Fourth in a Series
One of the most complex aspects of the achievement gap—one that, by and large, is out of the direct control of educational leaders—is the income gap. Broadly defined, the income gap is the standard of living difference between rich and poor, but in the education system, the gap permeates deeply into many dimensions of a student's progression from kindergarten to senior year. This issue, the fourth in a series on the achievement gap, will explore the income gap, the relationship between the income gap and educational achievement, and practices that promise to mitigate its impact.
Dissecting the Income Gap
Research has shown that there are a number of external factors that correlate with student achievement; some can be addressed through the educational environment, and others, for the most part, cannot. Factors affecting student achievement that stem from poverty include low birthweight, lead poisoning, hunger, and poor nutrition (Barton, 2004). Parent availability as a role model or as an active participant in a child's education is frequently limited in low-income families. Student mobility—moving from school to school as parents seek work or affordable housing—occurs more frequently with children from low-income families. Students who change schools frequently also do poorly on tests and are more likely to be below grade level in reading and math than their counterparts who do not change schools (Barton, 2004).
Other components of the income gap relate primarily to the quality of life that money affords. Several gaps demonstrate a meaningful difference in terms of achievement between the poorest students and those of the middle class or beyond (Rothstein, 2004). The “reading gap” refers to reading to children and exposing them at home to meaningful reading materials. Bridging this gap for students from low-income families can make the difference in school readiness and success throughout school.
The “conversation gap” refers to the differences in which low-income and middle-class parents engage their children in conversations. Studies have shown that middle-class parents converse with their children in ways that build the confidence, reasoning, and negotiating skills useful in school and beyond. By contrast, low-income parents tend to give orders to their children, mirroring what they face daily in their own worlds of work. Additionally, parent–child time in low-income families may be limited due to the longer hours spent working one or two jobs (Economic Policy Institute, 2002).
The “role model gap” refers to the differences in types of adults, older siblings, and friends young children are exposed to as they grow. Children of low-income parents are less likely to be exposed to college-educated, professional adults than are children whose parents and siblings routinely associate with these types of people.
These trends are not unique to the United States. Studies conducted in the European Union countries consistently note that students from low-income families have the least success in school, as measured by examination scores (Gorard & Smith, 2004). However, a confounding factor is that “poverty is deeper and more difficult to escape in the United States” when compared to the rest of the 30 countries comprising the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; Economic Policy Institute, 2002, Executive Summary, International Comparisons section, para. 2). For children born into the poorest U.S. families, intergenerational mobility (the ability to achieve an economic status independent of the parents' status) is low relative to that of other advanced countries (Hertz, 2006).
The Economy and the Income Gap
Recent economic trends that affect the status of families have many implications for the success of children in the education system. In addition to the developmental and physical challenges that children from low-income families face prior to entering school and throughout their educational career, economists point to a number of tangential factors that also can affect children's ability to learn. Job losses, long hours on the job, and lack of paid leave for family time affect students' home environment. Trends toward increasing educational and technological requirements for even the lowest-level jobs will stall careers and income potential for families headed by parents with low educational attainment.
Job losses in the early 2000s disproportionately affected African American and Hispanic workers (Economic Policy Institute, 2002) and also disproportionately affected workers with a GED, a high school diploma, or some college education, compared to those with a college degree (Economic Policy Institute, 2002). Those who were working spent more hours on the job; therefore, they had less time to assist their children with their homework, read aloud to them, and be involved in school functions—all factors that contribute to the success of children in school.
Studies have shown that a family breadwinner with a high school diploma spends more time at work than if the breadwinner were a college graduate. Additionally, married couples with children work more hours—up to 16 weeks more over the course of a year—than they did 25 years ago. African American and Hispanic families work more hours than white families, and with the advent of welfare reform, more single mothers are in the workforce than in the recent past. Research also shows that Americans as a group work more hours per year than any other wealthy, industrialized economy (Economic Policy Institute, 2002).
During economic downturns, a college degree can serve as a buffer to unemployment, but current data suggest that this buffer may become less available to low-income families. According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, “If current trends continue, the proportion of workers with high school diplomas and college degrees will decrease and the personal income of Americans will decline over the next 15 years” (2005, p. 1). This projected decline in educational levels, if realized, may occur simultaneously with a rise in knowledge requirements for most jobs, creating a “push-out” effect for those unable to successfully navigate the educational system and obtain the required degrees. Data suggest that there will be a proportional increase of minorities, a subgroup currently underserved by the educational system, in the workforce in the wake of the retirement of the predominately white baby boom population (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2005). “Economists generally agree ... that demographic changes over the next two decades threaten to make income disparities worse unless the nation does a much better job addressing the educational needs of low-income and minority students” (Olson, 2006, p. 4).
