BACKGROUNDER
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
BEHIND — AND HOW FAR?
A
chievement gaps are an all-too-present reality in
today’s educational landscape. Despite decades
of overall progress in narrowing achievement gaps,
disparities in educational outcomes related to poverty,
English language proficiency, disability, and racial and
ethnic background persist. In recent years, closing
these gaps was a focal point for education policy.
But as the political winds have changed, the focus on
closing achievement gaps has been eclipsed by often
heated debates about teacher evaluation, Common
Core State Standards, and other hot topics in the
education arena. Moreover, the complex intersections
of economic, housing, and education policy that have
led to a resegregation of America’s public schools
make the multidimensional solutions that might
improve student achievement over time difficult to
sustain in an age of quick fixes and fractured political
discourse.
Despite the complexity of the issues, renewing a
collective commitment to closing the gaps must
be at the forefront of efforts to ensure educational
opportunity for all students. With poverty rates
rising among public school children, and America
continuing its demographic shift to a majorityminority population, the task of scaling up and
better supporting the practices and interventions
that effectively close gaps and promote positive
achievement outcomes is more urgent than ever.
While the Black-White achievement gap has been
widely described in academic research and media
outlets, other groups of students experience
significant gaps in academic achievement, and an
increasing number of these same students will be
enrolled in America’s public schools in the years
ahead. Understanding who these children are and
just how far they have been left behind, is a critical,
foundational step if we are to better address their
educational needs and increase positive achievement
outcomes for all students.
What are Achievement Gaps?
Achievement gaps are broadly defined as the
differences in academic performance between groups
of students of different backgrounds and have been
documented with respect to students’ ethnic, racial,
gender, English language learner, disability, and
income status. Gaps may exist on a range of data
points, such as:
``
Student performance on national and state tests and
classroom assessments
``
Measures that affect performance like tardiness,
absences, access to qualified teachers, and access to
modern materials, facilities, technology, and books
``
Access to and success in courses (e.g., algebra,
calculus, physics) and special educational
opportunities (e.g., Advanced Placement, Honors,
dual enrollment) that are gateways to higher
education
``
Early childhood readiness factors and access to quality
early learning and full-day kindergarten programs
``
Readiness for college or career technical education
certification programs without need for remediation
``
High school dropout and graduation rates
``
College completion rates and employment later in life
These and other indicators point to gaps in the
opportunities that are provided to students, as well
as gaps in the educational attainment achieved by
students.
Gaps in Achievement Persist for Many
Students
Distinct groups of students persistently lag behind
their more privileged peers on various indicators
of academic achievement. Since they were first
administered in the early 1970s, results from the
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
have documented overall increases in student
performance in reading and math. Although
achievement gaps between groups of students have
narrowed over this time, substantial gaps in NAEP
test scores have persisted for low-income students,
English language learners (ELL), students with
disabilities, and students from various racial and ethnic
backgrounds.
While standardized test scores are not the only
means of comparing achievement outcomes by
student group, the NAEP test results have provided
a consistent source of national level assessment data
for more than 40 years and demonstrate the scope
and complexity of the achievement gap challenge.
Graduation rate data released in March 2015 by the
U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) National Center
for Education Statistics provide additional insight into
achievement gaps between student groups, while
select state level data point to achievement gaps for
homeless students and students in the foster care
system. In addition, exposure to trauma and violence
cuts across socioeconomic categories and poses
significant barriers to educational achievement in the
classroom.
While intersections between student subgroups—such
as between race and poverty, ethnicity and English
language proficiency, or gender and race—heighten
the complexity of analysis that is needed to move a
conversation toward solutions, the data that follows
provides a baseline for understanding the gaps in
achievement that persist for too many of our students.
