unequal educational opportunities essay

Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education

Subscribe to governance weekly, linda darling-hammond ld linda darling-hammond.

March 1, 1998

• 13 min read

W.E.B. DuBois was right about the problem of the 21st century. The color line divides us still. In recent years, the most visible evidence of this in the public policy arena has been the persistent attack on affirmative action in higher education and employment. From the perspective of many Americans who believe that the vestiges of discrimination have disappeared, affirmative action now provides an unfair advantage to minorities. From the perspective of others who daily experience the consequences of ongoing discrimination, affirmative action is needed to protect opportunities likely to evaporate if an affirmative obligation to act fairly does not exist. And for Americans of all backgrounds, the allocation of opportunity in a society that is becoming ever more dependent on knowledge and education is a source of great anxiety and concern.

At the center of these debates are interpretations of the gaps in educational achievement between white and non-Asian minority students as measured by standardized test scores. The presumption that guides much of the conversation is that equal opportunity now exists; therefore, continued low levels of achievement on the part of minority students must be a function of genes, culture, or a lack of effort and will (see, for example, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom’s America in Black and White).

The assumptions that undergird this debate miss an important reality: educational outcomes for minority children are much more a function of their unequal access to key educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality curriculum, than they are a function of race. In fact, the U.S. educational system is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status. In contrast to European and Asian nations that fund schools centrally and equally, the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. school districts spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent, and spending ratios of 3 to 1 are common within states. Despite stark differences in funding, teacher quality, curriculum, and class sizes, the prevailing view is that if students do not achieve, it is their own fault. If we are ever to get beyond the problem of the color line, we must confront and address these inequalities.

The Nature of Educational Inequality

Americans often forget that as late as the 1960s most African-American, Latino, and Native American students were educated in wholly segregated schools funded at rates many times lower than those serving whites and were excluded from many higher education institutions entirely. The end of legal segregation followed by efforts to equalize spending since 1970 has made a substantial difference for student achievement. On every major national test, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the gap in minority and white students’ test scores narrowed substantially between 1970 and 1990, especially for elementary school students. On the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the scores of African-American students climbed 54 points between 1976 and 1994, while those of white students remained stable.

Related Books

Dick Startz

January 15, 2019

Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

July 10, 2018

Tom Loveless

October 22, 2000

Even so, educational experiences for minority students have continued to be substantially separate and unequal. Two-thirds of minority students still attend schools that are predominantly minority, most of them located in central cities and funded well below those in neighboring suburban districts. Recent analyses of data prepared for school finance cases in Alabama, New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, and Texas have found that on every tangible measure—from qualified teachers to curriculum offerings—schools serving greater numbers of students of color had significantly fewer resources than schools serving mostly white students. As William L. Taylor and Dianne Piche noted in a 1991 report to Congress: Inequitable systems of school finance inflict disproportionate harm on minority and economically disadvantaged students. On an inter-state basis, such students are concentrated in states, primarily in the South, that have the lowest capacities to finance public education. On an intra-state basis, many of the states with the widest disparities in educational expenditures are large industrial states. In these states, many minorities and economically disadvantaged students are located in property-poor urban districts which fare the worst in educational expenditures (or) in rural districts which suffer from fiscal inequity.

Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the striking differences between public schools serving students of color in urban settings and their suburban counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student for populations with many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.

Even within urban school districts, schools with high concentrations of low-income and minority students receive fewer instructional resources than others. And tracking systems exacerbate these inequalities by segregating many low-income and minority students within schools. In combination, these policies leave minority students with fewer and lower-quality books, curriculum materials, laboratories, and computers; significantly larger class sizes; less qualified and experienced teachers; and less access to high-quality curriculum. Many schools serving low-income and minority students do not even offer the math and science courses needed for college, and they provide lower-quality teaching in the classes they do offer. It all adds up.

What Difference Does it Make?

Since the 1966 Coleman report, Equality of Educational Opportunity, another debate has waged as to whether money makes a difference to educational outcomes. It is certainly possible to spend money ineffectively; however, studies that have developed more sophisticated measures of schooling show how money, properly spent, makes a difference. Over the past 30 years, a large body of research has shown that four factors consistently influence student achievement: all else equal, students perform better if they are educated in smaller schools where they are well known (300 to 500 students is optimal), have smaller class sizes (especially at the elementary level), receive a challenging curriculum, and have more highly qualified teachers.

Minority students are much less likely than white children to have any of these resources. In predominantly minority schools, which most students of color attend, schools are large (on average, more than twice as large as predominantly white schools and reaching 3,000 students or more in most cities); on average, class sizes are 15 percent larger overall (80 percent larger for non-special education classes); curriculum offerings and materials are lower in quality; and teachers are much less qualified in terms of levels of education, certification, and training in the fields they teach. And in integrated schools, as UCLA professor Jeannie Oakes described in the 1980s and Harvard professor Gary Orfield’s research has recently confirmed, most minority students are segregated in lower-track classes with larger class sizes, less qualified teachers, and lower-quality curriculum.

Research shows that teachers’ preparation makes a tremendous difference to children’s learning. In an analysis of 900 Texas school districts, Harvard economist Ronald Ferguson found that teachers’ expertise—as measured by scores on a licensing examination, master’s degrees, and experienc—was the single most important determinant of student achievement, accounting for roughly 40 percent of the measured variance in students’ reading and math achievement gains in grades 1-12. After controlling for socioeconomic status, the large disparities in achievement between black and white students were almost entirely due to differences in the qualifications of their teachers. In combination, differences in teacher expertise and class sizes accounted for as much of the measured variance in achievement as did student and family background (figure 1).

Ferguson and Duke economist Helen Ladd repeated this analysis in Alabama and again found sizable influences of teacher qualifications and smaller class sizes on achievement gains in math and reading. They found that more of the difference between the high- and low-scoring districts was explained by teacher qualifications and class sizes than by poverty, race, and parent education.

Meanwhile, a Tennessee study found that elementary school students who are assigned to ineffective teachers for three years in a row score nearly 50 percentile points lower on achievement tests than those assigned to highly effective teachers over the same period. Strikingly, minority students are about half as likely to be assigned to the most effective teachers and twice as likely to be assigned to the least effective.

Minority students are put at greatest risk by the American tradition of allowing enormous variation in the qualifications of teachers. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future found that new teachers hired without meeting certification standards (25 percent of all new teachers) are usually assigned to teach the most disadvantaged students in low-income and high-minority schools, while the most highly educated new teachers are hired largely by wealthier schools (figure 2). Students in poor or predominantly minority schools are much less likely to have teachers who are fully qualified or hold higher-level degrees. In schools with the highest minority enrollments, for example, students have less than a 50 percent chance of getting a math or science teacher with a license and a degree in the field. In 1994, fully one-third of teachers in high-poverty schools taught without a minor in their main field and nearly 70 percent taught without a minor in their secondary teaching field.

Studies of underprepared teachers consistently find that they are less effective with students and that they have difficulty with curriculum development, classroom management, student motivation, and teaching strategies. With little knowledge about how children grow, learn, and develop, or about what to do to support their learning, these teachers are less likely to understand students’ learning styles and differences, to anticipate students’ knowledge and potential difficulties, or to plan and redirect instruction to meet students’ needs. Nor are they likely to see it as their job to do so, often blaming the students if their teaching is not successful.

Teacher expertise and curriculum quality are interrelated, because a challenging curriculum requires an expert teacher. Research has found that both students and teachers are tracked: that is, the most expert teachers teach the most demanding courses to the most advantaged students, while lower-track students assigned to less able teachers receive lower-quality teaching and less demanding material. Assignment to tracks is also related to race: even when grades and test scores are comparable, black students are more likely to be assigned to lower-track, nonacademic classes.

When Opportunity Is More Equal

What happens when students of color do get access to more equal opportunities’ Studies find that curriculum quality and teacher skill make more difference to educational outcomes than the initial test scores or racial backgrounds of students. Analyses of national data from both the High School and Beyond Surveys and the National Educational Longitudinal Surveys have demonstrated that, while there are dramatic differences among students of various racial and ethnic groups in course-taking in such areas as math, science, and foreign language, for students with similar course-taking records, achievement test score differences by race or ethnicity narrow substantially.

Robert Dreeben and colleagues at the University of Chicago conducted a long line of studies documenting both the relationship between educational opportunities and student performance and minority students’ access to those opportunities. In a comparative study of 300 Chicago first graders, for example, Dreeben found that African-American and white students who had comparable instruction achieved comparable levels of reading skill. But he also found that the quality of instruction given African-American students was, on average, much lower than that given white students, thus creating a racial gap in aggregate achievement at the end of first grade. In fact, the highest-ability group in Dreeben’s sample was in a school in a low-income African-American neighborhood. These children, though, learned less during first grade than their white counterparts because their teacher was unable to provide the challenging instruction they deserved.

When schools have radically different teaching forces, the effects can be profound. For example, when Eleanor Armour-Thomas and colleagues compared a group of exceptionally effective elementary schools with a group of low-achieving schools with similar demographic characteristics in New York City, roughly 90 percent of the variance in student reading and mathematics scores at grades 3, 6, and 8 was a function of differences in teacher qualifications. The schools with highly qualified teachers serving large numbers of minority and low-income students performed as well as much more advantaged schools.

Most studies have estimated effects statistically. However, an experiment that randomly assigned seventh grade “at-risk”students to remedial, average, and honors mathematics classes found that the at-risk students who took the honors class offering a pre-algebra curriculum ultimately outperformed all other students of similar backgrounds. Another study compared African-American high school youth randomly placed in public housing in the Chicago suburbs with city-placed peers of equivalent income and initial academic attainment and found that the suburban students, who attended largely white and better-funded schools, were substantially more likely to take challenging courses, perform well academically, graduate on time, attend college, and find good jobs.

What Can Be Done?

This state of affairs is not inevitable. Last year the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future issued a blueprint for a comprehensive set of policies to ensure a “caring, competent, and qualified teacher for every child,” as well as schools organized to support student success. Twelve states are now working directly with the commission on this agenda, and others are set to join this year. Several pending bills to overhaul the federal Higher Education Act would ensure that highly qualified teachers are recruited and prepared for students in all schools. Federal policymakers can develop incentives, as they have in medicine, to guarantee well-prepared teachers in shortage fields and high-need locations. States can equalize education spending, enforce higher teaching standards, and reduce teacher shortages, as Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, and North Carolina have already done. School districts can reallocate resources from administrative superstructures and special add-on programs to support better-educated teachers who offer a challenging curriculum in smaller schools and classes, as restructured schools as far apart as New York and San Diego have done. These schools, in communities where children are normally written off to lives of poverty, welfare dependency, or incarceration, already produce much higher levels of achievement for students of color, sending more than 90 percent of their students to college. Focusing on what matters most can make a real difference in what children have the opportunity to learn. This, in turn, makes a difference in what communities can accomplish.

An Entitlement to Good Teaching

The common presumption about educational inequality—that it resides primarily in those students who come to school with inadequate capacities to benefit from what the school has to offer—continues to hold wide currency because the extent of inequality in opportunities to learn is largely unknown. We do not currently operate schools on the presumption that students might be entitled to decent teaching and schooling as a matter of course. In fact, some state and local defendants have countered school finance and desegregation cases with assertions that such remedies are not required unless it can be proven that they will produce equal outcomes. Such arguments against equalizing opportunities to learn have made good on DuBois’s prediction that the problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the color line.

But education resources do make a difference, particularly when funds are used to purchase well-qualified teachers and high-quality curriculum and to create personalized learning communities in which children are well known. In all of the current sturm und drang about affirmative action, “special treatment,” and the other high-volatility buzzwords for race and class politics in this nation, I would offer a simple starting point for the next century s efforts: no special programs, just equal educational opportunity.

Governance Studies

Rachel M. Perera, Jon Valant, Katharine Meyer

August 12, 2024

Kelly Rosinger, Robert Kelchen, Justin Ortagus, Dominique J. Baker, Mitchell Lingo

August 9, 2024

Carolyn Esswein, Justin Hegarty

August 8, 2024

No results found

We're sorry, but there are no results that match your search criteria. Try checking your spelling or using alternate search terms. We add new data to USAFacts all the time; you can subscribe to our newsletter to get unbiased, data-driven insights sent to your inbox weekly, no searching required.

Subscribe to get unbiased, data-driven insights sent to your inbox weekly.

• Government finance
• Defense and security
• Environment

How uneven educational outcomes begin, and persist, in the US

Long before graduation, factors including early education, household income gaps, and disciplinary actions affect students’ abilities to access resources and succeed in school. These elements impact racial and ethnic groups differently and contribute to these unequal educational outcomes.

Updated on Thu, March 23, 2023 by the USAFacts Team

Highest educational attainment by race or ethnicity

Education remains one of the best predictors of future economic success in the US. In 2019, the median weekly earnings among workers was $1,256 for those with a bachelor’s degree, compared to $746 for those with just a high school diploma and $592 for high school dropouts.

Americans with a college degree weather economic downturns more easily than those without. In June , unemployment among high school graduates without a college degree jumped to 12%, compared to 3.6% the previous year. Among those with a bachelor’s degree and higher though, unemployment increased to 7% (compared to 2.5% last year).

These benefits are not felt equally because educational attainment varies greatly across racial and ethnic lines. According to the US Census Bureau , 31% of Hispanic adults never completed high school, more than double any other racial or ethnic category. Only 26% of Black Americans 25 or older receive a bachelor’s degree or higher, while 40% of non-Hispanic, white students and 58% of Asian students do.

Achievement gaps start in elementary school and continue through high school.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), which administers standardized tests across the country in fourth, eighth, and 12th grades, found disparities in test scores across racial and ethnic categories. As soon as the fourth grade, the average Black student fails to reach basic reading levels and scored 32 points below their average white peers; Hispanic students score, on average, 27 points lower than their white peers.

4th grade NAEP reading scores in 2017

Similar gaps appear in math scores, with Black and Hispanic students scoring 25 and 19 points, respectively, lower than their white peers. Asians students consistently score the highest on both assessments.

4th grade NAEP math scores in 2017

These early differences in test scores hold relatively constant throughout primary and secondary schooling, and remain so over time. From fourth to 12th grade, white students consistently score 25 to 30 points higher than Black students, and 20 to 25 points higher than Hispanic students. These gaps have persisted from 1992 to 2017, the year of the most recent data.

White-Black reading achievement gap (in points)

White-hispanic reading achievement gap (in points), some gaps in educational outcomes between racial and ethnic groups can be connected to income.

Many of these differences in educational outcomes can be attributed to differences in household income. Students in lower-income households lack the resources used by their higher-income peers, such as internet or computer access .

Among students of all racial and ethnic groups, there is a 28 and 24-point gap between fourth-grade reading and math scores, respectively, between students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch and students who are not. The sizes of these gaps are similar to the racial or ethnic gaps in test scores.

4th-grade reading scores and free-lunch eligibility

4th-grade math scores and free-lunch eligibility.

In general, Asian households have the highest median income in the country, followed by white households, Hispanic households, and Black households. Test scores follow this same pattern. However, this pattern is not completely consistent across states and regions. Washington, DC, for instance, has the largest income gap between Black and white households nationwide—a $40,000 gap in median income—but a smaller achievement gap than average.

The income gap between white households and Black or Hispanic households is similar in Virginia and Illinois, but the difference in test scores is much greater in Illinois. Notably, the achievement gap is universal – there isn’t a single state where the average scores of Black or Hispanic students are higher than their white counterparts — even in states with very small income gaps.

Disciplinary actions that take students out of school disproportionately impact male minority students.

Minority students—especially male students—also receive more disciplinary actions than other groups throughout primary and secondary school, which can deter students from graduating high school. In many cases, students who are expelled or referred to law enforcement are a result of schools enforcing zero-tolerance policies. A 2013 Congressional Research Service report states that these policies have not deterred further school violence as districts hoped.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 1% of Black and American Indian male students are referred to law enforcement compared to less than 0.5% of Hispanic or white male students. Furthermore, 17% of Black male students receive at least one out of school suspension; the next highest demographic is American Indian male students at 9%.

Percent of students receiving at least one out-of-school suspension

Out-of-school suspensions mean less classroom time, which could discourage and compound challenges for struggling students, and referrals to law enforcement can result in a juvenile record.

Racial and ethnic gaps persist among college students

Disciplinary actions and achievement gaps make it both more difficult for students to complete high school, and may make it more difficult for students to succeed in post-secondary school. While Black students graduate high school at higher rates than Hispanic students, for example, they complete college at lower rates. Only 40% of Black college enrollees graduate from college, compared to 64% of non-Hispanic white students and 74% of Asian students.

Six-year college graduation rate for 2011 cohort

However, racial or ethnic categories are also not monoliths. In 2017, among people who identify as Hispanic, 53% of 18-24 year-old Venezuelans in the US enrolled in college, while 46% of Cubans, 35% of Mexicans, and 28% of Guatemalans did. Among Asians, 76% of Chinese between 18 and 24 years old enrolled in college, while 45% of Cambodians did.

While not all members of the same racial or ethnic group share the same economic or educational characteristics, considering the differences in data among the groups can help understand what may cause educational achievement gaps to exist.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), fourth Grade Proficiency in reading is defined as the ability to integrate and interpret texts and apply understanding of the text to draw conclusions and make evaluations. A Basic fourth grade reading level is being able to locate relevant information, make simple inferences, and use their understanding of the text to identify details that support a given interpretation or conclusion. Students should be able to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text.

For math, fourth-grade students performing at the NAEP Basic level should show some evidence of understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the NAEP content areas (number properties and operations, measurement and geometry, data analysis and probability, and algebra). Fourth-grade students performing at the NAEP Proficient level should consistently apply integrated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to problem solving. They should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes appropriately.

Learn more about education in the US and get the facts every week by signing up for our newsletter .

Explore more of USAFacts

Related articles, nearly two-thirds of preschool-aged children attend early education programs.

In 32 states, teacher salaries have not kept pace with inflation

How many women graduate with STEM degrees?

65% of households with children report the use of online learning during pandemic

Related Data

National school lunch participation

30.1 million

Grade 8, Reading: Percent of students at or above proficient

Grade 8, Math: Percent of students at or above proficient

Data delivered to your inbox.

