Análisis de resultados

The review starts with an assessment of the recent work of Hugh B. Price, past President of the National Urban League of America. In his recent text, Achievement Matters (2002) he addresses issues of academic achievement for minority children and outlines the roles and responsibilities of their parents in the education process. This text is not presented as pure academic scholarship in education. The text was developed for academic and for popular reading. However, this text addresses many of the most important issues for the early years of education and achievement for minority children in American school systems.

The work of Hugh Price (2002) starts by making the distinction between what he terms the “achievement gap” and the “preparation gap” in the early education of minority children. Price contends that the emphasis in the education of these children is misplaced. Although educational research documents that there exists a significant achievement gap in the early education of minority children, the author views the “preparation gap” as being the more critical focal point.

The scholarship of Hugh Price (2002) places emphasis on education as the great equalizer in American society. His position, is, that education is the key to accessing opportunity and getting ahead in this country [America]. His thesis is validated by the assertion that, “the most educated one is, the least likely to be unemployed” (p. 3).

Price (2002) suggests several considerations for the early year’s education of minority children:

a. Eighty-five percent of all jobs in contemporary society are skilled or professional. The bottom line is that one needs a solid education in order to succeed in the Information Age economy of the 21st _century.

b. Youngsters who can barely read by the fourth grade face a steep uphill climb the rest of the way through school and later in life (p. 2).

c. The days of letting minority children view academic achievement as irrelevant, unimportant, “uncool,” or “acting white” are long gone (p. 3). d. Experts contend that parents are their first teachers.

Price notes that the vast majority of black children attend public schools. Therefore, “beyond doing what we must at home, improving public schools that perform miserably is the other key to boosting the achievement levels of children” (p. 5). Price (2002) submits that black and Latino 12th -graders in urban schools stack up about equally with white suburbanites in the eighth grade. In addition, those middle-class black students in integrated suburban

schools generally lag behind their white and Asian classmates.

The preparation issue is refocused in the work of Jean Anyon (1981) who conducted research on the affects of social class and school knowledge. Both studies (i.e., Price, 2002) recognize the need for all students, regardless of social class, to have access to “quality-focused” (early) educational experiences.

Price’s (2002) work acknowledges that these achievement gaps are set along ethnic and economic lines in American education. His research presents an alternative but realistic view of the early childhood education of minority children. The author defines the preparation gap more specifically as:

It is the gap between what poor and minority children know vs. what they need to know in order to meet state academic standards, move from one grade to the next, and eventually graduate from high school. There is also that gap between what they can do and what they must be able to do in order to land good jobs and get into college and trade schools (p. 14).

This discussion of appropriate schooling outcomes and achievement substantiates what various other educational psychologists’ have found (Heyns, 1978; Anyon, 1981; Shumow,

2001; & Landgraf, 2002) in early minority childhood education. This “preparation gap” widens as these students move through elementary school. Price (2002) contends that the elementary school years are a defining experience for children that will heavily shape their lives all the way through adolescence and beyond.

In a classic study on the effects of school and learning outcomes, Barbara Heyns (1978) conducted an experiment in education that determined the effects of continued schooling on poor and minority children. Heyns (1978) conducted research that measured the amount of achievement that is lost from the previous school year in elementary and middle school children (In, Stark, 1992).

Heyns’ (1978) results provided strong evidence that schooling matters much more to some kinds of children than to others. Minority and economically disadvantaged students declined precipitously over the summer vacation based on the study, while the scores of more affluent children remained stable. What Heyns found means that, rather than merely maintaining differences children bring to school, schools greatly improve the academic situations of poor children (In, Stark, 1988, 1992).

When minority and economically disadvantaged schoolchildren were provided with supplemental summer learning activities, the results of the Heyns (1978) study indicated:

The single summer activity that is most strongly and consistently related to summer learning is reading. Whether measured by the number of books read, by the time-spent reading, or by the regularity of library usage, reading during the summer systematically increases the vocabulary test scores of children (p. 33).

