racial minorities who are disproportionately likely to live in concentrated poverty are also more likely to do so over prolonged periods of time (Sharkey 2013). And the close connections between education inequalities and economic inequalities cast doubt on assertions that America provides “equality of opportunities” that promotes social mobility (Mishel 2015).

The influence of income inequality affects multiple aspects of society’s functioning, from health outcomes and even life expectancy to democratic ideals (Putnam 2015; Schanzenbach et al. 2016; Stringhini et al. 2017). In the education arena, children’s socioeconomic status (SES), of which income is a key component, is considered one of the most significant predictors—if not the most significant predictor—of educational success. A number of studies show the strong relationship between social class (of which socioeconomic status is a frequent measure) and test scores, educational attainment, and college attendance and completion (see Duncan, Morris, and Rodrigues 2011; García 2015; García and Weiss 2015; Lee and Burkam 2002; Mishel et al. 2012; Putnam 2015; among others).

As a result of these trends and associations, achievement gaps by social class have grown substantially since the 1960s, especially between children at the highest end of the income distribution and all of the others (Reardon 2011). Some researchers have identified a large increase in parental investment in education among high-SES parents as one driver of the divergence in education outcomes (Duncan and Murnane 2011), among other contributing factors, such as time parents spend with their children and time parents devote to education-enhancing activities (Morsy and Rothstein 2015; Van Voorhis et al. 2013): Spending on education-enhancing activities by parents in the top income fifth nearly tripled between the 1970s and the 2000s (from $3,500 in 1972 to $8,900 in 2006), while such spending by parents in the bottom income fifth remained low and changed much less (from $800 in 1972 to $1,300 in 2006) (Duncan and Murnane 2011). 1 More time can mean more frequent interactions during playtime, more time spent reading to children, and other parenting practices that contribute to children’s learning and development (Barbarin et al. 2010). In general, more leisure and educational time with children can promote their development and school readiness (Brooks-Gunn and Markman 2005; Hart and Risley 1995; Phillips 2011; Rothstein 2004; Van Voorhis et al. 2013; Waldfogel 2006). Given the evidence that parental engagement and spending directly and continuously translate into improvements in children’s achievement and preparation, the presence of the various achievement gaps are not surprising.

Education researchers and policymakers have long been attentive to issues related to equity—by race/ethnicity, SES, gender, and other characteristics. At least since the 1966 publication of the “Coleman Report” by sociologist James S. Coleman and coauthors, researchers and policymakers have understood the critical impacts of race, poverty, and segregation on educational attainment (Coleman et al. 1966). And educational inequities remain a major problem today. Rigorous research demonstrates that inequalities in both opportunity and outcomes along the lines of race and social class begin early and often persist throughout students’ K–12 years and beyond, and that they are much larger in the United States than in comparable countries (Bradbury et al. 2015; Putnam 2015). Some of the research carefully describes the specific contexts and challenges that minority and lower-social-class students face and how these challenges create early education gaps. Other studies illustrate the consequences of these gaps for children’s later learning and development (Duncan et al. 2007; Duncan and Magnuson 2011). 2 And though this body of research is smaller, a few studies have looked at trends in inequalities across cohorts (Carnoy and García 2017; Magnuson and Duncan 2016; Reardon 2011; Reardon and Portilla 2016), with mixed or inconclusive findings regarding the changes in the gaps. 3 In addition, these latter studies, however, do not address causes that could drive changes in the gaps over time. As such, there is a need both for a better understanding of these causes and for strategies to counter them.

In this paper, we describe recent skills gaps and trends in them by social class, as measured by socioeconomic status; analyze some of the major factors driving the gaps; and explore a set of diverse school district-level initiatives that are helping to narrow gaps. The paper is structured in three sections.

• First, we examine social-class-based gaps at kindergarten entry among the most recently surveyed kindergarten cohort (the kindergarten class of 2010–2011). We study how gaps manifest in both cognitive and so-called noncognitive skills, as both skill types are important components of children’s development.
• Next we compare these gaps with those of an earlier kindergarten cohort. We look at changes from 1998 to 2010 in the skills gaps between children in the top and bottom social-class quintiles (primarily using SES as the proxy for social class). We also analyze how sensitive gaps are to the inclusion of several key determinants of student performance, such as children’s own characteristics, family composition, and parental and education practices at home.
• Then we review a set of case studies of school districts that have employed comprehensive educational strategies to provide more children (especially low-income children) with strong early academic and life foundations, and to sustain and build on early gains throughout the K–12 school years.
• Finally, we look at the implications of our findings, and, based on the case study examples from diverse communities, we discuss strategies that districts can employ along with district and state policy changes that will make those strategies easier to adopt and more sustainable.

For the first two analyses, we use two nationally representative studies from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011. These data provide information about children’s skills and about the children themselves, such as their race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language spoken at home, etc. The data also provide information on the children’s experiences in their early years, such as how actively their parents engaged them in enriching activities, whether they attended prekindergarten care, and the number of books the child has (see Appendix A). This information allows us to test the associations between children’s characteristics and their educational outcomes at school entry. For the second analysis, we draw on 12 case studies of community and school districts employing comprehensive educational strategies (Weiss 2016a–h). We explore the qualitative information provided on investments these districts have made in early childhood education, on both within-school and broader K–12 supports for children, and on evidence that these investments are delivering both improved academic achievement and broader gains for children. Based on this evidence, the report ends with conclusions and recommendations for further research, practice, and policy. Appendices A and B provide detailed discussions of the data and methodology used in this paper.

How large are recent performance gaps at kindergarten entry?

This section documents inequalities among the most recently tracked cohort of students as they entered kindergarten in 2010. It provides us with the most recently available view of the various aspects of gaps at the school starting gate, all of which are critically important for understanding the implications of those gaps. The findings below draw on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Class of 2010–2011, and we use data from the fall measurement in the kindergarten year. (This section partly builds on our previous work; see García 2015 and García and Weiss 2015. See Appendices A and B for details on the variables and methodology used.)

Our decision to examine performance in both cognitive and noncognitive skills reflects growing acceptance that children’s development is a complex process in which both skill types build on and interact with each other, and on evidence of the roles that both types of skills play in the education process and adulthood outcomes (see García 2015; García and Weiss 2016; Levin 2012a, 2012b). Traits and skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, persistence, and self-control are vitally important to children’s full development, and are nurtured through life and school experiences. These skills, sometimes referred to as noncognitive or social and emotional skills, tend to develop—or lag—in tandem with cognitive skills. Noncognitive or social and emotional skills are thus linked to academic achievement, and also to outcomes in adult life, such as productivity and collegiality at work, good health, and civic participation.

For these analyses, we use a measure of socioeconomic status that has three components: the educational attainment of parents or guardians, parents’ occupational prestige (determined by a score), and household income (see more details about the SES construct in Tourangeau et al. 2013, 7-56 to 7-60). We divide children of the 2010–2011 kindergarten class into five groups based on SES quintile. To measure the gaps in performance by socioeconomic status, we compare the average performance of children in the top fifth of the SES distribution with the average performance of children in the bottom fifth. This provides an estimate of the relative advantage of a child in the top fifth of the SES distribution (referred to in this report as “high-SES”) with respect to a child in the bottom fifth (“low-SES”).

Children are not equally prepared for school when they enter kindergarten, and our analyses show that students’ social class strongly determines their relative position in the performance distribution. Most socioeconomically disadvantaged children lag substantially in both reading and math skills, and these skills levels rise along with socioeconomic status (sometimes referred to as socioeconomic gradients). Children in the highest socioeconomic group score significantly higher in reading and math than children in the lowest socioeconomic group. As Table 1 shows, the relative unadjusted gaps in reading and math, i.e., the advantages of high-SES children relative to low-SES children in 2010 are 1.17 and 1.25 sd, respectively (Table 1 also shows that, after controlling for clustered data, the gaps are 0.94 and 0.91 sd, respectively). 4 Reading and math skills advantages of children in the middle of the SES distribution relative to the lowest SES group are roughly half as large as the advantages of high-SES children to the lowest SES group. 5

Children in the lowest socioeconomic quintile also lag substantially in noncognitive skills, based on assessments by both parents and teachers, although these gaps are smaller than those in reading and math. Socioeconomic-based gaps in self-control and approaches to learning are approximately one-third to one-half as large as gaps in reading and math. 6 In 2010, children in the high-SES quintile scored 0.38 sd and 0.51 sd higher in self-control and approaches to learning as reported by teachers (0.36 sd and 0.56 sd after clustering; see Table 1) than children at the low-SES quintile (see Figure A ). Using parents’ assessments of the same skills, the gaps are 0.39 sd and 0.56 sd, respectively (0.33 sd and 0.46 sd after clustering; see Table 1).

Our analyses also document stark socioeconomic disparities in inputs, child and family characteristics, and other factors that can affect school readiness ( Table 2 ). Here too we find a correlation between socioeconomic status and other factors that impede educational development. Low-SES students are more likely than their high-SES peers to be immigrants and less likely to speak English at home, to live with two parents, to have participated in center-based pre-K care activities in the previous year, and to have engaged in early literacy practices at home. Among children in the low-SES group, half (50.4 percent) are Hispanic, 23.1 percent are white, 19.6 percent are black, and 2.5 percent are Asian. 7

Though these gaps in both cognitive and noncognitive skills are troubling and call for policy recommendations, better policy solutions can be designed if we understand how these gaps have changed over time and what factors have played a role in those changes. Education outcomes are the product of a combination of multiple factors, which can reinforce or mitigate relative advantages or disadvantages in a dynamic fashion. We examine these issues in the rest of the paper.

How do the performance gaps in the 2010–2011 kindergarten class compare with the gaps in the prior generation?

The analyses presented in this section compare the inequities in inputs and the performance gaps between high-SES and low-SES students who began kindergarten in 2010 with the gaps among high-SES and low-SES schoolchildren in the prior academic generation, the 1998 cohort. We also analyze factors that have had major influences on the changes in performance of kindergartners, and briefly discuss the research and policy implications of our findings.

How have the characteristics of the children in the lowest and highest SES groups changed in a generation?

We first analyze children’s characteristics by SES quintiles in the two cohorts. This enables us to identify differences in the characteristics of low-SES kindergartners in 2010 versus in 1998. These changes may help explain why the performance gaps we are studying grow or shrink (for example, if children in the low-SES quintile in 2010 were more likely than their 1998 peers to have access to public programs such as pre-K, they might be more prepared for kindergarten, and thus the relative advantage of high-SES children might shrink). 8

Table 2 shows the student and family characteristics of the kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and of 2010–2011, by SES quintile. The table also includes pre-K care arrangements and two indices of developmental activities parents undertake with their children—indices of “literacy/reading activities” and “other activities”). 9 The table also summarizes parents’ expectations regarding their children’s educational attainment. To some extent, expectations are based on hope, but they can also respond to behavioral patterns children are exhibiting that hint at their future success. Expectations can also influence outcomes by representing how motivated parents are for their children’s education. The ECLS-K survey does not ask parents how their expectations (and changes in their expectations) affect their provision of educational activities or support, but their answers to the expectations question can be used as a reasonable proxy of the degree to which parents are aware of their children’s education and willing to support it. 10

The most significant changes in children’s characteristics by SES quintile are for children in the bottom of the distribution. In 2010, a greater share of children in this group are Hispanic (50.4 percent, an increase of 10.6 percentage points relative to the 1998 share of 39.8 percent), live in homes where the main language is not English (40.3 percent, an increase of 9.1 percentage points from 31.2 percent in 1998), and are immigrants (49.8 percent, an increase of 19.5 percentage points from 30.3 percent in 1998). In 2010, a greater share of children do not live with two parents (54.9 percent, an increase of 9.3 percentage points from 45.6 percent in 1998), and live in poverty (84.6 percent, an increase of 13.3 percentage points from 71.3 percent in 1998). These substantially greater disadvantages for children at the bottom of the SES scale could all be reflections of both the much weaker national economic context in 2010 versus 1998 and the growing inequality described above.

These children’s likelihood of attending center-based pre-K did not change significantly across generations (about 44 percent for both cohorts), but they were more likely to be looked after by parents or relatives (with the share increasing from 46.4 percent in 1998 to 50.9 percent in 2010). These children’s parents also reported having a somewhat larger number of books at home for the children, and there were increases in their indices of educational and engagement activities (two composite measures, with the literacy/reading index measuring how frequently parents read books to their child, tell stories, sing songs, and talk about nature and how frequently the child reads picture books and reads outside of school, and the “other” index measuring how frequently parents and children play games or do puzzles, play a sport or exercise together, and build something or play with construction toys; and how often parents help children do arts and crafts and involve children in household chores). These parents’ expectations about their children’s educational attainment also changed significantly: the share who expected their children to attain no more than a high school diploma decreased by more than half (from 24.1 percent in 1998 to 11.4 percent in 2010), and the share of parents who expected their children to attain at least a bachelor’s degree increased, markedly for those expecting their children to obtain an advanced degree (a master’s degree, Ph.D., or M.D.).

Among children in the high-SES quintile, the group in 2010 includes a lower share of white children (falling from 78.8 percent in 1998 to 71.3 percent) and a larger share of Asian children (increasing from 4.7 percent in 1998 to 8.7 percent). Children in the high-SES group became slightly more likely to live with their two parents (the share of children who lived with one parent decreased from 11.1 percent in 1998 to 9.6 percent), and to have attended center-based pre-K (65.8 percent in 1998 and 69.9 percent in 2010). We only see a small increase in the reported number of books at home. 11 The share of homes reporting having more than 200 books—the maximum—increased slightly in 2010, across all SES quintiles except for the middle quintile). As was true of low-SES parents, those in the highest quintile raised their expectations for their children’s educational attainment from 1998 to 2010. Compared with the 1998 cohort, a larger proportion of high-SES children in the 2010 cohort were expected by their parents to attain an advanced degree (master’s degree or higher), while a lower share expected their children to attain a bachelor’s degree only.

How did the performance gaps between the children in the lowest and highest SES groups change in a generation?

Changes over time in the input factors by socioeconomic status (child and family characteristics, early-education practices, and parents’ expectations) explored above have been found by researchers to have major impacts on the outcomes (test scores on reading and math, and measures of noncognitive skills) explored in this section. 12 In other words, we would expect that changes in the unadjusted skills gaps (gap measures that do not include controls for child and family characteristics, early-education practices, and parents’ expectations) would partially reflect the compositional differences between the class of 2010–2011 and the class of 1998–1999. For example, we would anticipate that if the more recent generation’s low-SES parents read to their children more frequently, helped them do more arts and crafts, or had higher expectations for them, these factors would correlate with narrowing skills gaps. Also, we would expect that the adjusted skills gaps (gap measures that are net of the influence of child and family characteristics, early-education practices, and parents’ expectations, and thus reflect the SES gaps) would be different for the two cohorts if the correlations between inputs and outcomes had changed over time or if the share of children’s outcomes the adjustments account for had changed over time.

To understand these factors’ potential influence on gaps, we examine both unadjusted and adjusted gaps in the tables in this section. We also examine gaps by some of the components of the SES index, such as household income or mother’s educational attainment, and by other variables that are sometimes used as proxies of the child’s socioeconomic background, such as number of books in the home. If the gaps by SES components and proxies somewhat differ, this tells us that researchers’ choices about how to divide children into groups and compare them matter—both for their findings and for their policy recommendations.

Table 3 shows the unadjusted and adjusted gaps between the standardized scores in reading and math of kindergarten children in the top SES quintile relative to the bottom SES quintile in 1998 and the change in that gap by 2010. 13 Table 4 performs the same analysis for gaps in measured noncognitive skills. The tables show two somewhat perplexing patterns. On the one hand, the cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children are large and statistically significant in both cohorts. But while significant social-class-based performance gaps persist from one kindergarten generation to the next, there is not the same consistency in how the high-SES to low-SES gaps change. For some cognitive and noncognitive skills, the performance gaps grow, while for others the gaps shrink, or remain the same from one generation to the next (which may complicate the process of understanding why performance gaps have changed over time).

Beginning with our unadjusted model (data column one), the only substantial increase in the gap between high- and low-SES children from 1998 to 2010 was in reading skills, which increased by one-tenth of a standard deviation. There were no significant changes in gaps in math skills, which, as the literature indicates, are less sensitive than reading skills to parents’ activities at home (see Rothstein 2004, 2010). Similarly, gaps in approaches to learning as reported by parents and in self-control as reported by teachers did not change significantly, and gaps in approaches to learning as reported by teachers and in self-control as reported by parents shrank by roughly the same amount as the reading gap (about a tenth of a standard deviation—0.12 and 0.08 sd, respectively). Figure A provides a graphic illustration of the unadjusted gaps in cognitive and noncognitive skills of high- and low-SES children across the two cohorts.

The additional models estimated for each outcome and shown in Tables 3 and 4 offer other key findings. In Model 1, we used the full samples for the two cohorts but did not include any controls that capture characteristics of children or their parents or the early education practices in which families engage. Model 2 partitions the data into schools and classes, or clusters, so that the subjects in the clusters are more similar to one another than to those in other groups. Under this adjustment, the gaps shrink substantially, by between 15 and 25 percent across the skills, and the regression fit improves significantly (see increased adjusted R-squared, i.e., this model explains more of the total variation in the outcomes than the first model). This clustering takes into account school segregation, that is, that children are not randomly distributed but tend to concentrate in schools or classrooms with children of the same race, social class, etc. Clustered estimates provide a comparison of the skills gaps of peer students—those in the same schools and classrooms—rather than a comparison across schools. García (2015) and Magnuson and Duncan (2016) offer these estimates too.

How do child and family characteristics, activities, and expectations affect SES-based performance and performance gaps?

We next examine the contribution of the certain variables of interest to SES-based performance gaps. We approach this in two ways. First, we examine the changes in the gaps (Tables 3 and 4, Models 3 and 4) and the overall reduction in the gaps that results from controlling for children and their family characteristics, early literacy practices, and parental expectations of educational achievement ( Table 5 ). Second, we assess the influence of select early educational practices on performance and how that influence has changed over time by looking at the associations between these inputs and performance ( Table 6 ).

Models 3 and 4 in Tables 3 and 4 use the samples that result from removing observations without full information for the controls of interest. 14 Adding controls is important because performance gaps based on socioeconomic status may be explained by differences in variables other than the child’s socioeconomic status. In other words, we aim to determine which part of the gap is attributable to children’s SES, net of other factors that matter for performance. Thus, in the third data column (Model 3), we add controls for individual and family characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, whether English is the primary language spoken at home, disability, age, whether children live with two parents) and early educational and play activities (center-based pre-K care, indices for literacy/reading activities and other activities, and total number of books the child has). Model 3 also includes the interactions between the early education variables with time. 15 In the fourth data column (Model 4), we control for the same factors as in Model 3 but add controls for parental expectations of children’s educational attainment (whether they expect their children’s highest level of education attained will be high school diploma or less, some college or vocational studies, bachelor’s degree, or advanced degree) and their interaction with time. 16 We describe these results in the next section.

Including covariates changes the estimates of SES-based skills gaps in various ways. First, the gaps between the top- and bottom-SES quintiles shrink, showing that SES-based gaps are partially explained by the variation in the controls (which is not visible in the tables). 17 Second, controls do not significantly change the SES-based gaps over time, in general; i.e., the coefficients associated with changes in the gaps between high- and low-SES children remain almost the same, or change very minimally, depending on the skill measured. The statistical significance of the SES-based skills gaps in 1998 is not affected by the inclusion of the controls (see rows “Gap in 1998–1999” in tables), but the statistical significance of the changes in the gaps between 1998 and 2010 (see rows “Change in gap by 2010–2011” in tables) is somewhat affected by the inclusion of the controls (note that the sizes of the coefficients measuring gaps in 1998 change after the inclusion of the controls, but that the sizes of the coefficients measuring changes in them between 1998 and 2010 do not change significantly). In reading, the change in the gap between 1998 and 2010 diminishes and becomes statistically insignificant in the last model (the relative gap increases by 0.08 sd but this change is not statistically significant), meaning that adding parental expectations of education accounts for some of the increase in the gap detected in Models 1 to 3. The only SES-based skills gap that shows a statistically significant increase from 1998 to 2010 once parental expectations are controlled for is the gap associated with parents’ assessment of approaches to learning, which increases by 0.11 sd. Gaps between high- and low-SES children in cognitive and noncognitive skills after adjustments are made are shown in Figure B .