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Recognizing and Overcoming Inequity in Education

About the author, sylvia schmelkes.

Sylvia Schmelkes is Provost of the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City.

22 January 2020 Introduction

I nequity is perhaps the most serious problem in education worldwide. It has multiple causes, and its consequences include differences in access to schooling, retention and, more importantly, learning. Globally, these differences correlate with the level of development of various countries and regions. In individual States, access to school is tied to, among other things, students' overall well-being, their social origins and cultural backgrounds, the language their families speak, whether or not they work outside of the home and, in some countries, their sex. Although the world has made progress in both absolute and relative numbers of enrolled students, the differences between the richest and the poorest, as well as those living in rural and urban areas, have not diminished. 1

These correlations do not occur naturally. They are the result of the lack of policies that consider equity in education as a principal vehicle for achieving more just societies. The pandemic has exacerbated these differences mainly due to the fact that technology, which is the means of access to distance schooling, presents one more layer of inequality, among many others.

The dimension of educational inequity

Around the world, 258 million, or 17 per cent of the world’s children, adolescents and youth, are out of school. The proportion is much larger in developing countries: 31 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and 21 per cent in Central Asia, vs. 3 per cent in Europe and North America. 2  Learning, which is the purpose of schooling, fares even worse. For example, it would take 15-year-old Brazilian students 75 years, at their current rate of improvement, to reach wealthier countries’ average scores in math, and more than 260 years in reading. 3 Within countries, learning results, as measured through standardized tests, are almost always much lower for those living in poverty. In Mexico, for example, 80 per cent of indigenous children at the end of primary school don’t achieve basic levels in reading and math, scoring far below the average for primary school students. 4

The causes of educational inequity

There are many explanations for educational inequity. In my view, the most important ones are the following:

• Equity and equality are not the same thing. Equality means providing the same resources to everyone. Equity signifies giving more to those most in need. Countries with greater inequity in education results are also those in which governments distribute resources according to the political pressure they experience in providing education. Such pressures come from families in which the parents attended school, that reside in urban areas, belong to cultural majorities and who have a clear appreciation of the benefits of education. Much less pressure comes from rural areas and indigenous populations, or from impoverished urban areas. In these countries, fewer resources, including infrastructure, equipment, teachers, supervision and funding, are allocated to the disadvantaged, the poor and cultural minorities.
• Teachers are key agents for learning. Their training is crucial.  When insufficient priority is given to either initial or in-service teacher training, or to both, one can expect learning deficits. Teachers in poorer areas tend to have less training and to receive less in-service support.
• Most countries are very diverse. When a curriculum is overloaded and is the same for everyone, some students, generally those from rural areas, cultural minorities or living in poverty find little meaning in what is taught. When the language of instruction is different from their native tongue, students learn much less and drop out of school earlier.
• Disadvantaged students frequently encounter unfriendly or overtly offensive attitudes from both teachers and classmates. Such attitudes are derived from prejudices, stereotypes, outright racism and sexism. Students in hostile environments are affected in their disposition to learn, and many drop out early.

It doesn’t have to be like this

When left to inertial decision-making, education systems seem to be doomed to reproduce social and economic inequity. The commitment of both governments and societies to equity in education is both necessary and possible. There are several examples of more equitable educational systems in the world, and there are many subnational examples of successful policies fostering equity in education.

Why is equity in education important?

Education is a basic human right. More than that, it is an enabling right in the sense that, when respected, allows for the fulfillment of other human rights. Education has proven to affect general well-being, productivity, social capital, responsible citizenship and sustainable behaviour. Its equitable distribution allows for the creation of permeable societies and equity. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure “inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. One hundred eighty-four countries are committed to achieving this goal over the next decade. 5  The process of walking this road together has begun and requires impetus to continue, especially now that we must face the devastating consequences of a long-lasting pandemic. Further progress is crucial for humanity.

Notes  1 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , Inclusive Education. All Means All , Global Education Monitoring Report 2020 (Paris, 2020), p.8. Available at https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion . 2 Ibid., p. 4, 7. 3 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education's Promise (Washington, DC, 2018), p. 3. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018 .  4 Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, "La educación obligatoria en México", Informe 2018 (Ciudad de México, 2018), p. 72. Available online at https://www.inee.edu.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/P1I243.pdf . 5 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , “Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4” (2015), p. 23. Available at  https://iite.unesco.org/publications/education-2030-incheon-declaration-framework-action-towards-inclusive-equitable-quality-education-lifelong-learning/   The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.   

Sailors for Sustainability: Sailing the Globe to Document Proven Solutions for Sustainable Living

Most of the solutions we have described are tangible examples of sustainability in action. Yet our sailing journey also made us realize that the most important ingredient for a sustainable future is sustainability from within. By that we mean adopting a different way of perceiving the Earth and our role in it.

What if We Could Put an End to Loss of Precious Lives on the Roads?

Road safety is neither confined to public health nor is it restricted to urban planning. It is a core 2030 Agenda matter. Reaching the objective of preventing at least 50 per cent of road traffic deaths and injuries by 2030 would be a significant contribution to every SDG and SDG transition.

Promoting Evidence-Based Prevention Strategies to Mitigate the Harms of Drug Use: The Role of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

The engagement of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime with Member States is particularly focused on interventions addressing early adolescence through schools and families by piloting evidence-based, manualized programmes worldwide. 

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

How to help urban young people progress? Nurture hope.

‘I hope they take their time in their recovery’

Worried about violence, threats as election nears? Just say no.

The costs of inequality: Education’s the one key that rules them all

When there’s inequity in learning, it’s usually baked into life, Harvard analysts say

Corydon Ireland

Harvard Correspondent

Third in a series on what Harvard scholars are doing to identify and understand inequality, in seeking solutions to one of America’s most vexing problems.

Before Deval Patrick ’78, J.D. ’82, was the popular and successful two-term governor of Massachusetts, before he was managing director of high-flying Bain Capital, and long before he was Harvard’s most recent Commencement speaker , he was a poor black schoolchild in the battered housing projects of Chicago’s South Side.

The odds of his escaping a poverty-ridden lifestyle, despite innate intelligence and drive, were long. So how did he help mold his own narrative and triumph over baked-in societal inequality ? Through education.

“Education has been the path to better opportunity for generations of American strivers, no less for me,” Patrick said in an email when asked how getting a solid education, in his case at Milton Academy and at Harvard, changed his life.

“What great teachers gave me was not just the skills to take advantage of new opportunities, but the ability to imagine what those opportunities could be. For a kid from the South Side of Chicago, that’s huge.”

If inequality starts anywhere, many scholars agree, it’s with faulty education. Conversely, a strong education can act as the bejeweled key that opens gates through every other aspect of inequality , whether political, economic , racial, judicial, gender- or health-based.

Simply put, a top-flight education usually changes lives for the better. And yet, in the world’s most prosperous major nation, it remains an elusive goal for millions of children and teenagers.

Plateau on educational gains

The revolutionary concept of free, nonsectarian public schools spread across America in the 19th century. By 1970, America had the world’s leading educational system, and until 1990 the gap between minority and white students, while clear, was narrowing.

But educational gains in this country have plateaued since then, and the gap between white and minority students has proven stubbornly difficult to close, says Ronald Ferguson, adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) and faculty director of Harvard’s Achievement Gap Initiative. That gap extends along class lines as well.

“What great teachers gave me was not just the skills to take advantage of new opportunities, but the ability to imagine what those opportunities could be. For a kid from the South Side of Chicago, that’s huge.” — Deval Patrick

In recent years, scholars such as Ferguson, who is an economist, have puzzled over the ongoing achievement gap and what to do about it, even as other nations’ school systems at first matched and then surpassed their U.S. peers. Among the 34 market-based, democracy-leaning countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks around 20th annually, earning average or below-average grades in reading, science, and mathematics.

By eighth grade, Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. noted last year, only 44 percent of American students are proficient in reading and math. The proficiency of African-American students, many of them in underperforming schools, is even lower.

“The position of U.S. black students is truly alarming,” wrote Fryer, the Henry Lee Professor of Economics, who used the OECD rankings as a metaphor for minority standing educationally. “If they were to be considered a country, they would rank just below Mexico in last place.”

Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) Dean James E. Ryan, a former public interest lawyer, says geography has immense power in determining educational opportunity in America. As a scholar, he has studied how policies and the law affect learning, and how conditions are often vastly unequal.

His book “Five Miles Away, A World Apart” (2010) is a case study of the disparity of opportunity in two Richmond, Va., schools, one grimly urban and the other richly suburban. Geography, he says, mirrors achievement levels.

A ZIP code as predictor of success

“Right now, there exists an almost ironclad link between a child’s ZIP code and her chances of success,” said Ryan. “Our education system, traditionally thought of as the chief mechanism to address the opportunity gap, instead too often reflects and entrenches existing societal inequities.”

Urban schools demonstrate the problem. In New York City, for example, only 8 percent of black males graduating from high school in 2014 were prepared for college-level work, according to the CUNY Institute for Education Policy, with Latinos close behind at 11 percent. The preparedness rates for Asians and whites — 48 and 40 percent, respectively — were unimpressive too, but nonetheless were firmly on the other side of the achievement gap.

In some impoverished urban pockets, the racial gap is even larger. In Washington, D.C., 8 percent of black eighth-graders are proficient in math, while 80 percent of their white counterparts are.

Fryer said that in kindergarten black children are already 8 months behind their white peers in learning. By third grade, the gap is bigger, and by eighth grade is larger still.

According to a recent report by the Education Commission of the States, black and Hispanic students in kindergarten through 12th grade perform on a par with the white students who languish in the lowest quartile of achievement.

There was once great faith and hope in America’s school systems. The rise of quality public education a century ago “was probably the best public policy decision Americans have ever made because it simultaneously raised the whole growth rate of the country for most of the 20th century, and it leveled the playing field,” said Robert Putnam, the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at HKS, who has written several best-selling books touching on inequality, including “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community” and “Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.”

Historically, upward mobility in America was characterized by each generation becoming better educated than the previous one, said Harvard economist Lawrence Katz. But that trend, a central tenet of the nation’s success mythology, has slackened, particularly for minorities.

“Thirty years ago, the typical American had two more years of schooling than their parents. Today, we have the most educated group of Americans, but they only have about .4 more years of schooling, so that’s one part of mobility not keeping up in the way we’ve invested in education in the past,” Katz said.

As globalization has transformed and sometimes undercut the American economy, “education is not keeping up,” he said. “There’s continuing growth of demand for more abstract, higher-end skills” that schools aren’t delivering, “and then that feeds into a weakening of institutions like unions and minimum-wage protections.”

“The position of U.S. black students is truly alarming.” — Roland G. Fryer Jr.

Fryer is among a diffuse cohort of Harvard faculty and researchers using academic tools to understand the achievement gap and the many reasons behind problematic schools. His venue is the Education Innovation Laboratory , where he is faculty director.

“We use big data and causal methods,” he said of his approach to the issue.

Fryer, who is African-American, grew up poor in a segregated Florida neighborhood. He argues that outright discrimination has lost its power as a primary driver behind inequality, and uses economics as “a rational forum” for discussing social issues.

Better schools to close the gap

Fryer set out in 2004 to use an economist’s data and statistical tools to answer why black students often do poorly in school compared with whites. His years of research have convinced him that good schools would close the education gap faster and better than addressing any other social factor, including curtailing poverty and violence, and he believes that the quality of kindergarten through grade 12 matters above all.

Supporting his belief is research that says the number of schools achieving excellent student outcomes is a large enough sample to prove that much better performance is possible. Despite the poor performance by many U.S. states, some have shown that strong results are possible on a broad scale. For instance, if Massachusetts were a nation, it would rate among the best-performing countries.

At HGSE, where Ferguson is faculty co-chair as well as director of the Achievement Gap Initiative, many factors are probed. In the past 10 years, Ferguson, who is African-American, has studied every identifiable element contributing to unequal educational outcomes. But lately he is looking hardest at improving children’s earliest years, from infancy to age 3.

In addition to an organization he founded called the Tripod Project , which measures student feedback on learning, he launched the Boston Basics project in August, with support from the Black Philanthropy Fund, Boston’s mayor, and others. The first phase of the outreach campaign, a booklet, videos, and spot ads, starts with advice to parents of children age 3 or younger.

“Maximize love, manage stress” is its mantra and its foundational imperative, followed by concepts such as “talk, sing, and point.” (“Talking,” said Ferguson, “is teaching.”) In early childhood, “The difference in life experiences begins at home.”

At age 1, children score similarly

Fryer and Ferguson agree that the achievement gap starts early. At age 1, white, Asian, black, and Hispanic children score virtually the same in what Ferguson called “skill patterns” that measure cognitive ability among toddlers, including examining objects, exploring purposefully, and “expressive jabbering.” But by age 2, gaps are apparent, with black and Hispanic children scoring lower in expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, and other indicators of acuity. That suggests educational achievement involves more than just schooling, which typically starts at age 5.

Key factors in the gap, researchers say, include poverty rates (which are three times higher for blacks than for whites), diminished teacher and school quality, unsettled neighborhoods, ineffective parenting, personal trauma, and peer group influence, which only strengthens as children grow older.

“Peer beliefs and values,” said Ferguson, get “trapped in culture” and are compounded by the outsized influence of peers and the “pluralistic ignorance” they spawn. Fryer’s research, for instance, says that the reported stigma of “acting white” among many black students is true. The better they do in school, the fewer friends they have — while for whites who are perceived as smarter, there’s an opposite social effect.

The researchers say that family upbringing matters, in all its crisscrossing influences and complexities, and that often undercuts minority children, who can come from poor or troubled homes. “Unequal outcomes,” he said, “are from, to a large degree, inequality in life experiences.”

Trauma also subverts achievement, whether through family turbulence, street violence, bullying, sexual abuse, or intermittent homelessness. Such factors can lead to behaviors in school that reflect a pervasive form of childhood post-traumatic stress disorder.

[gz_sidebar align=”left”]

Possible solutions to educational inequality:

• Access to early learning
• Improved K-12 schools
• More family mealtimes
• Reinforced learning at home
• Data-driven instruction
• Longer school days, years
• Respect for school rules
• Small-group tutoring
• High expectations of students
• Safer neighborhoods

[/gz_sidebar]

At Harvard Law School, both the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative and the Education Law Clinic marshal legal aid resources for parents and children struggling with trauma-induced school expulsions and discipline issues.

At Harvard Business School, Karim R. Lakhani, an associate professor who is a crowdfunding expert and a champion of open-source software, has studied how unequal racial and economic access to technology has worked to widen the achievement gap.

At Harvard’s Project Zero, a nonprofit called the Family Dinner Project is scraping away at the achievement gap from the ground level by pushing for families to gather around the meal table, which traditionally was a lively and comforting artifact of nuclear families, stable wages, close-knit extended families, and culturally shared values.

Lynn Barendsen, the project’s executive director, believes that shared mealtimes improve reading skills, spur better grades and larger vocabularies, and fuel complex conversations. Interactive mealtimes provide a learning experience of their own, she said, along with structure, emotional support, a sense of safety, and family bonding. Even a modest jump in shared mealtimes could boost a child’s academic performance, she said.

“We’re not saying families have to be perfect,” she said, acknowledging dinnertime impediments like full schedules, rudimentary cooking skills, the lure of technology, and the demands of single parenting. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

Whether poring over Fryer’s big data or Barendsen’s family dinner project, there is one commonality for Harvard researchers dealing with inequality in education: the issue’s vast complexity. The achievement gap is a creature of interlocking factors that are hard to unpack constructively.

Going wide, starting early

With help from faculty co-chair and Jesse Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree, the Achievement Gap Initiative is analyzing the factors that make educational inequality such a complex puzzle: home and family life, school environments, teacher quality, neighborhood conditions, peer interaction, and the fate of “all those wholesome things,” said Ferguson. The latter include working hard in school, showing respect, having nice friends, and following the rules, traits that can be “elements of a 21st-century movement for equality.”

In the end, best practices to create strong schools will matter most, said Fryer.

He called high-quality education “the new civil rights battleground” in a landmark 2010 working paper for the Handbook of Labor Economics called “Racial Inequality in the 21st Century: The Declining Significance of Discrimination.”

Fryer tapped 10 large data sets on children 8 months to 17 years old. He studied charter schools, scouring for standards that worked. He champions longer school days and school years, data-driven instruction, small-group tutoring, high expectations, and a school culture that prizes human capital — all just “a few simple investments,” he wrote in the working paper. “The challenge for the future is to take these examples to scale” across the country.

How long would closing the gap take with a national commitment to do so? A best-practices experiment that Fryer conducted at low-achieving high schools in Houston closed the gap in math skills within three years, and narrowed the reading achievement gap by a third.

“You don’t need Superman for this,” he said, referring to a film about Geoffrey Canada and his Harlem Children’s Zone, just high-quality schools for everyone, to restore 19th-century educator Horace Mann’s vision of public education as society’s “balance-wheel.”

Last spring, Fryer, still only 38, won the John Bates Clark medal, the most prestigious award in economics after the Nobel Prize. He was a MacArthur Fellow in 2011, became a tenured Harvard professor in 2007, was named to the prestigious Society of Fellows at age 25. He had a classically haphazard childhood, but used school to learn, grow, and prosper. Gradually, he developed a passion for social science that could help him answer what was going wrong in black lives because of educational inequality.

With his background and talent, Fryer has a dramatically unique perspective on inequality and achievement, and he has something else: a seemingly counterintuitive sense that these conditions will improve, once bad schools learn to get better. Discussing the likelihood of closing the achievement gap if Americans have the political and organizational will to do so, Fryer said, “I see nothing but optimism.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story inaccurately portrayed details of Dr. Fryer’s background.

Illustration by Kathleen M.G. Howlett. Harvard staff writer Christina Pazzanese contributed to this report.

Next Tuesday: Inequality in health care

Share this article

You might like.

Youth development specialist promotes holistic approach to healing, growth of individuals, communities amid poverty, drugs, trauma

Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, held for 544 by Iran, offers advice to three Americans just released by Russia

Key is for leaders, voters to stand in solidarity against it, political scientists say 

Garber to serve as president through 2026-27 academic year

Search for successor will launch in 2026

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Still Separate, Still Unequal: Teaching about School Segregation and Educational Inequality

By Keith Meatto

• May 2, 2019

Racial segregation in public education has been illegal for 65 years in the United States. Yet American public schools remain largely separate and unequal — with profound consequences for students, especially students of color.