Students from Low-Income Families
The income achievement gap between children from
high- and low-income families increased 40 percent
between the mid-1970s and 2000 and is even more
pronounced than the Black-White achievement
gap that many often emphasize.1 Whether looking
at standardized test scores, grades, high school
completion rates, or college enrollment and
completion rates, there are significant achievement
gaps between low- and high-income students on
most measures of academic success.2 For example,
the low-income graduation rate reached 73.3 percent
during the 2012-13 school year (an increase of 3.3
percentage points since 2010-11), but was still 8.1
percentage points lower than the record-high national
graduation rate of 81.4 percent.3
NAEP test scores also reflect persistent income
achievement gaps between students eligible for
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and
their higher income peers which have not narrowed
appreciably since 2003.4 Half of the fourth and
eighth grade students who took the NAEP in 2013
were eligible to receive free or reduced priced lunch
through the NSLP based on their families’ low levels
of income.5 As compared to their higher-income
peers, students eligible for free and reduced price
lunch demonstrated lower proficiency levels in fourth
and eighth grade math and reading, and much larger
percentages of NSLP eligible students performed
below basic on NAEP tests than their non-NSLP
eligible peers.6 (See Tables 1 and 2)
TABLE 1
2013 NAEP - % Proficient
Eligible for NSLP
Free
Lunch
Reduced –
Price Lunch
Not
Eligible
for NSLP
4th Grade Math
22%
33%
46%
4th Grade Reading
22%
25%
37%
8th Grade Math
16%
23%
35%
8th Grade Reading
18%
28%
42%
|2|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
TABLE 2
2013 NAEP - % Below Basic
Eligible for NSLP
Free
Lunch
Reduced –
Price Lunch
Not
Eligible
for NSLP
4th Grade Math
28%
15%
7%
4th Grade Reading
48%
32%
17%
8th Grade Math
41%
29%
14%
8th Grade Reading
36%
22%
13%
Poverty and low economic status have a particularly
negative impact on young children as they enter
school and make their way through the K-12 system.
The income achievement gap is already large when
students enter kindergarten,7 and researchers have
identified school readiness gaps in preliteracy,
math, and cognitive skills, which are among the
most important predictors of later school success.8
Researchers have also found that children who
experience repeated or continued poverty fall farther
and farther behind, with the differences in reading
scores increasing over time between them and their
high-income peers.9
English Language Learners
Achievement gaps between ELLs and non-ELL
students are deeply rooted, pervasive, complex,
and challenging. As a group, ELLs face some of the
most pronounced achievement gaps of any student
groups. The 2013 NAEP test scores document large
ELL achievement gaps that have remained relatively
unchanged over the preceding 10 years.10 In 2013,
ELL students demonstrated proficiency levels that
were 23 to 30 percentage points below their Englishspeaking peers, with only 3 to 4 percent of ELL
eighth graders demonstrating proficiency in math or
reading.11 More than two thirds of ELL eighth graders
scored below basic in math (69 percent) and reading
(70 percent).12 Almost half of ELL fourth graders
scored below basic in math (41 percent) and more
than two-thirds scored below basic in reading (69
percent).13
While the graduation rate for students with limited
English proficiency increased 4.1 percentage points
between 2010-11 and 2012-13, their graduation rate
stood at only 61.1 percent—a full 20 points below
the national graduation rate of 81.4 percent, and
25 points below their White peers (86.6 percent).14
According to data released by ED’s National Center
for Education Statistics in March 2015, ELL students
graduate from high school “at the lowest rate of all
student subgroups.”15
Students with Disabilities
Interpreting data regarding academic achievement for
students with disabilities is a complex task impacted
by decisions at the local level regarding instructional
delivery, inclusion, testing, and other policies. For
example, determinations as to whether students with
disabilities take standardized tests with their same-age
peers or with their academic placement level and the
processes for making that determination vary across
districts. Even understanding this context, however,
the significant gaps in academic achievement that
persist between students with disabilities and their
peers raise the question of what more the education
community should do to address their learning needs.