As mentioned above, the fact that the skills gaps decrease after controls are taken into consideration affirms that SES-based gaps are due in part to variation in the controls among high- versus low-SES children. This trend can be seen in Table 5, which, as noted above, shows the overall reduction in gaps that results from controlling for child and family characteristics, early literacy practices, and parental expectations of educational achievement. With respect to cognitive skills, the 1998 gaps shrink by 46 percent and 53 percent, respectively, after the inclusion of the covariates. About half of the gaps are thus due to other factors that are associated both with SES status and with the outcomes themselves. The reduction in the 1998 gaps for noncognitive skills varies from 28 percent (approaches to learning as reported by teachers) to 74 percent (approaches to learning as reported by parents). (For self-control as reported by teachers, the reduction is 51 percent versus 35 percent when reported by parents.)

While the gaps hold after the inclusion of controls across outcomes, gaps in 2010 are less sensitive to the inclusion of the covariates than they were in 1998. This trend can also be seen in Table 5. 18 Declining values from 1998 to 2010 indicate that factors such as early literacy activities and other controls are not, as a group, explaining SES-based gaps as much as they had a decade prior. This change could be due to the failure of the index to fully capture parents’ efforts to nurture their children’s development and/or the index becoming somewhat out-of-date. In any event, the resistance of gaps to these controls should worry researchers and policymakers. The waning influence of these controls makes it harder to understand what drives SES gaps. It also suggests that the gaps may be growing more intractable or, at least are less easily narrowed via the enactment of known policy interventions.

Finally, we examine the association of performance outcomes (not performance gaps) with selected early educational practices, including having attended center-based pre-K, literacy/reading activities and other activities, and total number of children’s books in the home (Table 6). 19 We are mainly interested in two potential patterns: whether these factors are associated with outcomes (and, if so, how intense the associations are), and whether the relationships have changed over time.

In keeping with established research, having attended center-based pre-K is positively associated with children’s early reading and math skills. For 1998, the estimated coefficients are 0.11 sd for reading skills and 0.10 sd for math skills, substantial associations that do not change significantly over time. In other words, attending pre-K in 1998 improved kindergartners’ reading skills by 0.11 sd and improved kindergartners’ math skills by 0.10 sd relative to not attending pre-K. However, while center-based pre-K continues to reduce self-control as reported by teachers in 2010, the effect is less negative in 2010 (the 0.06 improvement from 1998 to 2010 shown in the bottom panel of the table shows us that the effect in 2010 was -0.07 [-0.13 plus 0.06], compared with -0.13 sd in 1998). We find no independent effect of center-based prekindergarten schooling (i.e., no effect in addition to SES, in addition to other individual and family characteristics, or in addition to other SES-mediated factors), on approaches to learning or on self-control as reported by parents. 20

The number of books children have at home likewise supports their skills at the beginning of kindergarten. Indeed, this factor is positively associated with all outcomes but self-control reported by parents. The coefficients are very small, of about 0.01 to 0.02 sd (associated with changes in outcomes for each 10 additional/fewer books the child has, as expressed by the continuous scale with which number of books in the home is measured, which is divided by 10 for the analyses (as mentioned in Appendix A), and these relationships do not change over the time period.

The two types of parenting activities that are summarized by the indices “reading/literacy activities” and “other activities” show interesting correlations with performance and patterns over time. On the one hand, the “reading/literacy activities” index (a composite of how frequently parents read books to their child, tell stories, sing songs, and talk about nature, and how frequently the child reads picture books and reads outside of school) is strongly and positively associated with all outcomes other than children’s self-control as reported by the teacher. The associations with cognitive skills, especially with reading, are strong and statistically significant—0.17 sd for reading performance and 0.07 sd for math—and these associations did not change significantly between 1998 and 2010. For noncognitive skills, the relationships are strong for those assessed by parents, though they shrink by about half over time: self-control is 0.14 sd in 1998 and decreases by 0.08 sd by 2010; approaches to learning is 0.32 sd in 1998 and decreases by 0.17 sd by 2010). The relationship is much weaker, though still statistically significant, for teachers’ assessed approaches to learning (it is 0.03 sd in 1998 and does not change significantly by 2010).

On the other hand, the index that measures other enrichment activities that parents do with their children (a composite of how frequently parents and children play games, do sports, build things, work on puzzles, do arts and crafts, and do chores) shows significant correlations with all of the skills, but they may be either positively correlated or negatively correlated, depending on the skill. For cognitive skills, the associations are statistically significant and negative, though stronger and somewhat more meaningful or more intense with reading achievement (-0.12 sd in 1998) than with math achievement (-0.04 sd). 21 These associations did not intensify nor weaken over time. For noncognitive skills the associations are highly positive and statistically significant, and very strong for parents’ assessment of approaches to learning (0.29 sd in 1998). As explained by García (2015), these correlations between “other activities” and noncognitive skills as assessed by parents could be bidirectional: engaging children in enrichment activities might enhance their noncognitive skills, but, at the same time, parents who are more inclined to participate in their children’s early play and educational time are probably more likely to perceive or judge that their engagement has an impact on their children’s skills. But the fact that both the frequency with which parents engage in most of these activities and the importance of this index for parent-assessed skills increased noticeably from 1998 to 2010 (by 0.22 sd for self-control and 0.27 sd for approaches to learning) suggests that parents are growing more informed and involved in their children’s early education over time. It also indicates that parents are increasingly acting on this knowledge and that this involvement will continue to grow, albeit potentially with decreasing marginal returns to time and resources invested. The association between “other activities” and teachers’ assessments of children’s noncognitive skills is also positive but weaker than that of parents’ assessments (about 0.03 sd for approaches to learning and 0.05 sd for self-control), and remained unchanged during the time period studied.

Finally, we find a strong association between parental expectations for their children’s educational attainment and all measured skills. In other words, net of socioeconomic status, the higher the expectations, the higher cognitive skills children have, and the higher the assessments by parents and teachers of children’s noncognitive skills. The parental expectations portion of the table measures children’s performance relative to children whose parents’ expectations are the lowest (high school diploma or less). While the expectation that a child will pursue some vocational education or complete college has a statistically positive influence on all skills measures except for reading, the expectation that their children will complete a bachelor’s degree or more education has a stronger influence, including on reading skills: between 0.11 to 0.16 sd higher in reading and between 0.17 to 0.22 sd higher in math in 1998. High expectations for children’s educational attainment also have a statistically positive effect on noncognitive skills. When the expectation is for an advanced degree (master’s or higher), coefficients vary from 0.12 sd in self-control by teachers to 0.38 sd in approaches to learning by parents in 1998. In addition, most of these associations—particularly the cognitive gradients—grow in 2010. Relative to children whose parents have low expectations, children whose parents have the highest expectations for their children’s attainment (graduate studies) perform much better in reading and math than in 1998 (relative gaps grow by 0.19 and 0.12 sd respectively). A similarly stronger association is noted for noncognitive skills assessed by teachers (though not for parents’ assessments of their children’s skills).

Sensitivity analyses: Do performance gaps vary based on which proxy for social class (socioeconomic status) is used?

Part of the challenge to making conclusive statements about trends in education gaps by social class is the existence of multiple valid proxies for measuring children’s social class or socioeconomic status. 22 Although researchers treat these proxies as equivalent, and even interchangeable, the lack of a comparison of results obtained using various indicators limits our capacity to extract major conclusions on social-class trends and their drivers, and hence hinders the plausibility and effectiveness of the policy recommendations that build on any specific indicator’s findings (net of other methodological and instrumental differences that may exist across studies).

We thus conduct analyses using several of the main proxies employed to measure socioeconomic status. The purpose of these analyses is twofold. The first purpose is to test the sensitivity of the estimated relative gaps, and of trends in them, to changes in the measurement of this key predictor of education performance. (In other words, if all the indicators are reliable proxies of SES, gaps and trends obtained using the various metrics should be similar.) The second purpose is to increase the comparability of the results of studies addressing trends in education inequalities that use various metrics of social class. This is an important issue; in addition to helping reconcile diverse results found in the literature, these analyses may reveal why patterns differ, and have significant policy implications.

As such, instead of the SES composite measure we use to estimate SES-based gaps in this report, we use three alternative indicators to run our analyses: mother’s educational attainment, household income, and number of books the child has in the home. Unlike the SES composite measure, two of these measures offer the advantage of being directly comparable over time. Both mother’s educational attainment and number of books the child has are objective categories. As a limitation, and mainly associated with the information that is available in the raw data, none of these categories can be transformed into a percentile-variable without major transformations. (The adjustments to ensure comparability over time are explained in Appendix A. See Reardon and Portilla 2016 for an analysis with a transformation of the income variable that offers a proper percentile comparison, based on the methodology developed by Reardon 2011.) Still, they are variables associated with social class and can be ordered in groups or categories that identify high- and low-social-class statuses. Thus, with the necessary caution when interpreting and using the findings, we offer this comparison of results as a sensitivity analysis.

We create five categories with these indicators, maintaining the structure of comparing “high-SES” (top quintile) with “low-SES” (bottom quintile) as in Tables 1–5 (note that we are using “SES” interchangeably with “social class” here). For simplicity, Tables 7–9  show only the results from two models: one without covariates (Model 1, baseline estimates) and one with all covariates (Model 4, fully adjusted estimates). We focus on the findings for the baseline relative gaps in 1998 and 2010 first ( Figures C–E ). The overall patterns found in the results suggest that all social-class gaps are statistically significant and sizable. However, the exact sizes of the gaps vary depending on the social-class indicator used and the outcome being assessed. Also, the changes in the gaps over time vary depending on the indicator used to capture children’s social class.

In addition to these general findings, we note some more detailed ones. For 1998, gaps by mother’s educational attainment (Figure C; Table 7) are the largest across all indicators (except for the gap in self-control as assessed by teachers, which is slightly smaller than the gaps as measured using household income and number of books the child has), while gaps by number of books (Figure E; Table 9) are the smallest across all indicators (except for the gap in approaches to learning as assessed by parents, which is slightly larger than the gap for household income). Again, according to the 1998 data, the coefficients of gaps by mother’s educational attainment are generally larger—and in three cases much larger—than those obtained using number of books in the home as the indicator of social class. For example, the relative gap is 1.29 sd in reading and 1.46 sd in math when mother’s education is the SES proxy, compared with gaps of 0.74 sd and 0.97 sd when number of books in the home is the SES proxy.

It is also important to note that gaps by mother’s educational attainment (Figure C; Table 7) and income (Figure D; Table 8)—two of the five components of the SES construct—are very close to the ones obtained by our SES composite measure (as shown in Figure A). All in all, results seem internally consistent as well as generally consistent with prior results on this topic (Reardon and Portilla 2016).

In terms of changes in the performance gaps over time (unadjusted), the findings vary depending on which indicators of social class are used, with mother’s education and household income being the indicators associated with the largest changes in the gaps. Changes in the performance gaps in cognitive skills between 1998 and 2010 by our composite SES measure and books are similar: an increase in the reading gap between children in the top and bottom quintiles of about a tenth of a standard deviation (0.10 sd with the composite SES measure [Figure A] and 0.08 sd if SES is proxied with books), and no significant change in mathematics (there are some differences in the noncognitive outcomes).

However, by mother’s educational attainment, there are no changes in relative reading and approaches to learning gaps reported by parents over time, and a significant reduction in the gaps in the remaining outcomes. Meanwhile, income-based gaps for the two cognitive skills—reading and math—decreased by -0.13 and -0.23 sd respectively, and for approaches to learning as reported by teachers by -0.13 sd. No significant changes occurred for the remaining noncognitive skills.

In sum, this sensitivity analysis demonstrates that all of the indicators are reliable proxies of SES for the estimation of early achievement gaps, though absolute gaps may vary slightly depending on the indicator used. However, the proxies are not equally reliable when we assess trends in the gaps by SES or their drivers. As such, aside from differences in the definitions and procedures used to construct each SES proxy, the proxies should not be treated as fully equivalent. The decomposition conducted here helps clarify the different weights that various components of SES may have in driving changes in gaps by social class. For example, variation in income across groups over time is associated with decreased performance gaps in the cognitive skills between 1998 and 2010, and variation in educational attainment quintiles or categories over time is associated with decreased performance gaps across cohorts in most noncognitive skills. But variation in books in the home over time and among groups is associated with increased gaps in reading and in parents’ assessed approaches to learning. Such findings also point to very different policy solutions: if mothers’ education is the main driver, enhancing that will improve children’s prospects. On the other hand, findings that indicate that income inequality is the larger culprit would point to the need for policies that reduce such inequalities. Future research should consider and look more closely into these questions.

What can we learn from these analyses?

The multiple factors and relationships examined in this section can now be examined from a policy perspective. If the aim is to increase equity, to improve children’s development across the board, and to improve our understanding of children’s development, there are two major policy recommendations:

• Directly support less-resourced families so that they have greater access to educational and economic resources (for the latter, see García and Weiss 2017). All the early educational and play activities measured, which include center-based pre-K care and literacy/reading and other activities, as well as the number of books a child has, are positively associated with children’s readiness, and in part account for social-class gaps, but are much less accessible to children of lower socioeconomic status. Virtually all of the associations between these factors and outcomes were strong and positive (with a handful of exceptions), and some even grew over time. A related research recommendation of particular interest would be to examine whether the intensity of these activities or practices has any threshold level of effectiveness (after which point they no longer affect children’s development). 23 Also, it would be helpful to understand why parents’ expectations of their children’s educational attainment increased so much and how this has affected children’s development. For example, do parents have a better understanding of the relationship between educational attainment and prospects for success in life and the workforce? Are children performing better because their parents expect more, or because parents who expect more are also delivering more in the form of enriching activities?
• Design and implement strategies that compensate at the community level for children’s lack of access to key foundational resources (economic and educational). These strategies can be considered indirect supports for less-resourced families that reduce inequities and complement the direct supports described above. Examples of communities that have enacted such comprehensive support initiatives provide a good starting point to explore how and why they emerge; the types of supports they provide (from preschool programs and home visits with parents to enriching summer programs, school-based health clinics, and more); the challenges of scaling them up and sustaining them; the benefits they deliver for students, and particularly for disadvantaged students; and their implications for policy at the local, state, and even federal levels. The next section of this report thus presents an analysis based on qualitative data from promising initiatives in a dozen school districts across the country (Weiss 2016a–h).

What are pioneering school districts doing to combat these inequities and resulting gaps?

This section of the report draws on a set of case studies published by the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education (BBA), a national campaign that advances evidence-based strategies to mitigate the impacts of poverty-related disadvantages on teaching and learning. 24 The case studies feature school districts that have employed comprehensive educational strategies to ensure that more children, especially low-income children, have strong early academic and life foundations, and that resulting early gains are sustained and built on through children’s K–12 years. (These strategies are often referred to as “whole-child” approaches to education, in reflection of their holistic nature.) We explore the premise that school districts that take a whole-child approach to education and a whole-community approach to delivering it are likely to enjoy larger gains in academic achievement and to narrow their race- and income-based achievement gaps. In doing so, we are building on evidence suggesting that consistent, strong supports for children and their families—both in and out of school—can avoid the “fade-out” seen among graduates of many pre-K programs and even enhance those programs’ early benefits.

This section is thus divided into four parts: (1) an introduction to the case study districts, followed by discussions of (2) how these districts invest in early childhood care and education, (3) how the districts’ investments in K–12 strategies sustain and boost the early childhood investments, and (4) how academic gains and narrowing achievement gaps indicate that the investments are paying off. Table 10 provides basic information on the 12 school districts/communities studied; Appendix E at the end of this report provides more information on key characteristics of these districts. 25

Introduction to the case studies: Why these districts enacted whole-child strategies

Large and growing disparities in the economic well-being of children in America and extensive evidence linking those disparities to widely diverging educational outcomes have prompted action among a growing number of communities and school districts. Heeding the evidence that out-of-school factors play even larger roles than school-based factors in school performance, these districts are seeking ways to mitigate the poverty-related impediments to effective teaching and learning.

These districts have benefited from a substantial body of research on strategies with promise to address core challenges that students and schools face—strategies that have been shown to shrink achievement gaps by narrowing major disparities in opportunity (Carter and Welner 2013). The first, and perhaps best-documented, of these strategies is high-quality early child care and education, especially when it engages parents early and in meaningful ways. High-quality early childhood education programs not only narrow achievement gaps at kindergarten entry but also deliver long-term benefits to children, their families, and society as a whole (Chaudry et al. 2017; Rolnick and Grunewald 2003).

Programs that support students’ physical and mental health and improve their nutrition are also known to reduce chronic absence and keep students focused and learning, and thus improve their academic performance (CDC 2016). Well-designed after-school and summer-enrichment programs likewise boost achievement, both directly and indirectly by enhancing students’ engagement in and attachment to school (Peterson 2013).

Whole-child approaches integrate these and other strategies into a comprehensive set of aligned interventions, leveraging the whole community’s resources to meet the broad range of student needs. While the impact of such comprehensive approaches has not been studied as extensively as the individual components, considerable theoretical and emerging empirical research point to the strong potential of such strategies to boost achievement and narrow gaps (Child Trends 2014; Oakes, Maier, and Daniel 2017; Weiss 2016i).

This section of the report seeks to add to that knowledge base by sharing qualitative information on how such comprehensive approaches have emerged and grown, what they look like when they are successfully implemented, and what types of outcomes and benefits result and how outcomes vary across diverse communities.

How are whole-child initiatives launched?

Each of the districts studied has distinct circumstances, and thus distinct reasons for coming to the conclusion, as a community, that it needed to take a comprehensive approach to education. At the same time, demographic trends that are affecting virtually every state—and many, if not most, school districts across the country—have played major roles in that decision in every case. 26 Indeed, community and school leaders in all of these districts cited students’ poverty (and, in some districts, demographic shifts) as posing challenges that required looking beyond the school walls to address.

How these factors triggered the initiative’s launch varied, but poverty was at the core in each community’s decision. For example, in 2008, community leaders identified East Durham as one of Durham, North Carolina’s, most distressed areas, based on a community risk assessment conducted by Duke University’s Children’s Environmental Health Initiative. The 120-block area’s 11,000 residents had a 40 percent poverty rate and a homeownership rate of just 19 percent, along with high rates of crime and unemployment, putting its 3,000 children and youth at high risk of academic failure (Weiss 2016e).

Across the country, in Vancouver, Washington, the share of children eligible for subsidized school meals rose from 39 percent to over 50 percent in less than a decade, such that, by 2015, in some central-city schools, more than four in five students qualified for subsidized school meals in 2015 (Weiss 2016b). In another distressed community, in north Minneapolis, median family income was just $18,000 in 2011, and fully one-fourth of the 5,500 Northside students were homeless or “highly mobile” (in such unstable housing that they were at risk of homelessness) (Weiss 2016d). In Pea Ridge, Arkansas, schools “had difficulty finding resources that met the needs of kids,” says superintendent Rick Neal. “We knew that we were not identifying all the needs that were there. I think that’s the way a lot of districts are” (Weiss 2016f). And in the early 1990s, the Tangelo Park neighborhood in Orlando, Florida—an isolated enclave of 3,000 residents, almost all low-income and African American—caught the attention of hotelier and philanthropist Harris Rosen, who was looking for a neighborhood in which to invest (Alvarez 2015).

Each of these districts took different approaches to enacting those comprehensive strategies, based on the community’s specific mix of needs and assets, ideological leaning, available sources of funding, and other factors. One of the most politically progressive of the districts studied, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland, paved the way for a whole-child approach in the early 1970s when it enacted housing policy that uses mixed-income residential developments to create communities with families of different income levels. In the 1990s, the county developed Linkages to Learning, a “community schools”–type approach targeted to engaging and partnering with low-income and immigrant parents and families and connecting them with a broad range of community resources (MCPS 2016). (Community schools are known for building partnerships with community agencies and private service providers to meet student and family needs.) Austin Independent School District (AISD), also in a politically progressive jurisdiction, began its whole-child efforts through parent- and community-organizing in schools. It has since invested in social and emotional learning and in a community schools strategy (CASEL 2017).

At the other end of the spectrum are whole-child approaches in Joplin, Missouri, and Pea Ridge, Arkansas, districts located in more politically conservative southern states. These districts operate under the umbrella of Bright Futures USA (a spinoff national nonprofit that began with Joplin’s Bright Futures initiative). The Bright Futures districts take a more individualistic angle, asserting that every member of the community has “time, talent, or treasure” to offer that can help children overcome disadvantage and ensure more equal opportunity (Weiss 2016a).

Two other districts have modeled their efforts on the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ). The Northside Achievement Zone in Minneapolis is funded through a grant from the federal Promise Neighborhoods initiative, enacted by the Obama Administration to help more communities dramatically improve the academic success for low-income children by adopting HCZ-like strategies. The East Durham Children’s Initiative in North Carolina is entirely privately funded so far (Weiss 2016e).