Today’s teachers and students should know that the Supreme Court declared racial segregation in schools to be unconstitutional in the landmark 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education . Perhaps less well known is the extent to which American schools are still segregated. According to a recent Times article , “More than half of the nation’s schoolchildren are in racially concentrated districts, where over 75 percent of students are either white or nonwhite.” In addition, school districts are often segregated by income. The nexus of racial and economic segregation has intensified educational gaps between rich and poor students, and between white students and students of color.

Although many students learn about the historical struggles to desegregate schools in the civil rights era, segregation as a current reality is largely absent from the curriculum.

“No one is really talking about school segregation anymore,” Elise C. Boddie and Dennis D. Parker wrote in this 2018 Op-Ed essay. “That’s a shame because an abundance of research shows that integration is still one of the most effective tools that we have for achieving racial equity.”

The teaching activities below, written directly to students, use recent Times articles as a way to grapple with segregation and educational inequality in the present. This resource considers three essential questions:

• How and why are schools still segregated in 2019? • What repercussions do segregated schools have for students and society? • What are potential remedies to address school segregation?

School segregation and educational inequity may be a sensitive and uncomfortable topic for students and teachers, regardless of their race, ethnicity or economic status. Nevertheless, the topics below offer entry points to an essential conversation, one that affects every American student and raises questions about core American ideals of equality and fairness.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Underserved Potential

• The Olympics
• Book Recommendations

The ideas, research, and actions from across Harvard University aimed at making education a pathway to success for everyone.

How COVID taught America about inequality in education

Remote learning turned a spotlight on gaps in resources, funding, and tech—but also offered hints on reform.

Read more on the Harvard Gazette

Progress report

Members of the Harvard community are taking a variety of approaches in the fight to make education more equitable.

From the experts

Why is an equitable education so important?

Harvard’s Ronald Ferguson, director of The Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University, says education may be the key to solving broader American inequality, but we have to solve educational inequality first.

Personal essay

Tauheedah Baker-Jones

“As educators, we are charged with creating engaged citizens who uphold our democratic and pluralistic ideals,” says the Ed School alum and Atlanta Public Schools Chief Equity and Social Justice Officer.

Better college access for Native people

Only about 14% of Native American people attend college, and many often don’t graduate. Tarajean Yazzie-Mintz, currently the CEO of First Light Education, has spent decades trying to lower the many barriers facing Native young people as they try to access higher education.

Learn more from the Graduate School of Education

Here to learn

Shirley Vargas is harnessing the power of Nebraska’s state education agencies to create solutions that work for every student. “We have to make sure that what we’re doing is actually in the best interest of students,” said the School of Education alum.

Read the To Serve Better profile

Where we’re focused

These are just a few of the initiatives Harvard Schools have created to take on these important issues.

Harvard initiatives

• The Achievement Gap Initiative
• The Education Redesign Lab
• Institutional Antiracism and Accountability Project

Areas for improvement

Turning the tide in educational inequity

Addressing inequalities in education through policy, research, and practice

Measuring implicit bias in schools

A leader's guide to talking about bias

Racial stratification and school segregation in the suburbs: the case of Los Angeles county

Improving the odds

A new book helps teachers and principals confront their own racism

Ibram X. Kendi discusses antiracism in education

What covid taught us about teaching.

The coronavirus crisis illuminated long-standing inequities in US education that experts are working to address.

• COVID’s triple whammy for Black students
• Is now the time to build a better system?
• The impact of 2020 on higher education
• HGSE grads meet the pressing challenges of COVID-19
• School closures highlight inequities and other shortcomings
• Going beyond schools to fill gaps in education

Learn more today

“If we hope to make progress toward addressing longstanding educational inequities, we have to invest our time and resources in those areas where we believe we can have outsized impact … including continued access to low-cost and free courses,” Larry Bacow, President of Harvard University.

See Harvard’s free online courses

Leaders of Learning

Available now

Web Programming

Human anatomy, u.s. political institutions, food fermentation, world literature, explore the series.

“Unequal” is a multipart series highlighting the work of Harvard faculty, staff, students, alumni, and researchers on issues of race and inequality across the United States.

• Upward Immobility

The ideas, research, and actions aimed at creating equitable opportunities for success and prosperity.

• Environmental Exposure

Finding solutions to climate change, pollution, and environmental contamination for all communities.

• Democratic Deficits

Exploring the inequality in our democratic institutions and representative elections.

• Criminal Injustice

Creating a more equitable criminal justice system.

Access to Education: The Impact Of Inequality On Education

By GGI Insights | August 12, 2024

Table of contents

Addressing inequality requires investment in infrastructure, quality teachers, financial support, and promoting diversity and inclusion. An equitable education system provides all students with the resources to succeed and break the cycle of poverty. Inequality affects us in many ways, one of which is education. But it’s often overlooked just how significant inequality is in access and quality of education. From socioeconomic and institutional barriers to disparities in funding, inequality has far-reaching impacts on how we learn.

Inequality leaves an undeniably deep mark in areas of public education. Low-income families often need help to afford private schools, and neighborhoods with money troubles mean a need for more resources for their public schools. This can create a disheartening cycle that never stops turning: the disadvantaged aren’t provided with equal education opportunities compared to wealthier peers, making it much more difficult for them to excel academically or professionally.

The repercussions of income inequality also impact the quality of education kids receive. High schools in financially strained districts are undersupplied in terms of textbooks and tech--which, unfortunately, damages the lifelong learning opportunities of students. Underqualified or inexperienced teachers also worsen this issue and further reduce the quality of education.

'Ignite Potential' merch – wear your dedication to Quality Education. Each item symbolizes support for enlightening minds globally. Shop, support, make an impact!

What is Inequality?

Inequality is an unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges in a society. This unevenness can manifest in various forms, such as economic inequity (unbalanced wealth or income), social discrimination (such as race, gender, or ethnicity), and political unfairness (disproportional access to power and representation).

Such disparities dramatically impact individuals and broader society - they can create divides between social classes and lead to unrest in efforts to alter the systems that facilitate these inequalities. Moreover, those disadvantaged by inequality often need more resources or opportunities to reach their potential. In this respect, we should all strive for a more equitable world.

Inequality and Its Impact on Education

Individuals from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds often lack access to the same educational resources as their more privileged peers. This means that minority students of different economic standings may not enjoy parity regarding access to high-quality instruction or educational materials. Additionally, due to the absence of equitable wealth and income allotment in recent years, students of lesser financial success may need help to cover the expenses incurred by university courses or college tuition.

In a consequence of these endemic inequities, movement up the social ladder becomes a difficult task, while academic accomplishments tend to suffocate. Furthermore, the disparity in education amplifies inequality in other facets, such as gender and racial divides.

When individuals are denied equity in schooling, they may feel pressured to fall into destitution or face injustice in other forms. Inequality in education has lingering ramifications on individuals’ lives and can extend further to societies as a collective.

How Does Inequality Affect Access to Quality Education?

Inequality continues to plague access to top-notch education in countless ways. One of the telltale indications is the divergence in resources between schools.

Generally, those located in affluent neighborhoods have a greater abundance of funds allocated for educational materials, resources, and teachers than those in low-income areas. As a result, white students with higher socioeconomic status are exposed to better facilities, lower dropout rates, more educational options, higher salaries, and advanced instruction than black students.

Disparities based on race and gender also play an influential role in gaining access to quality education.

This can range from receiving unfair treatment within classrooms to the appropriation of inadequate funds for school system supplies or resources tailored for particular demographics. Everyone deserves equity in getting the education they need and deserve; anything less comes short of what our society should strive for.

It's undisputed that social and economic inequities can disproportionately negatively impact a given student's access to quality education. For example, those living in poverty typically lack the essential resources to facilitate learning—laptop computers, textbooks, transportation costs, etc.—placing them at a severe disadvantage. Furthermore, this issue is heightened by the persistent stress due to the hardships of their home life, which can impede their performance in school.

Schools must stand against these glaring discrepancies and guarantee that each student is granted equitable access to a high-caliber public education. To start, they should allocate more financial aid to underprivileged black schools just like white schools, so they boast the same infrastructure as their wealthier counterparts. In addition, classrooms should remain free from discrimination, and customs need to be established that allow struggling students to feel accepted and heard. Ultimately, if schools can develop strategies based on the realities of poverty and apply them fairly, then each pupil has a fair chance of educational success.

Ways in which Inequality is Impacting Educational Quality

In today's world, inequality has a significant impact on educational quality. Inequalities in access to resources, finances, and opportunities lead to vast disparities between those students with privilege and those without. Schools often need more funding in low-income areas to provide their students with an adequate education.

This can lead to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, scarce learning materials, outdated technology, and more.

As a result, students who do not have access to other forms of education inequality may receive a different quality than those in wealthier school districts.

Inequalities such as racism, sexism, and classism continue to shape how students experience school differently. Historically marginalized groups in the United States do not always receive the same attention or resources from their schools as majority groups do.

This creates a cycle in which marginalized students are disadvantaged when accessing higher education opportunities or applying for better jobs requiring higher education.

Educational inequality is prevalent throughout the nation, with racism and sexism playing a major role in the discriminatory hiring practices of many schools. Minority and female teachers often find themselves overshadowed by their white and male counterparts, being overlooked for leadership positions or denied jobs altogether due to their gender or race.

Secondary school administrators must reflect upon their biases and strive to create an inclusive environment where all members of society are given the same opportunities. To truly develop a diverse workforce, active steps must be taken to ensure that people from all backgrounds are adequately represented in the staff roster.

By consciously creating a diverse and equitable hiring process, schools can foster an environment that celebrates diversity and encourages students and faculty to reach their fullest potential. To reduce inequalities and provide a higher quality education for all students, it is essential to focus on policies and initiatives that address the root causes of disparities in educational quality.

This includes investing in resources, technology, and infrastructure in low-income areas and working to create an environment of acceptance, inclusion, and understanding. It is also important to ensure that hiring practices are fair and equitable and to provide teachers with the training and specialist support they need to build strong relationships with their students.

Expanding access to extracurricular activities, career guidance services, and higher education opportunities can help create a level playing field for all students in their cognitive skills.

Causes of Inequality in Education

Inequality in education is one of the most significant issues of our time. It affects educational outcomes for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those from minority communities. This inequality results in disparities in opportunity, resources, and outcomes for certain groups of students compared to others.

Exploring the causes of these inequalities helps us to identify potential avenues for change. Many contributing factors can be traced to systemic and institutional racism that has historically denied access and opportunity to young people based on their race or ethnicity. These inequities are often perpetuated by policies that do not prioritize racial equity or by biased teachers, most times, who unknowingly favor certain groups over others

Other causes include:

• Poverty, often forces families with low incomes to make tough decisions between necessities like food and housing versus paying for quality education and extracurricular activities.
• Unequal distribution of resources amongst school districts.
• Need for adequate support systems geared towards low-income students.

The consequences of inequality in education are long-lasting, making it essential to address them now. For example, significant disparities exist between student populations from different backgrounds regarding college enrollment rates, college graduation rates, test scores, academic achievement, course selection, access to high-level classes and qualified teachers, and availability of adequate learning materials. In addressing these deep-rooted challenges, charities for education play an indispensable role, often stepping in to provide resources and advocacy where public systems are lacking.

The Influence of Racial, Gender, and Economic Discrimination

When considering how different forms of discrimination have impacted social identity development, it is crucial to consider both direct and indirect influences. For example, racial and gender disparities may affect societal interactions, such as unequal access to resources or preferential treatment among specific demographics.

Economic inequity can often determine access to secondary education or quality of life, thus influencing how people view themselves compared to others.

In addition, unconscious biases can lead individuals to come up with inaccurate stereotypes based on a person’s race or gender, which further impacts how they view themselves and who they form relationships with. All of these issues work together to shape how people perceive their identities in relation to others.

The Impact of High Student-to-teacher Ratios

High student-to-teacher ratios can significantly impact a student's educational experience. If a school has a high student-to-teacher ratio, the students receive less attention from the teacher and may need help to keep up with the rest of the larger class. This can lead to frustration, confusion, and alienation from their peers from early childhood.

Additionally, large class sizes mean less opportunity for individualized instruction tailored to each student's unique needs.

As a result, some students may need to catch up or feel overwhelmed by the pace of instruction. The lack of individual interaction between teacher and learner can also make it hard for teachers to get to know their students and form meaningful relationships with them, limiting the amount of guidance they can provide both in and outside the classroom. Overall, high student-to-teacher ratios can lead to an unsatisfactory learning environment that places significant strain on both students and teachers alike.

The Impact of Inequality on Educational Outcomes

Inequality in access to quality education contributes significantly to poor academic performance. In addition, socioeconomic disparities have an enormous impact on educational opportunities; students from low-income backgrounds often need help to attend high-performing schools or receive tutoring and additional resources, making it more challenging to achieve satisfactory results.

In addition, inequality in terms of race, gender, and other factors can influence the educational environment by creating a climate of exclusion and marginalization, which can lead to lower engagement and fewer positive learning outcomes for certain groups of students.

Inequality in access to technology can further impede academic development, as many courses now rely heavily on internet-based resources and materials that may not be available at home. All these factors can make it more difficult for certain African Americans to succeed academically. The push for education through technology is critical in such scenarios, helping to mitigate disparities by providing alternative, accessible platforms for learning.

Inequality can exist in various forms, including economic, social, educational, and political. For example, economic inequality can lead to disparities in access to resources such as quality education and employment opportunities. Similarly, social inequalities can lead to stratified education attainment based on factors such as race or class. In addition, educational inequalities can manifest in unequal access to information and resources needed for literacy development. Finally, political inequality can lead to a lack of representation or advocacy for those experiencing lower literacy attainment levels. It is important to identify these underlying factors when examining how inequality leads to higher illiteracy rates as they provide insight into potential courses of action that could be taken to reduce it.

Inequality has a profound impact on access to and quality of education. A significant consequence of inequality is the socioeconomic gap, which can significantly differ between high-income and low-income families in terms of educational resources. High-income families often provide their children with better educational opportunities than those from low-income backgrounds, such as private schools, advanced tutoring sessions, and specialized educational services.

These differences can create further gaps by creating an unequal playing field for students from different economic backgrounds. In addition to the educational access gap created by inequality, there is also an impact on the quality of education received. Research has shown that students from lower-income backgrounds often receive a lower-quality education due to limited resources and other factors, such as fewer qualified educators or inadequate school facilities.

This may lead to less access to higher-quality learning experiences and fewer opportunities for success in academic pursuits. This inequality in education has been observed in countries worldwide, making it one of the leading causes of inequality within societies today.

Popular Insights:

Shop with purpose at impact mart your purchase empowers positive change. thanks for being the difference.

CRM Contact Management: Strategies for Optimal Client Relationships

Crm automation: enhancing efficiency and customer engagement, crm reporting: enhancing business insights and data-driven decisions, mountain bike racer: techniques for performance and safety, upselling techniques: increase sales and enhance customer experience, sales incentive programs: strategies for boosting team performance, mountain bike racer math playground: fun educational games, strategic account management: tips for maximizing client relationships, braided hairstyles: trends, techniques, and maintenance tips, wavy hair routine: best tips for effortless waves.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Equality of Educational Opportunity

It is widely accepted that educational opportunities for children ought to be equal. This thesis follows from two observations about education and children: first, that education significantly influences a person’s life chances in terms of labor market success, preparation for democratic citizenship, and general human flourishing; and second, that children’s life chances should not be fixed by certain morally arbitrary circumstances of their birth such as their social class, race, and gender. But the precise meaning of, and implications for, the ideal of equality of educational opportunity is the subject of substantial disagreement (see Jencks 1988). This entry provides a critical review of the nature and basis of those disagreements.

To frame the discussion we introduce three key factors that underscore the importance of treating equality of educational opportunity as an independent concern, apart from theories of equality of opportunity more generally. These factors are: the central place of education in modern societies and the myriad opportunities it affords; the scarcity of high-quality educational opportunities for many children; and the critical role of the state in providing educational opportunities. These factors differentiate education from many other social goods. We follow this with a brief history of how equality of educational opportunity has been interpreted in the United States since the 1950s and the evolving legal understandings of equality of opportunity. Our subsequent analysis has implications for issues that are at the center of current litigation in the United States. But our philosophical discussion is intended to have wider reach, attempting to clarify the most attractive competing conceptions of the concept.

1.1 The Value of Education

1.2 the scarcity of high-quality educational opportunity, 1.3 the state regulation of education, 2. a brief history of equality of educational opportunity in the united states, 3.1 what is educational opportunity, 3.2 formal equality of educational opportunity, 3.3 meritocratic equality of educational opportunity, 3.4 fair equality of educational opportunity, 3.5 debates about fair equality of educational opportunity, 3.6 equality of educational opportunity for flourishing, 3.7 equality of educational opportunity for the labor market, 3.8 equality of educational opportunity for citizenship, 3.9 equality and adequacy in the distribution of educational opportunities, 4.1 education and the family, 4.2 disability, 4.3 the target of equal educational opportunity: individuals or groups, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. equality of educational opportunity as an independent concern.

Education has both instrumental and intrinsic value for individuals and for societies as a whole. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education”. The instrumental goals of K–12 education for individuals include access to higher education and a constellation of private benefits that follow college education such as access to interesting jobs with more vacation time and better health care; greater personal and professional mobility, better decision-making skills (Institute for Higher Education Policy 1998) and more autonomy at work. Research further shows that education levels are correlated with health and wealth: the more education a person has, the healthier and wealthier she is likely to be. At the same time, education is also considered intrinsically valuable. Developing one’s skills and talents can be enjoyable or good in itself and a central component of a flourishing life, regardless of the consequences this has for wealth or health.

In addition to the instrumental and intrinsic value of education to an individual, education is also valuable for society. All societies benefit from productive and knowledgeable workers who can generate social surplus and respond to preferences. Furthermore, democratic societies need to create citizens who are capable of participating in the project of shared governance. The correlation between educational attainment and civic participation is strong and well-documented: educated citizens have more opportunities to obtain and exercise civic skills, are more interested in and informed about politics, and in turn, are more likely to vote (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady 1995: 432–437, 445; Dee 2004).