The 2013 NAEP test scores and graduation rates
document large achievement gaps between students
with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. In
2013, students with disabilities demonstrated
proficiency levels in reading and math that were 20
to 27 percentage points below their nondisabled
peers, with few fourth and eighth grade students
with disabilities demonstrating proficiency in math or
reading.16 Almost two-thirds of eighth grade students
|3|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
with disabilities scored below basic in math (65
percent) and reading (60 percent), while almost half of
fourth grade students with disabilities scored below
basic in math (45 percent) and more than two-thirds
scored below basic in reading (69 percent).17
Graduation rates for students with disabilities have
been a source of more encouragement, with rates
improving from 59 percent in 2010-11 to 61.9 percent
in 2012-13.18 Even with this improvement, however,
the graduation rate for students with disabilities
is a full 20 percentage points below the national
graduation rate of 81.4 percent.
Racial and Ethnic Minorities
Gaps in achievement between racial and ethnic
minorities and their White peers have been well
documented over the last 40 years. Across the
spectrum—from indicators of readiness for kindergarten
among young children, through achievement
outcomes in the K-12 system, to success in completing
college and career technical education programs
without the need for remediation—we see signs of
progress mixed with signs of significant concern about
the effectiveness of America’s public education system
in addressing the needs of the growing population of
racial and ethnic minority students.
The data make clear that achievement gaps among
Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native
(AI/AN) students and their White peers have narrowed
considerably over the past 40 years. For example,
more than three-quarters of Black students (83
percent) performed below basic on the NAEP fourth
grade mathematics test in 1990 as compared to 41
percent of White students.19 In 2013, that number
stood at 34 percent for Black students and 9 percent
for White students—a marked improvement for both
groups. Similar progress has been made by other
racial and ethnic groups.
But while the magnitude of the achievement gaps
has changed, the gaps, nonetheless, persist for racial
and ethnic minorities.20 The 2013 NAEP test scores
indicate that Black, Hispanic, and AI/AN students
in the fourth and eighth grades scored significantly
lower than their White peers in reading and math.
Moreover, Black, Hispanic, and AI/AN students
demonstrate proficiency in reading and math at much
lower levels than White students and perform below
basic in these subject areas at much higher rates than
White students.21
In stark contrast, Asian/Pacific Islander (API) students
as a group consistently outperform their White
peers and other racial and ethnic minorities with
respect to NAEP test scores and proficiency levels.
As some have pointed out, however, “[t]he Asian
Pacific American demographic includes 48 distinct
ethnic groups from various regions, including East
Asians … South Asians, Southeast Asians, Pacific
Islanders, and more,” and the needs of many API
students have been rendered invisible by “the model
minority myth.”22 This perspective is supported by
research that disaggregates student data to examine
the performance of various ethnic subgroups that
make up the broader category of API students.
One such study found that some Southeast Asian
groups experienced socioeconomic barriers similar
to other racial and ethnic groups, as well as lower
levels of educational attainment such as high school
diplomas.23
Graduation rates also point to a story of progress that
is overshadowed by persistent disparities. As of the
2012-13 school year, America’s overall high school
graduation rate was at a record high 81.4 percent.24
Between the 2010-11 and 2012-13 school years, the
graduation rate grew for American Indian students
by 4.7 percentage points, for Hispanic students by
4.2 percentage points, and for Black students by 3.7
|4|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
percentage points.25 Moreover, the gap between
White and Black students and between White and
Hispanic students receiving high school diplomas
is closing.26 Despite this progress, however, the
graduation rates of ethnic and racial minorities remain
troubling, with the American Indian graduation rate
standing at only 69.7 percent, the Black graduation
rate standing at 70.7 percent, and the Hispanic
graduation rate standing at 75.2 percent, as compared
to the White graduation rate of 86.6 percent.27
Other Vulnerable Students: Youth in Foster
Care, Homeless Youth, and Youth Exposed to
Trauma and Violence
Youth in foster care and homeless youth face
significant barriers to success in school. Frequent
moves for these students undermine academic
success and can be caused by a changed foster
care placement, family homelessness, or transient or
unstable housing arrangements. Far too often, these
factors combine with the challenges they may face
as a racial or ethnic minority—and as a result of their
low-income economic status—to further hinder their
educational attainment. While national NAEP data
is not specifically reported for these two subgroups,
analysis of state data points to significant achievement
gaps for homeless youth and youth in foster care.
