The National
Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) defines literacy as the use of “printed and
written information to function in society, to achieve one's goals, and to
develop one's knowledge and potential.” Average
scores on the Program
for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) literacy
scale for adults age 16 to 65 ranged from 250 in Italy to 296 in Japan. The U.S. average score was 270. Compared with the U.S. average score, the average
scores in 12 countries were higher, in 5 countries they were lower, and in 5
countries they were not significantly different.
A
potential indicator of an opportunity gap rather than an achievement gap is
based on the PIAAC
international average distribution of literacy skills. Comparatively, the United States had a larger
percentage of adults performing at both the top and bottom of the distribution.
Thirteen percent of U.S. adults age
16-65 performed at the highest proficiency level (4/5) on the PIAAC literacy
scale. This was higher than the
international average of 12 percent. Eighteen percent of U.S. adults performed at
the lowest level of the PIAAC literacy scale (at or below Level 1), which was
higher than the international average of 16 percent.
Average
scores on the IALS, ALL, and PIAAC literacy scales for adults in the United
States age 16 to 65: Various years, 1994-2014
<="" * Significantly different (p < .05) from
PIAAC 2012/14.
SOURCE:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Statistics Canada and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), 1994-98; Adult Literacy and
Lifeskills Survey (ALL), 2003-08; and Program for the International Assessment
of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. PIAAC 2012/2014.
1 Data from Australia are not shown due to national
restrictions on the use of their data.
Despite the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act’s (1965) emphasis on closing the achievement gap,
the 2001 reauthorization known as No Child Left Behind has produced
only modest changes to literacy rates. The
PIAAC results (2012/2014) indicate a statistical significant change compared to the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey
(ALL, 2003-08) but was not significantly different than the score
on the International
Adult Literacy Survey (IALS, 1994-98).
Metrics, including those mentioned herein, have sought to quantify gaps
in achievement. However, perhaps it is
time to examine the qualitative experiences found in diverse opportunities.
The reality that problems exist for
families regardless of their Socioeconomic status (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. However, a social justice mindset 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, 2015)
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 reminds us of a sound mission, provides a clear
vision for growth, requires our professional integrity and competency, and
details an action plan for sustained success, thereby optimizing opportunities
to change students’ destinies!
The most
effective way to mitigate the adverse impact of a lack of opportunity is to
ensure public school are culturally responsive, capable of emotional nurturance,
AND highly qualified to deliver the curricula.
The first two leading indicators address essential basic needs: love and
belonging. Maslow (1959) initially
referred to basic needs as “deficiency needs” that must be satisfied BEFORE
growth can occur (p.125). The latter competency
addresses the need for effective differentiation and Response
for (Reading) Intervention. The
results of children failure in early childhood education includes:
- Dropping out in later years at 3-4 times greater rates is correlated with children who have not developed some basic literacy skills by the time they enter school (National Adult Literacy Survey, (2001) NCES, U.S. Department of Education).
- More than 20 percent of adults read at or below a fifth-grade level. This is far below the level needed to earn a living wage (National Institute for Literacy, Fast Facts on Literacy, 2001).
- Approximately 50 percent of the nation's unemployed youth, age 16-21, are functional illiterate. Given this they have virtually no prospects of obtaining good jobs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).
- Illiteracy is a variable in 75% of those on welfare, 85% of unwed mothers and 68% of those arrested are illiterate. About 60% of America's prison inmates are illiterate (Washington Literacy Council).
- Illiteracy and crime are closely related. The Department of Justice states, "The link between academic failure and delinquency, violence, and crime is welded to reading failure." Over 70% of inmates in America's prisons cannot read above a fourth grade level.
The
Parent Nurture Science Program
of Columbia University seeks to identify research-based strategies for
effective parent nurturing. Respective
of the opportunity gap related to poverty and single parent households, this
program should generalize to teachers that must renew the educational axiom: In Loco Parentis. To promote the common good, a culturally
responsive teacher capable of emotional nurturance willingly acts in place of a
parent.
Lastly, the link between reading
failure in the early elementary grades and failure in society is profound. Sixty-six percent (66%) of students who cannot proficiently read
by the end of 4th grade will become involved in jail or on
welfare. More than five million U.S. children
(7%) had a parent who lived with them go to jail or prison. This proportion is higher among black, poor,
and rural children. This creates a cycle
that only a social justice mindset can begin to mitigate. Therefore, next month’s blog post will address the school
failure to prison pipeline.
To cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (May 31, 2016) A social justice must become a leading
indicator for closing the
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.