It is therefore relatively uncontroversial to say that education is a highly valuable good to both individuals and to society, especially to democratic societies. This makes questions about who has access to high-quality educational opportunities, and how educational opportunities should be distributed, particularly important.

Questions about the just distribution of educational opportunity are especially vexing given the scarcity of resources allocated to education. Although developed societies provide some education for free to their citizens, funding for education is always in competition with the need to provide citizens with other social goods. As Amy Gutmann writes: “The price of using education to maximize the life chances of children would be to forego these other social goods” (Gutmann 1999: 129). Other basic welfare needs (e.g., housing, healthcare, food), as well as cultural goods (e.g., museums, parks, concert halls), must be weighed against public funds allocated to education, thereby making high-quality education—even in highly productive societies—scarce to some degree.

This scarcity is evident on several fronts with respect to higher education in the United States, which attracts applicants from all over the world. There is fierce competition for admission to highly selective colleges and universities in the U.S. that admit fewer than 10% of applicants. In this arena, wealthier parents sometimes go to great lengths to bolster their children’s applications by paying for tutoring, extracurricular activities, and admissions coaching—activities that can put applicants without these resources at a significant disadvantage in the admissions process. The recent “varsity blues” scandal, in which wealthy families paid millions of dollars to a college coach who promised admission to elite U.S. universities, is an extreme case in point about the degree of competition attached to selective universities.

A more urgent demonstration of the scarcity of educational opportunity in the U.S. and many other societies is evident in how access to high-quality primary and secondary education is effectively limited to children whose families can afford housing in middle-class neighborhoods, or who have access to private schools via tuition or scholarships. Despite the Brown decision’s eradication of de jure , or state-sanctioned, segregation by race in schools, public schools in the U.S. remain sharply segregated by race and by class due to de facto residential segregation. This segregation has significant consequences for poor and minority students’ educational opportunity. Given the strong correlation between school segregation, racial achievement gaps, and overall school quality, poor and minority students are disproportionately educated in lower performing schools compared to their white and more advantaged peers (Reardon 2015 and Reardon, Weathers, Fahle, Jang, and Kalogrides 2022 in Other Internet Resources ). The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these systemic background inequalities, with prolonged school closures in the U.S. disproportionately impacting low-income children who rely on schools to provide an array of social welfare services, including meals (Levinson, Cevik, and Lipsitch 2020; Levinson, Geller, and Allen, 2021).

In view of the constellation of intrinsic and instrumental goods that flow from educational opportunity, and in the context of relative scarcity, questions about how educational resources should be distributed are especially pressing as a matter of social and economic justice.

A third consideration that underscores the importance of thinking about the distribution of educational opportunities is that in most developed societies, the vast majority of such opportunities are provided through and regulated by the state. All developed societies have a legal requirement that children attend school for a certain number of years. This means that, unlike other policy levers, education is typically under the control of state institutions and has the potential to reach the vast majority of the nation’s children across racial, religious, class, and gender-based divides. And given the myriad benefits that flow from education, it is arguably a state’s most powerful mechanism for influencing the lives of its members. This makes education perhaps the most important function of government.

Since education is an integral function of government, and because it is an opportunity that government largely provides, there are special constraints on its distribution. Justice, if it requires nothing else, requires that governments treat their citizens with equal concern and respect. The state, for example, cannot justly provide unequal benefits to children on the basis of factors such as their race or gender. Indeed, such discrimination, even when it arises from indirect state measures such as the funding of schools from property taxes, can be especially pernicious to and is not lost on children. When poor and minority children see, for example, that their more advantaged peers attend better resourced public schools—a conclusion that can be drawn in many cases simply by comparing how school facilities look—they may internalize the view that the state cares less about cultivating their interests and skills. Children in this position suffer the dignitary injury of feeling that they are not equal to their peers in the state’s eyes (Kozol 1991, 2005). This harm is especially damaging to one’s self-respect because it is the development of one’s talents that is at stake; whether or not one has opportunities to gain the skills and confidence to pursue their conception of the good is central to what Rawls calls “the social basis of self-respect” (Rawls 1999: sections 65 and 67; Satz 2007: 639).

Given the importance of education to individuals and to society, it is clear that education cannot be distributed by the market: it needs to be available to all children, even children whose parents would be too poor or too indifferent to pay for it. Furthermore, if education is to play a role in equipping young people to participate in the labor market, to participate in democratic governance, and more generally to lead flourishing lives, then its content cannot be arbitrary but rather must be tailored to meet these desired outcomes. We address considerations of education’s content in subsequent sections, turning first to how equality of opportunity has been interpreted in the U.S., where we can see some of the implications of a truncated understanding of equality of opportunity in stark form.

The United States Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, in finding racially segregated public schools unconstitutional, declared that the opportunity for an education, when provided for by the state, is a “right which must be available to all on equal terms”. But de facto racial segregation persists in the U.S. and is coupled today with ever-growing class-based segregation (Reardon & Bischoff 2011). Black students are far more likely to attend high-poverty schools than their white peers (see school poverty, in the National Equity Atlas, Other Internet Resources ). The resulting, compounded educational disadvantages that poor, minority children face in the U.S. are significant. As research continues to document, the racial/ethnic achievement gap is persistent and large in the U.S. and has lasting labor market effects, whereby the achievement gap has been found to explain a significant part of racial/ethnic income disparities (Reardon, Robinson-Cimpian, & Weathers 2015; Reardon 2021 in Other Internet Resources).

Efforts to combat de facto segregation have been limited by U.S. jurisprudence since the Brown decision. Although the Supreme Court previously allowed plans to integrate schools within a particular school district (see Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education , 1970), in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) the Court struck down an inter-district busing plan that moved students across district lines to desegregate the Detroit city and surrounding suburban schools. This limitation on legal remedies for de facto segregation has significantly hampered integration efforts given that most school districts in the U.S. are not racially diverse. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court further curtailed integration efforts within the small number of districts that are racially diverse. In its Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District decision (2006), the Court prohibited districts from explicitly using individual students’ race as a factor in school assignment plans, thereby condoning only race-neutral integration plans in what many regarded as the Court’s final retreat from redressing de facto segregation (e.g., Rebell 2009; Ryan 2007).

The persistence of race and class-based segregation in the U.S. and the educational disadvantages that follow are rooted in the U.S. system of geographically defined school districts, whereby schools are largely funded by local property taxes that differ substantially between communities based on property values. This patchwork system compounds the educational disadvantages that follow from residential segregation. The 50 states in the United States differ dramatically in the level of per pupil educational funding that they provide; indeed some of these interstate disparities are greater than the intra-state inequalities that have received greater attention (Liu 2006). The system for funding schools and the residential segregation it exacerbates—itself the product of decades of laws and conscious policies to keep the races separate—has produced and continues to yield funding inequalities that disproportionately affect poor Americans of color. The segregation of resources, with greater resources flowing to children from families in the upper quintiles of society, makes it highly unlikely that children from the lower quintiles can have an equal chance of achieving success. This is evident in research documenting the growing achievement gap between high and low-income students, which is now 30–40% greater among children born in 2001 than those born twenty-five years before (Reardon 2011: 91; Reardon 2021 in Other Internet Resources).

Given the judicial retreat from remedying de facto segregation, many advocates have shifted their attention to the school finance system. A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in this arena was an initial setback to efforts to advance educational equality via federal school finance litigation. In this case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Court found that there is no federal right to education, and that funding inequalities among school districts due to variations in property tax revenue are not unconstitutional. This decision further entrenched the educational inequalities that follow from the geographic happenstance of a child’s home. In contrast to the U.S., many other countries do not finance their schools through local property taxes (e.g., Finland funds its schools at the national level based on the number of students they educate, and it provides more funding to schools that educate more students who are immigrants or whose parents are unemployed or uneducated; Sahlberg 2011). Many other societies distribute educational resources in a more centralized way than does the United States, which leaves educational funding, and even educational standards, to a large extent in local hands (for a recent volume on the idea of a federal right to education in the U.S., see Robinson 2019).

The U.S. Supreme Court did, however, leave an opening for state courts to act, and so legal advocates have adopted a state-by-state approach in the decades since Rodriguez . As this litigation has unfolded in almost every U.S. state, a policy debate with philosophical underpinnings has emerged around the question: Should educational resources be distributed on an equal basis (an equity model), or according to a sufficiency threshold (adequacy model)? State constitutions differ as to the basis they suggest for the state’s interest in funding education.

In the legal and political sphere, the adequacy approach has been more successful in school finance litigation at the state level. But the philosophical elaboration of equity and adequacy as competing ideals is somewhat distinct from how they are used in legal battles and political discourse. As we describe below, some theorists challenge the cogency of the sharp distinction often made between these two ways of justifying the distribution of educational resources.

3. The Meaning of and Debates about Equality of Educational Opportunity

Debates about the meaning and value of equality of educational opportunity—and about whether equal educational opportunity requires equality or adequacy—can be considered in the light of two questions.

The first question is that given the diverse goals of education—preparing individuals for the job market, for democratic citizenship, and to experience the intrinsic goods of education—is there only one justified rubric for distributing educational resources? For instance, distributional policies that support career preparation may be very different from those that support other goals like preparation for democratic citizenship. Since the labor market is a highly competitive sphere, education for labor market success appears to be a positional good, understood as a good whose value depends on one’s relative standing (i.e., the quality of my education for labor market success depends to a great extent on how good your education in this realm is since we will be vying for jobs). In a highly competitive job market with high stakes, distributing educational resources equally becomes especially important.

Conversely, education for human flourishing can be seen as a non-positional good because an individual’s attainment of the intrinsic goods of education (e.g., to enjoy literature, to be intellectually curious) is not compromised by others’ success in this realm; it is not a competitive field. In fact, one’s ability to enjoy the arts might be increased by others’ ability to do so too. An adequacy threshold for distributing educational opportunities directed at human flourishing may therefore be justified. As our educational goals vary, so too might the distributive principles for educational resources need to change.

The second question we must consider is about the best interpretation of the ideal of equality of educational opportunity. Is equality of opportunity achieved when everyone with similar talent gets the same results? When per pupil expenditures are equalized? When those with the same natural talent potential get the same opportunities?

Answers to these two fundamental questions enable philosophers to construct a conception of equality of educational opportunity. Of course, philosophical controversies remain even supposing the content of the conception can be settled. Some of these controversies concern clashes with other values, including that of the family and diversity: What limits do parental rights put on the pursuit of equality of educational opportunity? Is affirmative action required by or contrary to equality of educational opportunity? Other issues arise when we try to interpret what equality of educational opportunity means for those with disabilities, or when we attempt to define “merit” and “native talent potential”.

The following sections of this entry will describe the key maneuvers in different ways of answering these two questions: first, what the ideal can mean and what distributive principles realize it; and second, how to navigate tensions between this ideal and other values. The first section below introduces debates about the various definitions of equality of educational opportunity and its associated distributive principles. Some of the material covered in this section comes from the literature on equality of opportunity more generally, which we apply to educational aspects of these debates (for a recent article in this spirit written for the education policy and research community, see Levinson, Geron, and Brighouse, 2022). The subsequent section surveys debates about how to negotiate the challenges faced by those looking to realize the ideal of equality of educational opportunity, including whether equality of educational opportunity can be reconciled with respecting the private sphere of the family.

Before we can say what an equal educational opportunity is, we need to say what an opportunity is in general. Peter Westen (1985) provides a helpful definition of an opportunity that can be applied to the education sphere. For Westen, an opportunity is a relationship between an agent or a set of agents, and a desired goal, mediated by certain obstacles, none of which are insurmountable. For instance, Alice has an opportunity to become educated mediated by obstacles such as enrolling at a school, putting in hard work, and the quality of her teachers.

To employ this concept in the context of education, we need to answer questions about who the proper agents are, what the appropriate goal or goals are, and what, if any, obstacles are legitimate. For example, if we take admission at a highly selective college as our goal, and the citizens of some country as our agents, we might think that meeting a certain academic requirement, such as passing an entrance exam, is a relevant obstacle that should be permitted to stand in the way of the goal. In this context, we will also think that an applicant’s race, sex or religious affiliation should not be obstacles. When the appropriate group faces only the relevant obstacles with respect to the appropriate goal we can say that equality of opportunity obtains between the members of that group.

For instance, Alice and Belle have equal opportunity to attend a selective university if, all other things being equal, the only obstacle they face is passing an entry test, which is a relevant obstacle. They do not have equal opportunity if Alice also faces an irrelevant obstacle, such as race-based discrimination, that Belle does not face.

Educational opportunities are those opportunities that aim to enable individuals to acquire knowledge and certain skills, and to cultivate certain capacities. As noted above, we may value educational opportunity in some instances for the intrinsic value of acquiring knowledge, while in other cases we may care more about its instrumental effects on individual welfare (e.g., labor market success). Whatever our rationale for caring about educational opportunity, in order for an individual to be said to have this opportunity, she must have no insurmountable, irrelevant obstacles to the particular educational goal we have in mind.

Most commonly we associate the goals that constitute educational opportunities with access to educational institutions such as schools and universities, but apprenticeships and professional development and training also provide educational opportunities. In addition, there are many informal types of educational opportunity. These include public debates and lectures as well as time spent reading, practicing, or thinking outside of a school context.

Most contributors to debates about equality of educational opportunity focus on opportunities that are made available through public K–12 and higher education institutions. The reasons for this are similar to our reasons for being concerned with educational opportunity in the first place. Those institutional opportunities are more easily regulated and under the state’s control, they educate the vast majority of children in the developed world, and they have a profound effect on the quality of our lives. As a result, most of the literature primarily concerns K–12 educational institutions and colleges. Nevertheless, a crucial question concerns the extent to which the state should try to address inequalities in educational opportunities that are generated through the family. For example, we know that parents who read to their children give their children an educational advantage (Hutton et al. 2015). Should the state seek to correct for the disadvantages of those children whose parents could not (or would not) read to them? More generally, parents pass on not only genetic traits to their children, but also characteristics that differentially prepare children for success at school, and even at jobs. Again, how should the state respond to these and other factors that influence children’s likelihood of success at school? Are these appropriate obstacles for children to face or not?

The next sections survey different interpretations of equal educational opportunity in view of these questions.

Formal equality of opportunity is the view that formal rules that make reference to personal or ascriptive characteristics should not be obstacles to achieving certain goals. Such characteristics include race, socio-economic class, gender, religion, and sexuality. It is essentially a concept of equality before the law. It is often understood as an anti-discrimination principle (See the entry on equality of opportunity for more discussion).

As applied to educational opportunity, formal equality of opportunity requires the removal of formal obstacles, in the form of laws or entrance criteria for educational institutions, which refer to ascriptive characteristics. For instance, formal equality of opportunity is opposed to legally segregated schools whose admissions policy states that students be white, male or belong to a certain religion. This conception is likewise opposed to laws that endorse or require segregation in schools. The Brown decision is certainly consistent with at least formal equality of opportunity. At the same time, it is worth noting that formal equality of opportunity is at odds with the tolerant attitude many societies take toward schools and colleges that are segregated by sex and religion. One possible way in which these practices might be reconciled with formal equality of educational opportunity would be to argue that this principle applies only to public educational institutions and not private schools and colleges. Some people accept that formal equality of opportunity is a sufficient norm to guide the distribution of educational opportunities, but most political and moral philosophers accept it as necessary but not sufficient. A principle of non-discrimination leaves open whether and to what extent the state needs to provide the resources that are required for education, or how those resources should be distributed (see Gutmann 1999: 127ff). Since resources are necessary for education—whether in the form of books and materials, teachers, facilities, and so on—formal equality of opportunity is compatible with some children failing to actually receive an education. Formal equality of opportunity fails to provide effective equality of opportunity.

Additionally, formal equality of educational opportunity is not concerned with the informal rules, social norms, or private discrimination that people in a society face that can have a profound effect on a child’s opportunities for education. Consider that formal equality of opportunity is compatible with school segregation, if school attendance zones were determined by residence and residence were segregated by race and social class (as is typically the case in the U.S.). If integration is a moral imperative, formal equality of opportunity cannot achieve this goal (Anderson 2010). Many people believe that insofar as informal discrimination is an unfair obstacle to educational opportunity, it is a serious problem that requires policy attention.

Even if formal equality of opportunity could be defended as a just distributional principle outside of the educational context, perhaps because going beyond it violates certain rights (see Nozick 1997), it cannot be defended in the context of schooling. No democratic society can justify failing to educate the children of its poorest students. (Additionally, see Friedman & Friedman, 1990, for a libertarian argument for universal education based on its third party effects.)

Proponents of meritocratic equality of opportunity argue that no other obstacle besides merit should stand in the way of achievement of the desired goals. This view requires that educational goods be distributed solely in accordance with individual merit. In the context of education, merit is often measured by entrance requirements, aptitude tests, or grades on exams. Of course, merit could be defined in some other way—by how hard a student works, by how much a student improves, or by classroom participation, although all of these indicators pose measurement challenges.

Meritocratic equality of opportunity has well-known limitations, especially with respect to children. If educational opportunities should be given to those who have the most merit in terms of the best scores on entrance tests, we will overlook the fact that merit is endogenous to education, which is to say, educational opportunity itself creates merit (Satz 2007). The more educational opportunities an individual child has, the more “merit” that child may come to have. This might suggest that we should pay more attention to individuals’ underlying potential rather than to their assessed merit. Yet few people believe that we should give opportunities to those who have the most underlying but uncultivated ability at the expense of those who have less underlying ability or who are less qualified but have worked hard (Miller 1996).

To illustrate a second limitation with the meritocratic conception of equal educational opportunity, imagine that all highly selective university places have been awarded to members of the upper class through cronyism, and that a progressive new government is suddenly elected into power to enforce meritocratic admissions. After generations of consolidating superior education, jobs and wealth at the expense of the poor, the upper-classes are in a far better place, particularly if private schooling is available, to ensure that their children end up being the most meritorious, thereby preserving vast social inequalities between members of different classes. Although some opportunities are open to all equally, opportunities to develop “merit” are not distributed equally (Williams 1962). Intergenerational transmission of opportunities to cultivate merit would generate a deeply divided and unequal society, which is at odds with the ideal of equality of educational opportunity.

