Preface

A large part of the problem lies in the fact that many educators do not understand what it means to engage in educational practices that promote equity. Equity involves more than simply ensuring that children have equal access to education. Equity also entails a focus on outcomes and results. In Inequality (Jencks et al., 1972), Christopher Jencks and his colleagues argue that Americans are generally comfortable with the principle of equal opportunity, but they tend to be divided over the question of equality in results. This is because Americans tend to see talent and ability as unevenly distributed in the population. The so-called bell curve has permeated our consciousness, so we accept the idea that high intelligence is possessed by a relatively small number of people, whereas a greater number of people hover in the average range, and a smaller but still significant number are at the lower levels of intelligence. Research on IQ (intelligence quotient) and testing support these assumptions, so it is hardly surprising that these beliefs are difficult to dislodge.

However, No Child Left Behind is to a large degree based on a different set of assumptions about human intelligence and ability. In its requirement that schools produce evidence that all children, regardless of their status or background, are learning, NCLB calls for a revision of the paradigm that has guided educational policy and practice for the last 200 years. Instead of measuring student ability and sorting students accordingly—separating the "gifted" from the "giftless"—NCLB requires schools to cultivate talent and ability in all children. The simple fact that all schools within a state are held to the same academic standards suggests that our policymakers now believe that children in Watts should be able to do as well as children in Beverly Hills, and that children in the South Bronx can compete with children in Scarsdale.

There are certain problems with these assumptions, especially because we have done very little to address the inequity in resources among schools and because many poor children have a variety of nonacademic needs that affect their ability to learn. Still, the mere idea that we would hold children to similar expectations regardless of their race, language, socioeconomic status, or nationality is a major breakthrough. We have never had such expectations before.

Clearly, our society (and the rest of the world) will have an ongoing need for individuals capable of advanced intellectual performance. Likewise, schools will continue to play a major role in identifying students with talent and making sure they receive the support needed to reach their potential. However, we must acknowledge that the process used for identifying those with talent or potential is not precise and often deeply flawed. In many cases, individuals who possess the capacity to achieve—and even produce greatness—are denied that opportunity simply because the educators charged with cultivating talent are unable to identify and support students whose gifts are not readily apparent.

We know this because there are many individuals who have displayed intellectual brilliance and accomplished great things not because of the schools they attended but in spite of them. For example, Netscape founder Jack Clark performed so poorly in school that he failed the test to enter the U.S. Navy. Required to enroll in a remedial math course before retaking the exam, Clark was fortunate: His teacher recognized that he possessed an extraordinary (though undeveloped) talent in math. The teacher encouraged Clark to pursue his education, and after enrolling in a local community college, Clark soon demonstrated so much ability that he was able to transfer to Stanford University, where he studied computer science and received a full scholarship. The rest of Clark's story is better known because he went on to establish one of the leading technology companies in the world.

There are, of course, many others: Dean Kamen was placed in special education classes due to a learning disability, but through hard work and support from his parents, he was able to excel in school and went on to found one of the nation's leading biotechnology firms. Ben Carson, one of the nation's most prominent heart surgeons, nearly dropped out of school after his teachers confused his Black southern dialect with a speech impediment and placed him in remedial classes.

We cite these individuals as examples because they were denied educational opportunities but still went on to achieve greatness. None of them exhibited the traits typically associated with talent and ability. Either they struggled in school or they were denied opportunities because of circumstances beyond their control—the schools they attended; the parents to whom they were born; or simply the fact that they were poor, non-White, or both. They are noteworthy individuals because they managed to succeed in life despite their failures in school. Their stories should do more than give us a reason to celebrate their perseverance and resilience; they should also serve as a pointed reminder that these people are the lucky ones. The question that should keep us, as educators, awake at night is this: How many others have slipped through the cracks simply because they weren't as lucky?

For the longest time, the strongest predictor of academic success in school has been family income combined with parents' level of education (Jencks et al., 1972). In many respects, this is hardly surprising. After all, affluent children generally attend the best schools, and their parents often use their education and wealth to ensure that they receive the support and nurturing needed to excel. Likewise, highly educated parents tend to pass on the benefits of their education to their children. They consciously devise strategies to provide their children with certain kinds of intellectual stimulation (e.g., taking them to museums and other cultural centers, providing music lessons and a literacy-rich home environment), and they tend to be careful and discriminating about the schools their children attend. Such actions are understandable, and parents who play an active and thoughtful role in supporting the education of their children should be commended.

However, what about those children from certain minority groups, who are not born affluent, or whose parents are not well educated? Unless we believe that those who have more are inherently superior to those who have less, we should be troubled by the fact that patterns of achievement are often fairly predictable, particularly with respect to children's race and class background. We should be troubled because there are undoubtedly other children with potential similar to that possessed by Jack Clark, Dean Kamen, and Ben Carson. We should be particularly disturbed if our schools fail to enable the children of the poor to escape poverty and instead do little more than reproduce existing patterns of inequality in U.S. society.

Sadly, there is considerable evidence that this is exactly how many public schools in the United States work. In most U.S. schools, race and class are strong predictors of achievement, and it is rare to find poor or ethnic minority children from less educated families achieving at high levels. In fact, these patterns are so consistent that when we see schools ranked by their test scores, we are not surprised to find that wherever poverty is concentrated and schools are segregated, achievement tends to be lowest.

Fortunately, this isn't always the case. A small but significant number of high-performing, high-poverty schools do exist. A report entitled Dispelling the Myth Revisited (Education Trust, 2002) identifies more than 3,000 such schools across the United States. The existence of such schools is all the proof we need that, under the right conditions, poor and minority-group children can achieve at high levels. The question is this: How do we make it possible for more schools to produce similar results? In this book, we will explore this vital question.

This book is divided into three distinct but overlapping sections. In Part I, we discuss the salient components of the achievement gap. We provide documentation of its existence and complexities. We situate the gap in terms of historical, sociopolitical, and societal contexts. We also take on the thorny issue of how matters of race and academic achievement have been and should be linked. In Part II, we provide a fine-grained presentation of research that supports certain promising approaches and practices that need to occur in our nation's schools. By examining the research findings presented in Part II, we hope that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers will come to appreciate how rigorous empirical research informs what can work in teaching and learning contexts to help eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. Part III examines practical applications on a broader scale. We focus on what certain schools and districts are doing to successfully address the achievement gap as they create greater opportunities to learn for all students. We also move from research to practice by posing policy directions that should be pursued to better ensure that effective programs, approaches, and practices are successfully implemented.

—A. Wade Boykin and Pedro Noguera