In both Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Orlando, Florida, pledges of “Promise” college scholarships have evolved into broader whole-child efforts (Alvarez 2015; Miller-Adams 2015).

Districts also take different approaches based on density. New York City—home to dozens of full-service community schools supported by the Children’s Aid Society and rapidly expanding to more—and Boston—home to the City Connects initiative—leverage a broad range of their respective cities’ arts and cultural offerings, along with health and nutrition and other social services (Weiss 2016g, 2016h). Cultural offerings to supplement other well-rounded services are also part of the full-service community schools district initiative in Vancouver, Washington. In contrast, Partners for Education, which serves the isolated region surrounding Berea College in Kentucky, was the first rural organization to receive a Promise Neighborhood grant and, thus, is a pioneer in exploring how well the model works outside the urban context (Berea College 2013).

What do whole-child initiatives do?

The sections below describe commonalities across these different approaches in terms of investments in children’s earliest years (before school starts), building on these investments throughout children’s K–12 years (both in and out of school), and the gains students and schools enjoy as a result of those investments. 27

How the case study districts invest in early childhood care and education

In keeping with their whole-child approaches to education policy and practice, every one of the 12 districts highlighted as a BBA case study has made investments in early childhood care and education, many of them substantial. These districts’ efforts begin long before children enter school and go beyond pre-K offerings to equip parents in the effort to ensure their children’s readiness for school.

One-on-one engagement with new parents

Investing in babies by engaging parents can include providing new parents with key information about child development and how to keep children healthy and safe. In Joplin, Missouri, Bright Futures Joplin partners with two of the area’s hospitals to deliver new baby “kits” with child development and early literacy information and is trying to raise funds to sustain the project long term and to expand it to reach every new parent (Weiss 2016a). In Vancouver, Washington, 6,000 “literacy packets” are delivered annually to families with children up to age five, providing child-development activities and lessons that families can complete at home (Weiss 2016b).

The districts leverage partnerships to connect parents with a range of school and community resources that support children from birth through kindergarten entry. In Eastern Kentucky, the whole-child program called Partners for Education works with Community Early Childhood Councils to host events such as Week of the Young Child, the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, and Kindergarten Transition Programs (Weiss 2016c). In Montgomery County, Maryland, “Judy Centers”—early child care and family education centers—leverage partnerships with social service agencies and local community nonprofits to increase parents’ access to mental health, nutrition, and other key services (Maryland State Department of Education 2017).

Educating and engaging parents early helps prepare children for school both academically and more broadly for healthy development. Those are the twin goals of the Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ), where currently only one in four preschoolers in the zone is ready for kindergarten based on standardized tests. To improve those odds, the zone has a team of “NAZ Navigators” who work with families to set and track progress toward goals in early childhood and to link this area of family support to goals in academics, housing, career and finance, and behavioral health (Weiss 2016d).

Parenting classes

Parents are children’s first and most important teachers. Like the one-on-one strategies described above, classes for parents provide information on child development, early literacy, health, and constructive disciplinary practices, and offer more specific guidance tailored to specific parents’ needs. Almost every district studied provides new-parent classes. The 1-2-3 Grow and Learn program is a weekly 90-minute literacy-rich program for young children and their parents offered at 12 elementary schools in high-poverty Vancouver neighborhoods. It lays the foundations for school readiness through social and education experiences. In addition, the district’s Family and Community Resource Centers offer parent workshops, groups, and courses to help parents support their children’s learning, while empowerment and skill-enhancement programs—such as job preparation, housing assistance, and parent leadership advisory groups—strengthen parents’ basic skills. Family Academy classes in the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone include “College Bound Babies” (for parents of children up to three years old), which teaches early literacy, numeracy, and positive discipline skills, and “Foundations,” which empowers parents to feel confident talking with their children’s teachers and advocating for their children and their children’s schools.

In many cases, districts employ a combination of one-on-one and group supports, along the lines of Early Head Start. 28 The East Durham Children’s Initiative, a private program modeled loosely after the Harlem Children’s Zone, includes Durham Connects, a home visiting program that supports zone families with children up to age 3 and is followed by weekly or biweekly in-home parent education and support provided by two nonprofit social service providers, Healthy Families Durham and Jumpstart (Weiss 2016e). In Montgomery County, Maryland, family social workers collaborate with classroom teachers to help them develop Family Partnership Agreements, which are based on the strengths, needs, and personal goals of each family. A social worker–led team follows up by phone and with visits. In two of the district’s highest-poverty schools, these supports are complemented by early child care and family education centers (Judy Centers), which provide comprehensive early childhood education and support to children from birth to age five and their families (Marietta 2010).

Big investments in prekindergarten programs

Almost every state in the country now invests at least minimally in pre-K programs for disadvantaged children, and a growing share of states make these programs widely available. 29 Most of the districts we studied, however, have gone far beyond state programs through one or more strategies and funding mechanisms.

A few of these districts benefit from high-quality state pre-K programs that serve a large share of children, freeing the districts to invest in other aspects of early childhood enrichment. The Partners for Education initiative based in Berea, Kentucky, leverages the state pre-K program, which serves all three- and four-year olds who are either low-income or have other risk factors. This enables Partners for Education to use Promise Neighborhood grant funds to place early childhood specialists in pre-K classrooms throughout the four-county region (the region is a Promise Neighborhood region, which means that federal funds are available for a variety of education- and health-related investments). The specialists also provide coaching, professional development, and support for Head Start classrooms, as well as in-home tutoring over the summer.

In East Durham, North Carolina, strong state early education programs are supplemented by partner-led low-cost half-day preschool and a summer kindergarten readiness program, and home visits by parent advocates provide a range of supports, such as connections to state pre-K. In Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Pre-Kindergarten Early Education Program (PEEP) offers half- or full-day pre-K classes in elementary schools for four-year-olds at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, per state law, but it adds transportation and meals for those children. PEEP also works with other programs such as Head Start to provide families who are ineligible for PEEP with other options for low- or no-cost quality early education (KPS 2017).

Other districts with less comprehensive state support use federal resources to expand local options. For example, Vancouver draws on both state and federally funded early learning programs to provide pre-K in seven schools, along with district-supported programs for children in Title I schools. As of fall 2015, Vancouver’s new early learning center serves up to 100 additional children or more, with hot meals and playground space from an adjacent elementary school. Montgomery County also enhances state and federal programs with district-level investments: it provides the same literacy-rich curriculum in its Head Start classrooms as in district pre-K classrooms. And Montgomery County uses a blend of federal Title I and Head Start dollars to offer full-day Head Start in 18 of the poorest schools, serving 460 children (Marietta 2010). The Northside Achievement Zone in north Minneapolis uses federal Race to the Top Early Learning Fund money for scholarships for three- and four-year-olds to attend high-quality pre-K, serving 127 children in 2012–2013 and 156 in 2013–2014.

Local programs can also fill in where state programs are weak. Austin, Texas, uses local funds to provide enriching, hands-on full-day programs for the four-year-olds who would otherwise participate in lower-quality half-day state programs. Austin also provides a half-day program for three-year-olds who aren’t served by the state. Families who qualify for both state pre-K and Head Start also receive nutrition, health, and other services (AISD 2017).

Pea Ridge is another community using local resources to supplant state resources. A lack of available seats for children who are eligible for the state’s high-quality Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) pre-K program prompted Pea Ridge to seek a grant to open its own program, which serves 40 children: 20 at-risk children, who receive tuition scholarships, and 20 others whose parents can pay tuition (Weiss 2016f). Missouri’s pre-K program also has too few slots, so Bright Futures Joplin is building a new early childhood learning center that will be funded jointly by the district and the state.

Strengthening the transition to kindergarten

Featured districts also build on pre-K gains and help narrow school-readiness gaps with such programs as full-day kindergarten. Montgomery County Public Schools first started full-day kindergarten in “red zone schools,” those deemed to be most affected by high rates of student poverty, in 2000. Full-day kindergarten has since expanded to every school in the district (Marietta 2010). And Vancouver offers Kindergarten Jump Start, a school readiness program, at all 21 elementary schools, and full-day kindergarten; both programs seek to enhance the transition from pre-K into formal schooling.

Other investments in young children and their families

In addition to the above range of supports for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers and their parents, several of the districts studied by BBA have made additional investments in young children and their families. The Community Storywalk in Clay County, Kentucky, and the Born Learning Trail in Joplin, Missouri, provide opportunities for parents and paid caregivers to learn with their children in a hands-on way through outdoor and physical activities. In Eastern Kentucky, Partners for Education’s Promise Neighborhood grant supports work by national nonprofit Save the Children to improve the health and education outcomes of the region’s children through a literacy program that provides kids ages 5–12 with books and tools to develop strong reading skills. The Promise Neighborhood grant also allows Partners for Education to offer the Children’s Healthy Choices program, which provides healthy snacks and 30 minutes of daily physical activity for children in districts across Eastern Kentucky.

Joplin’s Little Blue Bookshelf program gives age-appropriate books to those children whose families cannot afford them, making the goal of 1,000 hours of reading by kindergarten a viable reality for every child. And the city’s Lend & Learn Libraries provide stimulating toys and socialization time for young children and their parents.

How the school districts invest in K–12 strategies to sustain and boost their early childhood investments

The whole-child approaches these communities embrace for children from birth to five years old continue as those children transition to kindergarten and through elementary, middle, and high school. This represents a sharp difference from most other districts, which focus heavily on narrow academic factors and assessments and thus neglect characteristics emphasized in pre-K, such as building strong teacher–student relationships and attending to the full range of children’s assets and needs. As these examples illustrate, students continue to benefit from a more comprehensive approach to education and there is an array of strategies school districts can use to deliver that comprehensive approach.

Enriching K–12 curricula and activities to sustain pre-K’s whole-child emphasis

A broad set of investments and activities can help sustain pre-K’s whole-child approach, including enhancing classroom experiences, aligning classroom lessons with out-of-school activities that expand children’s worldviews, and using targeted strategies to improve students’ readiness for college, careers, and civic engagement.

Schools that ensure hands-on learning both in and out of the classroom make the most of this opportunity. Joplin and Pea Ridge students and their teachers enjoy service learning projects that are a core component of the Bright Futures strategy. These range from kindergartners organizing coat drives and canned food drives for their neighbors to high school students designing and implementing water research projects and reporting on the health and safety of Joplin’s water supply to the city’s water management agency. In East Durham, partnerships with community agencies and nonprofits enable clubs, field trips to museums, and other enrichment activities.

After-school and summer programs help students build on what they learned during the school year, broaden students’ worldviews and skills, and reduce summer learning loss. In most of the districts studied, schools partner with organizations such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts to provide out-of-school enrichment programs that range from organized sports and help with homework to math and book clubs, theater, and robotics. In addition to boosting student engagement, some focus in particular on academic and college preparatory help, and many also provide snacks or even full meals. Summer camps in Boston and East Durham and book deliveries and clubs in Pea Ridge and Eastern Kentucky—where online options help bridge long distances in rural areas—keep students reading, engaged, and on track for fall classes.

In several districts, the focus on nurturing not only students’ academic skills but also their social and emotional skills strengthens the transition to kindergarten and development throughout the K–12 years. Vancouver’s schools teach and model social and emotional learning in classrooms as part of the district’s work to improve school climate and track student data on engagement and mental health. Under City Connects—the whole-child collaboration among Boston College, Boston Public Schools, and community agencies—school coordinators meet at the start of the year with teachers to discuss the particular strengths and needs of each student and develop plans to support teachers with academic and enrichment activities and meet student needs with small-group sessions on healthy eating and dealing with bullies, referrals to mental health providers, and a range of other supports (Weiss 2016g).

Two districts have made social and emotional learning a particularly high priority. Austin is one of eight districts working with the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) to comprehensively embed social and emotional learning in teacher training, teacher standards, curricula, and metrics for assessing student and school progress (CASEL 2017). In Montgomery County, former superintendent Joshua Starr drew on the Common Core’s emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking to lead the design of a new curriculum and classroom practices that nurture social and emotional skills. These are complemented by enhanced support for teachers to nurture social and emotional learning in daily classroom practice, by standards-based report cards that track key social and emotional skills, and by constructive disciplinary policies that reengage students and build their soft skills instead of punishing them for infractions. 30

Several of the districts focus in particular on helping students—many of whom will be the first in their families to go to college—prepare for and make that leap. Strategies include middle-to-high-school transition programs in Joplin and Vancouver and clubs and specialized courses that advance students’ social and organizational skills in Vancouver and Montgomery County. In East Durham, three initiatives (Communities in Schools Durham, Student U, and Citizens in Schools) support youth who are preparing for graduation. They offer site-based mentoring from current undergraduates. Middle and high school students in the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone receive similar assistance. And Vancouver’s GRADS Teen Parent program helps teen parents stay in school, graduate, and be more effective parents. De-tracking, an intentional decision to not separate students who are achieving at different levels into different classrooms or types of courses, which is the norm in Austin and in some Montgomery County high schools, helps ensure that college preparatory classes serve students of all income levels rather than just wealthier, nonminority students. 31

College readiness is also a high priority for many Bright Futures districts. In Joplin, programs such as Operation College Bound enhance students’ understanding of and access to postsecondary education, complementing initiatives that help students navigate transitions to higher education and other sensitive periods of their academic lives. And in Pea Ridge, specialized high schools such as the Manufacturing and Business Academy and Pea Ridge Academy provide targeted support for students who want to go straight to jobs and careers or need special academic supports.

Mentoring and tutoring to get and keep students engaged

In the case study districts, the whole-child approach includes understanding the critical importance of one-on-one relationships with caring adults who support children’s academic and broader needs. Strategies can be as simple as the car and bus “buddies” who greet children in Pea Ridge each morning as they arrive at school, or as intensive as the volunteer “lunch buddies” who meet regularly with Joplin and Pea Ridge students to eat with them, talk about their days, and offer guidance. Northside Achievement Zone in North Minneapolis partners with Big Brothers Big Sisters to connect students with mentors, and over 500 volunteer mentors in Vancouver, Washington, support students in Family and Community Resource Centers.

These relationships are key to efforts in large urban districts and remote rural ones. The Children’s Aid Society has partnered with the New York City Department of Education to integrate a strong school curriculum with out-of-school enrichment programming, as well as provide child and family support services designed to remove barriers to students’ learning (Weiss 2016h). Children’s Aid community schools offer both tutoring and mentoring among their after-school options, as do Boston’s City Connects schools. In Eastern Kentucky, to bridge the long distances between one school and community and another, mentors use Skype to connect with eighth- and ninth-graders in Promise Neighborhood area schools.

Supports for student health and family wellness as a tool for sustaining early gains

Several of the districts studied have established health clinics in some or all of their schools, including Montgomery County, Vancouver, and New York City. In some other districts, such as Austin, school coordinators can arrange for mobile clinics to come to schools. These clinics provide basic preventive care through immunizations and check-ups, along with prescriptions and other care for sick children, physical and mental health screenings, follow-up counseling, mental health care, and even crisis intervention when needed.

Nutrition is another critical factor that affects physical and mental health and thus learning. In East Durham, Back Pack Buddies and summer lunch programs prevent hunger and keep kids nourished. Food and clothing pantries plus social media outreach in Pea Ridge and Joplin enable counselors and teachers to meet targeted immediate needs so students can focus and learn. Montgomery County has expanded its breakfast-in-the-classroom program to serve all students in a growing share of schools (MCPS 2017).

Many of these districts look beyond meeting students’ basic health and nutrition needs to advancing their and their families’ wellness and strengthening their ties to the community. Vancouver’s GoReady! back-to-school festivals provide backpacks, school supplies, shoes and socks, immunizations and dental screenings, and even haircuts, plus resources from community partners . In Eastern Kentucky, physical and mental health supports provided through state-supported Family Resource and Youth Service Centers are complemented by school–community collaborative activities through a run/walk club, a summer fitness program, a Jump Start program, and gardening and food preservation activities. And the East Durham Children’s Initiative runs a Healthy Living Initiative that refers families to nutrition counseling programs, Zumba classes, cooking demonstrations, and walking groups; it also distributes children’s bicycles and partners with local farmers markets to provide families with fresh produce.

Though research has long affirmed the importance of parental engagement, many schools struggle to meaningfully engage parents. The case study districts show how it can be done. In the rural regions around Berea, Kentucky, where physical distance makes engagement difficult, Partners for Education’s Families and Schools Together project convenes parents, school staff, and local agency professionals to help parents build social networks. In the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ), a high-poverty heavily minority area, regular one-on-one meetings between parents and “connectors”—specialized social workers who grew up in the area, are familiar with its challenges, and are a core component of the NAZ strategy—provide opportunities to conduct family needs assessments and provide referrals to relevant services. These regular meetings lead to deeper parental engagement in their children’s schools.

And full-service community schools such as those in Vancouver and New York City specialize in parent outreach and engagement. Community schools in these districts draw on parental input to shape school policies and practices and provide parents with an opportunity to meet one another. For example, a “parents’ coffee room” in a New York City school with a large Dominican population evolved from simply providing a space for parents to hang out after student drop-off to a center for parent-led workshops, parent–student collaborative plays, and more.

Other targeted supports provide added help for the most vulnerable students and their families. In Vancouver, for example, student advocates conduct home visits to parents of kindergartners and first-graders who are at risk of chronic absenteeism. In these visits, the advocates emphasize the importance of attendance and brainstorm with parents ways to reduce specific barriers to attendance. Complementary in-school efforts reward strong attendance. High-risk Montgomery County Public Schools students benefit from an unusual, but very effective, system of targeted support. Specifically, the districts’ funding system redistributes money from wealthier schools to higher-poverty schools, enabling the latter to provide smaller classrooms, more individualized attention, and more specialists in English language learning, special education, and other areas (Elmore, Thomas, and Clayton 2006).

How academic gains, including smaller achievement gaps, indicate that the investments are paying off

Providing children from birth through 12th grade and their families with targeted supports both within and outside of school has enabled these communities to make progress toward a range of goals. First, compared with students in peer districts, these districts’ students tend to have better outcomes on traditional measures of academic achievement such as test scores and graduation rates. Second and just as, if not more, important, these districts have improved students’ kindergarten readiness, engagement, and health and well-being, and helped the students be better prepared for college, careers, and civic engagement. This is true in large part due to these districts’ intentional bucking of a growing trend of diverging practices in which students in high-poverty schools are subject to narrow academic drilling while students in wealthy schools benefit from a broader set of activities and learning experiences beyond a narrow focus on preparing for standardized tests. These districts ensure enrichment for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status. Finally, in contrast with the national trend in recent decades of rapidly growing achievement gaps between wealthy and poor students, these districts are also narrowing race- and income-based achievement gaps: while all students are gaining ground, those who started off behind tend to see the largest gains.

Most of the data presented in this section do not come from experimental studies; with a few exceptions (which are noted in the case studies), they rely on nonexperimental comparisons with a similar nontreatment group, such as other low-income children in the district or other high-poverty districts in the state. However, they are gathered from official district, state, or federal resources in all cases, except for the minority of cases in which such data are not publicly available. Perhaps most importantly, in contrast with many other programs that have reported substantially improved outcomes for very vulnerable groups of students, these programs do not cherry-pick students to get these results. Rather, these initiatives serve all students in the enrollment area for a school, a cluster of schools, or, in many cases, an entire district; as described above, they are serving some of the nation’s most vulnerable students and their families. 32 Moreover, many of these efforts are, for lack of a better term, “turnarounds.” That is, students in an existing system that is considered to be failing are offered a new approach in the same school building, making the large gains reported particularly striking given the notable lack of similar progress from much-larger-scale, more publicized attempts at employing other turnaround strategies. 33

Establishing more expansive goals and implementing ways to track progress toward those goals also offers timely guidance, given that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) asks states, districts, and schools to do just that. These districts have not only set broader goals, they are demonstrating real progress toward achieving these goals. Because of their success, many now serve as role models for other districts or entire regions, and a few are beginning to influence state policy as well.

Higher rates of kindergarten readiness predict school success

Some of the kindergarten readiness efforts described above have translated into improved readiness to learn and, thus, greater odds of success in kindergarten and throughout the K–12 years. In Eastern Kentucky, East Durham, and Minneapolis, children who participated in early learning programs significantly increased their rates of kindergarten readiness across a range of metrics and developmental domains. A study of Montgomery County Public Schools found much larger gains in reading for children in the full-day Head Start program than for children in the half-day program, with full-day students more than doubling their reading scores over the year and especially pronounced gains for the most vulnerable students: Hispanics and English language learners (Marietta 2010).