Two further limitations concerning meritocratic equality of opportunity in the context of education are worth noting, aside from the possible toxic consequences of engaging in meritocratic rhetoric (Young 1958; Sandel 2020). The first, as has already been mentioned, is that the definition of merit itself can be contentious. Is there an account of merit that is wholly independent of conceptions of justice (Sen 2000)? Is merit simply what maximizes productivity? Should merit be based solely on test scores or also take into account moral attributes like the ability to work cooperatively with others?

The second is that while conditioning educational opportunities on “merit” may look compelling when dealing with young adults, it is deeply problematic when applied to very young children. As Michael Walzer (1983: 203) notes, the job of the reading teacher is to teach children to read, not merely to offer the opportunity to learn to read. And this job presumably includes all children in a classroom—even those who are not especially “meritorious”. Perhaps this is also why the educational “tracking” of very young children on the basis of ability seems especially objectionable—there are certain capacities that need to be cultivated in all children (Satz 2007).

Because of the limits of formal equality of opportunity, John Rawls developed a conception he calls Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEO). FEO requires that social offices and positions be formally open to all, and that individuals who are similarly talented and motivated should have a roughly equal chance to attain these positions, independent of their social class background (Rawls 2001: 42–44). FEO holds that all citizens of a society count as the relevant agents, the desired goal is offices and positions, and the obstacles people should not face includes their social class background. The obstacles people may legitimately face include having fewer developed abilities or less willingness to use them.

When applied to education, this principle may support educational measures that close the achievement gap between the rich and the poor with the same high talent potentials, assuming that these children can be identified. This is because such students from poorer backgrounds should fare as well as their wealthier peers with the same potentials. The Rawlsian principle of FEO aims to eliminate the effects of social background and economic class on educational achievement. Fair equality of opportunity therefore offers a radical interpretation of equality of educational opportunity.

Debates about FEO have focused on the relative importance of the goods it regulates (i.e., access to offices and positions) and the fact that it regards inequalities in inborn potential as relevant obstacles generally, and in the education arena.

In A Theory of Justice , Rawls accords the fair equality of opportunity principle priority over access to other types of advantages such as income and wealth. Disputing this priority, some have argued that the opportunities that FEO regulates are not more important than these other goods and that we should prefer a principle (known, for example, in Rawls’ work as the difference principle) that ensures that the least advantaged are as well-off as possible in terms of income (or according to some critics, well-being) (Alexander 1985; Arneson 1999; Clayton 2001; Miklosi 2010). Richard Arneson presses this complaint forcefully in his paper “Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity”. Rawls’ argument for FEO over the difference principle comes from a commitment to individuals’ self-respect and the contribution that the ability to compete for offices and social positions on fair terms make to that self-respect. But Arneson argues that those among us with lesser capacities might reasonably reject according such weight to the self-respect of the talented. After all, the self-respect derived from the results of a “natural lottery” is unequally distributed. The untalented among us, Arneson argues, would prefer increases in well-being to a principle of self-respect that confers no benefit to them.

In terms of education, rather than ensuring that those with the same inborn talent potential and ambition have the same level of educational achievement, Arneson would emphasize that educational opportunities should aim at promoting the welfare of the least advantaged. This is more important, as he sees it, than ensuring that future competitions for jobs are fairly structured. But Rawls and his defenders have argued that wealth and welfare are different in kind from the goods that FEO regulates, and that FEO pertains to more important goods that are closely connected to autonomy, the social bases of self-respect, and what he calls the two moral powers. This explains their priority and irreducibility (Taylor 2004; Shields 2015; Shiffrin 2004). Further, if everyone had a decent minimum, then the additional contribution of wealth to well-being is less significant. In subsequent work however, Rawls does acknowledge that the priority of FEO over his difference principle may be less stringent than he thought.

Some philosophers criticize FEO as insufficiently egalitarian. This criticism has taken two forms. First, some claim that by making fair opportunities relative to motivation, FEO has insufficient bite in a non-ideal world in which inequality frequently produces diminished aspirations in the oppressed. If women have been socialized for centuries to think that certain positions in society are beyond their capacities, and accordingly they are not motivated to pursue such positions, does FEO have the resources to criticize this?

A second objection points out that inequalities in social luck (e.g., being born into a poor family, which FEO requires institutions to correct for) and inequalities in natural luck (e.g., being born with less talent potential, which FEO does not require institutions to correct for) should be treated the same. It is easy to think that both types of luck are equally arbitrary from a moral point of view, and that this arbitrariness is a source of injustice. Indeed, some of Rawls’ own remarks seem to suggest this. Why, we might ask, should educational institutions help close the gap between the talented rich and talented poor but do nothing to close the gap between talented and untalented students, when being untalented is, just like social class, totally unavoidable. Matthew Clayton and Richard Arneson press this complaint against Rawls. Clayton claims that Rawls’ own reasoning appears to privilege consistency about both types of luck. So Rawls should either accept a different principle applying to both natural and social luck, or else he must condone a type of natural aristocracy for both talent and wealth.

Part of a response to these objections would have to defend the resources that Rawlsian theory has for dealing with race and gender as obstacles to fair equality of opportunity as well as the importance of the specific goods that FEO protects. Rawls himself singled out certain goods as having a higher priority than the goods of income and wealth alone. In defense of Rawls on the first objection, Seana Shiffrin (2004) has argued that FEO is a “robust anti-discrimination principle”, which should not be read out of its context within Rawls’ two principles as a whole. Moreover, it

would be difficult to provide the sort of educational training necessary to fulfill the principle’s commands without thereby engaging in teaching that also combatted the stereotypes that produce significant differentiation of ambitions. (2004: 1650, fn31)

On her view, the social bases of self-respect require the robust anti-discrimination principle that FEO provides. In defense of Rawls on the second objection, Robert Taylor (2004) has attempted to show that self-realization has a crucial place in the hierarchy of goods on the Kantian interpretation of Rawls’ principles. He claims that FEO therefore has priority over the difference principle because it regulates goods that are more central to the exercise of our moral powers and our highest order interests. However, his defense of Rawls has been criticized for being overly perfectionist and therefore not politically liberal. If this criticism is sound, then it may seem to imply that while perfectionist Rawlsians can justify FEO, political liberal Rawlsians cannot. Liam Shields (2015) argues that there is a non-perfectionist account of self-realization and that this leads us to supplement the principle of FEO with a principle of sufficient self-realization. This may be one way to defend FEO against those who favor a strict focus on welfare.

However, these responses would not satisfy those who believe that we should adopt prioritarianism with respect to especially important goods, distributing them in a way that gives priority to those who have the least (Schouten 2012). Prioritarianism is a controversial view, and has some controversial implications for the distribution of K–12 education. For example, a prioritarian view might endorse providing no state supported educational resources at all for those who are extremely talented, unless it could be shown that doing so improves the lot of the least well off. But many people will reject this implication, believing that the state does have educational obligations to the talented in their own right. Prioritarianism is also inattentive to inequalities that obtain elsewhere in the distributional scheme, for example, between those at the median and those at the very top. Many egalitarians will be disturbed by disproportionate opportunities going to the top 1%, even if the very bottom of the distribution is improved. Rawls’ view is not a simple prioritarian one, but instead endorses a complex set of principles—some of which are egalitarian such as FEO, and some of which give special attention to the least well off, such as the difference principle.

A final issue with FEO concerns our understanding of, and ability to determine, natural levels of talent. It can be very hard to know who has the most potential even when children are well into their schooling. This suggests that it is not an appropriate or feasible benchmark for the regulation of social institutions since we could never know whether it was satisfied (Gomberg 1975). In addition, the focus on natural talents has led some to consider the interaction between epigenetic traits and social environmental factors, calling into question the integrity of this distinction. This expands our sense of the arbitrariness of natural inequalities and may provide important insights on how to redress these inequalities (Loi, Del Savio and Stupka 2013).

One goal of education is to enable young people to grow into adults who have flourishing lives. What would it mean to give children the equal opportunity for flourishing lives? Again, that depends on the view one should have about the appropriate obstacles. At the most extreme, some have argued all people should face only the obstacle of their own choices. The view makes sense of many of our intuitions. For example, we tend to think that victims of bad luck, those born with disabilities, or those who are severely harmed by natural disasters, are entitled to aid. Meanwhile, those who gamble and lose are not usually viewed as having any case for compensation.

The view so stated has very radical implications for educational institutions since it charges them with ensuring that all students have equal prospects for living well, regardless of differences in their natural potentials. Thus, educational institutions organized in accordance with equality of opportunity for flourishing would not only have to provide compensatory support and resources for those from disadvantaged family backgrounds, but also for those who have genetic disadvantages.

Many philosophers have taken issue with this general view. Some have argued that its unmitigated emphasis on choice and responsibility would lead to stigma (e.g., Anderson 1999; Wolff 1998). Imagine a letter to parents saying that the state is offering your child extra opportunities because your genes create significant disadvantages. Moreover, as has already been noted, any view emphasizing choice so heavily seems especially out of place when dealing with young children.

We also need an account of the flourishing that should be the aim of educational opportunities. Is it to be understood in terms of preference satisfaction? Or something else? Would it require autonomy? In choosing an account of flourishing, we have to respond to these questions and also be attentive to concerns about sectarianism. How can an undoubtedly controversial account of what makes a human life valuable (e.g., that a good life is an autonomous life) be a suitable basis for educational policy in a pluralistic society? Many liberals argue that families may justifiably reject, and request exemption from, an education that conflicts with their religious, cultural, or political views. They argue that an educational system driven by a principle of equality of opportunity for flourishing will not respect individuals’ entitlement to pursue their own account of how they wish to live, in accordance with their own reason (Rawls 2005). Of course, it might be pointed out in reply, that educational decisions made by parents affect not only their own views of how to live but also, and more importantly, their children’s.

A second key goal for education, which plays a prominent role in public discourse, is to prepare individuals for productive employment. Education for the labor market has significant benefits for the state (e.g., GDP growth) and for individuals (e.g., remunerative and rewarding employment and all its associated benefits, including more discretionary income, more leisure time, and in the U.S., better healthcare). This function of education is critically important as a matter of justice. Education aimed at preparing individuals for employment has become especially pressing in view of the income inequalities that leading economists have highlighted (Piketty 2014; Saez & Zucman 2014). And since education for employment is a highly positional good given a competitive labor market, it matters all the more how educational opportunity in this arena is distributed.

Although there is a clear correlation between educational attainment, income, and employment rates (see 2022 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Other Internet Resources ), the link between academic achievement as measured on tests and labor market outcomes has been found to be more attenuated (Bowles, Gintis, & Osborne 2001). Research has shown that “soft skills” (e.g., personality traits like tenacity; individual’s goals and preferences) may be more predictive of success than cognitive abilities measured by test scores (Heckman & Kautz 2012). Moreover, schooling that is most directly targeted at employment—vocational education—has a history in the U.S. of entrenching race and class-based inequalities (e.g., Oakes 1985). Although the relationship between traditional academic skills and labor market success may be less significant than previously thought, and despite the checkered history of vocational education, formal schooling still has a critical role to play toward equipping individuals for labor market success on several fronts.

First, students do acquire soft skills in formal school settings. One study found that student achievement on tests accounts for just 20% of the effects of educational attainment on earnings (Bowles, Gintis, & Osborne 2001), which indicates that schools are cultivating non-cognitive skills that tests do not measure, and that are consequential in the labor market (Levin 2012). Second, educational attainment has long been seen to have a signaling function in the labor market (Spence 1973), whereby employers rely upon job candidates’ educational credentials as a proxy for future productivity. Educational attainment itself, then, apart from applicants’ demonstration of particular skills, is central to screening and differentiating candidates. Finally, a college diploma has become especially consequential in recent years as the income gap between those with and without one has grown; individuals with a bachelors degree earn 84% more over their lifetime than those with just a high school diploma (see Carnevale, Rose & Cheah 2011). Lesley Jacobs’ notion of stakes fairness (2004) underscores the importance of equality of educational opportunity when it comes to preparation for the labor market. Ideally, the stakes attached to education for labor market success would not be nearly as high as they are now, whereby a winner-takes-all competition for a job can determine an individual’s access to social goods like healthcare, leisure time, and discretionary income. When the (non-ideal) stakes are this high, equality of educational opportunity matters all the more (Jacobs 2010).

Another important goal for providing educational opportunities is the development of students’ capacities associated with being a good citizen and maintaining democratic institutions over time (Callan 1997; Galston 2001; Gutmann 1999). It might be argued that just as equality of opportunity to become a flourishing individual is a matter of justice, so too is equality of opportunity to develop civic skills, and to participate effectively in political deliberations.

The structure and appropriate content of civic education is debated extensively. While some argue that citizenship education can be narrowly construed so as to not encroach upon individuals’ private commitments, others claim it is a far more demanding educational endeavor. A key part of this debate is the extent to which education requires the cultivation of autonomy, and if does, the nature of the autonomy that is required. Some claim that since some groups in pluralistic democracies reject the idea of an autonomous life, education for autonomy cannot be imposed upon them even for civic purposes, and so education should not entail the cultivation of individual autonomy (Galston 1989). Rawls’ own solution to the potential clash between civic education for autonomy and individuals’ private commitments is to advocate only a limited form of autonomy, political autonomy, which “leaves untouched all kinds of doctrines—religious, metaphysical, and moral” and yields a relatively thin civic education (Rawls 2005: 375). Others take issue with this view, arguing that civic education requires an encompassing form of autonomy that has unavoidable spillover effects into the private sphere of individuals’ lives, and that may clash with some religious convictions (Callan 1997; Gutmann 1995; see also Arneson & Shapiro 1996, for a discussion of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), a U.S. Supreme Court case about religious exemptions from compulsory education).

Another dimension of ongoing debates about equality in the realm of civic education concerns the scope of the community for which we are educating students to become members. Is the right unit of analysis a particular nation state or the global community? If it is a particular nation state, how can we cultivate in students a sense of their national identity and the disposition to respect their state’s institutions and laws (and to advocate reform when needed), while also making them sensitive to what they owe non-citizens as a matter of justice? A key component of this debate is whether students should receive a patriotic civic education—that is, one that prioritizes shoring up their allegiance to their state over their capacity to reflect critically upon its potential shortcomings. Galston (1989) has notably argued that students need a civic education that is more rhetorical than rational, while a number of liberal theorists have criticized his view on grounds of democratic legitimacy, its status-quo bias, and the related possibility of ossifying existing inequalities (e.g., Brighouse 1998; Callan 1997; see also the related entry on civic education ). On the other hand, if we instead have a cosmopolitan view of civic education and aim to cultivate “citizens of the world” (e.g., Nussbaum & Cohen 1996), what are the relevant capacities that need to be made effective? There is no world state for students to participate in.

Whatever one believes about the appropriate scope and content of civic education, a pressing issue is students’ extremely uneven access to educational opportunities that prepare them for participatory citizenship. Meira Levinson’s work on the “civic achievement gap” highlights this corollary to the much-more discussed achievement gap and underscores vast inequalities across student groups in terms of what youth know about how government works, and their ability to participate effectively in civic life (Levinson 2012). These low rates of participation and engagement also have consequences for how the interests of the poor are treated. Indeed, even if one rejects equality of opportunity in this domain, there is ample evidence that many societies are not doing enough to enable their poorer and less educated citizens to effectively and competently participate in public life.

A longstanding debate in the literature juxtaposes the view that we should prioritize equality in the distribution of educational opportunities with the view that an “adequacy” approach is the right one (on this debate, see Reich 2013). Those who advocate the equality view may insist on equal outputs (i.e., educational outcomes, like the mastery of particular skills) or inputs (i.e., educational resources, like equal per pupil funding or qualified teachers). The adequacy view, by contrast, is seen as holding that what matters most is meeting a specified educational threshold.

In the context of school finance litigation in the U.S., advocates often invoke these two distributive ideals together rather than regarding them as being at odds (Rebell 2009: 21–22; Ryan 2008: 1232–1238). Although most school finance litigation in the U.S. today is pursued from an adequacy framework given its greater political viability, litigators often make comparative claims about students’ educational opportunities to bolster their case. Conversely in contexts where lawyers pursue equality claims, they frequently appeal to a conception of educational quality (e.g., achieving literacy, numeracy, and civic skills) to anchor their claims, and to avoid the leveling-down problem whereby equality is achieved by making everyone worse off, without regard for the realization of particular educational goals.

Some philosophical work has similarly undercut the sharp equality/adequacy distinction and shows how the two ideals are closely intertwined in the pursuit of educational justice. These approaches (e.g., Satz 2007; Anderson 2007) argue that adequacy in education has a relative and comparative component because the educational threshold depends on the knowledge and skills that others have, and so it is necessarily a moving target. For example, what it takes to serve on a jury, or to have an adequate opportunity for college, depends on the knowledge and skill levels of others. This “relational” approach to adequacy can respond to one of the strongest concerns proponents of equality raise: that because many of the benefits of education are positional, which is to say, their value depends upon one’s position relative to others, equality is the right distributive principle for educational opportunities. The meritocratic distribution of jobs, where the most qualified candidate is appointed (rather than the individual who is merely well-qualified), ensures that positionality is decisive in many cases. Conceptions of adequacy that are attentive to relevant comparative claims can address this issue and thereby deflate the tension between adequacy and equality approaches to distributing educational opportunities.

However one interprets equality of educational of opportunity, a number of important challenges face anyone who believes that the ideal is a crucial component of a fair and just society. Several of these challenges are philosophical in nature. For instance, one can ask whether certain values (e.g., respecting family autonomy) compete with the demands of equality of opportunity in education in ways that trump or are trumped by concerns about educational equality. One can also ask whether equal educational opportunity requires affirmative action, and what it may require for students with disabilities and special educational needs. One can accept equality of educational opportunity with respect to some goods and adequacy of educational opportunity with respect to others (Callan 2016). There are other challenges that are not philosophical but practical, such as how we can convince policymakers to allocate sufficient funds to meet students’ educational needs, and how we might increase public support for the ideal of equality of educational opportunity more generally.

