Regardless if part of a teacher preparation program or
society as a whole, the adverse impact of the opportunity gap existing between richer
and poorer school districts cannot be over-emphasized. A district such as Scarsdale NY
compared to East
Harlem NY highlights and contrasts the real opportunities and threats to
the learning for all mission resulting from an opportunity
gap exacerbated by socioeconomic status (SES). The reality that problems exist for families
regardless of SES is indisputable. However,
the following may be helpful for understanding the real-life differences and opportunities
provided for middle and upper SES students compared to lower SES students:
A
study by UNICEF (2007)
of the twenty-one richest nations in the world found the United States ranked
last in almost every indicator of children’s well-being. The United States had more children living in
poverty (22%), had the worst record in child health and safety services, had
the most children living in single-parent families, and had the lowest ranking
in the positive health behaviors of its children. Another
analysis of poverty in America concluded that “disproportionately large
numbers of American children remain poor” with 38% of children under 18 living
in low-income families (Education
Commission of the States, 2007). Furthermore,
the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is widening. Between 1979 and 2004, the after-tax income of
the top 1% of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000,
for a total increase of $554,000 or 176% (with figures adjusted for inflation
by using 2004 dollars throughout the analysis). During that same timeframe, the average
after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest
21%, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004. Meanwhile, the average after-tax income of the
poorest fifth of the population rose just 6%, or $800, during the past 25
years, reaching $14,700 in 2004 (Sherman & Aron-Dine, 2007). Tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration
in 2001 made the gap even more pronounced. As a result of that legislation, in 2006,
households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts that averaged
$20 and raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.3%, while households
in the middle fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts that averaged $740
and raised their after-tax incomes an average of 2.5%. The top 1% of households, however, received
tax cuts in 2006 that averaged $44,200 and increased their after-tax income by
an average of 5.4% (Leiserson & Rohaly, 2006). As one analysis concluded, “Income is now more
concentrated at the top of the income spectrum than in all but two years since
the mid-1930s” (Sherman & Aron-Dine, 2007).
From the liberal perspective, closing the student achievement gap required
closing this cavernous and still growing gap between the poor and the middle
class. The disparity in achievement and
academic potential between poor and middle-class students begins prior to
children entering school and is only exacerbated during the school years (Lee &
Burkham, 2002; Schemo, 2006; Steinberg, 1996; Rothstein, 2004). Children of the poor are far more likely to
attend lower-quality schools with substandard facilities, fewer resources, and
less qualified teachers than their middle-class peers. They return to homes and neighborhoods that
are less likely to support student learning or communicate that learning is
important (DuFour,
DuFour, & Eaker, 2008, pp.49-50).
The progressive perspective of this data is the problem does
not originate in the schools but are societal conditions. Such a perspective recognizes social conditions
creating an opportunity gap are leading indicators in education and must
therefore, be addressed if we ever want to truly mitigate the trailing
indicator known as the achievement gap. Mehlinger
(1995) posits, “If America’s poor children could be provided the same
conditions for growing up, including the same quality of schools, as those
afforded to middle-class suburban youth, we would have no crisis (in education)
at all” (p. 27). Otherwise, the
following describes what has been the result of the opportunity gap leading to
a discrepancy in achievement:
A chilling editorial in U.S. News & World Report (Zuckerman,
2006) warned that education and family background are replacing race and gender
as barriers to upward mobility.
Throughout most of the 20th century, young boys and girls
could choose to drop out of school and would still have access to the middle
class. That possibility is increasingly
remote in contemporary America. Today a
school dropout earns only 65 cents for every dollar earned by the high school
graduate and only 33 cents for each dollar earned by those with a bachelor’s
degree (United States Census Bureau, 2006a).
Those with an undergraduate degree are most likely to move up from the
income bracket in which they started, but a student from the top income
quartile has a 1 in 2 chance of earning a degree, while the chances of a
student from the bottom quartile earning a bachelor’s degree are less than 1 in
10. A child in a family earning under
$35,000 has a 1 in 17 chance (Brooks, 2006).
The American dream is receding from reach for many of our children. Education opens not only economic doors, but
other doors as well (DuFour,
DuFour, & Eaker, 2008, pp.60-61).
Readers are encouraged to reflect upon the life opportunities
provided to them. How did your family
rank on the statistical continuum related to SES as noted above? Regardless of your high school successes, if
you were a child in a family earning under $35,000 would you have been able to
attend a college requesting $30K-$40K
per year for annual tuition?
This is why the seven correlates of Effective Schools Research (Lezotte
& Snyder, 2011) address leading indicators of learning. Schools interdependently implementing
Effective Schools Research optimize the mission of learning for all regardless of
SES factors.
We all desire to make a difference for our future students. Collaborative leadership remind us of a sound
mission, provide a clear vision for growth, require our professional integrity
and competency, and detail an action plan for sustained success, thereby optimizing
opportunities to change students’ destinies!
As part of the
solution, last April New York State Governor Cuomo established the New NY Education Reform
Commission to make recommendations for future educational reforms. On January 2, 2013; the bipartisan Commission
provided eight key recommendations:
1.
Provide high quality full-day
pre-kindergarten for our most at-risk students;
2.
Create statewide models for
“Community Schools” that use schools as a community hub to improve access to
public, non-profit, and private services/resources, like health and social
services, for students and their families;
3.
Transform and extend the school day
and year to expand quality learning time for students, especially in
underserved communities;
4.
Improve the teacher and principal
pipeline to recruit and retain the most effective educators;
5.
Build better bridges from high
school to college and careers with early college high schools and career
technical education;
6.
Utilize all available classroom
technologies to empower educators to meet the needs of a diverse student
population and engage students as active participants in their own learning;
7.
Pursue efficiencies such as district
consolidation, high school regionalization and shared services to increase
student access to educational opportunities; and
8.
Increase transparency and
accountability of district leadership by creating a performance management
system.
A Final Action Plan is expected in Fall 2013. In the interim, educators and stakeholders
are encouraged to review the Commission’s recommendations. Submitting your
ideas is essential for addressing the complex and diverse issues potentially
impacting sustained reform for optimal student success.
To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (January 4, 2013) The
disparity between rich and poor districts
create an
opportunity gap [Web log post]
Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References:
DuFour, R.,
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning
communities at
work: New insights for improving
schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Lezotte,
L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do:
Re-envisioning the
correlates. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano,
R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington,
IN: Solution
Tree Press
Reason,
C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with
others.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