Heyns’ (1978) findings also suggest that schools might be much more effective for minority and poor children if the school year was extended.

The issue of effectively educating low-income and minority children is not new social policy in America. In the year 1964, The Congress of the United States instituted, upon the

recommendation of the President of the United States, implemented the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The goal of the education reform initiatives contained in the ESEA (1964) was to effectively close what Price (2002), and others term the “preparation” and “achievement” gaps for economically disadvantaged and minority children. The objective was to reduce the disparity in educational achievement between these children and the more socially advantaged children in America.

Federally sponsored educational initiatives aimed at early-year interventions for minority children have over a 40-year history in the United States. The most popular of these initiatives has been the Head Start Program (Young & Exum, 1982). In the year 2003, a new debate is prominent in the U.S. Congress and in the Executive Branch that directs the Project Head Start educational policies to focus on early childhood learning activities versus childcare and social learning skills (USOE, 2003). The new policy focus targets academic preparation at the earliest levels of education for America’s underprivileged children (NCLBA, 2001).

The preparation debate has spilled over into the U. S. Congress concerning the spending of federal resources to improve minority and economically disadvantaged students’ achievement. The U.S. Congress appears to take the position that spending more money for compensatory programs has not guaranteed success, and that the federal government could use its resources wisely for overall education reform (NCLBA, 2001). Research studies from the U.S. Department of Education indicate that since 1966, the federal government has spent 321 Billion (in today’s dollars [2006]) to assist disadvantaged children.

Figure 3-7 Documentation of Federal Spending on Education Programs

Source: www.nochildleftbehind.gov.

The USOE research (NCLBA, 2001) illustrates that despite increased spending: • Less than one-third of our nation’s fourth graders read proficiently • Reading performance has not improved in more than 15 years

• Less than 20% of our nation’s 12th graders score proficiently in math, and • Among the industrialized nations of the world, our 12th graders rank near the

bottom in science and math (NCLBA, 2001).

In the year 2001 and in an unprecedented bi-partisan effort by Congress the United States government instituted a major revision of the 1964 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The new education reform initiative is entitled, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). The new federal education policies place emphasis on preparation and achievement in K-12 level schools. The No Child Left Behind Act holds our nation’s elementary and secondary schools accountable for effective learning and achievement outcomes. According to the review of the NCLBA of 2001 policies and statutes, all states must implement statewide accountability systems that are intended to:

• Set academic standards in each content area for what students should know,

• Report school academic performance and achievement to parents and communities,

• Empower parent’s to take action based on school information, • Recognize schools that make progress, and

• Direct changes in schools that need help.

http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/next//overview/overview.html.

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the NCLBA education reform policies are implemented through a statewide Pennsylvania System of School Assessments (PSSA) program. The purpose of the PSSA assessments is to evaluate how each school district is meeting its educational objectives for student achievement. The PSSA assesses the achievement development of pupils at levels, 5th, 8th, and grade 11. The results of the PSSA are used in various ways by the PDE, state funding sources, and by local education authorities [See Appendix H].

However, the NCLBA federal policies also ensure that state and local officials have the flexibility to find local solutions to local problems (NCLBA, 2001):

• Encourages using federal money to solve local problems, not to subsidize bureaucracies, and

• Principals and administrators will spend less time filling out forms and dealing with federal red tape. They will have more time to focus on student achievement.

However, there are several distinctions between the 1964 ESEA, and the 2001 NCLB Act, as noted from the research. For instance, in the year 1964 the reform policies under the ESEA focused more on raising achievement levels of economically disadvantaged students in America. Conversely, the NCLBA of 2001 is structured as a comprehensive plan that targets all

of the nation’s students for improved educational achievement. In noting some further distinguishing characteristics of the 2001 NCLBA, the policy guidelines note that:

• It only funds curricula and teaching methods that are scientifically proven to work.

• Under the NCLBA, the federal government will invest in educational practices that research evidence has shown to be effective in improving student performance.