One longitudinal study of students in Minnesota
found that, “students who experienced homelessness
or high mobility had chronically low levels of reading
and math achievement compared to their peers—
gaps that either stayed the same or worsened as
students approached high school.”28 Homeless or
high mobility (HHM) students, “showed lower levels of
achievement, and slower growth in math achievement,
during years in which they experienced homelessness
and high mobility compared to their own achievement
and growth during years in which they did not
experience homelessness or high mobility.” Variation
in achievement among HHM students suggests that
homelessness and high mobility affect individual
students differently, and that other factors related
to resilience bolstered the achievement of some
HHM students. This study pointed out that additional
research is needed to better understand the impact
of homelessness and high mobility on student
achievement.
Another study found that, “Compared to all other
student groups in California—including those
already identified with the widest achievement
gaps, such as English learners, students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, and students with
disabilities—students who are in foster care drop out
of school at much higher rates and graduate at much
lower rates, with only about 58 percent of grade
12 students earning a high school diploma.” 29 Test
results from the California Standards Test show that,
“results for students in foster care fell into the two
lowest performance levels for English language arts
and mathematics at twice the rate of those for the
statewide student population.”30 Moreover, “high
school students in foster care had the highest dropout
rate and lowest graduation rate,” with students in
upper grade levels and those who experience three
or more foster care placements experiencing the
greatest achievement gaps.
The estimated 46 million children affected by
violence, crime, abuse, or psychological trauma
in a given year—almost two out of every three
children in the U.S.—represent a large presence in
America’s public schools.31 Education is one area
in which negative, long-term effects of trauma and
violence can be observed. “Chronic stress caused
by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have
permanent effects on the chemical and physical
structures of a child’s brain, creating issues with
|5|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
attention, concentration, memory, and creativity—
making it far more difficult for the child to succeed
in the classroom.”32 Repeating grades, dropping
out, and lower scores on tests of verbal ability and
comprehension, reading and math skills, and overall
achievement on standardized tests are among the
educational consequences for these students.33 While
NAEP and other data sources are not designed to
document achievement gaps for these children in
the same way that they are for other student groups,
exposure to trauma and violence cuts across lines
of race, ethnicity, income, gender, and the other
categories frequently associated with achievement
gaps. Understanding this interplay is an important
step in addressing achievement gap issues.
Changing U.S. Demographics Increase the
Urgency for Action to Close Achievement
Gaps
Demographic trends and projections related to race
and ethnicity, ELL status, and income level suggest
that in the coming years, America’s public schools will
be called upon to educate an increasingly diverse
student body and an increasing number of students
from demographic groups that experience the largest
achievement gaps. States are already confronting the
socioeconomic and diversity challenges that we know
the nation will soon face.
By as early as 2044, the majority of the U.S. population
will be comprised of people currently considered
to be racial or ethnic minorities.34 The growth in the
number of minority children over time illustrates the
expected “superdiversification of America’s children”
that public schools will face in the coming decades:
while 25 percent of American children were a racial
or ethnic minority in 1980, children are 46 percent
minority today and are projected to be 57 percent
minority in 2040 and 65 percent minority in 2060.35
Even more immediately, between 2011 and 2022,
White student enrollment in public elementary and
secondary schools is projected to decrease from 52
percent of all students enrolled in public schools to 45
percent, while students who are Hispanic will increase
from 24 percent to 30 percent, bringing the total
enrollment of minority students in public schools to
more than half. 36
English language learners represent a growing
population in America’s public schools. During the
2011-12 school year, there were almost 4.4 million ELL
students in the United States, comprising 9.1 percent
of all preK-12 students nationwide.37 Data collected
in 2009 indicate that 37 percent of Hispanic fourth
graders and 21 percent of Hispanic eighth graders are
English language learners.38 Attending to the needs
of ELL students is not just a western state issue. While
the eight states with ELL public school enrollment
rates of 10 percent or more are in the West (Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, and Texas), ELL student enrollment increased
by more than 100 percent in seven states in other
regions of the country between 2004-05 and 2011-12:
Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan,
South Carolina, and West Virginia.39
Against this backdrop of growing racial and ethnic
diversity in our nation and in our schools, there has
also been a marked increase in economic inequality.