These factors predict a continuing widening of the education gap—a gap that has nearly doubled for Hispanics and Latinos and has increased by 30 percent for African-Americans in the past 20 years (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2005). This widening education gap will continue to fuel the income gap as access to higher-paying jobs declines, causing a decrease in personal income. Decreased income, in turn, will affect the tax base on which our school systems reside, impacting the quality of schools in less affluent neighborhoods, making it difficult for low-income students to “catch up.” Further, the educational rates in the United States have not kept pace with other countries, with the potential to cause a decline in U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Changes in the labor market underscore the urgency of bridging the income gap. Students born to low-income families today must master the skills necessary to increase their own mobility and move over the barrier of low-end personal service jobs “held by the working poor, such as janitors, cafeteria workers and security guards” (Olson, 2006, p. 2). The key to the higher-end jobs is not only education, but also proficiency in computers used to increase productivity in higher-end labor categories such as managerial, professional, and technical. Now, more than ever before, a college degree seems to be the ticket out of the cycle of poverty—college graduates earn 80 percent more than high school graduates (Olson, 2006).
A Closer Look at Education and Mobility
How well prepared for work are students who complete high school but not college? The most recent international data by the OECD illustrate how well education systems in different countries prepare high school graduates to enter and succeed in adult employment today.
The most basic indicator of mobility is the rate of completion of high school. Of 23 advanced countries, the United States ranks third from last, with 73 percent graduating high school at the typical age, slightly ahead of the United Kingdom (71 percent); but behind 17 other European countries, as well as Australia, Canada, and Japan. Of these 20 countries, 15 have graduation rates over 80 percent, and 7 of them have rates over 90 percent.
The full-time employment rate of secondary school graduates 20 to 24 entering the workforce is 77.3 percent in the United States, with a nearly identical rate in France. But both are behind Australia, Canada, and 9 countries in Europe. All 9, including the United Kingdom, have employment rates above 80 percent, and 4 of them have rates over 90 percent for new graduates.
Finally, in the “upper tier services” jobs sector of the economy, high school graduates ages 25 to 29 with experience do fairly well in the United States: their employment rate is 37.8 percent in this “hot jobs” sector—better than in Canada (33.5) or in Australia (29.6). But the United States is only a half percentage point better than France (37.3), and falls behind Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, all placing from 40.7 to 55.3 percent of high school graduates in high-wage services jobs (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005).
The United States does have opportunities for improvement by increasing high school graduation rates and by strengthening technological preparation for students who do not go on to college.
Bridging the Income Gap—Starting Early
One key to bridging the income gap is to start early—before a student reaches kindergarten, and well before the impact of the gap starts to show up on test scores. Consider the example of “a malnourished child who entered the world at below-average birthweight and now has health problems and decaying teeth. Will high standards, test-based accountability, and higher-quality teaching boost this child's achievement enough to eliminate the gap?” (Barton, 2004, p. 13). The answer most likely is no—educational interventions alone will not be sufficient.
The U.S. government has attempted to bridge the gap for more than 40 years through academic enrichment programs such as Title I and Head Start, and, still, a gap persists. Nutrition enrichment programs such as the National School Lunch Program, first implemented 60 years ago, are clearly insufficient. It's not that these programs “don't work”—it's that the programs are not sufficient to counteract pervasive poverty.
A resounding theme throughout the educational literature is the need to intervene at the earliest ages possible, preparing children from poor families to enter school by supporting their health and developmental needs so they are on equal footing with their classmates when they arrive. The achievement gap for children living in poverty begins as early as age 3. Thus, Head Start now serves children from birth to 5, and most states are now making available prekindergarten programs, which are showing promise as an early intervention, according to a recent study by the assistant secretary for planning and evaluation (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). In addition to nearly 1 million children from low-income families benefiting from national programs such as Head Start (Administration for Children and Families, 2005), state programs help another 750,000 children. Taken together, these programs are reaching 7 percent of the estimated 13 million children living in poverty, according to census estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
Quality is an important element of early childhood programs. Quality programs are not just safe places to park children while the parents work. They are strategically designed to provide academic and nutritional enrichment that parallels the middle-class experience. “The quality of early childhood programs is as important as the existence of such programs themselves” (Rothstein, 2006, Wealth vs. Income section, para. 5). Professional caregivers, low child–adult ratios, developmentally appropriate curricula, parental involvement, and links to the public schools the children will later attend are widely documented elements of quality.