4. Equality of Educational Opportunity’s Tensions with Other Values

Family background has long been recognized as a source of significant inequalities. Even before we consider that children have quite different personalities and needs, inequality in family wealth and differences in family priorities and wield influence over a child’s prospects in the labor market, in civic participation, and in overall well-being. Although the number of parents who choose to pay tuition to have their children educated in private schools may be relatively small, purchasing elite private schooling can result in compounding advantages for some students (and thus relative disadvantages for others). Only about 10% of primary and secondary students in the U.S. attend private schools (see NCES’s the Condition of Education 2016 in Other Internet Resources ), while students who attended private secondary schools have comprised nearly 30% or more of matriculating classes at some highly selective American universities in recent years (see, for example, online profiles of the 2016 freshman class at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale listed in Other Internet Resources ). Students at some public schools may also suffer more immediate disadvantages from the absence of the positive peer effects of being in a school with higher achieving students and more engaged parents. Smaller class sizes, more highly qualified teachers, and more extra-curricular opportunities may enable private school students to benefit from the compounding advantages of greater success in the college admissions process and subsequent labor market. And since employment opportunities and elite college places are scarce goods that are closely linked to other benefits in health, wealth, and overall well-being, these inequalities can be highly consequential.

While some of these inequalities might be remedied by social policies that address employment practices, gender and racial inequality, and wealth inequality, we have reasons to think that some inequality in opportunity will remain in a just society simply because parents should be able to treat their children differently from other people’s children in ways that are to their children’s advantage. For example, a parent may read bedtime stories to his children but if he does he does not also need to read them to other children, even if a failure to read to everyone exacerbates inequality. There are limits to what the state can do without intruding on the life of the family. At the same time, concern for mitigating inequality that is rooted in familial relations has to grapple with the fact that different parenting styles have value as well as downsides, and that the middle-class norm of trying to maximize children’s potential (“concerted cultivation”; Lareau 2011) is no exception in terms of having certain disadvantages for children.

There are several possible approaches to the conflict between equal educational opportunity and the family. One approach subordinates our concern for equality of educational opportunity to our concern with the family. To support this view we might try to argue that the goods of family life are especially weighty, or, that as a matter of value pluralism, the state cannot impose complete uniformity on childrearing practices. Conversely, we could subordinate our concern for the family to our concern with equality of educational opportunity. If this were to happen, however, we could end up abolishing the family as we know it, since the family and partiality run contrary to equal opportunity. One cannot, it seems, have the family and have perfect equality of opportunity. Plato famously advocated raising children in common within communities in The Republic (though not out of concern for equality). But most philosophers, including Rawls, believe that abolishing the family is far too high a price to pay for equality (this is discussed in Munoz-Dardé 1999; Brighouse & Swift 2009; Schoeman 1980; Schrag 1976; see also Miller 2009 on different conceptions of equality of opportunity and how the family fits within them).

Alternatively, we might think that some careful weighing of the values at stake is required. For instance, we might think that only some of the demands of familial partiality, those related to intimacy such as reading bedtime stories, are sufficient to outweigh concern for equality of educational opportunity. Other aspects of familial partiality that appear to be unconnected to intimacy, such as paying tuition for private schools, would not be justified. This view would enjoin us to equalize children’s educational opportunities whenever we can, without sacrificing the goods central to the family (Brighouse & Swift 2014). Yet it can be very difficult in practice to determine whether an advantage parents provide their child is constitutive of the family or not.

Individuals with cognitive and physical disabilities have been marginalized, denied resources, and even denied an education. Can a conception of equality of educational opportunity accommodate those with cognitive and physical disabilities? Some critics claim that theories of justice focus unduly on meeting the demands of reciprocity and cooperation as a pre-condition to equal opportunity and other demands of justice, and in doing so, exclude some individuals with disabilities from those entitlements. Some argue that we need new theories (Kittay 1999; Barnes 2016) while others argue that existing theories and approaches can be applied to or extended to include individuals with disabilities (Stark 2013; Robeyns 2006; Brighouse 2001). In education, treating individuals with disabilities the same as those without does not always suffice to treat all equally, for disabilities sometimes give rise to special needs and requirements and this raises challenges for ‘inclusion’ (Warnock 2005). In order to avoid these challenges it seems that we might need to endorse differential treatment, which can lead to stigma and division and has been associated with educational segregation. This gives rise to what has been called the “dilemma of difference” and pertains to decisions about whether students with disabilities should be educated in the same class as students without disabilities. Placing disabled children in mainstream schools or classes may lead to bullying, as Mary Warnock (2005) has noted, but placing disabled children in separate settings may further entrench the wide-spread social stigma associated with disability, even when there is much that can be done to ensure disability is not an obstacle to learning. Further debates focus on the extent to which (at least some of) the disadvantages of disability may be detached from the disability itself and the extent to which they are attached only in virtue of social organization or social attitudes, which we could and should alter. For instance, if the dominant modes of communication in our society were sign-based rather than spoken, perhaps deafness would not be considered a disability. Likewise, where braille translations are readily available, the blind do not face a disability with respect to reading (Sparrow 2005). In the case of education, the design of the school or the curriculum can determine whether a disability is an obstacle to learning. For some discussion of this debate see Terzi 2005.

Disability may be thought to pose problems for various conceptions of equality of educational opportunity and can strengthen well-known objections. For example, it poses problems for those who endorse a meritocratic allocation of advantageous positions, such as FEO. If one of the primary goals of an education system is to ensure fair competition for jobs, many people with disabilities will likely face greater and even insurmountable obstacles to becoming the most meritorious candidate. Recall that FEO requires equal prospects for the equally naturally talented and ambitious. Some of those with disabilities do not have similar or equal natural talent with others vying for opportunities, even if these differences could be compensated for through education. Meritocratic equality of opportunity also appears to neglect some people with disabilities, by interpreting merit in terms of inborn potentials. FEO and meritocratic equality of opportunity are consistent with providing very low or even no educational opportunities to some cognitively disabled persons, but that hardly seems like an acceptable outcome. Adequacy accounts may also struggle to explain what to do when disabilities are so severe that individuals cannot achieve adequate educational levels, or do so only at enormous cost. If an adequate education involved at least acquiring a high school diploma, it is not possible for some cognitively impaired persons to reach this level. Since the focus of adequacy is on achieving that level, and these people cannot do so, it appears that when educational adequacy is set at these levels no entitlement to education for the cognitively disabled can be derived from it. This sort of example puts a lot of pressure on accounts of adequacy to explain at what cost adequacy is worth pursuing, and also challenge those who deny that native ability is relevant to equality of opportunity.

One way to avoid such outcome would be to supplement these views of equality or adequacy of educational opportunity with other principles. For example, it might be held that we owe some educational resources even to the severely cognitively disabled not on grounds of equality of opportunity but on grounds of humanity.

Opportunities belong to agents. However, when we are concerned with equality of opportunity we may be concerned that each individual has the same opportunities or that certain groups (classified by race, gender, socio-economic class, sexuality or religion) have the same opportunities. In other words, our concern may be that people’s opportunities are not affected by their membership of some disadvantaged group rather than being concerned that each individual has equal opportunity within groups. Imagine two societies. In society A , all those who gain entrance to selective colleges on the basis of test scores are white. In society B , all those who gain entrance on the basis of test scores are white or non-white in proportionate to their percentages in the overall population. Should we care about whether we are in society A or B ? If our concern is with individuals alone, then so long as our conception of equality of opportunity is met, then there is no difference between society A and B . Of course, we may suspect that society A violates our conception of equality of opportunity. But suppose that it does not.

Do we have any reason to favor a college admissions policy that moves us from A to B ? Those who advocate for affirmative action in admissions argue that we have reason to depart from a color-blind standard. Some of those arguments appeal to the illegitimacy of the standards used (e.g., tests scores), which critics say are biased. Others argue that we should expect to see equality of outcomes with respect to relevant social groups. For example, John Roemer (1998) defends a conception of equality of opportunity according to which members of groups that have been subordinated (women, racial minorities) should have the same probabilities of achieving success as the members of the dominant group. This is because he thinks the obstacles these groups face should be the same and if we assume that they have equal distributions of talent within them, then different outcomes means there are different obstacles. Roemer uses the example of smoking to illustrate this. Smoking rates vary by social class: the poorer you are, the more likely it is that you will smoke. On Roemer’s view, this means that it is harder for a poor person to stop smoking than a wealthy person. So we should not penalize a poor person who smokes to the same extent that we penalize a wealthy person. Of course, which social groups should be included in this exercise is controversial. Conservatives and liberals differ as to whether individuals face different obstacles simply by virtue of their group membership.

A different argument for moving to society B is given by Glenn Loury (1987) who argues that the dynamic effects of a society like A would prevent poor but talented minorities from achieving equality of educational opportunity because they would lack access to the social networks upon which jobs and other opportunities depend. In society A , disadvantages would cluster. Because equality of opportunity does not, as we have seen, easily extend to the private sphere of family and intimate associations, it is compatible with the continued practice of racial discrimination in such practices, even when there is legal, formal equality.

Loury thus sees a role for preferential policies in higher education that would move us from a society like A to a society like B . One of the more controversial reforms associated with higher education and equality of opportunity is affirmative action, which reserves preferential treatment for historically disadvantaged groups. Affirmative action has been criticized by those who think that merit, and not race or class, should be the only criterion for selecting college applicants. Others argue that it can lead to the unintended stigmatization of members of disadvantaged groups who attend college as not deserving of their place. However, this is to forget that opportunities to develop merit are themselves unfairly distributed between groups historically. Notwithstanding this response, affirmative action remains a controversial response to a very difficult social problem (Guinier 2016).

This entry has provided analysis of key positions in debates about equality of educational opportunity. We began by describing the reasons for being concerned about equality in this arena and then surveyed debates about the value and distribution of such opportunities. As the above discussion highlights, the realization of the ideal of equality of educational opportunity may be frustrated by competing conceptions of what equality itself entails, and also by other important values that are in tension with equalizing education opportunities (e.g., respecting family autonomy). Social scientific advances in recent years have clarified our understanding of the mechanisms behind children’s unequal access to educational opportunities, and the consequences of those inequalities for social mobility (e.g., Chetty et al. 2014; Duncan & Murnane 2011). This knowledge enables policymakers to target interventions to areas that will be most impactful (e.g., growing recognition of the importance of early childhood education). But value tensions of the sort highlighted in this entry will persist, and they warrant ongoing attention by philosophers as our understanding of the causes and consequences of educational inequalities sharpens.

• Alexander, Larry A., 1985, “Fair Equality of Opportunity: John Rawls’ (Best) Forgotten Principle”, Philosophy Research Archives , 11: 197–208. doi:10.5840/pra19851111
• Anderson, Elizabeth S., 1999, “What Is the Point of Equality?”, Ethics , 109(2): 287–337. doi:10.1086/233897
• –––, 2007, “Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective”, Ethics , 117(4): 595–622. doi:10.1086/518806
• –––, 2010, The Imperative of Integration , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Arneson, Richard J., 1999, “Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity”, Philosophical Studies , 93(1): 77–112. doi:10.1023/A:1004270811433
• Arneson, Richard and Ian Shapiro, 1996, “Democratic Autonomy and Religious Liberty: A Critique of Wisconsin v. Yoder”, in Political Order (Nomos 38), Ian Shapiro and Russell Hardin (eds.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 365–411.
• Barnes, Elizabeth, 2016, The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, and Melissa Osborne, 2001, “The Determinants of Earnings: A Behavioral Approach”, Journal of Economic Literature , 39(4): 137–1176. doi:10.1257/jel.39.4.1137
• Brighouse, Harry, 1998, “Civic Education and Liberal Legitimacy”, Ethics , 108(4): 719–745. doi:10.1086/233849
• –––, 2001, “Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?”, Social Theory and Practice , 27(4): 537–560. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200127433
• Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2009, “Educational Equality Versus Educational Adequacy: A Critique of Anderson and Satz”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 26(2): 117–128. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00438.x
• –––, 2014, Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Callan, Eamonn, 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198292589.001.0001
• –––, 2016, “Democracy, Equal Citizenship, and Education”, Theory and Research in Education , 14(1): 77–90. doi:10.1177/1477878515619789
• Carnevale, Anthony P., Stephen J. Rose, and Ban Cheah, 2011, The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings , Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce. [ Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah 2011 available online ]
• Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, & Emmanuel Saez, 2014, “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 129(4): 1553–1623. doi:10.3386/w19843
• Clayton, Matthew, 2001, “Rawls And Natural Aristocracy”, Croatian Journal Of Philosophy , 1(3): 239–259.
• Dee, Thomas S., 2004, “Are There Civic Returns to Education?”, Journal of Public Economics , 88(9–10): 1697–1720.
• Duncan, Greg J. and Richard J. Murnane (eds.), 2011, Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances . New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, 1990, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement , New York: Harcourt.
• Galston, William, 1989, “Civic Education in the Liberal State”, in Nancy Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 89–102.
• –––, 2001, “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education”, Annual Review of Political Science , 4(1): 217–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.217
• Gomberg, Paul, 1975, “IQ and Race: A Discussion of Some Confusions”, Ethics , 85(3): 258–266. doi:10.1086/291965
• Guinier, Lani, 2016, The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Gutmann, Amy, 1995, “Civic Education and Social Diversity”, Ethics , 105(3): 557–579. doi:10.1086/293727
• –––, 1999, Democratic Education . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Heckman, James J. and Tim D. Kautz, 2012, “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills”, Labour Economics , 19(4): 451–464. doi:10.3386/w18121 doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014
• Hutton, John S., Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus, Alan L. Mendelsohn, Tom DeWitt, Scott K. Holland, & C-MIND Authorship Consortium, 2015, “Home Reading Environment and Brain Activation in Preschool Children Listening to Stories”, Pediatrics , 136(3): 466–478. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-0359
• Institute for Higher Education, 1998, Reaping the Benefits: Defining the Public and Private Value of Going to College , Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education.
• Jacobs, Lesley A., 2004, Pursuing Equal Opportunities: the Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2010, “Equality, Adequacy, And Stakes Fairness: Retrieving The Equal Opportunities In Education Approach”, Theory And Research In Education , 8(3): 249–268. doi:10.1177/1477878510381627
• Jencks, Christopher, 1988, “Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?” Ethics , 98(3): 518–533. doi:10.1086/292969
• Kittay, Eva, 1999, Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency , New York: Routledge
• Kozol, Jonathan, 1991, Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools , New York: Broadway Books.
• –––, 2005, The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America , New York: Broadway Books.
• Lareau, Annette, 2011, Unequal childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life , Oakland: University of California Press.
• Levin, Henry M., 2012, “More Than Just Test Scores”, Prospects , 42(3): 269–284. doi:10.1007/s11125-012-9240-z
• Levinson, Meira, 2012, No Citizen Left Behind , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Levinson, Meira, Tatiana Geron, and Harry Brighouse, 2022, “Conceptions of Educational Equity”, AERA Open , 8. doi:10.1177/23328584221121344
• Levinson, Meira, Alan C. Geller, and Joseph G. Allen, 2021, “Health Equity, School Hesitancy, and the Social Determinants of Learning”, The Lancet Regional Health – Americas , 2: 100032. doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100032
• Levinson, Meira, Muge Cevik, and Marc Lipsitch, 2020, “Reopening Primary Schools During the Pandemic”, New England Journal of Medicine , 383: 981–985. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2024920
• Liu, Goodwin, 2006, “Interstate Inequality in Educational Opportunity”, New York University Law Review , 81(6): 2044–2128.
• Loi, Michele, Lorenzo Del Savio, and Elia Stupka, 2013, “Social Epigentics and Equality of Opportunity”, Public Health Ethics , 6(2): 142–153. doi:10.1093/phe/pht019
• Loury, Glenn C., 1987, “Why Should We Care About Group Inequality”, Social Philosophy and Policy 5(1): 249–271. doi:10.1017/S0265052500001345
• Miklosi, Zoltan, 2010, “How Does the Difference Principle Make a Difference?”, Res Publica , 16(3): 263–280. doi:10.1007/s11158-010-9123-1
• Miller, David, 1996, “Two Cheers for Meritocracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 4(4): 277–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.1996.tb00053.x
• –––, 2009, “Equality Of Opportunity And The Family”, in Debra Satz and Rob Reich (eds.), Toward A Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy Of Susan Moller Okin , New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–112. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195337396.003.0006
• Munoz-Dardé, Véronique, 1999, “Is the Family to be Abolished Then?”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 99: 37–56. doi:10.1111/1467-9264.00044
• Nozick, Robert, 1997, “ Life is Not a Race ”, in Louis P. Pojman and Robert Westmoreland (eds.), Equality: Selected Readings , New York: Oxford University Press, 167–169.
• Nussbaum, Martha C., 2007, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Nussbaum, Martha C. and Joshua Cohen, 1996, For Love of Country? , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Oakes, Jeannie, 1985, Keeping Track . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Phillips, Anne, 2004, “Defending Equality of Outcome”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(1): 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00188.x
• Piketty, Thomas, 2014, Capital in the Twenty-first Century , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, John, 1999, A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: a Restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Reardon, Sean F., 2011, “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations”, in Greg J. Duncan and Richard J. Murnane (eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation, pp. 91–116.
• Reardon, Sean F. and Kendra Bischoff, 2011, “Income Inequality and Income Segregation”, American Journal of Sociology , 116(4): 1092–1153. doi:10.1086/657114
• Reardon, Sean F., Joseph P. Robinson-Cimpian, and Ericka S. Weathers, 2015, “Patterns and Trends in Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Academic Achievement Gaps”, in Helen F. Ladd and M.E. Goertz (eds.), Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (2nd Ed.) , New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 497–516.
• Rebell, Michael A., 2009, Courts and Kids: Pursuing Educational Equity through the State Courts , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Reich, Rob, 2013, “ Equality, Adequacy, and K12 Education ”, in Danielle Allen and Rob Reich (eds.), Education, Justice, and Democracy , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 623–648.
• Robeyns, Ingrid, 2006, “Three Models of Education: Rights, Capabilities and Human Capital”, Theory and Research in Education , 4(1): 69–84. doi:10.1177/1477878506060683
• Robinson, Kimberly Jenkins (ed.), 2019, A Federal Right to Education: Fundamental Questions for Our Democracy , New York: New York University Press.
• Roemer, John E., 1998, Equality of Opportunity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ryan, James E., 2007, “The Supreme Court and Voluntary Integration”, Harvard Law Review , 121(1): 131–157.
• –––, 2008, “Standards, Testing, and School Finance Litigation”, Texas Law Review , 86: 1223–1262.
• Saez, Emmanuel and Gabriel Zucman, 2014, Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data (NBER Working Paper no. 20625), Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w20625
• Sahlberg, Pasi, 2011, Finnish lessons , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Sandel, Michael, 2020, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Satz, Debra, 2007, “Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship”, Ethics , 117(4): 623–648. doi:10.1086/518805
• Schoeman, Ferdinand, 1980, “Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family”, Ethics , 91(1): 6–19. doi:10.1086/292199
• Schouten, Gina, 2012, “Fair Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of Natural Ability: Toward a Prioritarian Principle of Educational Justice”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 46(3): 472–491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00863.x
• Schrag, Francis, 1976, “Justice and the Family”, Inquiry , 19(1–4): 193–208. doi:10.1080/00201747608601791
• Sen, Amartya, 2000, “ Merit and Justice ”, in Kenneth Arrow, Samuel Bowles, and Steven Durlauf (eds.), Meritocracy and Economic Inequality , Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 5–16.
• Shields, Liam, 2015, “From Rawlsian Autonomy to Sufficient Opportunity in Education”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 14(1): 53–66. doi:10.1177/1470594X13505413
• Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2004, “Race, Labor, And The Fair Equality Of Opportunity Principle”, Fordham Law Review , 72(5): 1643–1676.
• Sparrow, Robert, 2005, “Defending Deaf Culture: the Case of Cochlear Implants”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 13(2): 135–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00217.x
• Spence, Michael, 1973, “Job Market Signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 87(3): 355–374.
• Stark, Cynthia A., 2013, “Luck, Opportunity and Disability”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(3): 383–402. doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.795701
• Taylor, Robert S., 2004, “Self-realization and the Priority of Fair Equality of Opportunity”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 1(3): 333–347. doi:10.1177/174046810400100307
• Terzi, Lorella, 2005, “Beyond the Dilemma of Difference: The Capability Approach to Disability and Special Educational Needs”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 39(3): 443–459. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00447.x
• –––, 2010, Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and Special Educational Needs , New York: Continuum.
• Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady, 1995, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality , New York: Basic.
• Warnock, Mary, 2005, “Special Educational Needs: A New Look”, Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
• Westen, Peter, 1985, “The Concept of Equal Opportunity”, Ethics , 95(4): 837–850. doi:10.1086/292687
• Williams, Bernard, 1962, “ The Idea of Equality ”, in Peter Laslett and W.G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics and Society, Second Series , Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 112–17.
• Wolff, Jonathan, 1998, “Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 27(2): 97–122. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1998.tb00063.x
• Young, Michael, 1958,  The Rise of the Meritocracy, New Brunswick, NJ: Thames and Hudson.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Cited Court Cases