Rising test scores and narrowing gaps in core academic subjects are an important sign of sustained early gains

While only one of many indicators, rising test scores and narrowing gaps in core academic subjects are an important sign that schools in case study districts have sustained and enhanced early gains. Despite serving a higher percentage of low-income, black, Hispanic, and English language learner students than the district average, Austin’s Alliance Schools—schools in which community organizers have worked to empower parents in conjunction with teacher advocacy efforts—saw substantial gains in scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, the state’s main standardized test, in the three years after parent-organizing efforts began. Increases varied from four points to 15–19 points, with the latter increases occurring in schools with the highest levels of parental engagement (Henderson 2010). Subsequent rollout of social and emotional learning in district schools (some of which were also Alliance schools) produced gains in the share of students deemed proficient on the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR, the next-generation state assessments) in the years following that rollout, with students in the first set of schools with social and emotional learning programs scoring higher on state math and reading exams than those in later school cohorts. The small group of Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone students who were tested increased their proficiency on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA) exam, with the share scoring as proficient rising from 14 percent in the 2012–2013 academic year to 22 percent in 2013–2014. 34 Students who had enrolled in the Northside Achievement Zone in 2013 had larger gains than those who enrolled in 2014, and, overall the largest proficiency gains were among first- and second-graders, with the smallest gains in middle schools.

Despite serving a much poorer and socially and economically isolated student body than in state schools overall, the Eastern Kentucky schools served by Partners for Education have seen substantially higher increases in test scores: from 2012 to 2015, math test scores in the Promise Neighborhood region rose 7.0 percentage points compared with 4.4 percentage points across the state, and reading scores rose 7.3 percentage points, compared with 5.8 percentage points statewide.

An independent study of middle school students who participated in the after-school programs run by Children’s Aid Society community schools in New York City had bigger gains in math and reading test scores than peers who did not participate. They also had higher relative increases in school attendance and in teacher-reported “motivation to learn.” And while the Children’s Aid Society did not make early childhood education investments a core component of its strategy, its Zero-to-Five program, which connects the federal Early Head Start and Head Start programs, produced relative test score gains among participants. Specifically, a study found that participants outperformed their peers 97 percent of the time on third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade standardized tests in math and reading, demonstrating a significant long-term positive effect (Caspe and Lorenzo Kennedy 2014).

Increases (or lack of decreases) in reading scores over the summer months (between the end of the school year and the start of the following year) can be an especially important indicator of sustainable academic achievement, since low-income students tend to lose substantial ground when they are out of school for the summer. Students who attended the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone’s extended learning summer programs increased their reading test scores between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next, a period when scores normally decrease. And an evaluation of students who attended the East Durham Children’s Initiative’s summer camp in the summer of 2014 found that they lost no ground in literacy over those months.

Case study districts with more mature initiatives and those offering higher or more intensive doses of whole-child interventions are producing particularly large academic gains. Students enrolled in City Connects elementary schools in Boston score significantly higher on tests of both academic and noncognitive skills in elementary and secondary school, with the highest-risk students, such as English language learners, showing especially large gains. Scores of City Connects elementary school students on the Stanford Achievement Test version 9 increased between one-fourth and one-half a standard deviation greater than scores of their non–City Connects peers. And graduates of City Connects secondary schools are more likely to attend one of Boston’s three most selective public high schools.

Better student attendance and engagement are also predictors of academic gains

Chronic absenteeism depresses achievement, particularly among low-income students. A 2009 study found that New York City Children’s Aid Society’s community schools had “far higher” attendance than peer schools, and that schools with health centers tended to have higher attendance than those without health centers (Clark et al. 2009). Students attending City Connects high schools in Boston have significantly lower rates of chronic absenteeism than their peers (Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support 2012). In Joplin, Missouri, attendance rates among high school students increased 3.7 percentage points, rising from 91.3 percent in 2008 to 95.0 percent in 2012; black and Hispanic students closed gaps with their white peers over that period. At the same time, reportable disciplinary incidents—which keep students out of school and are found to drive at-risk students to disengage—dropped by over 1,000, from 3,648 in 2008 to 2,376 in 2012. 35

Every infant and toddler in East Durham whose family participated in the Healthy Families Durham home visiting program is up to date on immunizations; this helps at-risk children avoid missing school due to illness. In Pea Ridge, collaboration with one of the city’s doctors enabled the district to provide physical exams for high school students who would otherwise go without them. This not only improved their health but enabled them to participate in the kinds of extracurricular sports activities that boost student engagement. And City Connects’ practice of helping families draw on Medicaid coverage and of referring eligible students to insurance-eligible providers increases students’ access to both physical and mental health care. Given extensive evidence linking reduced absenteeism and improved physical and mental health to academic gains, these initiatives’ records of boosting both attendance and health represent another pathway to student success. 36

Increases in advanced coursework and completion of associated exams suggest improved college and career readiness

Because most of the initiatives studied have been in place for less than 10 years, and a few for five or fewer, there is less evidence of their impact on high school graduation and college enrollment. Nonetheless, the degree to which low-income and minority students in these districts perform better and have seen greater gains on these key indicators than their peers in comparable districts or across the state highlights the promise of comprehensive education approaches and, in some instances, their capacity to sustain and even boost children’s early gains.

Parent-organizing in Austin helped establish a program to get more low-income and minority middle school students into rigorous science and math programs, enabling them to successfully compete for slots in the prestigious LBJ High School Science Academy. From the 2007–2008 to the 2014–2015 academic year, the number of Kalamazoo Public School students taking Advanced Placement (AP) courses more than doubled, with low-income and African American students experiencing the largest absolute gains in participation and Hispanic students experiencing the largest percentage gains. Black and low-income students roughly quadrupled their participation in such courses; 263 black students and 193 low-income students took AP classes during the 2014–2015 academic year, up from 63 and 53 respectively in 2007–2008 (Miller-Adams 2015). Over the same period, the number of Hispanic students taking AP courses increased by a magnitude of 10—from just 8 to 78. And in Vancouver, which also made socioeconomic diversity of students in advanced courses a priority, enrollment in AP courses rose by 67 percent overall from 2007–2008 to 2013 –2014, and nearly three times as fast, by almost 200 percent, among low-income students.

Higher graduation rates and increasing college attendance of disadvantaged students are another measure of success of comprehensive strategies

In the early 2000s, the graduation rate at Austin’s Reagan High School fell below 50 percent and enrollment dropped to just 600 students. By 2015, with the benefit of a community schools strategy, the school was serving more than 1,200 students and had a graduation rate of 85 percent.

In the first six years of Bright Futures, Joplin’s graduation rate rose from 73 to 87 percent; from 2012 to 2015 it rose 13 percentage points, versus just 5 percentage points across the state as a whole. At the same time, the cohort dropout rate fell from 6.4 percent to 2.8 percent, with the dropout rate for black students falling slightly more. And in Kalamazoo, incentives to finish high school have proven to be powerful tools for disadvantaged students when combined with mentoring, tutoring, and after-school options. The district’s graduation rate rose from 64 percent in 2009 to 69 percent in 2014, with “five-year cohort graduation rates consistently higher than four-year rates, suggesting that some students may be opting to stay in school an extra year (or even just for the summer) to complete the credits necessary to get a high school diploma” (Miller-Adams 2015, 67). Moreover, African American girls in Kalamazoo graduate at higher rates than their peers across the state, and 85 percent of those graduates go to college.

Initiatives that have had time to mature have made particularly large gains. Montgomery County’s Linkages to Learning initiative began in 1993 and it substantially expanded its pre-K program around a decade later; a county policy responsible for improved racial integration has been in place even longer, since the early 1970s. Hispanic, low-income, and African American students in Montgomery County Public Schools are much more likely than their counterparts across the state to graduate from high school—80.0 vs. 77.5 percent, 81.0 vs. 77.8 percent, and 86.4 versus 80.5 percent, respectively. And from 2011 to 2014, a period when the share of students in poverty and the share of minority students rose in the district, overall graduation rates rose 2.9 percentage points, from 86.8 to 89.7 percent. There were much larger gains for Hispanic and black students, whose graduation rates rose (respectively) by 4.7 percentage points (from 75.3 to 80.0 percent) and 5.1 percentage points (from 81.3 to 86.4 percent), thus narrowing their gaps with their white peers by 3.4 and 3.8 percentage points, respectively (MCPS 2015). Participation in Boston’s City Connects program, which began in 2001, cuts a student’s odds of dropping out of high school nearly in half: 8.0 percent versus 15.2 percent for comparison students (Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support 2014). In Vancouver, the four-year graduation rate rose from 64 percent in 2010 to almost 80 percent in 2013, and the five-year rate rose from 69 percent in 2010 to over 80 percent in 2013. Vancouver’s Hispanic students had five-year graduation rate gains of over 15 percentage points.

Strong parent and community engagement is another sign of progress

The comprehensive, whole-child, whole-community approaches in the featured school districts have built strong school–community partnerships. Two indicators of the strength of the partnerships are the levels of parent and community engagement. In Joplin, 194 more adults are now serving as mentors and tutors than five years ago. And the American Association of School Administrators, National School Public Relations Association, and Blackboard Connected selected Vancouver Public Schools Superintendent Steve Webb and Chief of Staff Tom Hagley for their 2011 Leadership through Communication Award for their successful efforts to increase family engagement in high-poverty VPS schools.

Parental engagement boosts student achievement both directly and through other improvements to families’ situations. As they work actively with their “connectors,” Northside Achievement Zone parents in North Minneapolis become more likely to make academics a priority, to engage with their children’s schools, and to be focused on sending their children to college. The support also helps more families connect with stable housing, substantially reducing the number of times that some vulnerable families move. In 2014–2015, up to 300 Austin families benefited from help with legal, employment, health, and housing issues at the family resource center, which also provides classes for parents, including English language learning classes. And Montgomery County Public Schools social workers who specialize in early childhood education make an average of 200 home visits, 1,000 phone contacts, and 300 direct contacts with parents at school or conferences each month. These lead to roughly 1,000 monthly referrals to community services—many of them emergency interventions dealing with food, clothing, and housing—that help families meet their children’s basic needs and, thus, support their children’s education (Marietta 2010).

In some cases, engagement enhances school leadership. Through access to supports such as social services and adult education, parents of students in New York’s Children’s Aid Society community schools got more involved in their children’s schools, took more responsibility for their children’s schoolwork, reported feeling more welcome within the schools, and were observed to be a greater presence in the community schools than in comparison schools. And over 2,000 Kentucky parents have undergone training at the Berea Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership since its creation in 1997. Many of these parents have gone on to join school boards, serve on school councils, and engage in day-to-day educational advocacy.

Expansion of these initiatives shows that other districts, and even state policymakers, consider them successful

After City Connects succeeded in improving student achievement in over a dozen of Boston’s highest-poverty schools, the initiative caught the attention of state policymakers, who recruited City Connects to help turn around schools in Springfield, home to another large high-poverty urban district in Massachusetts. Aided by federal School Improvement Grant funds, City Connects has operated in Springfield since 2010, expanding from six to 13 schools in its first four years there. In New York City, the Children’s Aid Society played a central role in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s 2016 decision to employ a community schools strategy to turn around 100 of the city’s most struggling schools. And in both Vancouver and Austin, district leaders have led advocacy efforts to bring community schools to other communities in the region and to support the introduction of state-level legislation to enhance the work.

Bright Futures began in Joplin, Missouri, in 2009 but is now a national organization. Bright Futures USA has 50 affiliates in eight states, many of which—such as Pea Ridge—are just two or three years old. The newest affiliate, in Fairbanks, Alaska, has just been made official. In Virginia, Dave Sovine, superintendent of a second-year affiliate, Frederick County Public Schools, is reaching out to several of his counterparts across the region to create the first regional Bright Futures initiative (Gizriel 2016). If established, this would allow for the kind of cross-district collaboration identified by Bright Futures founder C.J. Huff as critical to breaking down the silos created by arbitrary boundaries that reflect political preferences rather than children’s daily realities. 37

As this report demonstrates, very large social-class-based gaps in academic performance exist and have persisted across the two most recently studied cohorts of students starting kindergarten. The estimated gap between children in the top fifth and the bottom fifth of the SES distribution is over a standard deviation in both reading and math in 2010 (unadjusted performance gaps are 1.17 and 1.25 sd respectively). Gaps in noncognitive skills such as self-control and approaches to learning—which are critical not only as foundations for academic achievement but also more broadly for children’s healthy development—are about half as large (about 0.4 sd in self-control, and slightly over 0.5 sd in approaches to learning in 2010).

Another important finding from our study is that gaps were not, on average, sensitive to the set of changes that may have occurred between 1998 and 2010: gaps across both types of skills are virtually unchanged compared with the prior generation of students—those who entered school in 1998. The only cognitive gap that changed substantially was in reading skills, which increased by about a tenth of a standard deviation. The gaps by SES in mathematics, in approaches to learning as reported by parents, and in self-control as reported by teachers did not change significantly. And relative gaps in approaches to learning as reported by teachers and in self-control as reported by parents shrank between 1998 and 2010, by about a tenth of a standard deviation. 38

We also find that, while taking into account children’s personal and family characteristics, parental activities, and other factors reduces the gaps somewhat, it does not come close to eliminating them. This means that there is a substantial set of SES-related factors that are not captured by the traditional covariates used in this study but that are important to understanding how and why gaps develop. Moreover, the capacity for these other factors—child and family characteristics, early education investments, and expectations—to narrow gaps has decreased over time. This suggests that, while such activities as parental time spent with children and center-based pre-K programs cushion the negative consequences of growing up in a low-social-class context, they can do only so much, and that the overall toxicity of lacking resources and supports is increasingly hard to compensate for. The resistance of gaps to these controls should thus be a matter of real concern for researchers and policymakers.

These troubling trends point to critical implications for policy and for our society: clearly, we are failing to provide the foundational experiences and opportunities that all children need to succeed in school and thrive in life. The failure to narrow gaps between 1998 and 2010 suggests, too, that investments in pre-K programs and other early education and economic supports were insufficient to counter rising rates of poverty and its increasing concentration in neighborhoods where black and Hispanic children tend to live and learn.

But there is also good news. The case study review in the previous section of this report explores district-level strategies to address these gaps, strategies that are being implemented in diverse communities across the country. The most effective ones begin very early in children’s lives and are sustained throughout their K–12 years and beyond. The communities studied all employ comprehensive educational approaches that align enriching school strategies with a range of supports for children and their families. Their implementation is often guided by holistic data and, to the extent possible, this report provides a summary, as well, of student outcomes, using both traditional academic measures and a broad range of other measures.

These findings also point to further research questions that need to be addressed, including why gaps changed or did not change, for whom they changed (or did not change), and what is the absolute change in children’s skills over time. 39

Parents are doing what they need to do, and a growing number of communities are, too, but as a society, we are still falling far short

Over the period studied, parents across all social class groups became more involved in their young children’s early education and development, with increases in involvement being especially pronounced among low-SES parents. Parents were more likely in 2010 than in 1998 to read regularly to their children; to sing to them; to play games with them; and to enroll them in center-based pre-K programs. Parents in 2010 also had significantly higher expectations for their children’s educational attainment, and mothers themselves were more highly educated—both factors that are associated with higher achievement for those children. In other words, parents’ actions show that they are doing more of what the brain science indicates they need to do, which either suggests that information about children’s needs during those years is more widely disseminated than it was for the prior cohort we studied, or that parenting styles have changed in a way that benefits the development in the early years.

And, as the case studies indicate, the number of communities that have embraced systems of comprehensive enrichment and supports (“Broader, Bolder Approaches to Education”) is growing. As these communities have shown, such comprehensive education policies are feasible; embedded in these policies is an understanding that children’s development involves nurturing a variety of competencies throughout the stages of development, that there are many individuals participating in these processes, and that coordinated efforts by various stakeholders are needed to put these processes to work. Key principles that span across the case studies include very early interventions and supports, parental engagement and education, pre-K, kindergarten transitions, whole-child approaches to curricula, and wraparound supports that are sustained through the K–12 years. Given the significant need for more such strategies, it is important to understand the factors that drove their enactment in a diverse set of communities, and to continue to monitor both the challenges these communities (and others like them) encounter and the outcomes/benefits of the initiatives.

However, despite the abundance of child development information available to researchers and parents—about the serious impacts of child poverty, about what works to counter those effects, about the importance of the first years of life for children, and about the value of education—our data indicate insufficient policy response at all levels of government. Pre-K programs have expanded incrementally and unevenly, with both access and quality still wildly disparate across states and overall availability severely insufficient. There is a dearth of home visiting programs and of quality child care (Bivens et al. 2016). Child poverty has increased (see Proctor, Semega, and Kollar 2016 for recent trends in child poverty rates). And the schools these children enter face increasing economic and racial segregation but with even fewer resources than they had in 1998 to deal with them (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2012; Baker and Corcoran 2012; Carnoy and García 2017). And while a growing number of districts have embraced Broader, Bolder approaches, that number is failing to keep up with high and growing need.

In sum, it is actually positive, and somewhat impressive, that gaps by and large did not grow in the face of steadily increasing income inequality, compounded by the worst economic crisis in many decades (EPI 2012, 2013; Saez 2016). But it is disappointing and troubling that new policy investments made in the previous decade were insufficient to make even a dent in these stubborn gaps. We cannot ensure real opportunities for all our children unless we tackle the severe inequities underlying our findings. And while momentum to enact comprehensive and sustained strategies to close gaps is growing, such strategies are not being implemented nearly as quickly as children need them to be.

Next policy steps

These data on large, stubborn gaps across both traditional cognitive and noncognitive skills should guide the design of education policies at the federal, state, and local levels; the combined resources and support of government at all three levels are needed if we are to tackle these inequalities effectively. 40

Policymakers can begin by learning from the small-scale, district-level strategies presented in the review of case studies above (see the section “What are pioneering school districts doing to combat these inequities and resulting gaps?” above). Looking at these case studies, policymakers can ask: What are the key strategies these communities employed, what main components characterize these strategies, and how did these communities effectively implement the strategies? What challenges did these communities face, what was needed to overcome the challenges, and how can we shape policies that better support other communities’ abilities to respond to such challenges and, to the extent possible, avert them? The latter set of questions is particularly pertinent to issues of scalability, financing, and sustainability, all of which have posed significant challenges for the districts studied and others like them. Policymakers can further ask: What other sources or examples might we learn from? Obvious ones include other districts that employ “community schools” strategies (as Vancouver, New York City, and Austin do) and Promise Neighborhood initiatives beyond Berea/Eastern Kentucky and the Northside Achievement Zone. Bright Futures affiliates now exist in 50 districts across eight states—and the program continues to grow—offering another set of communities to look to.

Also, new opportunities under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)—from funding to expand and align early childhood education programs to broader and more supports-based educator- and school-accountability systems—provide another avenue for exploration and educational improvement. This is already the focus of states and districts across the country—as well as of education policy nonprofits and associations—and is a focus that has the potential to inspire viable larger-scale models (Cook-Harvey et al. 2016).

We must take action, in particular, in those areas of policy related to early education in which we have seen little or no progress over the past decade. These include child care: comprehensive supports that engage parents as partners in their children’s education must start early and be of high quality to prevent the emergence of gaps and provide time to close any gaps that emerge (Bivens et al. 2016, among others). Quality preschool, among the most-agreed-upon strategies to avert and narrow early gaps, continues to be much talked about but far too little invested in and far too infrequently and shoddily implemented. The advantages of preschool have been known for decades, and significant progress has been made in preschool enrollment over that time; however, preschool enrollment stagnated soon after 2000 (Barnett et al. 2017; U.S. ED 2015) and there continue to be significant inequities in access (see Table 2; García 2015) and, just as important, in quality (NIEER 2016). And the gains made through these early, whole-child-oriented supports must be sustained through children’s K–12 years, with attention to issues of funding levels and equity, racial and socioeconomic integration, and enriching opportunities in the hours after school and in the summer months.

Altogether, this report adds to the strong evidentiary base that identifies strategies to reduce the education consequences of economic inequality. It also sheds light on the need to conduct further research on the channels that drive or cushion changes in readiness. A close follow-up of these trends in the near future and of the measures adopted to really tackle inequities will not only determine what type of society we will be, but will also say a lot about what type of society we actually are. This study, affirming a growing number of other studies on these issues, points to an “American Dream” that is alive in public pronouncements but dormant and pale in reality.

About the authors

Emma García  is an education economist at the Economic Policy Institute, where she specializes in the economics of education and education policy. Her areas of research include analysis of the production of education, returns to education, program evaluation, international comparative education, human development, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in education. Prior to joining EPI, García conducted research for the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education and other research centers at Teachers College, Columbia University, and did consulting work for the National Institute for Early Education Research, MDRC, and the Inter-American Development Bank. García has a Ph.D. in economics and education from Teachers College, Columbia University.