As of 2013, for the first time in recent history, a
majority (51 percent) of public school students come
from low-income families.40 This reflects a persistent
increase in the growth of low-income public school
students over the past several decades, from 32
percent in 1989, to 38 percent in 2000, to 51 percent
in 2013.41 While most of the states with a majority of
low-income students enrolled are found in the South
and West, the growth of the low-income student
population is national in scale. In 21 states, half or
|6|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
more students in public school were eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch in 2013, and in 40 of 50 states,
at least 40 percent of students were low-income.42
Meeting the Challenges Ahead
The achievement outcomes, demographic trends,
and projected shifts in student population described
here foreshadow the significant challenges that lie
ahead for America’s public schools. Beyond the moral
imperative of fairness and equity, there are enormous
economic benefits to closing achievement gaps, and
significant economic costs if we fail.43 Yet despite
ample forewarning, we face this educational future
without the political and educational strategies in
place and at the scale that will be needed to produce
the highly skilled workforce called for in the years
ahead—unless we make a different choice.
inside the classroom, including the very complex
issues of economic inequality and socioeconomic
segregation in housing that intersect with race
and ethnicity to profoundly impact educational
opportunity and outcomes . This will require
unprecedented collaboration across the spectrum.
Whether we are decision makers in the policy arena,
educators in our schools, or advocates and parents
in the community, closing achievement gaps and
expanding opportunity for all students must remain at
the forefront of our efforts.
Advancing an opportunity agenda in the policy arena
that expands equity, access, and opportunity for the
students we are currently leaving behind is critical
if we are to change the story of achievement gaps
to one of achievement for all students. Providing
resources for schools and students that face the
greatest challenges, expanding education models
like community schools and parent/community
engagement that address the holistic needs of
students, and increasing diversity and cultural
competence in and across the education workforce
are cornerstones of a policy and practice agenda
aimed at eliminating achievement gaps.
But closing the gaps and raising achievement
outcomes will require more than just changes within
school systems. Curricula, instructional methods, and
other aspects of educational practice are an important
part of the solution, but they alone are not enough.
We must also address the social and economic factors
outside the classroom that impact students’ success
|7|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
Notes
Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement
gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and
possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.),
Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain
Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation Press.
1
Reardon, S.F. (2013). The Widening Income Achievement
Gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10-16.
2
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-rest-nation
3
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trends in 4th- and 8th-grade NAEP mathematics and
reading average scores and score gaps, by NSLP eligibility.
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.
gov/reading_math_2013/#/achievement-gaps
4
NAEP. (2014). NAEP Data Explorer. National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx?p=1RED-2-20133,20113,20093,20073,20053,20033,20023,
20003,19983-RRPCM-SLUNCH3-NT-RP_RP-Y_J-0-0-5
Students eligible for NSLP are from families that have
incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty line
($29,965 for a family of four) or between 130 and 185
percent of the poverty line ($29,965 to $42,642 for a family
of four). See Interpreting NAEP Reading Results. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
interpret_results.aspx
5
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trends in 4th- and 8th-grade NAEP mathematics and
reading achievement-level results, by eligibility for
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_
math_2013/#/student-groups
6
Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement
gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and
possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.),
Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain
Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation Press.
7
Layzer, J. & Price, C. (2008). Appendix D: Closing the Gap
in the School Readiness of Low-Income Children. (Working
paper prepared for “A Working Meeting on Recent School
Readiness Research: Guiding the Synthesis of Early
Childhood Research”). Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/
hsp/10/SchoolReadiness/apd.shtml.