Interventions for Older Kids
Other tools to help bridge the gap are after-school, intersession, and summer programs for children from low-income families. In addition to offering remedial academic work, these programs must mirror the experiences middle-class children would have in their nonschool hours. Activities such as sports, outdoor recreation, fine arts, field trips, and recreational reading help children build the confidence, social skills, creativity, discipline, and inquisitiveness to help them succeed in school alongside of their middleclass peers (Rothstein, 2006).
School-based health care is another intervention that can be used to bridge the income gap for both children and their families. At the most basic level, school vision and dental clinics are relatively inexpensive to provide (Rothstein, 2006). Across the United States, comprehensive school-based health centers, which provide a wide range of medical and mental health services to children and adolescents, are being established in response to the recognized need for such services to support educational success (National Assembly of School-Based Health Care, 2002). Currently, there are 1,500 such clinics located on school premises that are supported by a blend of funds from grants, foundations, and reimbursements from public and private health insurance.
A Focus on Teaching
Factors correlating with student achievement that are within the control of the education system are rigorous curriculum, teacher experience and attendance, teacher preparation, class size, technology-assisted instruction, and safe school environment (Barton, 2004). Schools also can have a strong influence on parent participation, another factor in student success. “Wealthy communities with families that place a high value on learning are likely to have strong schools, attract good teachers, and have healthy interactions between parents and teachers” (Barton, 2004, p. 13). The challenge, then, is to provide supports so the educational experience for students in high-poverty schools mirrors their middle-class counterparts' experience.
Studies have shown that several factors related to teacher quality have a positive impact on student achievement: experience, targeted preparation, and teacher attendance. Teachers with at least five years of experience can have a positive effect on achievement; conversely, those with fewer years of experience and those teaching “out-of-field” generally are less effective in the classroom. According to Barton (2004), researchers have found that minority and low-income students are more likely to be taught by teachers with fewer than three years of experience and by teachers who are teaching “out-of-field.” Minority students also are taught by substitutes at more than double the rate of white students. “Communities characterized by low family income are likely to have schools with fewer resources to attract highly qualified teachers,” notes Barton (2004, p. 13).
A focus on teacher training and teacher quality in schools serving low-income areas can help bridge the gap. Teachers who have been exposed to low-income school environments during their preservice training are likely to be better prepared to serve effectively on like assignments. Research conducted on a 10-year partnership between a high-poverty elementary school and a local university in North Carolina shows benefits to both institutions. The elementary school benefits from the addition of the preservice teachers to their staff, helping to lower the adult–child ratio and provide personalized instruction to more students in need. The preservice teachers gain valuable experience working in schools that serve low-income populations and benefit from close supervision and feedback from their university professors (Miller, Duffy, Rohr, Gasparello, & Mercier, 2005).
Better preparing teachers to work in these environments allows for more effective learning and teaching, and placing the best teachers in the lowest-performing schools has quantifiable payoffs. For example, one study in Illinois demonstrated that twice as many students in high-poverty schools with high-quality teachers met state standards when compared to schools with low teacher quality. High-quality teachers also were shown to have an influence on college readiness and college math readiness (Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Targeted Programs for Older Students
Traditional vocational education programs, once largely “holding tanks” for noncollege-bound students who would go straight from high school into skilled trades, have largely given way to more-focused programs infused with academic rigor. These types of programs, generally known as career and technical education (CTE), integrate academic and career-focused education and training to motivate students who are at risk as well as those who are bored by pure academics but thrive in an applied environment. Another break from the vocational programs of the past is that CTE is not a terminal program—many students graduate high school and go on to college or other postsecondary training critical to success in today's job markets. Although programs still offer traditional trades such as plumbing, carpentry, and HVAC, other specialties including biotechnology; landscape management; and architectural, engineering, and teaching programs have become more widely available, and information technology is infused throughout the curriculum (Aratani, 2006).