The NCLBA (2001) gives every parent the information, options, and freedom to get their sons and daughters out of failing schools. The research on minority student preparation and achievement is indicating that the NCLBA approach is the most salient means to address current education problems with this group. Past educational research also demonstrates that,

1) Many parents of poor and minority parents do not take full advantage of these innovative educational initiatives designed to assist their children; and,

2) The parents of minority and poor children might not receive the appropriate information and guidance on new educational programs and school district policies. Therefore, the lapse time for when these initiatives are most beneficial to minority and economically disadvantaged students varies disproportionately (Young & Exum, 1982).

In the state of Pennsylvania, a pertinent example of the effective use of NCLBA funding for improving the reading skills of low-achieving students can be found in an innovative education initiative entitled, the Classroom Plus Program (PDE, 2003).

The Classroom Plus initiative provides each family of low-reading achievement elementary level pupils (i.e., grades three to six with a $500.00 (PDE, 2003) voucher/grant to supplement tutoring for improving their children’s educational performance in reading and mathematics (PDE, 2003). The grants are awarded directly to the families of the student(s) and can be used for reading development, and for the tutorial programs of their choice. The participants must be reading at least one year below grade level on an approved standardized

Classroom Plus voucher/grants are not income-bound, and might be utilized for private tutoring, or in state approved after-school academic programs for children.

Shumow (2001) found that there is a significant impact on improving educational achievement for children who attend after-school academic programs. Pierce and Vandell (1999) also demonstrated that academically at-risk children who attended after-school programs more frequently, as compared with children who attended less often, developed better work habits in their school classrooms, attended school more often, and endorsed less aggressive strategies to resolve conflicts with peers.

Educational research by Shumow (2002) further suggests that children from high-risk backgrounds have the most to gain from after-school programs in terms of educational opportunity. The research studies on the affects of extending the traditional school day for low- achieving children shows that this specific intervention strategy positively impacts academic improvement and promotes success in educational activities.

Price (2002) offers the following recommendations to the parents of minority and economically disadvantaged children:

1. Get an early start on making muse these children become good readers by reading to them from the time they are toddlers, and having them read to you as soon as they are able.

2. Be sure that they read for fun because this builds a love of learning and discovery through reading, and besides, practice makes proficient readers.

3. Establish appropriate routines at home, like creating quiet time for homework and recreational reading, and limiting the amount of television they can watch.

4. Visit libraries, bookstores, and book fairs with your children so that they can see that reading is important to you and that it is should be to them.

One of the important elements that stand out in Price’s (2002) recommendations for effective education interventions is that none of these practices will cost the parent’s any significant amount of money.

However, Hugh Price (2002), and Majors & Jolliffe (2001a; 2001b) also suggest that since black, Latino, and Native-American youngsters usually lag way behind in school their parents must stay on the lookout against their children losing ground. Price (2002) presents some ways that the parents of these children should hold schools accountable, and implement some good family practices around education:

1. Given the tendency of black youngsters to slip backward around the third or fourth grade, you should be especially alert for any backsliding in these grades even if they did well in the early years.

2. Monitor each report card and make sure your child is performing at grade level or better. Ask to see data and test scores.

3. Talk frequently to your children about what is happening in class. Look for signs that they are extremely bored, disengaged, dropping out, or withdrawn from school.

4. Challenge any suggestions by the schools to place your child in special education. Insist on receiving a second opinion about whether the placement is necessary.

5. Keep your children from falling under the influence of friends and classmates who say achievement isn’t important, and,

6. Seek assistant from relatives, and community support persons to invest in your child’s education (Price, 2002).

The review of federal education policy clearly indicates that there exists an influential “camp” in the U. S. Congress who contend that preparation is the key element necessary for building and for sustaining minority children on the path of academic achievement (Burd, 2002). Educators, policymakers, and parents appear convinced that the early-years of academic achievement, enhanced preparation, quality of schools and school outcomes, and the use of

appropriate educational interventions will provide the impetus for success for minority children on the “road to higher education” in America.