Elaine Weiss  served as the national coordinator for the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education (BBA) from 2011 to 2017, in which capacity she worked with four co-chairs, a high-level task force, and multiple coalition partners to promote a comprehensive, evidence-based set of policies to allow all children to thrive. Weiss came to BBA from the Pew Charitable Trusts, where she served as project manager for Pew’s Partnership for America’s Economic Success campaign. Weiss was previously a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s task force on child abuse and served as volunteer counsel for clients at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. She holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the George Washington University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was prepared for “Strong Foundations: The Economic Futures of Kids and Communities,” the Federal Reserve System Community Development Research Conference, Washington, D.C., March 23–24, 2017. We appreciate the feedback we received from our discussant Richard Todd and from the audience. The authors gratefully acknowledge Rob Grunewald and Milagros Nores for their insightful comments and advice on earlier drafts of the paper. Special gratitude is expressed to Sean Reardon, for his advice and thorough guidance on the sensitivity analyses affecting the measurement of the cognitive skills and their implications for our study, and for sharing useful materials to help test our results. We thank Ben Zipperer and Yilin Pan for their advice on issues associated with multiple imputation of missing data. We are also grateful to Lora Engdahl and Krista Faries for editing this report, and to Margaret Poydock for her work preparing the tables and figures and formatting the report. Finally, we appreciate the assistance of communications staff at the Economic Policy Institute who helped to disseminate the study, especially Dan Crawford, Kayla Blado, and Elizabeth Rose.

Address correspondence to: Economic Policy Institute, 1225 Eye St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20005. Email: [email protected] ; [email protected] .

Figures and tables

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-ses and low-ses children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010.

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

The data underlying the figure.

Notes: SES refers to socioeconomic status. The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For example, the gap in approaches to learning as reported by teachers in 2010 is 0.51 sd (0.63 – 0.12). For statistical significance of these numbers, see Tables 3 and 4, Model 1.

Source: EPI analysis of ECLS-K, kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Fully adjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010

Note: SES refers to socioeconomic status. The gaps are standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children after adjusting for all family and child characteristics, pre-K schooling, and enrichment activities with parents, and parental expectations for children’s educational attainment. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Tables 3 and 4, Model 4.

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using mother's educational attainment as a proxy for socioeconomic status

Notes: The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children where high-SES children have mothers in the top quintile of the education distribution and low-SES children have mothers in bottom quintile of the education distribution. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Table 7, Model 1.

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using household income as a proxy for socioeconomic status

Notes:  The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children where high-SES children are in households with incomes in the top quintile of the income distribution and low-SES children are in households with incomes in bottom quintile of the income distribution. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Table 8, Model 1.

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using number of books the child has in the home as a proxy for socioeconomic status

Notes:  The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children where high-SES children have a number of books in the home in the top quintile of the books-in-the-home distribution and low-SES children have a number of books in the home in the bottom quintile of the books-in-the-home distribution. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Table 9, Model 1.

Reading and math achievement gaps, and principal noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 2010–2011, under unadjusted and clustered models

Note: Using the full sample. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Sizes may differ from those inferred from Tables 3–6, and from those in García 2015, due to differences in the sample sizes or to rounding.

Source: EPI analysis of ECLS-K, kindergarten class of 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Child and family characteristics, main developmental activities, and parental expectations for children, kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011, by socioeconomic status (SES)

Note: SES refers to socioeconomic status.

Reading and math skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, under unadjusted to fully adjusted models

Notes: Models 1 and 2 use the full sample; Models 3 and 4 use the complete cases sample. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. SES refers to socioeconomic status.

Noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, under unadjusted to fully adjusted models

Reductions in skills gaps between high-ses and low-ses children after accounting for missingness and covariates, 1998 and 2010.

Note: SES refers to socioeconomic status. Declining values from 1998 to 2010 indicate that factors such as early literacy activities and other controls were not as effective at shrinking SES-based gaps in 2010 as they were in 1998.

Summary of association between cognitive and noncognitive skills at kindergarten entry and selected early educational practices, fully adjusted differences (Model 4)

Notes: The robust standard errors are in parentheses. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children using mother's educational attainment as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), under unadjusted and fully adjusted models

Notes: Model 1 uses the full sample; Model 4 uses the complete cases sample. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children using household income as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), under unadjusted and fully adjusted models

Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-ses and low-ses children using number of books child has in the home as a proxy for socioeconomic status, under unadjusted and fully adjusted models, 'whole-child' case study initiatives, by service area.

*Indicates that while the initiative covers the entire county or region, a portion of the county or region receives more intensive services. **Indicates that the initiative will cover the entire school district under plans to expand.

Source: Case studies published on the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education website (www.boldapproach.org/case-studies)

1. Values are in 2008 dollars.

2. Early investments in education strongly predict adolescent and adult development (Cunha and Heckman 2007; Heckman 2008; Heckman and Kautz 2012). For instance, students with higher levels of behavioral skills learn more in school than peers whose attitudinal skills are less developed (Jennings and DiPrete 2010). In general, as Heckman asserted, “skills beget skills,” meaning that creating basic, foundational knowledge makes it easier to acquire skills in the future (Heckman 2008). Conversely, children who fail to acquire this early foundational knowledge may experience some permanent loss of opportunities to achieve to their full potential. Indeed, scholars have documented a correlation between lack of kindergarten readiness and not reading well at third grade, which is a key point at which failing to read well greatly reduces a child’s odds of completing high school (Fiester 2010; Hernandez 2011).

3. Research by Reardon (2011) had found systematic increases in income gaps among generations. Recent studies by Bassok and Latham (2016) and Reardon and Portilla (2016), however, show narrower achievement gaps at kindergarten entry between a recent cohort and the previous one, and thus a possible discontinuation or interruption of that trend. (Bassok et al. [2016] use an SES construct to compare relative teacher assessments of cognitive and behavioral skills among low-SES children versus all children, adjusted by various other characteristics; Reardon and Portilla [2016] look at relative performance of children in the 90th and 10th income percentiles, and use age-adjusted, standardized, outcome scores.) Research by Carnoy and García (2017) shows persistent social-class gaps, but no solid evidence regarding trends: their findings for students in the fourth and eighth grades, in math and reading, show that achievement gaps neither shrink nor grow consistently (they are a function of the social-class indicator, the grade level, or the subject).

4. Clustering takes into account the fact that children are not randomly distributed, but tend to be concentrated in schools or classrooms with children of the same race, social class, etc. These estimates offer an estimate of gaps within schools. See Appendix B for more details.

5. Results available upon request. See García 2015 for results for all SES-quintiles (the baseline or unadjusted gaps in that report correspond with Model 2 in this paper).

6. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study asks both parents and teachers to rate children’s abilities across a range of these skills. The specific skills measured may vary between the home and classroom setting. Teachers likely evaluate their students’ skills levels relative to those of other children they teach. Parents, on the other hand, may be basing their expectations on family, community, culture, or other factors.

7. See García 2015 for a discussion of which factors in children’s early lives and their individual and family characteristics (in addition to social class) drive the gaps among children of the 2010 kindergarten class.

8. Note that the SES quintiles are constructed using each year’s distribution, and that changes in the overall and relative distribution may affect the characteristics of children in the different quintiles each year (i.e., there may be some groups who are relatively overrepresented in one or another quintile if changes in the SES components changed over time).

9. The detailed frequency with which parents develop or practice some activities with their children at home and others is available upon request.

10. Literature on expectations and on parental behaviors in the home find that they positively correlate with children’s cognitive development and outcomes (Simpkins, Davis-Kean, and Eccles 2005; Wentzel, Russell, and Baker 2016). This literature acknowledges the multiple pathways through which expectations and behaviors influence educational outcomes, as well as the importance of race, social class, and other factors as moderators of such associations (Davis-Kean 2005; Redd et al. 2004; Wentzel, Russell, and Baker 2016; Yamamoto and Holloway 2010).

11. This may be affected by the fact that the highest number of reported books in 1998 was “more than 200,” while in 2010 parents could choose from more categories, up to “more than 1,000.” We had to use 200 as our cap in order to compare data for the two kindergarten classes.

12. Evidence also points to many other factors that affect children’s school readiness, and these, too, likely changed over this time period. For example, access to prenatal care, health screenings, and nutritional programs could all have affected children’s development differently across these two cohorts, but we do not have access to these data and thus cannot control for them in our study. For links between school readiness, children’s health, and poverty, see AAP COCP 2016; Currie 2009; U.S. HHS and U.S. ED 2016.

13. Models include all quintiles in their specification. Tables that offer a comparison for all quintiles relative to the first quintile are available upon request. We focus the discussion on the gap between the top and bottom.

14. As a result, sample sizes become smaller (see Appendix Table C1). Assuming “missingness” (observations without full information) is completely at random, the findings are representative of the original sample and of the populations they represent. Analytic samples once missingness is accounted for are called the complete case samples. We tested to see whether the unadjusted gaps estimated above with the full sample remained the same when using the complete case samples. For Model 1, we found an average difference of 0.01 sd in the estimates of 1998 SES gaps, and an average difference of 0.02 sd in the estimates of the change in the gaps. For Model 2, the differences were 0.01 sd for the gaps’ estimates and 0.04 for changes in the gaps’ estimates. In terms of statistical significance, there are no significant changes in the estimates associated with the 1998 gaps, but there are two changes in the statistical significance of the estimates associated with the changes in the gaps by 2010 – 2011, and one change in the magnitude of the coefficient. The first change in the statistical significance of the estimates associated with the changes in the gaps by 2010 – 2011 is the change in the gap in approaches to learning as reported by parents, which is statistically significant when using the restricted sample (0.07 sd, at the 10 percent significance level, Model 1); and the second is the change in the gap in math which also becomes statistically significant when using the restricted sample (0.09, at the 10 percent significance level, Model 2). Finally, the one change in the magnitude of the coefficient, in this model, is the estimate of the change in the gap in reading, which increases when using the restricted sample (from 0.12 sd to 0.18 sd). Results are available upon request.

15. These interactions between inputs and time test for whether the influence of inputs in 2010 is smaller than, the same as, or larger than the influence of inputs in 1998. Also, although only the fully specified results are shown, as noted in Appendix B, these sets of controls are entered parsimoniously in order to determine how sensitive gaps and changes in gaps over time are to the inclusion of family characteristics only, to the added inclusion of family investments, and, finally, to the inclusion of parental expectations (for the inclusion of parental expectations, we incorporated interactions of the covariates with time parsimoniously as well). For all outcomes, and focusing on the models without interactions between covariates and time, we find that all gaps in 1998 continuously shrink as we add more controls. For example, in reading, adding family characteristics reduces the gap in 1998 by 11 percent, adding investments further reduces it by 15 percent, and adding expectations further reduces it by 9 percent. In math, these changes equal to 16 percent, 13 percent, and 10 percent. For changes in the gap by 2010–2011, for both reading and math, adding family characteristics and investments shrink the changes in the gaps, but adding expectations slightly increases the estimated coefficients (which are statistically significant for reading, but not for math in these models. For self-control (as reported by teachers) and approaches to learning (by parents), which are the only two noncognitive skills for which the change in the gap is statistically significant, adding family characteristics reduces the change in the “gap [by 2010–2011” coefficient], but adding investments increases it, and adding expectations further increases the changes in the gaps by 2010–2011. These results are not shown in the appendices, but are available upon request.

16. The interactions between parental expectations of children’s educational attainment and the time variable test for whether the influence of expectations in 2010 is smaller, the same, or larger, than the influence of expectations in 1998.

17. The change in the skills gaps by SES in 2010 due to the inclusion of the controls is not directly visible in the tables in this report. To see this, see the comparison of estimates of models MS1–MS3 in García 2015. The change in the skills gaps by SES in 1998 is directly observable in Tables 3 and 4 and is discussed below.

18. The numbers in the “Reduction” column in Table 5 (showing the shares of the SES-based skills gaps that are accounted for by controls) are always higher for 1998 than for 2010.

19. Please note that until this point in the report we have been concerned with SES gaps and not with performance directly (though SES gaps are the result of the influence of SES on performance, which leads to differential performance of children by SES and hence to a performance gap). The paragraphs above emphasize how controls mediate or explain some of the skills gaps by SES, so, in a way, controls inform our analysis of gaps because they reveal how changes in gaps may have been affected by changes in various factors’ capacity to influence performance. Now the focus is on exploring the independent effect of the covariates of interest on performance. In this report, because we address whether the education and selected practices affect outcomes, the main effect is measured for the 1998 cohort, and we measure how it changed between 1998 and 2010. The detailed discussion for the correlation between covariates and outcomes in 2010 is provided in Table 3 in García 2015.

20. This variable indicates whether the child was cared for in a center-based setting during the year prior to the kindergarten year, compared with other options (as explained in García 2015, these alternatives include no nonparental care arrangements; being looked after by a relative, a nonrelative, at home or outside; or a combination of options. Any finding associated with this variable may be interpreted as the association between attending prekindergarten programs, compared with other options, but must be interpreted with caution. In other words, the child may have attended a high-quality prekindergarten program, which could have been either private or public, or a low-quality one, which would have different impacts. He or she might have been placed in (noneducational) child care, either private or public, of high or low quality, for few or many hours per day, with very different implications for his or her development (Barnett 2008; Barnett 2011; Magnuson et al. 2004; Magnuson, Ruhm, and Waldfogel 2007; Nores and Barnett 2010). For the extensive literature explaining the benefits of pre-K schooling, see Camilli et al. 2010, and for a meta-analysis of results, see Duncan and Magnuson 2013. Thus, more detailed information on the characteristics of the nonparental care arrangements (type, quality, and quantity) would help researchers further disentangle the importance of this variable. This additional information would provide a much clearer picture of the effects of early childhood education on the different educational outcomes.

21. Because these associations seemed counterintuitive, we tested whether they were sensitive to the composition of the index. We removed one component of the index at a time and created five alternative measures of other enrichment activities that parents do with their children. The results indicate that the negative association between the index and reading is not sensitive to the components of the index (the coefficients for the main effect, i.e., for the effect in 1998 range between -0.14 and -0.09, are all statistically significant). For math, the associations lose some precision, but retain the negative sign (negative association) in four out of the five cases (minimum coefficient is -0.06). As a caveat, these components do not reflect whether the activities are undertaken by the child or guided by the adult, the time devoted to them, or how much they involve the use of vocabulary or math concepts. The associations could indicate that time spent on nonacademic activities detracts from parents’ time to spend on activities that are intended to boost their reading and math skills, among other possible explanations. These results are available upon request.

22. Note that in this section, “social class” and “socioeconomic status” (SES) are treated as equivalent terms; in the rest of the report, we refer to SES as a construct that is one measure of social class. See Appendices C and D for discussions of two other sensitivity analyses, one based on imputation of missing values for the main analysis in this paper, and the other on the utilization of various metrics of the cognitive variables. Overall, our findings were not sensitive to various multiple imputation tests. In terms of the utilization of different metrics for the cognitive variables, some sensitivity of the point estimates was detected.

23. With certain activities that are already so provided to high-SES children, there may be little room for doing more for them. For example, there are only 24 hours per day to read to your child, so there is a cap on reading from a cap on time. But perhaps there is still room to improve the influence of reading, if, for example, the way reading is done changes.

24. Eight of the 12 districts explored in this paper are the subjects of published case studies. Case studies for the other four are in progress and will be published later this year. When citing information from the published case studies, we cite the specific published study. For the four that are not yet published, we refer to the original sources being used to develop the case studies.

25. Missing or incomplete cells in the table indicate that data were not available on that aspect of student demographics or other characteristics. As per the source note, most data came either from the districts’ websites or from NCES.

26. In the country as a whole, poverty rates, which had been rising prior to 2007, sped up rapidly during the recession and in its aftermath (through 2011–2012), and minority students (mainly Hispanic and Asian) grew as a share of the U.S. public school student body. Between 2000 and 2013, even with a decline in the proportion of black students, the share of the student body that is minority (of black or Hispanic origin) increased from 30.0 percent to 40.5 percent, and the proportion of low-income students (those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) also increased, up from 38.3 percent of all public school students in 2000 to 52.0 percent in 2013 (Carnoy and García 2017). The Southern Education Foundation revealed a troubling tipping point in 2013: for the first time since such data have been collected, over half of all public school students (51 percent) qualified for free or reduced-priced meals (i.e., over half of students were living in households at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line). Across the South, shares were much higher, with the highest percentage, 71 percent—or nearly three in four students—in Mississippi (Southern Education Foundation 2015).

27. A full cross-cutting analysis of why and how these districts have employed whole-child/comprehensive educational approaches will be published as part of a book that draws on these case studies.

28. The federal Early Head Start (EHS) program includes both a home visiting and a center-based component, with many of the low-income infants and toddlers served benefiting from a combination of the two. Studies of EHS find improved cognitive, behavioral, and emotional skills for children as well as enhanced parenting behaviors.

29. According to one important source for data on access to and quality of state pre-K programs, the State of Preschool yearbook produced annually by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University, as of 2015, 42 states and the District of Columbia were funding 57 programs. Moreover, programs continued to recover from cuts made during the Great Recession; enrollment, quality, and per-pupil spending were all up, on average, compared with the year before, albeit with the important caveat that two major states—Texas and Florida—lost ground, and that “[f]or the nation as a whole,…access to a high-quality preschool program remained highly unequal, and this situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future unless many more states follow the leaders” (NIEER 2016).

30. Elaine Weiss interview with Joshua Starr, June 2017.

31. Murnane and Levy 1996; Elaine Weiss interview with Joshua Starr, June 2017.

32. In recent years, a growing number of reports have emerged that some charter schools—which are technically public schools and often tout their successes in serving disadvantaged students—keep out students unlikely to succeed through complex application processes, fees, parent participation contracts, and other mechanisms, and then further winnow the student body of such students by pushing them out when they struggle academically or behaviorally. For more on this topic, see Burris 2017,  PBS NewsHour 2015, and Simon 2013.

33. See AIR 2011 and Sparks 2017. The federal school improvement models, in order of severity (from lightest to most stringent) are termed “transformation,” “turnaround,” “restart,” and “closure” (AIR 2011, 3).

34. While the cut score on any given assessment/test needed for a student to be considered “proficient” is an arbitrary one, and, in Minnesota and many other states, changes from year to year and from one assessment to another, these gains are a helpful indicator of program effectiveness, as they are comparable over the time period described.

35. Joplin statistics are from internal data produced for the superintendent at that time that are no longer available.

36. Attendance Works , a national campaign to reduce chronic absence, points to a range of studies that document and explain the connections between chronic absenteeism, student physical and mental health, and student achievement. Areas of research include elementary school absenteeism, middle and high school absenteeism, health issues, and state and local data on how these problems play out, among others.

37. Elaine Weiss interview with C.J. Huff, June 2016.

38. See Appendix D for a discussion of results using other metrics for reading and math achievement. Results are not meaningfully different across metrics, though the point estimates differ slightly.

39. This last feature will be explored in a companion paper to this one, as soon as the necessary information is released by NCES. (As Tourangeau et al. [2013] note, the assessment scores for the 2010–2011 cohort are not directly comparable with those for the 1998–1999 cohort. We are waiting on the availability of this data to conduct a companion study that allows us to learn whether starting levels of knowledge rose over these years, and what the relative gains were for different demographic groups.)

40. We acknowledge that there are multiple noneducation public policy and economic policy areas to be called upon to address the problems studied in this report, namely, all the ones that ensure other factors that correlate with low-SES are attended, and, obviously, the ones that lead to fewer low-SES children. These other policies could help ensure that more children grow up in contexts with sufficient resources and healthy surroundings, or would leave fewer children without built-in supports at home that need to be compensated for afterwards. We made these points in two early studies, and in the policy brief companion to this study (García 2015; García and Weiss 2015; García and Weiss 2017). A similar comprehensive approach in terms of policy recommendations was used by Putnam (2015).

AAP Council on Community Pediatrics (AAP COCP). 2016. “Poverty and Child Health in the United States.” Pediatrics vol. 137, no. 4. pii:e20160339.

Adamson, Frank, and Linda Darling-Hammond. 2012. “Funding Disparities and the Inequitable Distribution of Teachers: Evaluating Sources and Solutions.” Education Policy Analysis Archives vol. 20 (November), 37.

Alvarez, Lizette. 2015. “ One Man’s Millions Turn a Community in Florida Around .” New York Times , May 25.

American Institutes for Research (AIR). 2011. School Turnaround: A Pocket Guide .

Austin Independent School District (AISD). 2017. “ Pre-K 4 ” (section on the AISD website).

Baker, Bruce D., and Sean P. Corcoran. 2012.  The Stealth Inequities of School Funding . The Center for American Progress.