8
Layzer, J.& Price, C. (2008). Appendix D: Closing the Gap
in the School Readiness of Low-Income Children. (Working
paper prepared for “A Working Meeting on Recent School
Readiness Research: Guiding the Synthesis of Early
Childhood Research”). Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/
hsp/10/SchoolReadiness/apd.shtml.
9
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trends in 4th- and 8th-grade NAEP mathematics and
reading average scores, by status as English language
learners (ELL). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/gains-bygroup
10
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trends in 4th- and 8th-grade NAEP mathematics and
reading achievement-level results, by status as English
language learners (ELL). Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/studentgroups
11
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trends in 8th-grade NAEP mathematics and reading
achievement-level results, by status as English language
learners (ELL). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.
12
|8|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/studentgroups
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trends in 4th- grade NAEP mathematics and reading
achievement-level results, by status as English language
learners (ELL). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/studentgroups
13
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-restnation
14
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-restnation
15
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014)
The Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading
2013: Trends in 4th and 8th grade NAEP reading and
mathematics achievement-level results, by status as
students with disabilities (SD). Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/
student-groups In 2013, fewer than 10 percent of 8th grade
students with disabilities demonstrated proficiency in math
or reading, fewer than 10 percent of 4th grade students
with disabilities demonstrated proficiency in reading, and
only 16 percent of 4th grade students with disabilities
demonstrated proficiency in math.
16
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014)
The Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading
2013: Trends in 4th and 8th grade NAEP reading and
mathematics achievement-level results, by status as
students with disabilities (SD). Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/
17
student-groups
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-restnation
18
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trend in fourth-grade NAEP mathematics achievement-level
results, by race/ethnicity (1990–2013). Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/
student-groups
19
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2010). The Black-White
Achievement Gap: When Progress Stopped. Washington,
DC: Barton, P.E., & Coley, R.J.
20
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014) The
Nation’s Report Card Mathematics and Reading 2013:
Trend in fourth- and eight-grade NAEP mathematics and
reading achievement-level results, by race/ethnicity (1990–
2013). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.
gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups 21
Nhan, D. (2012, May 11). Asians Often Burdened as Model
Minority. National Journal. Retrieved from http://www.
nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/education/asiansoften-burdened-as-model-minority-20120511
22
See Pang, V. O., Han, P.P., & Pang, J.M. (2011) Asian
American and Pacific Islander Students: Equity and the
Achievement Gap. Educational Researcher, 40 (8), 378-389.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
23
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-restnation
24
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
25
|9|
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-restnation
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation
rates for minority students improve faster than rest of
nation [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/
news/press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-highschool-graduation-rates-minority-students-improve-fasterrest-nation . The Black-White gap decreased from 17
percentage points in 2010-11 to 15.9 percentage points in
2012-13, and the Hispanic-White gap decreased from 13
percentage points to 11.4 percentage points during the
same two-year period.
26
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015)
Achievement gap narrows as high school graduation rates
for minority students improve faster than rest of nation
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/achievement-gap-narrows-high-schoolgraduation-rates-minority-students-improve-faster-restnation
27
Cutuli, J.J., Desjardins, C.D., Herbers, J.E., Long, J.D.,
Heistad, D., Chan, C.K., Hinz, E. & Masten, A.S. (2013).
Academic Achievement Trajectories of Homeless and
Highly Mobile Students: Resilience in the Context of
Chronic and Acute Risk. Child Development, 84(3), 841857. Retrieved from JSTOR.
General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to
Violence. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.
justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf.
“Children’s Exposure to Violence and Trauma and its
Adverse Effects on Education” factsheet citing “Teaching
Through Trauma: How Poverty Affects Kids’ Brains.”
Southern California Public Radio. 2 June 2014. Web. http://
www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2014/06/02/16743/
poverty-has-been-found-to-affect-kids-brains-can-o/.
32
“Children’s Exposure to Violence and Trauma and its
Adverse Effects on Education” fact sheet, citing Bethell,
C., et al., “Adverse Childhood Experiences: Assessing
the Impact on Health and School Engagement and the
Mitigating Role of Resilience.” Health Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 12.