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
• Milliken v. Bradley (1974).
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2006).
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).
• Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1970).
• Yoder v. Wisconsin (1972).

Other Resources

• “The Condition of Education” , National Center for Education Statistics
• Reardon, Sean F., 2015, “School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps” , (CEPA Working Paper No.15–12). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
• Reardon, Sean F., 2021, “ The Economic Achievement Gap in the US, 1960-2020: Reconciling Recent Empirical Findings ”, (CEPA Working Paper No. 21.09). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
• Reardon, Sean F., Erica Weather, Erin Fahle, Heewon Jang, and Demetra Kalogrides, 2022, “ Is Separate Still Unequal? New Evidence on School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps ”, (CEPA Working Paper No.19-06). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
• National Equity Atlas , PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute. In particular the entry on School Poverty
• 2022 US Bureau of Labor Statistics

affirmative action | childhood, the philosophy of | citizenship | civic education | disability: and justice | discrimination | economics [normative] and economic justice | egalitarianism | equality | equality: of opportunity | justice: distributive | luck: justice and bad luck | rights: of children

Copyright © 2023 by Liam Shields < liam . shields @ manchester . ac . uk > Anne Newman < arnewman @ stanford . edu > Debra Satz < dsatz @ stanford . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Report | Children

Education inequalities at the school starting gate : Gaps, trends, and strategies to address them

Report • By Emma García and Elaine Weiss • September 27, 2017

Download PDF

Press release

Share this page:

This report was produced in collaboration with the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education .

What this study finds: Extensive research has conclusively demonstrated that children’s social class is one of the most significant predictors—if not the single most significant predictor—of their educational success. Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that performance gaps by social class take root in the earliest years of children’s lives and fail to narrow in the years that follow. That is, children who start behind stay behind—they are rarely able to make up the lost ground.

Using data from two academic cohorts, the kindergarten classes of 1998 and 2010, this study examines the relationship between children’s socioeconomic status (SES) and their cognitive and noncognitive skills when starting school. We find that large performance gaps exist between children in the lowest and highest socioeconomic-status (SES) quintiles and that these gaps have persisted from the 1998 cohort to the 2010 cohort. The positive news is that the gaps have not grown, even as economic inequalities between these two groups of students have grown. The negative news is that the gaps have not narrowed, despite the fact that low-SES parents have substantially increased their engagement in their children’s early education.

Why it matters: These performance gaps reflect extensive unmet needs and thus untapped talents among low-SES children. The development of strong cognitive and noncognitive skills is essential for success in school and beyond. Low educational achievement leads to lowered economic prospects later in life, perpetuating a lack of social mobility across generations. It is also a loss to society when children’s talents are allowed to go fallow for lack of sufficient supports. The undeniable relationship between economic inequalities and education inequalities represents a societal failure that betrays the ideal of the “American dream.”

What can be done about it: Greater investments in pre-K programs can narrow the gaps between students at the start of school. And to ensure that these early gains are maintained, districts can provide continued comprehensive academic, health, nutrition, and emotional support for children through their academic years, including meaningful engagement of parents and communities. Such strategies have been successfully implemented in districts around the country, as described in this report, and can serve to mitigate the impact of economic inequalities on children’s educational achievement and improve their future life and work prospects.

For further discussion of policy solutions, see the companion to this report,  Reducing and Averting Achievement Gaps: Key Findings from the Report ‘Education Inequalities at the School Starting Gate’ and Comprehensive Strategies to Mitigate Early Skills Gaps .

Executive summary

High and rising inequality is one of the United States’ most pressing economic and societal issues. Since the early 1980s, the total share of income claimed by the bottom 90 percent of Americans has steadily decreased, with the majority of income gains going to the top 1 percent. These trends would not be such a major concern if our education system compensated for these inequities by helping level the playing field and enabling children to rise above their birth circumstances.

But that is hardly the case. Rather, the fraction of children who earn more than their parents (absolute mobility) has fallen from approximately 90 percent for children born in 1940 to 50 percent for children born in the 1980s. And the tight links between economic inequalities and achievement gaps cast doubt on asserted equality of opportunity that promotes social mobility and puts the “American Dream” within viable reach.

Extensive research has conclusively demonstrated that children’s social class is one of the most significant predictors—if not the single most significant predictor—of their educational success. Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that performance gaps by social class take root in the earliest years of children’s lives and fail to narrow in the years that follow.

Much is known about the determinants and mechanisms that drive early skills gaps among children of different backgrounds, but our failure to narrow social-class-based skills gaps from one generation of students to the next calls for further analysis to determine the degree of influence these factors have and how interventions employed in recent years to address these factors have or have not worked and why. Moreover, shifting economic and demographic landscapes emphasize the need for more robust policy strategies to address the gaps. This three-part study thus combines a statistical analysis of early skills gaps among a recent cohort of children and changes in them over time with a qualitative study of multifaceted, school-district-level strategies to narrow them.

What we do: Questions, data and methodology

In this paper, we:

• Use data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 to measure gaps in skills by social class. To measure gaps by social class, we use the socioeconomic status (SES) metric (primarily), a composite of information on parents’ educational attainment and job status as well as household income. We compare the average performance of children in the top fifth of the socioeconomic status distribution (high-SES) with the average performance of children in the bottom fifth (low-SES). Skills measured include reading and mathematics, as well as self-control and approaches to learning as reported by both teachers and parents.
• Examine SES-based gaps at kindergarten entry among the most recently surveyed cohort (the kindergarten class of 2010–2011). We study how gaps manifest in both cognitive and so-called noncognitive skills, as both skill types are important components of children’s development.
• Compare these SES gaps with those of an earlier cohort (1998–1999), with a focus on changes in the skills gaps between children in the high- and low-SES quintiles. We also analyze how sensitive gaps are to the inclusion of key determinants of student performance, such as family composition, children’s own characteristics, pre-K participation, and parental and educational practices at home.
• Review a set of 12 case studies of communities that have employed comprehensive educational strategies and wraparound supports to provide more children (especially low-income children) with strong early academic foundations, and to sustain and build on early gains throughout their K–12 school years.
• Based on examples from these diverse communities, we discuss implications: strategies that districts can employ and district and state policy changes to make those strategies easier to adopt and more sustainable. The report ends with conclusions and recommendations for further research, practice, and policy.

What we find

Our quantitative research produces a broad set of findings:

• Very large SES-based gaps in academic performance exist and have persisted across the two most recent cohorts of students when they start kindergarten. The estimated gaps between children in the highest and lowest fifths of the SES distribution are over a standard deviation (sd) in both reading and math in 2010 (unadjusted performance gaps are 1.2 and 1.3 sd respectively). Gaps in noncognitive skills such as self-control and approaches to learning are roughly between one-third and one-half as large (unadjusted performance gaps are about 0.4 sd in self-control, and slightly over 0.5 sd in approaches to learning in 2010).
• SES-based gaps across both types of skills among the 2010 kindergartners are virtually unchanged compared with the prior academic generation of students (the class of 1998). The only unadjusted cognitive skills gap between children in the high-SES and low-SES fifths that changed significantly over this period was the gap in reading skills, which increased by about a tenth of a standard deviation. Gaps in approaches to learning as reported by teachers and in self-control as reported by parents shrank between 1998 and 2010 by roughly the same amount (0.1 sd). Gaps in mathematics, in approaches to learning as reported by parents, and in self-control as reported by teachers did not change significantly.
• This means that though part of the SES gap is attributable to differences in these characteristics and in family investments between children in the high and low parts of the SES distribution, a substantial share of SES-related factors is not captured by these controls, but is important to explaining how and why gaps develop, and thus how to narrow them.
• Moreover, the capacity for these other factors to narrow gaps has decreased over time—as a whole, they accounted for a smaller share of the gaps in 2010 than they had in 1998. This suggests that, while such activities as parental time spent with children and center-based pre-K programs cushion the negative consequences of growing up in a low-SES household, they can do only so much, and that the consequences of poverty are increasingly hard to compensate for. This resistance of gaps to these controls is thus a matter of serious concern for researchers and policymakers alike.
• These children’s likelihood of attending center-based pre-K did not change significantly across generations (about 44 percent for both cohorts: 44.3 percent in 2010 vs. 43.7 percent in 1998). However, in 2010 their parents reported having a somewhat larger number of books at home for the children, and there was also an increase in both indices of activities (literacy/reading activities and other educational and engagement activities).
• In addition to doing more for their children, low-SES parents have greater expectations for their children’s educational attainment—a much smaller share saw them going no further than high school graduation, while a much greater share anticipated their children attaining bachelor’s and even advanced degrees in 2010.
• They were slightly more likely to live with two parents (the share not living with two parents decreased from 11.1 percent in 1998 to 9.6 percent) and to have attended center-based pre-K (the share in center-based pre-K increased from 65.8 in 1998 to 69.9 percent in 2010).
• The share of high-SES homes reporting having more than 200 children’s books slightly increased in 2010, as did parents’ expectations for their children’s educational attainment.
• Although research uses various indicators to measure individuals’ social class, from composite measures such as the socioeconomic status index we use to single indicators such as mother’s education or income, some sensitivity of the results to the indicator used is found. In our analyses, we find that all are equally reliable social-class proxies for the estimation of early achievement gaps, though absolute gaps and trends in them vary slightly depending on the indicator used.

Our qualitative review of community interventions also provides valuable information:

• A growing number of school districts across the country have embraced systems of comprehensive enrichment and supports for many or even all their students, based on the understanding that nurturing healthy child development requires leveraging the entire community. These districts took different approaches to enacting those comprehensive strategies, based on each community’s particular mix of needs and assets, ideological leaning, available sources of funding, and other factors. But all begin very early in children’s lives and align enriching school strategies with a targeted range of supports for children and their families.
• Moreover, school districts embracing what we refer to as “whole-child” approaches to education are seeing better outcomes for students, from improved readiness for kindergarten to higher test scores and graduation rates and narrower achievement gaps. They thus can provide guidance to other districts and to policymakers regarding how to implement such approaches, what to expect in terms of benefits, and which policies at the local and state levels can advance those approaches.

Conclusions

While the persistence of large skills gaps at kindergarten entry is troubling, the fact that, by and large, they did not grow in a generation—despite steadily increasing income inequality compounded by the worst economic crisis in many decades—is a good thing. But we must still be very concerned about these gaps. We would have liked to see evidence that parents’ increased dedication to and investments in their children’s early development, and increased investments in pre-K programs and other early education and economic supports, closed these gaps. However, the data suggest that these efforts simply contained them, and that these positive trends were insufficient to narrow the skills gaps at kindergarten entry. This failure to narrow gaps points to a lack of appropriate policy response at all levels of government, the neglect of decades of research across multiple disciplines on child development, and the resulting waste of critical opportunities to nurture an entire generation of children.

The policy recommendations of this report strengthen the idea that we need much greater investments in pre-K programs and continued comprehensive support for children through their academic years, including meaningful engagement of parents and communities, if we are to substantially improve the odds for disadvantaged children, in light of their extensive unmet needs and untapped talents.

Introduction: Facts about income inequality and its growth over time

One of today’s most pressing economic issues is the worrisome level of income inequality. Since 1979, the total share of income claimed by the bottom 90 percent of Americans has steadily decreased (Bivens 2016). In 1979, that 90 percent received about 67 percent of cash, market-based income (i.e., pretax income). By 2015, their share had decreased to about 52 percent of pretax income. The majority of income gains during this period went to the top 1 percent (EPI 2013; Mishel and Schieder 2016; Saez 2016). Polls reflect widespread concern about income and wage inequalities and associated trends and the desire for policies to address these inequalities ( New York Times 2015).

Rising inequality might not be such a major concern if our education, economic, and social protection systems acted as compensatory mechanisms, helping individuals, and especially children, rise above their birth circumstances and improve their mobility. But that is hardly the case. Rather, the fraction of children who earn more than their parents (a measure of what social scientists refer to as absolute mobility) has fallen from approximately 90 percent for children born in 1940 to 50 percent for children born in the 1980s (Chetty et al. 2016). Children of certain ethnic and racial minorities who are disproportionately likely to live in concentrated poverty are also more likely to do so over prolonged periods of time (Sharkey 2013). And the close connections between education inequalities and economic inequalities cast doubt on assertions that America provides “equality of opportunities” that promotes social mobility (Mishel 2015).

The influence of income inequality affects multiple aspects of society’s functioning, from health outcomes and even life expectancy to democratic ideals (Putnam 2015; Schanzenbach et al. 2016; Stringhini et al. 2017). In the education arena, children’s socioeconomic status (SES), of which income is a key component, is considered one of the most significant predictors—if not the most significant predictor—of educational success. A number of studies show the strong relationship between social class (of which socioeconomic status is a frequent measure) and test scores, educational attainment, and college attendance and completion (see Duncan, Morris, and Rodrigues 2011; García 2015; García and Weiss 2015; Lee and Burkam 2002; Mishel et al. 2012; Putnam 2015; among others).

As a result of these trends and associations, achievement gaps by social class have grown substantially since the 1960s, especially between children at the highest end of the income distribution and all of the others (Reardon 2011). Some researchers have identified a large increase in parental investment in education among high-SES parents as one driver of the divergence in education outcomes (Duncan and Murnane 2011), among other contributing factors, such as time parents spend with their children and time parents devote to education-enhancing activities (Morsy and Rothstein 2015; Van Voorhis et al. 2013): Spending on education-enhancing activities by parents in the top income fifth nearly tripled between the 1970s and the 2000s (from $3,500 in 1972 to $8,900 in 2006), while such spending by parents in the bottom income fifth remained low and changed much less (from $800 in 1972 to $1,300 in 2006) (Duncan and Murnane 2011). 1 More time can mean more frequent interactions during playtime, more time spent reading to children, and other parenting practices that contribute to children’s learning and development (Barbarin et al. 2010). In general, more leisure and educational time with children can promote their development and school readiness (Brooks-Gunn and Markman 2005; Hart and Risley 1995; Phillips 2011; Rothstein 2004; Van Voorhis et al. 2013; Waldfogel 2006). Given the evidence that parental engagement and spending directly and continuously translate into improvements in children’s achievement and preparation, the presence of the various achievement gaps are not surprising.

Education researchers and policymakers have long been attentive to issues related to equity—by race/ethnicity, SES, gender, and other characteristics. At least since the 1966 publication of the “Coleman Report” by sociologist James S. Coleman and coauthors, researchers and policymakers have understood the critical impacts of race, poverty, and segregation on educational attainment (Coleman et al. 1966). And educational inequities remain a major problem today. Rigorous research demonstrates that inequalities in both opportunity and outcomes along the lines of race and social class begin early and often persist throughout students’ K–12 years and beyond, and that they are much larger in the United States than in comparable countries (Bradbury et al. 2015; Putnam 2015). Some of the research carefully describes the specific contexts and challenges that minority and lower-social-class students face and how these challenges create early education gaps. Other studies illustrate the consequences of these gaps for children’s later learning and development (Duncan et al. 2007; Duncan and Magnuson 2011). 2 And though this body of research is smaller, a few studies have looked at trends in inequalities across cohorts (Carnoy and García 2017; Magnuson and Duncan 2016; Reardon 2011; Reardon and Portilla 2016), with mixed or inconclusive findings regarding the changes in the gaps. 3 In addition, these latter studies, however, do not address causes that could drive changes in the gaps over time. As such, there is a need both for a better understanding of these causes and for strategies to counter them.