One model of the new CTE, High Schools That Work (HSTW), is a school improvement initiative designed by the Southern Regional Education Board. HSTW has been implemented in more than 1,200 schools in 32 states since its inception nearly 20 years ago. It combines rigorous academics and high expectations for students with career and technical training that allows them to apply their academic and problem-solving skills to real-world challenges. Studies have shown that as schools move toward full implementation of the HSTW design, academic achievement rises and dropout rates fall (Hood, 2006). Gene Bottoms, vice president of the Southern Regional Education Board, credits the combination of demanding academics and “access to high-quality career and technical studies that provide a sense of purpose” (Hood, 2006, p. 2) for the program's success. Since HSTW was implemented in West Virginia 10 years ago, the percentage of high school graduates going on to college has risen from 42 to 60 percent (Hood, 2006). Other improvements include an increase in the number of students taking advanced placement tests and the ACT college admissions exam. In 2004, West Virginia had the highest gain in ACT scores in the country (Hood, 2006).
Two other programs that show promise also share the central premise of combining academics with targeted career-focused training. Career academies are small communities within a school that combine vocational education and academic instruction targeted to a specific career pathway with local businesses or professional organizations to give students on-the-job training. Examples of career pathways include education, engineering, finance, communications, construction, health, hospitality and tourism, information technology, and public service. There are more than 2,500 career academies nationwide, and a recent evaluation, although inconclusive about the academic value of academy versus traditional preparation, noted that “the programs' most dramatic impact was on the earning potential of young men” (Hood, 2006, p. 3). Academy graduates showed an 18 percent increase in earnings over a four-year period.
Along a similar vein, Project Lead the Way (PLTW) creates a path to an engineering career from middle school to high school, preparing students to continue their training in two- or four-year colleges. The program includes a “boot camp” for teachers and an extensive national network of colleges and universities, state and federal entities, and the business community. PLTW has been implemented in more than 1,700 schools in 47 states over the past 10 years, and a recent study points to improved academic achievement over other CTE students as measured by test scores in reading, science, and math (Hood, 2006).
Policy Recommendations
Entirely eliminating the income gap and its pervasive effects on student achievement is outside of the reach of the public education system. However, by addressing the most serious components of the gap with policy and programmatic interventions—especially if they are combined for an integrated impact—educators can make a difference.
Based on the research reviewed for this Infobrief, here are several recommendations for policy improvements at the school, community, and budgetary levels.
School-Level
- Modify hiring practices and assignment strategies to ensure that high-quality teachers serve in low-performing schools.
- Develop data systems that link teacher quality to student achievement.
- Address oft-cited reasons for teacher attrition, such as school climate and leadership.
- Implement new career and technical education models that link to college or career path education standards and opportunities, ideally both in the classroom and the workplace.
Community-Level
- Implement policies, programs, and services to better connect schools with community and parental resources.
- Recognize the needs of the whole child and provide access to nutrition, healthcare, and other necessary services.
- Form partnerships with teacher preparation programs to link them to high-poverty schools.
Budget Priorities
- Revamp budgeting practices—ensure non-affluent districts have sufficient resources to meet the needs of their students.
- Use data on achievement attrition and teacher quality to make data-driven decisions on reallocating resources.
The income gap is only one of many components of the achievement gap. Subsequent issues of Infobrief will continue to examine best practice for closing the achievement gap by identifying and addressing the needs of families and communities, as well as needs inside schools. The series will continue to examine the research available to support decision makers in developing policy to strengthen the crucial interplay between teachers, families, communities, and schools in fostering success in learning for all students.
An Economist's View of the Income Gap
Anthony Carnevale is a nationally known education policy and labor market expert. Currently chief economist at the National Center for Education and the Economy, he previously held that position at both the Educational Testing Service and the Committee for Economic Development. He also served by presidential appointment as chair of the National Commission on Employment Policy.
Q: Is the income gap getting worse or better over time—what's happening? Would the gap continue if economic growth increased significantly?
A: The gap continues to grow. Very rapid growth can create worker shortages at the bottom that raise wages among low-skilled workers. This happened in the late 90s, but by only a very small amount and only for three years. The demand for unskilled labor is declining or has been automated or off-shored since the 70s. Increased growth favors demand for both skilled and unskilled labor. If demand results in a scarcity of either, the price will go up.
Q: What's the risk of outsourcing and “off-shoring” to jobs and education futures?
A: With the addition of Brazil, Russia, India, and China to the rest of the world's workforce, we have doubled the capitalist workforce and reduced our share of the world's college-level workers from about 30 percent to 15 percent. And foreign college workers will be lot cheaper than American workers for decades. But more than 70 percent of off-shored jobs have required at least some college. Now, as many as 40 million (of 150 million) American jobs are theoretically vulnerable to off-shoring. So, college-level job creation becomes the proper measure of success in our economic strategies, and employability in middle-class jobs becomes the ultimate accountability standard for measuring educational adequacy—for other people's children, as well as our own.