Barbarin, O.A., J. Downer, E. Odom, and D. Head. 2010. “Home–School Differences in Beliefs, Support, and Control during Public Pre-Kindergarten and Their Link to Children’s Kindergarten Readiness.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly vol. 25, no. 3, 358–72.

Barnett, W. Steven. 2008.  Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications . Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

Barnett, W. Steven. 2011. “Effectiveness of Early Educational Intervention.”  Science  vol. 333, no. 6045, 975–78. doi:10.1126/science.1204534.

Barnett, W. Steven, Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, Eric Dearing, and Megan E. Carolan. 2017. “Publicly Supported Early Care and Education Programs.” In The Wiley Handbook of Early Childhood Development Programs, Practices, and Policies , Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal and Eric Dearing, eds. Malden, Mass., and Oxford: John Wiley.

Bassok, Daphna, Jenna E. Finch, RaeHyuck Lee, Sean F. Reardon, and Jane Waldfogel. 2016. “Socioeconomic Gaps in Early Childhood Experiences: 1998 to 2010.” AERA Open vol. 2, no. 3.

Bassok, Daphna, and Scott Latham. 2016. “ Kids Today: Changes in School-Readiness in an Early Childhood Era .” EdPolicyWorks Working Paper Series no. 35.

Berea College. 2013. “ U.S. Secretary of Education Visits First Rural Promise Neighborhood ” (news release). November 12.

Bradbury, Bruce, Miles Corak, Jane Waldfogel, and Elizabeth Washbrook. 2015. Too Many Children Left Behind: The U.S. Achievement Gap in Comparative Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, and Lisa Markman. 2005. “The Contribution of Parenting to Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness.” Future of Children vol. 15, no. 1, 139–68.

Bivens, Josh. 2016. Progressive Redistribution without Guilt. Using Policy to Shift Economic Power and Make U.S. Incomes Grow Fairer and Faster . Economic Policy Institute.

Bivens, Josh, Emma García, Elise Gould, Elaine Weiss, and Valerie Wilson. 2016. It’s Time for an Ambitious National Investment in America’s Children: Investments in Early Childhood Care and Education Would Have Enormous Benefits for Children, Families, Society, and the Economy . Economic Policy Institute.

Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support. 2012. The Impact of City Connects: Progress Report 2012 .

Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support. 2014. The Impact of City Connects: Progress Report 2014 .

Burris, Carol. 2017. “ What the Public Isn’t Told about High Performing Charter Schools in Arizona .” Washington Post Answer Sheet blog, March 30.

Camilli, Gregory, Sadako Vargas, Sharon Ryan, and W. Steven Barnett. 2010. “Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Early Education Interventions on Cognitive and Social Development.”  Teachers College Record  vol. 112, no. 3, 579–620.

Carnoy, Martin, and Emma García. 2017. Five Key Trends in U.S. Student Performance. Progress by Blacks and Hispanics, the Takeoff of Asians, the Stall of Non-English Speakers, the Persistence of Socioeconomic Gaps, and the Damaging Effect of Highly Segregated Schools . Economic Policy Institute.

Carter, Prudence L., and Kevin G. Welner, eds. 2013. Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance . New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Caspe, Margaret, and Joy Lorenzo Kennedy. 2014. Sustained Success: The Long-Term Benefits of High Quality Early Childhood Education. New York: Children’s Aid Society.

Chaudry, Ajay, Taryn Morrissey, Christina Weiland, and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. 2017. Cradle to Kindergarten: A New Plan to Combat Inequality . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Chetty, Raj, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. 2016. “ The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940 .” NBER Working Paper no. 22910.

Child Trends. 2014. Making the Grade: Assessing the Evidence for Integrated Student Supports .

Clark, H., et al. 2009. Study Comparing Children’s Aid Society Community Schools to Other New York City Public Schools (All Schools and Peer Schools ). ActKnowledge.

Coleman, J.S., E. Campbell, C. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. Mood, F. Weinfeld, and R. York. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). 2017. “ Partner Districts: Austin ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Cook-Harvey, C.M., L. Darling-Hammond, L. Lam, C. Mercer, and M. Roc. 2016. Equity and ESSA: Leveraging Educational Opportunity Through the Every Student Succeeds Act . Palo Alto, Calif.: Learning Policy Institute.

Cunha, Flavio, and James J. Heckman. 2007. “The Technology of Skill Formation.”  American Economic Review  vol. 97, no. 2, 31–47.

Currie, Janet. 2009. “Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Socioeconomic Status, Poor Health in Childhood, and Human Capital Development.” Journal of Economic Literature  vol. 47, no. 1, 87–122.

Davis-Kean, Pamela E. 2005. “The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home Environment.” Journal of Family Psychology vol. 19, no. 2 (June 2005), 294–304. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294.

Duncan, Greg J., Chantelle J. Dowsett, Amy Claessens, Katherine A. Magnuson, Aletha C. Huston, Pamela Klebanov, Linda S. Pagani, Leon Feinstein, Mimi Engel, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology vol. 43, no. 6, 1428–46.

Duncan, Greg J., and Katherine A. Magnuson. 2011. “The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds., 47–69. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Duncan, Greg J., and Katherine Magnuson. 2013. “Investing in Preschool Programs.”  Journal of Economic Perspectives  vol. 27, no. 2, 109–32.

Duncan, Greg J., Pamela A. Morris, and Chris Rodrigues. 2011. “Does Money Really Matter? Estimating Impacts of Family Income on Young Children’s Achievement with Data from Random-Assignment Experiments.”  Developmental Psychology vol. 47, no. 5, 1263–79. doi:10.1037/a0023875.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard Murnane. 2011. “Introduction: The American Dream, Then and Now.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2012. “ The Great Recession .” State of Working America feature.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2013. “ Inequality.is ” (interactive website).

Elmore, Richard, David Thomas, and Tonika Cheek Clayton. 2006. Differentiated Treatment in Montgomery County Public Schools . Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University.

Fiester, Leila. 2010. Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters. KIDS COUNT Special Report . Annie E. Casey Foundation.

García, Emma. 2015. Inequalities at the Starting Gate: Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills Gaps between 2010–2011 Kindergarten Classmates . Economic Policy Institute.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2015. Early Education Gaps by Social Class and Race Start U.S. Children Out on Unequal Footing. A Summary of the Major Findings in Inequalities at the Starting Gate . Economic Policy Institute.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2016. Making Whole-Child Education the Norm: How Research and Policy Initiatives Can Make Social and Emotional Skills a Focal Point of Children’s Education . Economic Policy Institute.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2017. Key Findings from the Report “Education Inequalities at the School Starting Gate” . Economic Policy Institute.

Hart, Betty, and Todd R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children . Baltimore, Md.: Brookes.

Heckman, James J. 2008. “Schools, Skills, and Synapses.”  Economic Inquiry  vol. 46, no. 3, 289–324.

Heckman, James J., and Tim Kautz. 2012. “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills.”  Labour Economics vol. 19, no. 4, 451–64.

Henderson, Anne T. 2010. Community Organizing to Build Partnerships in Schools: The Alliance Schools Movement in Austin . Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

Hernandez, Donald J. 2011. Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Gizriel, Sarah. 2016. “ Bright Futures Looking to Expand to Schools across Shenandoah Valley .” localDVM.com , December 9.

Jennings, J.L., and T.A. DiPrete. 2010. “Teacher Effects on Social and Behavioral Skills in Early Elementary School.” Sociology of Education vol. 83, no. 2, 135.

Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS). 2017. “ PEEP Information and Applications ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Lee, Valerie E., and David T. Burkam. 2002. Inequality at the Starting Gate . Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Levin, Henry M. 2012a. “More Than Just Test Scores.” Prospects vol. 42, no. 3, 269–84.

Levin, Henry M. 2012b. “The Utility and Need for Incorporating Noncognitive Skills into Large-scale Educational Assessments.” In The Role of International Large-Scale Assessments: Perspectives from Technology, Economy, and Educational Research , Matthias von Davier et al., eds. Springer.

Magnuson, Katherine, and Greg J. Duncan. 2016. “Can Early Childhood Interventions Decrease Inequality of Economic Opportunity?” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences vol. 2, no. 2, 123–41.

Magnuson, Katherine A., M.K. Meyers, C.J. Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2004. “Inequality in Preschool Education and School Readiness.”  American Educational Research Journal  vol. 41, no. 1, 115–57.

Magnuson, Katherine A., Christopher Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2007. “Does Prekindergarten Improve School Preparation and Performance?”  Economics of Education Review  vol. 26, no. 1, 33–51.

Marietta, Geoff. 2010. Lessons for PreK-3rd from Montgomery County Public Schools: An FCD Case Study . Foundation for Child Development.

Maryland State Department of Education. 2017. “ Judy Centers ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Miller-Adams, Michelle. 2015. Promise Nation: Transforming Communities through Place-Based Scholarships . Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2015. “ The Opportunity Dodge .” American Prospect , April 9.

Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012. The State of Working America, 12th Edition , An Economic Policy Institute Book. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Jessica Schieder. 2016. Stock Market Headwinds Meant Less Generous Year for Some CEOs . Economic Policy Institute.

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). 2015. Graduation Rate Rises, Gap Narrows for MCPS Class of 2014  (public announcement). January 27.

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). 2016. Linkages to Learning  (brochure).

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). 2017. “ Maryland Meals for Achievement ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Morsy, Leila, and Richard Rothstein. 2015. Five Social Disadvantages That Depress Student Performance: Why Schools Alone Can’t Close Achievement Gaps . Economic Policy Institute.

Murnane, Richard J., and Frank Levy. 1996. Teaching the New Basic Skills: Principles for Educating Children to Thrive in a Changing Economy . New York: The Free Press.

Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, Kristen L. Bub, and Kathleen McCartney. 2006. “Understanding Trends in the Black-White Achievement Gaps during the First Years of School.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs.

Najarian, M., K. Tourangeau, C. Nord, K. Wallner-Allen, and J. Leggitt. Forthcoming. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), First-Grade and Second-Grade Psychometric Report . Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (U.S. Department of Education). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K 1998–1999) .

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (U.S. Department of Education).  Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K 2010–2011) .

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). 2016. The State of Preschool 2015: State Preschool Yearbook .

New York Times /CBS News. 2015. “ Americans’ Views on Income Inequality and Workers’ Rights ” (poll results). June 3.

Nores, Milagros, and W. Steven Barnett. 2010. “Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions across the World: (Under) Investing in the Very Young.”  Economics of Education Review  vol. 29, no. 2, 271–82.

Nores, Milagros, and W. Steven Barnett. 2014. Access to High Quality Early Care and Education: Readiness and Opportunity Gaps in America . New Brunswick, N.J.: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.

Nores, Milagros, and Emma García. 2014. “Language, Immigration and Hispanics. Understanding Achievement Gaps in the Early Years.” Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference, November 6–8, Albuquerque, N.M.

Oakes, Jeannie, Anna Maier, and Julia Daniel. 2017. Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for Equitable School Improvement , Learning Policy Institute, June 5.

PBS NewsHour . 2015. “ In Reforming New Orleans, Have Charter Schools Left Some Students Out? ” (news segment).

Peterson, T.K., ed. 2013. Expanding Minds and Opportunities: Leveraging the Power of Afterschool and Summer Learning for Student Success . Washington, D.C.: Collaborative Communications Group.

Phillips, Meredith. 2011. “Parenting, Time Use, and Disparities in Academic Outcomes.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Proctor, Bernadette D., Jessica L. Semega, and Melissa A. Kollar. 2016. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015 . U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-256(RV).

Putnam, Robert. 2015. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ready, Douglas D. 2010. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage, School Attendance, and Early Cognitive Development.” Sociology of Education vol. 83, no. 4, 271–86.

Reardon, Sean F. 2007. “ Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Black-White Test Score Gap .” Working paper.

Reardon, Sean F. 2011. “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Reardon, Sean F., and Ximena A. Portilla. 2016. “Recent Trends in Income, Racial, and Ethnic School Readiness Gaps at Kindergarten Entry.” AERA Open vol. 2, no. 3, 1–18. doi: 10.1177/2332858416657343.

Redd, Z., L. Guzman, L. Lippman, L. Scott, and G. Matthews. 2004. Parental Expectations for Children’s Educational Attainment: A Review of the Literature . Prepared by Child Trends for the National Center for Education Statistics.

Rolnick, Art, and Rob Grunewald. 2003. “Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return.” The Region vol. 17, no. 4, 6–12.

Rothstein, Richard. 2004. Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Achievement Gap . Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute; New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

Rothstein, Richard. 2010. “Family Environment in the Production of Schooling.” In International Encyclopedia of Education , Dominic J. Brewer, Patrick J. McEwan, eds. Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01233-1.

Saez, Emmanuel. 2016. Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2015 Preliminary Estimates) .

Schanzenbach, Diane, Megan Mumford, Ryan Nunn, and Lauren Bauer. 2016. Money Lightens the Load . The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institute.

Selzer, Michael H., Ken A. Frank, and Anthony S. Bryk. 1994. “The Metric Matters: The Sensitivity of Conclusions about Growth in Student Achievement to Choice of Metric.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis vol. 16, 41–49.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality . Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Simon, Stephanie. 2013. “ Class Struggle: How Charter Schools Get Students They Want .” Reuters , February 15.

Simpkins, Sandra D., Pamela E. Davis-Kean, and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2005. “Parents’ Socializing Behavior and Children’s Participation in Math, Science, and Computer Out-of-School Activities.” Applied Developmental Science vol. 9, no. 1, 14–30. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0901_3.

Southern Education Foundation. 2015. A New Majority: Low-Income Students Now a Majority in the Nation’s Public Schools . January.

Sparks, Sarah D. 2017. “Billions in School Improvement Spending but Not Much Student Improvement.” EdWeek , January 19.

StataCorp. 2015. Stata: Release  14 [statistical  software]. College  Station,  Texas: StataCorp LP.

Stringhini, Silvia, et al. 2017. “Socioeconomic Status and the 25×25 Risk Factors as Determinants of Premature Mortality: A Multicohort Study and Meta-Analysis of 1.7 Million Men and Women.” The Lancet . Published online January 31, 2017. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32380-7.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, A.G. Sorongon, and M. Najarian. 2009. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K): Combined User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Eighth-Grade and K–8 Full Sample Data Files and Electronic Codebooks (NCES 2009-004) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, A.G. Sorongon, M.C. Hagedorn, P. Daly, and M. Najarian. 2013. Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), User’s Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten Data File and Electronic Codebook (NCES 2013-061). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, K. Wallner-Allen, M.C. Hagedorn, J. Leggitt, and M. Najarian. 2015. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), User’s Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten–First Grade Data File and Electronic Codebook, Public Version (NCES 2015-078) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, K. Wallner-Allen, N. Vaden-Kiernan, L. Blaker, and M. Najarian. 2017. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) User’s Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten–Second Grade Data File and Electronic Codebook, Public Version (NCES 2017-285) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED). 2015.  A Matter of Equity: Preschool in America .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. HHS) and U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED). 2016. Policy Statement to Support the Alignment of Health and Early Learning Systems .

Van Voorhis, F.L., M.F. Maier, J.L. Epstein, C.M. Lloyd, and T. Leung. 2013. The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8: A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes and Social-Emotional Skills . MDRC.

Waldfogel, Jane. 2006. “What Do Children Need?” Public Policy Research vol. 13, no. 1, 26–34.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016a. Bright Futures in Joplin, Missouri . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016b. Vancouver Public Schools (Vancouver, WA) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016c. Partners for Education at Berea College, Berea, Kentucky . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016d. Northside Achievement Zone (North Minneapolis, MN) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016e. East Durham Children’s Initiative (East Durham, NC). A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016f. Bright Futures (Pea Ridge, AR) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016g. City Connects (Boston, MA) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016h. The Children’s Aid Society Community Schools (New York, NY) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016i. A Broader, Bolder Education Policy Framework . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Wentzel, Kathryn R., Shannon Russell, and Sandra Baker. 2016. “Emotional Support and Expectations from Parents, Teachers, and Peers Predict Adolescent Competence at School.” Journal of Educational Psychology vol. 108, no. 2, 242–255.

Yamamoto, Yoko, and Susan D. Holloway. 2010. “Parental Expectations and Children’s Academic Performance in Sociocultural Context.” Educational Psychology Review vol. 22, no. 3, 189–214. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z.

Appendix A. Data

Introduction.

Our research benefits from the existence of two companion studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Class of 2010–2011 (hereafter, ECLS-K 1998–1999 and ECLS-K 2010–2011). The data from these studies come with multiple advantages and a few disadvantages.

The studies follow two nationally representative samples of children starting in their kindergarten year and continuing through their elementary school years (eighth grade for 1998–1999 cohort and fifth grade for the 2010–2011 cohort). The tracking of students over time is one of the most valuable features of the data. The studies include assessments of the children’s cognitive performance and knowledge as well as skills that belong in the category of noncognitive, or social and emotional, skills. The studies also include information on teachers and schools (provided by teachers and administrators) and interviews with parents.

Another valuable feature of the data is the availability of two ECLS-K studies (ECLS-K 1998–1999 and ECLS-K 2010–2011), which allows for cross-comparisons “of two nationally representative kindergarten classes experiencing different policy, educational, and demographic environments” (Tourangeau et al. 2013). The two studies are 12 years apart, or a full school cycle apart: when the 2010–2011 kindergarten class was starting school, the 1998–1999 class was starting the grade leading to their graduation. A comparison of the studies thus offers insightful information about the consequences of changes in the system that may have occurred during an entire cohort’s school life. For the 2010 study, the sample included 18,174 children in 968 schools. i The 1998 study sample included 21,409 children in 903 schools. ii

This existence of data from two cohorts is also a limitation to the current study, as explained by Tourangeau et al. (2013), who note that the assessment scores for the 2010–2011 class are not directly comparable with those developed for the class of 1998–1999. Although the IRT (Item Response Theory) procedures used in the analysis of data were similar across the two studies, each study incorporated different items, which means that the resulting scales are different. Tourangeau et al. (2013) state that “a subsequent release of the ECLS-K: 2010–2011 data will include IRT scores that are comparable with the ECLS-K 1998 cohort.” Up to the point of publication of the current study, this information had not yet been released, and we use standardized scores, instead of raw scores, for the outcomes examined. We can assess changes in the relative position in a distribution (i.e., how far apart high- and low-SES children are in 1998 and how far apart high- and low-SES children are in 2010), but not overall changes in their performance (i.e., it is not possible to ascertain whether performance has improved overall, or if gaps are smaller or larger due to an improvement in performance of children at the low end (specifically the lowest fifth) of the distribution or due to a decrease in the performance of children at the high end (highest fifth) of the distribution, etc.). A full comparison remains to be produced, upon data availability.

We use data for the first wave of each study, corresponding with fall kindergarten (or school entry).

For the analyses, we use the by-year standardized scores corresponding to the fall semester. (The 1998 IRT scale scores for reading and mathematics achievement and assessments of noncognitive skills are standardized using the 1998 distribution and its mean and sd; for 2010, we use the mean and sd of the 2010 distribution.)

Cognitive skills

Cognitive skills are assessed with instruments that measure each child’s:

• Reading skills: print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension
• Math skills: conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and problem-solving; number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and patterns, algebra, and functions

Principal noncognitive skills

We use the term “principal” to identify a set of noncognitive skills that are measured by both the ECLS-K 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 surveys, and that have been relatively extensively used in research.

Teachers are asked to assess each child’s:

• Self-control: ability to control behavior by respecting the property rights of others, controlling temper, accepting peer ideas for group activities, and responding appropriately to pressure from peers
• Approaches to learning: organizational skills (keeps belongings organized); curiosity (is eager to learn new things); independence (works independently); adaptability (easily adapts to changes in routine); persistence in completing tasks; focus (ability to pay attention); and ability to follow classroom rules

Parents are asked to assess their child’s:

• Self-control: ability to control behavior by refraining from fighting, arguing, throwing tantrums, and getting angry
• Approaches to learning: persistence (keeps working at something until finished); curiosity (shows interest in a variety of things); focus (concentrates on a task and ignores distractions); helpfulness (helps with chores); intellectual curiosity (is eager to learn new things); and creativity (in work and play)

For the analyses, we use the following set of covariates. The definitions, and the coding used for the covariates, by year, are shown in Appendix Table A1 .

Appendix B. Methodology 

Gaps by socioeconomic status.