Dec. 2014 pp. 2111.; “Defending Childhood Fact Sheet.”
U.S. Department of Justice. Sept. 2010. Web. http://www.
justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2010/09/23/
dc-factsheet.pdf.; and Medina, A., et al., “Children’s
Exposure to Violence – Community Violence, Domestic
Violence – General Effects.” Education Encyclopedia – State
University. 1999. Web. http://education.stateuniversity.com/
pages/2531/Violence-Children-s-Exposure.html.
33
Teixeira, R., Frey, W.H., and Griffin, R. (February 2015).
“States of Change: The Demographic Evolution of the
American Electorate, 1974-2060.” American Enterprise
Institute, Brookings Institution and Center for American
Progress. Students who are Black are projected to decrease
from 16 percent to 15 percent, students who are API will
remain at 5 percent, AI/AN students will remain at 5 percent,
and enrollment of students who are two or more races will
increase from 3 percent to 4 percent.
28
34
CenterView (2014) “Addressing the Invisible Achievement
Gap: The Need to Improve Education Outcomes for
California Students in Foster Care, With Considerations
for Action.” The Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning at WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.wested.
org/wp-content/files_mf/1399583925CFTL_CenterView_
InvisAchGap_Wilkes_20140505.pdf
35
29
CenterView (2014) “Addressing the Invisible Achievement
Gap: The Need to Improve Education Outcomes for
California Students in Foster Care, With Considerations
for Action.” The Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning at WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.wested.
org/wp-content/files_mf/1399583925CFTL_CenterView_
InvisAchGap_Wilkes_20140505.pdf
30
31
U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). Report of the Attorney
Teixeira, R., Frey, W.H., and Griffin, R. (February 2015).
“States of Change: The Demographic Evolution of the
American Electorate, 1974-2060.” American Enterprise
Institute, Brookings Institution and Center for American
Progress. (p. 11).
National Center for Education Statitistics. (2014). The
Condition of Education: Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in
Public Schools. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp
36
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
Profiles of English Learners (ELs). Retrieved from http://
37
| 10 |
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
UNDERSTANDING THE GAPS: WHO ARE WE LEAVING BEHIND – AND HOW FAR?
ncela.ed.gov/data/factsheets. National Center for
Educational Statistics. English Language Learners. U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_
cgf.asp
Hemphill, F.C., and Vanneman, A. (2011) Achievement
Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students in Public Schools
Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, D.C.
38
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
Profiles of English Learners (ELs). Retrieved from http://
ncela.ed.gov/data/factsheets.
39
Southern Education Foundation. (January 2015).
Research Bulletin: A New Majority: Low Income Students
Now a Majority In the Nation’s Public Schools. Retrieved
from http://www.southerneducation.org/Our-Strategies/
Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-MajorityReport-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-IncomeStudents-Now
40
Southern Education Foundation. (January 2015).
Research Bulletin: A New Majority: Low Income Students
Now a Majority In the Nation’s Public Schools. Retrieved
from http://www.southerneducation.org/Our-Strategies/
Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-MajorityReport-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-IncomeStudents-Now
41
Southern Education Foundation. (January 2015).
Research Bulletin: A New Majority: Low Income Students
Now a Majority In the Nation’s Public Schools. Retrieved
from http://www.southerneducation.org/Our-Strategies/
Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-MajorityReport-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-IncomeStudents-Now
42
See Auguste, B.G., Hancock, B. and Laboissiere, M.
(June 2009) The economic cost of the US education gap.
McKinsey & Company. See also, Lynch, R.G., and Oakford,
P. (November 2014) The Economic Benefits of Closing
Educational Achievement Gaps: Promoting Growth and
Strengthening the Nation by Improving the Educational
Outcomes of Children of Color. Center for America
Progress.
43
| 11 |
Great Public Schools for Every Student
NEA Education Policy and Practice & Priority Schools Departments | Center for Great Public Schools | 1201 16th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036