Q: Today's K–12 education system seems to work for advantaged kids but not for disadvantaged kids. What's the big problem here—schools, poverty, or both?
A: As the relationship between educational and economic success becomes more refined over time, access to college is increasingly concentrated among families with collegeeducated parents and high wages. No doubt, if education is to continue in its increasingly powerful role as the principle arbiter of opportunity in America, a lot needs fixing. All by itself, education is not enough to create a fair or workable social contract. In a society where people start out unequal, educational attainment, as measured by test scores and grades, can become a dodge. Among equally performing high school students, youth from low-income families go to four-year colleges at half the rate of their peers from middle- and upper-income families. And youth from low-income families in the top quartile of high school test scores go to college less frequently than affluent youth in the lowest test quartile.
Q: Is college the only ticket up and out for disadvantaged kids? Should all kids to go college?
A: So long as there is no viable alternative to postsecondary education, it is the only option. American employers hire on the basis of potential as measured by educational attainment or achievement and the selectivity of the educational experience. Only those with the most demonstrated potential get jobs with training and technology that further enhances their productivity and earning power.
Q: Do higher-level skills and knowledge provide educational security? How “good” does education need to be? What changes in policy are practical and could make a difference?
A: While the current academic curricula in American high schools delivers the mathematical and verbal reasoning skills required to succeed in college and at work, it may not be the most effective or the only way to deliver these general skills for all students.
First, there is a need to integrate academic and applied curriculums. The current math, science, and humanities curricula are organized as discrete hierarchies of increasing complexity and abstraction. Because they are taught as specialties, they are less and less accessible to generalists at each successive level of specialization. Because they are taught abstractly, they don't take advantage of applied pedagogy and are less accessible to students with an applied orientation and learning style.
Second, the focus on an academic core curriculum in high school does not provide an obvious transition to the more applied focus of postsecondary education and training. The majority of students step off the disciplinary hierarchy after high school. In postsecondary education, the vast majority avoid the academic silos in favor of curricula with a stronger career focus. Relatively few of us, less than 5 percent, use geometry, algebra, or calculus on the job. Mathematical literacy in labor markets is an ability to use relatively basic math operations with increasing independence and in situations of increasing complexity.
Q: What can K–12, especially high schools, do to close the income gap?
A: Qualify kids for college; create an accountability regime based on value-added individual student improvement; provide sufficient resources to enable the integration of student transcripts and employer wage records.
|
References
Administration for Children and Families. (2005). Head Start program fact sheet. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2006.htm
Aratani, L. (2006, March 12). Vo-tech as a door to college.
The Washington Post, p. C11. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101158.html
Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap persist? Educational Leadership, 62(3), 9–13.
Economic Policy Institute. (2002). The state of working America 2002–03. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from
www.epi.org/printer.cfm?id=900&content_type=1&nice_name=books
Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education, 40(1), 15–28.
Hertz, T. (2006). Understanding mobility in America. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Hood, L. (2006). Beyond Auto Shop 1: Is career and technical education a promising path for high school reform?
Harvard Education Letter, 22(4), 1–3.
Miller, S., Duffy, G. G., Rohr, J., Gasparello, R., & Mercier, S. (2005). Preparing teachers for high-poverty schools.
Educational Leadership, 62(8), 62–65.
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care. (2002). School-based health centers: A blueprint for healthy learners. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from
www.nasbhc.org/APP/2002_data_fact_sheet_blueprint.pdf
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2005). Policy Alert. San Jose, California: Author.
Olson, L. (2006). Economic trends fuel push to retool schooling.
Education Week, 25(28), 1, 20, 22, 24.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2005. Paris: Author.
Peske, H., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and the classroom: Even the best schools can't close the race achievement gap. American School Board Journal, 191(10), 16–21.
Rothstein, R. (2006). The social and economic realities that challenge all schools: Independent, charter, and regular public schools alike. Independent School, 65(2), 18–26. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from
www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?Itemnumber=148102&sn.ItemNumber=145956&tn.ItemNumber=145958
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). U.S. Census Bureau News. Retrieved September 7, 2006, from
www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003).
State-funded pre-kindergarten: What the evidence shows. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/state-funded-pre-k/index.htm