The expressions below show the specifications used to estimate the socioeconomic status–based (SES-based) performance gaps. For any achievement outcome A , we estimate four models:

• Model 1 shows the unadjusted (descriptive) differences for children belonging to different racial/ethnic groups or SES quintiles (the reference group is children in the lowest SES quintile, “low SES”).
• Model 2 adjusts for school clustering of students in different schools (i.e., gaps of students in the same schools). The purpose of this clustering is to account for school segregation (i.e., concentration of children of the same race, socioeconomic status, etc., in schools, which causes the raw average performance of students to differ from the adjusted-by-clustering average). It offers a comparison of the gaps shown by peer students in the same schools and classrooms (García 2015; Magnuson and Duncan 2016 offer these estimates as well).

These estimates build on all the available observations (i.e., only those children who have missing values in the outcome variables are eliminated from the analysis).

Because of lack of response in some of the covariates used as predictors of performance, we construct a common sample with observations with no missing information in any of the variables of interest (see information about missing data for each variable in Appendix Table C1 ). We estimate two more models: iii

• Model 3 shows gaps adjusted for child and family characteristics, prekindergarten care arrangements, number of books the child has, and early literacy practices at home iv
• Finally, Model 4 shows the fully adjusted differences (adjusted for child and family characteristics, prekindergarten care arrangements, early literacy practices at home, number of books the child has, and parental expectations)

The equation below shows the equation we estimate for Models 1 through 4.

Appendix C. Sensitivity analysis (I): Multiple imputation 

Following standard approaches in this field, we use multiple imputation to impute missing values in both the independent and dependent variables, for the analysis of skills gaps and changes in them from 1998 to 2010 by socioeconomic status (main analysis). See share of missing data by variable in Appendix Table C1 . We use the mi commands in Stata 14, using chained equations, which jointly model all functional terms. The number of iterations was set up equal to 20. Imputation is performed by year.

Our functional form of the imputation model is specified using SES, gender, race, disability, age, type of family, number of books, educational activities, and parental expectations, as well as the original cognitive and noncognitive variables, as variables to be imputed. We use various specifications, combining different sets of auxiliary variables, mi impute methods, and other parameters, to capture any sensitivity of the results to the characteristics of the model. For example, income, family size, and ELL status are set as auxiliary variables and used in several of the imputation models. Another imputation option that was altered across models is the use of weights, as we ran out of imputation models using weights and not using them.

In the imputation model, in order to impute categorical variables’ missingness, we use the option augment, to prevent the large number of categorical variables to be imputed from causing problems of perfect prediction (StataCorp. 2015). The rest of the variables are first imputed as continuous variables. In a second exercise, we also impute SES and educational expectations as ordinal variables (also using the option augment).

In order to calculate the standardized dependent variables, we use the variables derived from the imputation variables (also known as passive imputation). This “fills in only the underlying imputation variables and computes the respective functional terms from the imputed variables” (StataCorp. 2015). In one case, we imputed the dependent variables directly as continuous variables (though we anticipated that the distribution of the scores imputed this way would not necessarily have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1).

Using the imputed data, we estimate Models 1 through 4 following the specifications explained above (from no regressors to fully specified models).

The main findings of our analysis are not sensitive to missing data imputation. The estimates of the gaps in 1998 and the changes in the gaps from 1998 to 2010 are consistent across models in terms of statistical significance. There are some minor changes in the sizes of the estimated coefficients, especially those associated with the changes in the gaps (though all are statistically not different from 0, as discussed in the report using the results from the analysis with the complete cases). There are also some minor changes in the standard errors, though they are small enough to widen the coefficients’ statistical bandwidth to not include the 0.

Appendix D. Sensitivity analysis (II): The different scores available in ECLS-K and the sensitivity of the results to changing them 

Children’s reading and mathematics skills are measured using several different metrics in ECLS-K. Among these, the best-known or more commonly used metrics in research are the IRT-based theta scores and the IRT-based scale scores (IRT stands for Item Response Theory). NCES provides data users with definitions of these metrics and recommendations on how to appropriately choose among the different metrics. NCES explains that both theta and IRT-based scale scores are valid indicators of ability. This makes them suitable for research purposes, even though each is expressed in its own unit of measurement. NCES recommends that analysts “consider the nature of their research questions, the type of statistical analysis to be conducted, the population of interest, and the audience” when choosing the appropriate score for analysis (see Tourangeau et al. 2013).

Although nothing would indicate that this could be the case, our work noted that results of analyses such as the one developed in this study are in some ways sensitive to the metrics used as dependent variables. v Thus, the purpose of this appendix is to illustrate the differences in the results associated with different analytic decisions in terms of the metrics used. As we will see, in essence, point estimates depend on the metric used, but the results do not change in a meaningful way and conclusions and implications remain unchanged. That is, although caution is required when interpreting the results obtained using different combinations of metrics, procedures (including standardization), and data waves, it is important to state that the main conclusions of this study— that social-class gaps in cognitive and noncognitive skills are large and have persisted over time — hold . So do the policy recommendations derived from those findings: sufficient, integrated, and sustained over-time efforts to tackle early gaps in a more effective manner.

The scores: Which one to use and definitions

NCES makes the following recommendations for researchers who are choosing among scales (see Tourangeau et al. 2013): vi

When choosing scores to use in analysis, researchers should consider the nature of their research questions, the type of statistical analysis to be conducted, the population of interest, and the audience. […] The IRT-based scale scores […] are overall measures of achievement. They are appropriate for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. They are useful in examining differences in overall achievement among subgroups of children in a given data collection round or in different rounds, as well as in analysis looking at correlations between achievement and child, family, and school characteristics. […] Results expressed in terms of scale score points, scale score gains, or an average scale score may be more easily interpretable by a wider audience than results based on the theta scores. The IRT-based theta scores are overall measures of ability. They are appropriate for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. They are useful in examining differences in overall achievement among subgroups of children in a given data collection round or across rounds, as well as in analysis looking at correlations between achievement and child, family, and school characteristics. […] The theta scores may be more desirable than the scale scores for use in a multivariate analysis because generally their distribution tends to be more normal than the distribution of the scale scores. However, for a broader audience of readers unfamiliar with IRT modeling techniques, the metric of the theta scores (from -6 to 6) may be less readily interpretable. […]

The two scores are defined as follows (see Tourangeau et al. 2013, section “3.1 Direct Cognitive Assessment: Reading, Mathematics, Science”):

The IRT-based scale score is an estimate of the number of items a child would have answered correctly in each data collection round if he or she had been administered all of the questions for that domain that were included in the kindergarten and first-grade assessments. To calculate the IRT-based overall scale score for each domain, a child’s theta is used to predict a probability for each assessment item that the child would have gotten that item correct. Then, the probabilities for all the items fielded as part of the domain in every round are summed to create the overall scale score. Because the computed scale scores are sums of probabilities, the scores are not integers. The IRT-based theta score is an estimate of a child’s ability in a particular domain (e.g., reading, mathematics, science, or SERS) based on his or her performance on the items he or she was actually administered. […] The theta scores are reported on a metric ranging from -6 to 6, with lower scores indicating lower ability and higher scores indicating higher ability. Theta scores tend to be normally distributed because they represent a child’s latent ability and are not dependent on the difficulty of the items included within a specific test.

Reardon (2007) describes the calculation of the theta scores in the following manner: vii

For each test [math and reading], a three-parameter IRT model was used to estimate each student’s latent ability…at each wave…. The IRT model assumes that each student’s probability of answering a given test item correctly is a function of the student’s ability and the characteristics [discrimination, difficulty, and guessability] of the item…. Given the pattern of students’ responses to the items on the test that they are given, the IRT model provides estimates of both the person-specific latent abilities at each wave… and the item parameters. (Reardon 2007, 10) viii

He also notes that “[b]ecause the ECLS-K tests contain many more ‘difficult’ items than ‘easy’ items, the relationship between theta and scale scores is not linear (a unit difference in theta corresponds to a larger difference in scale scores at theta=1 than at theta=-1, for example). The scale scores are difficult to interpret as an interval-scale metric (or are an interval-scaled metric only with respect to the specific set of items on the ECLS-K tests),” while he shows that the “theta scores are interval-scale metrics, in a behaviorally-meaningful sense” (Reardon 2007, 11, 13). ix

The analyses

For the analyses, both the scale and the theta scores need to be standardized by year (the original variables are not directly comparable because they rely on different instruments, as explained by NCES, and the resulting standardized variables have mean 0 and standard deviation 1). This is a common practice in the education field, as it allows researchers to use data that come from different studies and would not have a common scale otherwise. We need to take into consideration that the underlying units of measurement for each variable are different, but after standardization, the metrics are common, expressed in standard deviations and represent the population’s distribution of abilities.

The distributions of the scale and theta scores are shown in Appendix Figures D1 and D2 . In each figure, the plots reflect a more normally distributed pattern for the theta scores (right panel) than for the scale scores (left panel). The companion table, Appendix Table D1 , shows the range of variation for the four outcomes (mean and standard deviations are 0 and 1 as per construction).

We next offer a comparison of the results obtained when using the scale scores versus using the theta scores ( Appendix Table D2 ). We highlight the following main similarities and differences between the results obtained using the scale scores and the results using the theta scores.

• Gaps are all equally statistically significant and persistent.
• For example, looking at the unadjusted estimates in reading, the gap in 1998 between high- and low-SES children is 1.071 sd if using the scale scores and 1.233 sd if using the theta scores. In math, the gap between high- and low-SES children in 1998 is 1.258 sd if using the scale scores and 1.330 sd if using the theta scores.
• Looking at the adjusted estimates in reading, the 1998 gap between high- and low-SES children is 0.596 sd if using the scale scores and 0.684 sd if using the theta scores. In math, the gap between high- and low-SES children is 0.610 sd if using the scale scores and 0.632 sd if using the theta scores.
• For example, looking at the unadjusted estimates in reading, the change in the gap between 1998 and 2010 for high- and low-SES children is 0.098 sd if using the scale scores and -0.052 sd (not statistically significant) if using the theta scores. In math, the change in the gap between high- and low-SES children is -0.008 sd (not statistically significant) if using the scale scores and -0.078 sd if using the theta scores.

In Appendix Table D3 , we compare the results obtained using the different scales and the different proxies of socioeconomic status (our composite SES index, mother’s education, number of books, and household income).

• Gaps are larger, as mentioned above, when we use the theta scores than when we use the scale scores.
• Among the four social-class proxies, the largest gaps are associated with mother’s education, and the smallest gaps are associated with number of books. All are statistically significant.
• Looking at the unadjusted gaps, we note that trends are the same (and similar in size) if income is used as the proxy. For mother’s education, the change in the gap between 1998 and 2010 is -0.020 sd in reading (not statistically significant) and -0.154 sd in math if using the scale scores and -0.135 sd in reading and -0.218 sd in math if using the theta scores.
• With respect to the adjusted gaps, changes in the gaps are larger when using the theta scores both for household income and mother’s education as indicators of social class. Using the theta scores, the gaps in reading and math shrank over time, while using the scale scores, the only significant reduction was in math when mother’s education was the social class proxy.

Other considerations

There are two other significant pieces of information affecting the cognitive scores in more recent documentation released by NCES. In 2015, NCES announced in its ECLS-K User’s Manual that a

change in methodology required a re-calibration and re-reporting of the kindergarten reading scores since the release of the base-year file. Therefore, the kindergarten reading theta scores included in the K-1 data file are calculated differently than the previously released kindergarten theta scores and replace the kindergarten reading theta scores included in the base-year data file. The modeling approach stayed the same for mathematics and science, so the recalculation of kindergarten mathematics and science theta scores was not needed. (Tourangeau et al. 2015)

Following up on this, the most recent (2017) data user’s manual explains that

The method used to compute the theta scores allows for the calculation of theta for a given round that will not change based on later administrations of the assessments (which is not true for the scale scores, as described in the next section). Therefore, for any given child, the kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade theta scores provided in subsequent data files will be the same as theta scores released in earlier data files , with one exception: the reading thetas provided in the base-year data file . After the kindergarten-year data collection, the methodology used to calibrate and compute reading scores changed; therefore, the reading thetas reported in the base-year file are not the same as the kindergarten reading thetas provided in the files with later-round data [emphasis added]. Any analysis involving kindergarten reading theta scores and reading theta scores from later rounds, for example an analysis looking at growth in reading knowledge and skills between the spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade, should use the kindergarten reading theta scores from a data file released after the base year. The reading theta scores released in the kindergarten-year data file are appropriate for analyses involving only the kindergarten round data; analyses conducted with only data released in the base-year file are not incorrect, since those analyses do not compare kindergarten scores to scores in later rounds that were computed differently. However, now that the recomputed kindergarten theta scores are available in the kindergarten through first-grade and kindergarten through second-grade data files, it is recommended that researchers conduct any new analyses with the recomputed kindergarten reading theta scores. For more information on the methods used to calculate theta scores, see the ECLS-K: 2011 First-Grade and Second-Grade Psychometric Report (Najarian et al. forthcoming). (Tourangeau et al. 2017)

Therefore, because of these changes in NCES methodology and reporting, and in light of the comparisons in this appendix, one could expect additional slight changes in the estimates using the IRT-theta scores for reading for kindergarten if using rounds of data posterior to the first round (and probably if using the IRT-scale scores as well, as these values are derived from the theta scores), relative to the first data file of ECLS-K: 2010-2011 released by NCES in 2013. We would not necessarily expect, though, any changes when using the standardized transformation of those scores, because NCES’s documentation does not mention changes to the distribution of the scores, only to their values. We will explore these issues further upon the release of the scores that are comparable across the two ECLS-K studies without any transformation.

Appendix E. Descriptions of 12 community-level whole-child education initiatives 

Initiatives that serve part of a school district, austin, texas.

The needs of children in Austin Independent School District (AISD) schools with the highest concentrations of poor, immigrant, and non-English-speaking families are supported through a combination of parent-organizing (schools with parent-organizing programs, led by the nonprofit Austin Interfaith, form a network of “Alliance Schools”), intensive embedding of social and emotional learning (SEL) in all aspects of school policy and practice, and the transformation of schools into “community schools” (i.e., schools that are hubs for the provision of academic, health, and social services).

• Organizing partners: Austin Interfaith (a nonprofit of congregations, public schools, and unions that is part of the national Industrial Areas Foundation [IAF]); the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL); the American Federation of Teachers (AFT); and the National Education Association (NEA).
• Schools and students reached: The IAF/Alliance Schools network extended at its zenith into one-fourth of AISD elementary schools and one-half of AISD high-poverty elementary schools. CASEL worked in five high schools, and in the seven middle schools and 43 elementary schools that feed into these high schools, to embed social and emotional learning in school policies and practices. A middle school and a high school have been transformed into community schools and serve as the models for planned districtwide expansion of the “community schools” strategy into all AISD schools.
• General makeup of the student body: In the district overall, 60 percent of students qualify for subsidized meals, i.e., are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL); 28 percent are English language learners (ELL); and 10 percent are special education students. In schools targeted for whole-child supports, relative to the general student body, students are poorer, more heavily minority and immigrant, and more likely to be living in single-parent households.
• Key features: Parent-organizing with teachers in Alliance Schools enables parents to partner with teachers to advocate for comprehensive supports for their children. Also, social and emotional learning (SEL) is embedded in all aspects of school efforts in the high schools and the feeder elementary and middle schools that worked with CASEL. Finally, health and other wraparound supports in high-needs middle and high schools, along with other community schools features, are expanding to additional district schools.
• Core funding: The district received a CASEL grant to embed social and emotional learning in school policies and practices, and also received in-kind support from the NoVo Foundation in the form of technical assistance. The United Way of Greater Austin provides funds for wraparound support, and AFT and NEA fund community schools work and expansion.

Boston, Massachusetts

The City Connects program provides targeted academic, social, emotional, and health supports to every child in 20 of the city’s schools with the highest shares of low-income, black, Hispanic, and immigrant students.

• Organizing partners: Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support, Boston Public Schools (BPS), and community agencies.
• Schools and students reached: The 20 BPS schools in the program serve more than 8,000 of the city’s most disadvantaged students (out of 125 BPS schools and 56,000 students).
• General makeup of the student body: The 20 urban schools serve neighborhoods that are poor and racially and ethnically diverse, with a heavy concentration of Hispanic English-language learners. Over 80 percent of the students in these schools are FRPL-eligible and roughly half do not speak English at home.
• Key features: School site coordinators in each school connect students with a tailored set of services and enrichment opportunities provided by a variety of public and private agencies. Universal state health care supports all students’ physical and mental health needs, and the city’s Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK) program now offers quality pre-K for all four-year-olds in Boston.
• Core funding: In addition to school district budget revenue, federal Race to the Top funds allocated to City Connects help defray costs. Several private foundations support various aspects of City Connects’ work.

Durham, North Carolina

The East Durham Children’s Initiative (EDCI) concentrates services and supports for the children and their families living in a 120-block, heavily distressed area of concentrated poverty and high crime within the city.

• Organizing partners: Community leaders launched EDCI and engaged the Duke University Center for Child and Family Health to grow capacity. EDCI is now a fully staffed nonprofit that runs the initiative.
• Schools and students reached: The 120-block area targeted by EDCI serves students in two neighborhood elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and two charter schools.
• General makeup of the student body: The 120-block area is urban and poor with a predominantly black but very diverse student body. In Durham schools overall, 66 percent of students are FRPL-eligible, nearly half are black, almost one-third are Hispanic, and 18 percent are white.
• Key features: EDCI is a place-based initiative modeled on the Harlem Children’s Zone, providing a pipeline of high-quality cradle-to-college-or-career services. These include early childhood supports (that complement state pre-K programs), health and mental health services, and after-school and summer enrichment activities.
• Core funding: EDCI has an annual fund receiving contributions from individuals, corporations, fundraising events, and private foundations; it neither seeks nor receives public funding.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

The Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ) is a Promise Neighborhood, a designation awarded by the U.S. Department of Education Promise Neighborhoods program to some of the most distressed neighborhoods in the nation. Through the program, children and families who live in the 13-by-18 block NAZ receive individualized supports.

• Organizing partners: NAZ, the Promise Neighborhood grantee organization, is guided by a 20-member board of directors consisting of local leaders.
• Schools and students reached: The 13-by-18 block zone in North Minneapolis serves 5,500 students in 10 public, charter, and parochial K–12 schools, including one high school.
• General makeup of the student body: In this racially concentrated area of poverty, almost all residents are African American, and median family income is $18,000. One-third of children are homeless or “highly mobile” (not technically homeless but without stable housing).
• Key features: “Connectors” are in essence case managers who help families develop achievement plans, and “Navigators” connect families with community resources to move toward goals. The zone offers access to high-quality pre-K and parenting supports, as well as mentoring, enrichment, college preparatory support, and after-school and summer programs.
• Core funding: NAZ is anchored by a federal Promise Neighborhood grant. NAZ also receives private grants and is able to leverage federal Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge funds to support pre-K scholarship slots.

New York, New York

Through a collaboration between The Children’s Aid Society and the New York City Department of Education, 16 community schools in some of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in three of the city’s five boroughs provide wraparound health, nutrition, mental health, and other services to students along with enriching in-and-out-of-school experiences, amplified by extensive parental and community engagement.

• Organizing partners: The Children’s Aid Society, the New York City Department of Education, the New York State Education Department, and other local and state agencies.
• Schools and students reached: Sixteen community schools in three boroughs serve some of the poorest immigrant and minority students in a school system of roughly one million students.
• General makeup of the student body: Students in Children’s Aid Society community schools are disadvantaged relative to the system overall, which serves a heavily low-income and minority student body: more than three quarters of New York City public school students are FRPL-eligible, 13 percent are English language learners, and nearly one in five receive special education services. These schools also have high concentrations of students of color: 27 percent are African American and 41 percent are Hispanic.
• Key features: Close coordination with local and state education, health, and other agencies along with community partnerships at each school enables wraparound health, mental health, and after-school and summer enrichment, as well as deep parental and community engagement.
• Core funding: A range of public dollars, including federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I funds and funds from the federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, together with state and local funding for after-school and other programs, is supplemented by funds from individuals and foundations.

Orange County, Florida

The Tangelo Park Project (TPP) provides cradle-to-college support for all children residing in Orlando’s high-poverty, heavily African American Tangelo Park neighborhood.

• Organizing partners: The Tangelo Park Program board, along with Harris Rosen (the hotelier who envisioned and funds the program), work in close collaboration with the Tangelo Park Civic Association and the University of Central Florida.
• Schools and students reached: The program serves all children in the Tangelo Park neighborhood.
• General makeup of the student body: Virtually all residents in the low-income neighborhood are African American or Afro-Caribbean.
• Key features: Universal college scholarships—called “Promise” scholarships because they are guaranteed by an established fund—are supported by quality neighborhood-based early childhood education, health, counseling, and after-school and summer programs.
• Core funding: Harris Rosen funds early child care providers and universal college scholarships. Rosen also supports other services, such as a lifeguard at the YMCA, as needed.

Initiatives that serve all of a school district

Joplin, missouri.

Joplin’s Bright Futures initiative (which has spawned dozens of other Bright Futures affiliate districts under a Bright Futures USA umbrella since it launched in 2010) has a rapid response component that addresses children’s basic needs (within 24 hours of a need being reported), while strong school–community partnerships help meet students’ longer-term needs. Bright Futures also provides meaningful service learning opportunities in every school.

• Organizing partners: The Joplin School District’s superintendent and top leadership, in collaboration with parents and community, faith, business, and social service leaders.
• Schools and students reached: Bright Futures serves all of the district’s 7,874 students in all 17 schools.
• General makeup of the student body: Joplin is a heavily white community. As of 2015, nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of Joplin students are FRPL-eligible and 16 percent are classified as needing special education; just 3 percent are English language learners.
• Key features: The Bright Futures USA framework has three components. First, a rapid response system is designed to meet any student’s basic health, nutrition, or physical need within 24 hours of such a need being reported; this system is supported by combined resources from social service agencies, businesses, faith organizations, and individual community members. Second, school- and community-level councils build community leadership and partnerships with schools to meet longer-term needs and sustain systems. Third, service learning opportunities are embedded in all schools to help develop children as citizens. Teachers lead the service learning and receive training to do so. In addition to these three components, Joplin also provides pre-K for at-risk students, as well as tutoring, mentoring, and after-school and college preparatory programs based on student need.
• Core funding: Federally funded Americorps VISTA volunteers provide in-kind support; funds from the state departments of Elementary and Secondary Education and of Economic Development support Bright Futures work and conferences; and the regional Economic Security Corporation and a range of private funders supplement these federal and state funding sources.

Kalamazoo, Michigan

The “Kalamazoo Promise,” a guarantee by a group of anonymous local philanthropists to provide full college scholarships in perpetuity for graduates of the district’s public high schools brought Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS), the city, and the community together to develop a set of comprehensive supports that enable more students to use the scholarships.

• Organizing partners: Kalamazoo Promise and Kalamazoo Public Schools, the local school district, in collaboration with Communities in Schools Kalamazoo (CIS) and other nonprofit entities.
• Schools and students reached: All KPS students (12,216 in 25 schools) who graduate from Kalamazoo public high schools are eligible for Promise scholarships. CIS works in all schools but to varying degrees and with varying levels of financial support.
• General makeup of the student body: In this combination urban–suburban district, a large majority of students (over 70 percent) are FRPL-eligible, 12 percent receive special education services, and 7 percent are English language learners. The share of African American students grew from less than one-third in 1987 to over half 30 years later; over this period the share of Hispanic students increased as well.
• Key features: The anchor for comprehensive supports is universal “Promise” college scholarships, which have spurred community leadership to provide quality pre-K programs and wraparound health, mental health, and other supports, and to launch a districtwide effort to create a college-going culture and resources to support that culture.
• Core funding: Anonymous donors have committed to funding Promise scholarships in perpetuity. CIS is supported by a combination of Title I funding, which helps support school coordinators; 21st Century Learning grants for after-school activities; and private individual and philanthropic donations.

Montgomery County, Maryland

All students in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) benefit from zoning laws that advance integration and strong union–district collaboration on an enriching, equity-oriented curriculum. These efforts are bolstered by extra funding and wraparound supports for high-needs schools and communities.

• Organizing partners: MCPS, Montgomery County Education Association (the local teachers union), Montgomery County Council, and Linkages to Learning (a joint initiative of MCPS and the county council that provides an integrated focus on health, social services, community development, and engagement to support student learning, strong families, and healthy communities.)
• Schools and students reached: All 160,000 students in more than 200 schools are served via some services. Higher-poverty schools and their communities receive additional funds and supports that are broader and more intensive. For example, Linkages to Learning serves more than 5,400 individuals—students and their family members—per year at 29 schools. Over 3,700 of them receive comprehensive behavioral health or social wraparound services to mitigate the effects of poverty and reduce nonacademic barriers to learning.
• General makeup of student body: The MCPS school district as a whole is racially and socioeconomically diverse: 30 percent of students are Hispanic, 29 percent are white, 22 percent are African American, 14 percent are Asian, and 35 percent are FRPL-eligible (more than 40 percent of students have been FRPL-eligible at some point). On the poorer, Eastern side of the county, where more intensive whole-child supports are provided, the 10 highest-poverty schools have student bodies that are at least 80 percent FRPL-eligible.
• Key features: Mixed-use housing policies that enable racial and socioeconomic integration advance school-level integration that boosts low-income students’ learning, which the district enhances through various forms of support, including high-quality early childhood education, parent and community outreach, reallocation of funds to high-needs schools and students, nutrition and health services, and an emphasis on social and emotional learning.
• Core funding: MCPS is heavily locally funded, with almost no federal Title I dollars. The district’s whole-child approach draws on a combination of school district and county revenues, along with federal funding for Head Start programs, state pre-K dollars, and assorted other grants.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas

The Pea Ridge School District, a small suburban–rural district outside Fayetteville, Arkansas, is among the newer affiliates of Bright Futures USA, a national umbrella group that grew out of Bright Futures Joplin. As a Bright Futures affiliate, Pea Ridge is making good progress toward identifying and meeting students’ basic needs, engaging the community to meet longer-term needs, and making service learning a core component of school policy and practice.

• Organizing partners: Pea Ridge School District and Bright Futures USA.
• Schools and students reached: Eight hundred and fifty students are served in one primary school, one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school, as well as an alternative high school and a new career-tech charter high school.
• General makeup of the student body: The suburban–rural district is mostly white, with a small but growing Hispanic population, and predominantly middle-income with pockets of both higher-income families and families in poverty.
• Key features: The first component of the three-part Bright Futures USA framework is a rapid response system to meet every student’s basic health, nutrition, and physical needs within 24 hours through a combination of social service agency, business, faith, and individual community contributions. Other components include school- and community-level councils, which build community leadership and partnerships with schools to meet longer-term needs and sustain systems, and service learning embedded in all schools that is enhanced by supportive training for teachers. Pea Ridge also provides pre-K for at-risk students, as well as tutoring, mentoring, and after-school and college preparatory programs for students who need them.
• Core funding: State funds support meals and other needs for high-poverty schools, and Pea Ridge has secured a three-year private grant to support access to pre-K for low-income students.

Vancouver, Washington

Family and Community Resource Centers (FCRCs) currently serve 16 of the highest-needs Vancouver Public Schools (VPS) district schools, with mobile and lighter-touch support in other schools and plans to expand districtwide by 2020.

• Organizing partners: School district leaders coordinate the program with the support of six central-office staff (three of whom just support FCRCs). Technical and other assistance is provided by the Coalition for Community Schools.
• Schools and students reached: FCRCs serve 23,500 students in 16 VPS schools: 11 elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, and the Fruit Valley Learning Center (a combination elementary school and community center that also offers child care and Head Start programs). Plans are being made to expand FCRCs to all 35 VPS schools by 2020.
• General makeup of the student body: As of 2015, more than half of students were FRPL-eligible, with FRPL-eligibility rates in some central-city schools exceeding 80 percent. More than one in five students speak a language other than English at home and 12.5 percent of students are special education students; in FCRC schools, the shares of non–English speakers and special education students are even higher.
• Key services: VPS supports a range of early childhood education programs, including quality pre-K; middle and high school in-school enrichment; after-school and summer programs (provided by VPS partners); and help for parents and families through workshops, assistance, and referrals to a range of community resources.
• Core funding: District and Title I funds, which support basic FCRC needs, are supplemented by cash and in-kind donations from faith-based, social service, business, and association partners.

Initiative that serves multiple school districts

Eastern (appalachian) kentucky.

A federal Promise Neighborhood grant helps Berea College’s Partners for Education provide intensive supports for students and their families in four counties in the Eastern (Appalachian) region of Kentucky and provide lighter-touch supports in an additional 23 surrounding counties. (Berea College, which was established in 1855 by abolitionist education advocates, is unique among U.S. higher-education institutions. It admits only economically disadvantaged, academically promising students, most of whom are the first in their families to obtain postsecondary education, and it charges no tuition, so every student admitted can afford to enroll and graduates debt-free.)

• Organizing partners: Berea College launched Partners for Education (PfE), which is now a fully staffed nonprofit that runs the initiative.
• Schools and students reached: PfE serves 35,000 students in 22 schools in Clay, Jackson, Knox, and Owsley counties; tens of thousands more are served less intensively in an additional 23 counties in the region.
• General makeup of the student body: The Appalachian region is rural, very poor, and heavily white. The regional poverty rate is around 27 percent (in 2015), and reaches as high as 40 percent in some counties. About 80 percent of students are FRPL-eligible and 97 percent are white.
• Key features: Family engagement specialists meet directly with families and help coordinate services provided by a range of community partners. Other specialists provide basic academic, college preparatory, and health and other wraparound services to students.
• Core funding: Federal Promise Neighborhood, Full Service Community Schools, and Investing in Innovation grants are the most prominent sources of funding, but the initiative receives a range of other cash and in-kind supports.

Appendix tables and figures 

Covariates from these models : ecls-k 1998--1999 and 2010--2011.

Source: ECLS-K, kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Missing data

Note: For detailed information about the construction of these variables, see Appendix Table A1.

Distribution of standardized scale and theta scores in mathematics, by year

Scale scores, 1998 (left) and 2010 (right).

Theta scores, 1998 (left) and 2010 (right)

Distribution of standardized scale and theta scores in reading, by year

Descriptive statistics of standardized scale and theta scores, by year (not weighted)

Note: N is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Reading and math skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using scale and theta scores as dependent variables

Notes:  Standard errors are in the parentheses. N is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Asterisks denote statistical significance: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Source: ECLS-K, kindergarten classes of 1998-1999 and 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Reading and math skills gaps between high-social class and low-social class children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using scale and theta scores as dependent variables

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Asterisks denote statistical significance: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Endnotes to the appendices 

i. The sample design used to select the individuals in the study was a three-stage process that involved using primary sampling units and schools with probabilities proportional to the number of children and the selection of a fixed number of children per school. In the last stage, children enrolled in kindergarten or ungraded schools were selected within each sampled school. A clustered design was used to limit the number of geographic areas and to minimize the number of schools and the costs of the study (Tourangeau et al. 2013, 4-1).

ii. The dataset in the first year followed a stratified design structure (Ready 2010, 274), in which the primary sampling units were geographic areas consisting of counties or groups of counties. About 1,000 schools — 903 for 1998 and 968 for 2010—were selected, and about 24 children per school were surveyed. Assessment of the children was performed by trained evaluators, while parents were surveyed over the telephone. Teachers and school administrators completed the questionnaires in their schools.

iii. As a sensitivity check, we estimate Models 1 and 2 using Models 1’s and Model 2’s specifications but using the restricted sample (these results are not shown here, but are available upon request).

iv. As a sensitivity check, we estimate Model 3 parsimoniously, by including family characteristics only, and then adding family investments (prekindergarten care arrangements, early literacy practices at home, and number of books the child has), and then adding parental expectations (with and without interactions with time); results of the sensitivity check are not shown, but are available upon request).

v. We refer to the fact that we are using the same data and that the scale and theta scores are based on the same instruments and are not independent from each other. Advice on this possibility is found in Reardon (2007), who cites work by Murnane et al. (2006) and Selzer, Frank, and Bryk (1994) that also warn about this option.

vi. From NCES: “IRT uses the pattern of right and wrong responses to the items actually administered in an assessment and the difficulty, discriminating ability, and guess-ability of each item to estimate each child’s ability on the same continuous scale. IRT has several advantages over raw number-right scoring. By using the overall pattern of right and wrong responses and the characteristics of each item to estimate ability, IRT can adjust for the possibility of a low-ability child guessing several difficult items correctly. If answers on several easy items are wrong, the probability of a correct answer on a difficult item would be quite low. Omitted items are also less likely to cause distortion of scores, as long as enough items have been answered to establish a consistent pattern of right and wrong answers. Unlike raw number-right scoring, which treats omitted items as if they had been answered incorrectly, IRT procedures use the pattern of responses to estimate the probability of a child providing a correct response for each assessment question” (Tourangeau et al. 2017, 3-2).

vii. The quoted text is abridged to remove variables and formulas specific to Reardon’s study and not central here.

viii. Also, “the estimated scale score is the estimated number of questions the student would have gotten correct if he or she had been asked all of the items on the test. The estimated scale score is obtained by summing the predicted probabilities of a correct response over all items, given the student’s estimated theta score and the estimated item parameters” (Reardon 2007, 11).

ix. They are equally spaced units along the scale without a predefined zero point.

See related work on Student achievement | Education | Educational inequity | Children | Economic inequality | Inequality and Poverty | Early childhood

See more work by Emma García and Elaine Weiss

Racial Inequality in Education Essay

The ongoing criticism of equal treatment in education and employment opportunities over the past few years has served as the most apparent illustration of differences in the public policy sphere. From the viewpoint of those who live with the effects of persistent discrimination, affirmative action is necessary to preserve opportunities that would be lost in the absence of a commitment to act reasonably. Additionally, the distribution of potential in a society becoming increasingly dependent on information and education is a significant source of concern and stress for African-Americans of all backgrounds.

The family and community settings, as well as school characteristics unrelated to teachers’ performance, are just a few of the many factors contributing to the achievement gap. However, unavoidable inequalities in how educators and school officials view black students are one aspect that cannot be ignored. According to research, black students face fewer expectations from their teachers and are more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students. They are also less likely to be enrolled in programs. The Minorities’ Diminished Returns argument holds that at least some racial differences are caused by the less protective than anticipated impacts of socioeconomic status markers, such as academic opportunities.

A growing corpus of research also explores the impact of the classroom setting in the development or intervention of racial disparities in special education, focusing on racial composition as a possible reason for these differences. Most of this research has viewed the racial makeup of schools as a causal impact of race effects, one that could affect all students’ chances of academic success.

Educational disabilities are typically considered individual-level neurophysiological disorders with distinct borders between disability categories by mainstream practitioners, politicians, and academics. According to research, the racial composition also affects how students are separated from the classroom during exclusionary internal proceedings, likely similar to receiving special education services for emotional distress. However, most existing research on racial disparity in special education that considers the school setting focuses on the global implications of school racial composition (Fish, 2019). White students who have difficulty in school can keep some relative advantages in racial distinctiveness. They are more likely than their classmates to be categorized with higher-status disabilities rather than being perceived as just low performers or uninterested (Assari & Bazargan, 2019). The more severe disabilities frequently come with more resources for teachers, adjustments that make it easier for students to access the general education curriculum, and a de-stigmatizing justification for poor performance. At the same time, black students with academic difficulties are classified as having a lower-status disability, which keeps them out of general education classes, separates them from other students who might not be doing as well, and gives them a stigmatizing label.

Viewpoints of the differences in academic performance between white and minority students as determined by test scores are at the basis of these discussions. The assumption that underlies most of the discussion is that if equal opportunity is now available, minority students’ ongoing low levels of accomplishment must be caused by their genes, culture, or a lack of motivation. Minority children’s educational outcomes are significantly more influenced by unequal access to essential educational resources, such as qualified instructors and leading programs.

The American practice of permitting a wide range of teacher credentials puts minority students at the most significant risk. According to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 25 percent of all new teachers hired without meeting certification standards are typically assigned to teaching students in low-income and high-minority schools. In contrast, most prospective teachers are employed primarily by wealthier schools. Teachers completely qualified or possess higher-level degrees are much less likely to teach in predominately minority schools.

The issue is also evident in the higher education system regarding accessibility and adaptability. According to various research, universities are relatively aware of the risks that separation brings to students’ well-being as well as the consequences of isolation at schools. The experiences of black students generally, specifically black children, can suffer from an inability to recognize the implications of race. Increased amounts of ignorance and racism, whether verbal or covert, may also be caused by the lack of diversity on campus. Because these disparities can quickly go unnoticed by the white majority, black students are less safeguarded.

Additionally, many of the time, the measures taken to address racism on campuses merely cement white supremacy and the white majority rather than addressing the problem. According to statistics, about 70% of African Americans who borrow funding to cover college at a for-profit institution collapse on their loans within ten years (Matentjie, 2019). Data suggest that a third of all African American students defaulted on their loans within six years of beginning college, particularly in comparison to just 13 percent of their white peers, irrespective of the type of higher education institution they attended.

Therefore, scholars have repeatedly demonstrated that the Black community’s mistaken objectives do not cause these gaps. Instead, they are profoundly influenced by discriminatory policies. The effectiveness of the latest curriculum and assessment reforms will largely depend on how well those who create and implement new standards and exams put them to use in enhancing teaching and learning in the context of racial diversity in the educational setting.

Assari, S., & Bazargan, M. (2019). Unequal associations between educational attainment and occupational stress across racial and ethnic groups . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (19), 3539. Web.

Fish, R. E. (2019). Standing out and sorting in: exploring the role of racial composition in racial disparities in special education . American Educational Research Journal, 56 (6), 2573–2608. Web.

Matentjie, T. (2019). Race, class, and inequality in education: black parents in white-dominant schools after apartheid , South African Schooling: The Enigma of Inequality, 10 . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 30). Racial Inequality in Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racial-inequality-in-education/

"Racial Inequality in Education." IvyPanda , 30 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/racial-inequality-in-education/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Racial Inequality in Education'. 30 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Racial Inequality in Education." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racial-inequality-in-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Racial Inequality in Education." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racial-inequality-in-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Racial Inequality in Education." December 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racial-inequality-in-education/.

• Brazil: International Relations and Aspirations
• Political Sensitivity in "My Own Private Idaho" Film
• Terminology and Etiquette Discussion Regarding Persons With Disabilities
• Geometry in High School: Issues and Solutions
• Steps to Avoid Missing Crucial Information in Project Completion
• Challenges of Doctoral Education
• Motivation Strategies for Learning
• Group Counseling With Adolescents

• Welsh leads equity-centered research practice partnership to reduce racial disparities in school discipline

Media Inquiries

• 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

• Class of 2024 honors loved ones in “The hands that held our hands”
• Vanderbilt joins Meharry Medical College, Fisk University in hosting Tri-Institutional Seminar series

May 13, 2024, 11:51 AM

By Jenna Somers

Last year, Richard Welsh reported findings on the persistence of racial disparities in exclusionary school discipline practices. Despite suspensions declining over the past decade as schools reformed their policies, exclusionary disciplinary rates remained higher for African American students. Across the South, in-school suspensions (ISS) are particularly prevalent and disruptive to the education of racially minoritized students. Given these facts, Welsh has embarked on a new co-design process of ISS that leverages an existing research-practice partnership with a school district in Georgia to crack the code on truly resolving racial inequities in school discipline policies and practices.

Supported by a $474,178 grant from the William T. Grant Foundation and a $125,000 grant from the American Institutes of Research Equity Initiative, Welsh is leading a three-year project with the school district to understand the role of race and power in equity-centered research-practice partnerships, how the dynamics of the partnership affect partnership activities, and how these activities influence research use by school administrators, district leaders, and school board members.

“These are the three key decisionmakers who can advance racial equity in school districts through policies, programs, and personnel. They make decisions about codes of conduct, which disciplinary programs to implement, and who to hire, including behavioral specialists to support students’ social-emotional development,” said Welsh, associate professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development.

“Improving the use of research evidence among education leaders via equity-centered research-practice partnerships can possibly lead to disruptive decisions necessary to addressing persistent racial inequities in school discipline. Also, turning the analytical lens on ourselves to examine how inequities might manifest in the partnership has implications for partnership and student outcomes,” Welsh added.

The research team will analyze their interviews with key decision makers, research-practice partnership primary investigators, and co-design team members. They will also observe school board meetings, school discipline committee meetings, and partnership meetings, as well as co-design workshops, district- and school-level documents, and materials to record the partnering process as well as the use of research evidence and disruptive decision-making. By engaging in cycles of disciplined inquiry to improve ISS processes, the partnership aims to reach its goal of improving youth outcomes.

The co-design process includes working with a team of school leaders and school personnel at three middle schools to analyze and reimagine their ISS process and infrastructure.

Keep Reading

Welsh’s study reveals persistent racial disparities in school exclusionary discipline, recommends promising reforms

Welsh’s essay emphasizes need for antiblackness framework to reduce inequality in school discipline

Welsh’s study reveals the importance of parental trust in schools for reducing exclusionary discipline

Explore story topics.

• Education and Psychology
• Ideas In Action
• Ideas in Action Featured
• Peabody College
• peabody-home
• Richard Welsh
• Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development