In this paper, we describe recent skills gaps and trends in them by social class, as measured by socioeconomic status; analyze some of the major factors driving the gaps; and explore a set of diverse school district-level initiatives that are helping to narrow gaps. The paper is structured in three sections.

• First, we examine social-class-based gaps at kindergarten entry among the most recently surveyed kindergarten cohort (the kindergarten class of 2010–2011). We study how gaps manifest in both cognitive and so-called noncognitive skills, as both skill types are important components of children’s development.
• Next we compare these gaps with those of an earlier kindergarten cohort. We look at changes from 1998 to 2010 in the skills gaps between children in the top and bottom social-class quintiles (primarily using SES as the proxy for social class). We also analyze how sensitive gaps are to the inclusion of several key determinants of student performance, such as children’s own characteristics, family composition, and parental and education practices at home.
• Then we review a set of case studies of school districts that have employed comprehensive educational strategies to provide more children (especially low-income children) with strong early academic and life foundations, and to sustain and build on early gains throughout the K–12 school years.
• Finally, we look at the implications of our findings, and, based on the case study examples from diverse communities, we discuss strategies that districts can employ along with district and state policy changes that will make those strategies easier to adopt and more sustainable.

For the first two analyses, we use two nationally representative studies from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011. These data provide information about children’s skills and about the children themselves, such as their race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language spoken at home, etc. The data also provide information on the children’s experiences in their early years, such as how actively their parents engaged them in enriching activities, whether they attended prekindergarten care, and the number of books the child has (see Appendix A). This information allows us to test the associations between children’s characteristics and their educational outcomes at school entry. For the second analysis, we draw on 12 case studies of community and school districts employing comprehensive educational strategies (Weiss 2016a–h). We explore the qualitative information provided on investments these districts have made in early childhood education, on both within-school and broader K–12 supports for children, and on evidence that these investments are delivering both improved academic achievement and broader gains for children. Based on this evidence, the report ends with conclusions and recommendations for further research, practice, and policy. Appendices A and B provide detailed discussions of the data and methodology used in this paper.

How large are recent performance gaps at kindergarten entry?

This section documents inequalities among the most recently tracked cohort of students as they entered kindergarten in 2010. It provides us with the most recently available view of the various aspects of gaps at the school starting gate, all of which are critically important for understanding the implications of those gaps. The findings below draw on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Class of 2010–2011, and we use data from the fall measurement in the kindergarten year. (This section partly builds on our previous work; see García 2015 and García and Weiss 2015. See Appendices A and B for details on the variables and methodology used.)

Our decision to examine performance in both cognitive and noncognitive skills reflects growing acceptance that children’s development is a complex process in which both skill types build on and interact with each other, and on evidence of the roles that both types of skills play in the education process and adulthood outcomes (see García 2015; García and Weiss 2016; Levin 2012a, 2012b). Traits and skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, persistence, and self-control are vitally important to children’s full development, and are nurtured through life and school experiences. These skills, sometimes referred to as noncognitive or social and emotional skills, tend to develop—or lag—in tandem with cognitive skills. Noncognitive or social and emotional skills are thus linked to academic achievement, and also to outcomes in adult life, such as productivity and collegiality at work, good health, and civic participation.

For these analyses, we use a measure of socioeconomic status that has three components: the educational attainment of parents or guardians, parents’ occupational prestige (determined by a score), and household income (see more details about the SES construct in Tourangeau et al. 2013, 7-56 to 7-60). We divide children of the 2010–2011 kindergarten class into five groups based on SES quintile. To measure the gaps in performance by socioeconomic status, we compare the average performance of children in the top fifth of the SES distribution with the average performance of children in the bottom fifth. This provides an estimate of the relative advantage of a child in the top fifth of the SES distribution (referred to in this report as “high-SES”) with respect to a child in the bottom fifth (“low-SES”).

Children are not equally prepared for school when they enter kindergarten, and our analyses show that students’ social class strongly determines their relative position in the performance distribution. Most socioeconomically disadvantaged children lag substantially in both reading and math skills, and these skills levels rise along with socioeconomic status (sometimes referred to as socioeconomic gradients). Children in the highest socioeconomic group score significantly higher in reading and math than children in the lowest socioeconomic group. As Table 1 shows, the relative unadjusted gaps in reading and math, i.e., the advantages of high-SES children relative to low-SES children in 2010 are 1.17 and 1.25 sd, respectively (Table 1 also shows that, after controlling for clustered data, the gaps are 0.94 and 0.91 sd, respectively). 4 Reading and math skills advantages of children in the middle of the SES distribution relative to the lowest SES group are roughly half as large as the advantages of high-SES children to the lowest SES group. 5

Children in the lowest socioeconomic quintile also lag substantially in noncognitive skills, based on assessments by both parents and teachers, although these gaps are smaller than those in reading and math. Socioeconomic-based gaps in self-control and approaches to learning are approximately one-third to one-half as large as gaps in reading and math. 6 In 2010, children in the high-SES quintile scored 0.38 sd and 0.51 sd higher in self-control and approaches to learning as reported by teachers (0.36 sd and 0.56 sd after clustering; see Table 1) than children at the low-SES quintile (see Figure A ). Using parents’ assessments of the same skills, the gaps are 0.39 sd and 0.56 sd, respectively (0.33 sd and 0.46 sd after clustering; see Table 1).

Our analyses also document stark socioeconomic disparities in inputs, child and family characteristics, and other factors that can affect school readiness ( Table 2 ). Here too we find a correlation between socioeconomic status and other factors that impede educational development. Low-SES students are more likely than their high-SES peers to be immigrants and less likely to speak English at home, to live with two parents, to have participated in center-based pre-K care activities in the previous year, and to have engaged in early literacy practices at home. Among children in the low-SES group, half (50.4 percent) are Hispanic, 23.1 percent are white, 19.6 percent are black, and 2.5 percent are Asian. 7

Though these gaps in both cognitive and noncognitive skills are troubling and call for policy recommendations, better policy solutions can be designed if we understand how these gaps have changed over time and what factors have played a role in those changes. Education outcomes are the product of a combination of multiple factors, which can reinforce or mitigate relative advantages or disadvantages in a dynamic fashion. We examine these issues in the rest of the paper.

How do the performance gaps in the 2010–2011 kindergarten class compare with the gaps in the prior generation?

The analyses presented in this section compare the inequities in inputs and the performance gaps between high-SES and low-SES students who began kindergarten in 2010 with the gaps among high-SES and low-SES schoolchildren in the prior academic generation, the 1998 cohort. We also analyze factors that have had major influences on the changes in performance of kindergartners, and briefly discuss the research and policy implications of our findings.

How have the characteristics of the children in the lowest and highest SES groups changed in a generation?

We first analyze children’s characteristics by SES quintiles in the two cohorts. This enables us to identify differences in the characteristics of low-SES kindergartners in 2010 versus in 1998. These changes may help explain why the performance gaps we are studying grow or shrink (for example, if children in the low-SES quintile in 2010 were more likely than their 1998 peers to have access to public programs such as pre-K, they might be more prepared for kindergarten, and thus the relative advantage of high-SES children might shrink). 8

Table 2 shows the student and family characteristics of the kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and of 2010–2011, by SES quintile. The table also includes pre-K care arrangements and two indices of developmental activities parents undertake with their children—indices of “literacy/reading activities” and “other activities”). 9 The table also summarizes parents’ expectations regarding their children’s educational attainment. To some extent, expectations are based on hope, but they can also respond to behavioral patterns children are exhibiting that hint at their future success. Expectations can also influence outcomes by representing how motivated parents are for their children’s education. The ECLS-K survey does not ask parents how their expectations (and changes in their expectations) affect their provision of educational activities or support, but their answers to the expectations question can be used as a reasonable proxy of the degree to which parents are aware of their children’s education and willing to support it. 10

The most significant changes in children’s characteristics by SES quintile are for children in the bottom of the distribution. In 2010, a greater share of children in this group are Hispanic (50.4 percent, an increase of 10.6 percentage points relative to the 1998 share of 39.8 percent), live in homes where the main language is not English (40.3 percent, an increase of 9.1 percentage points from 31.2 percent in 1998), and are immigrants (49.8 percent, an increase of 19.5 percentage points from 30.3 percent in 1998). In 2010, a greater share of children do not live with two parents (54.9 percent, an increase of 9.3 percentage points from 45.6 percent in 1998), and live in poverty (84.6 percent, an increase of 13.3 percentage points from 71.3 percent in 1998). These substantially greater disadvantages for children at the bottom of the SES scale could all be reflections of both the much weaker national economic context in 2010 versus 1998 and the growing inequality described above.

These children’s likelihood of attending center-based pre-K did not change significantly across generations (about 44 percent for both cohorts), but they were more likely to be looked after by parents or relatives (with the share increasing from 46.4 percent in 1998 to 50.9 percent in 2010). These children’s parents also reported having a somewhat larger number of books at home for the children, and there were increases in their indices of educational and engagement activities (two composite measures, with the literacy/reading index measuring how frequently parents read books to their child, tell stories, sing songs, and talk about nature and how frequently the child reads picture books and reads outside of school, and the “other” index measuring how frequently parents and children play games or do puzzles, play a sport or exercise together, and build something or play with construction toys; and how often parents help children do arts and crafts and involve children in household chores). These parents’ expectations about their children’s educational attainment also changed significantly: the share who expected their children to attain no more than a high school diploma decreased by more than half (from 24.1 percent in 1998 to 11.4 percent in 2010), and the share of parents who expected their children to attain at least a bachelor’s degree increased, markedly for those expecting their children to obtain an advanced degree (a master’s degree, Ph.D., or M.D.).

Among children in the high-SES quintile, the group in 2010 includes a lower share of white children (falling from 78.8 percent in 1998 to 71.3 percent) and a larger share of Asian children (increasing from 4.7 percent in 1998 to 8.7 percent). Children in the high-SES group became slightly more likely to live with their two parents (the share of children who lived with one parent decreased from 11.1 percent in 1998 to 9.6 percent), and to have attended center-based pre-K (65.8 percent in 1998 and 69.9 percent in 2010). We only see a small increase in the reported number of books at home. 11 The share of homes reporting having more than 200 books—the maximum—increased slightly in 2010, across all SES quintiles except for the middle quintile). As was true of low-SES parents, those in the highest quintile raised their expectations for their children’s educational attainment from 1998 to 2010. Compared with the 1998 cohort, a larger proportion of high-SES children in the 2010 cohort were expected by their parents to attain an advanced degree (master’s degree or higher), while a lower share expected their children to attain a bachelor’s degree only.

How did the performance gaps between the children in the lowest and highest SES groups change in a generation?

Changes over time in the input factors by socioeconomic status (child and family characteristics, early-education practices, and parents’ expectations) explored above have been found by researchers to have major impacts on the outcomes (test scores on reading and math, and measures of noncognitive skills) explored in this section. 12 In other words, we would expect that changes in the unadjusted skills gaps (gap measures that do not include controls for child and family characteristics, early-education practices, and parents’ expectations) would partially reflect the compositional differences between the class of 2010–2011 and the class of 1998–1999. For example, we would anticipate that if the more recent generation’s low-SES parents read to their children more frequently, helped them do more arts and crafts, or had higher expectations for them, these factors would correlate with narrowing skills gaps. Also, we would expect that the adjusted skills gaps (gap measures that are net of the influence of child and family characteristics, early-education practices, and parents’ expectations, and thus reflect the SES gaps) would be different for the two cohorts if the correlations between inputs and outcomes had changed over time or if the share of children’s outcomes the adjustments account for had changed over time.

To understand these factors’ potential influence on gaps, we examine both unadjusted and adjusted gaps in the tables in this section. We also examine gaps by some of the components of the SES index, such as household income or mother’s educational attainment, and by other variables that are sometimes used as proxies of the child’s socioeconomic background, such as number of books in the home. If the gaps by SES components and proxies somewhat differ, this tells us that researchers’ choices about how to divide children into groups and compare them matter—both for their findings and for their policy recommendations.

Table 3 shows the unadjusted and adjusted gaps between the standardized scores in reading and math of kindergarten children in the top SES quintile relative to the bottom SES quintile in 1998 and the change in that gap by 2010. 13 Table 4 performs the same analysis for gaps in measured noncognitive skills. The tables show two somewhat perplexing patterns. On the one hand, the cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children are large and statistically significant in both cohorts. But while significant social-class-based performance gaps persist from one kindergarten generation to the next, there is not the same consistency in how the high-SES to low-SES gaps change. For some cognitive and noncognitive skills, the performance gaps grow, while for others the gaps shrink, or remain the same from one generation to the next (which may complicate the process of understanding why performance gaps have changed over time).

Beginning with our unadjusted model (data column one), the only substantial increase in the gap between high- and low-SES children from 1998 to 2010 was in reading skills, which increased by one-tenth of a standard deviation. There were no significant changes in gaps in math skills, which, as the literature indicates, are less sensitive than reading skills to parents’ activities at home (see Rothstein 2004, 2010). Similarly, gaps in approaches to learning as reported by parents and in self-control as reported by teachers did not change significantly, and gaps in approaches to learning as reported by teachers and in self-control as reported by parents shrank by roughly the same amount as the reading gap (about a tenth of a standard deviation—0.12 and 0.08 sd, respectively). Figure A provides a graphic illustration of the unadjusted gaps in cognitive and noncognitive skills of high- and low-SES children across the two cohorts.

The additional models estimated for each outcome and shown in Tables 3 and 4 offer other key findings. In Model 1, we used the full samples for the two cohorts but did not include any controls that capture characteristics of children or their parents or the early education practices in which families engage. Model 2 partitions the data into schools and classes, or clusters, so that the subjects in the clusters are more similar to one another than to those in other groups. Under this adjustment, the gaps shrink substantially, by between 15 and 25 percent across the skills, and the regression fit improves significantly (see increased adjusted R-squared, i.e., this model explains more of the total variation in the outcomes than the first model). This clustering takes into account school segregation, that is, that children are not randomly distributed but tend to concentrate in schools or classrooms with children of the same race, social class, etc. Clustered estimates provide a comparison of the skills gaps of peer students—those in the same schools and classrooms—rather than a comparison across schools. García (2015) and Magnuson and Duncan (2016) offer these estimates too.

How do child and family characteristics, activities, and expectations affect SES-based performance and performance gaps?

We next examine the contribution of the certain variables of interest to SES-based performance gaps. We approach this in two ways. First, we examine the changes in the gaps (Tables 3 and 4, Models 3 and 4) and the overall reduction in the gaps that results from controlling for children and their family characteristics, early literacy practices, and parental expectations of educational achievement ( Table 5 ). Second, we assess the influence of select early educational practices on performance and how that influence has changed over time by looking at the associations between these inputs and performance ( Table 6 ).

Models 3 and 4 in Tables 3 and 4 use the samples that result from removing observations without full information for the controls of interest. 14 Adding controls is important because performance gaps based on socioeconomic status may be explained by differences in variables other than the child’s socioeconomic status. In other words, we aim to determine which part of the gap is attributable to children’s SES, net of other factors that matter for performance. Thus, in the third data column (Model 3), we add controls for individual and family characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, whether English is the primary language spoken at home, disability, age, whether children live with two parents) and early educational and play activities (center-based pre-K care, indices for literacy/reading activities and other activities, and total number of books the child has). Model 3 also includes the interactions between the early education variables with time. 15 In the fourth data column (Model 4), we control for the same factors as in Model 3 but add controls for parental expectations of children’s educational attainment (whether they expect their children’s highest level of education attained will be high school diploma or less, some college or vocational studies, bachelor’s degree, or advanced degree) and their interaction with time. 16 We describe these results in the next section.

Including covariates changes the estimates of SES-based skills gaps in various ways. First, the gaps between the top- and bottom-SES quintiles shrink, showing that SES-based gaps are partially explained by the variation in the controls (which is not visible in the tables). 17 Second, controls do not significantly change the SES-based gaps over time, in general; i.e., the coefficients associated with changes in the gaps between high- and low-SES children remain almost the same, or change very minimally, depending on the skill measured. The statistical significance of the SES-based skills gaps in 1998 is not affected by the inclusion of the controls (see rows “Gap in 1998–1999” in tables), but the statistical significance of the changes in the gaps between 1998 and 2010 (see rows “Change in gap by 2010–2011” in tables) is somewhat affected by the inclusion of the controls (note that the sizes of the coefficients measuring gaps in 1998 change after the inclusion of the controls, but that the sizes of the coefficients measuring changes in them between 1998 and 2010 do not change significantly). In reading, the change in the gap between 1998 and 2010 diminishes and becomes statistically insignificant in the last model (the relative gap increases by 0.08 sd but this change is not statistically significant), meaning that adding parental expectations of education accounts for some of the increase in the gap detected in Models 1 to 3. The only SES-based skills gap that shows a statistically significant increase from 1998 to 2010 once parental expectations are controlled for is the gap associated with parents’ assessment of approaches to learning, which increases by 0.11 sd. Gaps between high- and low-SES children in cognitive and noncognitive skills after adjustments are made are shown in Figure B .

As mentioned above, the fact that the skills gaps decrease after controls are taken into consideration affirms that SES-based gaps are due in part to variation in the controls among high- versus low-SES children. This trend can be seen in Table 5, which, as noted above, shows the overall reduction in gaps that results from controlling for child and family characteristics, early literacy practices, and parental expectations of educational achievement. With respect to cognitive skills, the 1998 gaps shrink by 46 percent and 53 percent, respectively, after the inclusion of the covariates. About half of the gaps are thus due to other factors that are associated both with SES status and with the outcomes themselves. The reduction in the 1998 gaps for noncognitive skills varies from 28 percent (approaches to learning as reported by teachers) to 74 percent (approaches to learning as reported by parents). (For self-control as reported by teachers, the reduction is 51 percent versus 35 percent when reported by parents.)

While the gaps hold after the inclusion of controls across outcomes, gaps in 2010 are less sensitive to the inclusion of the covariates than they were in 1998. This trend can also be seen in Table 5. 18 Declining values from 1998 to 2010 indicate that factors such as early literacy activities and other controls are not, as a group, explaining SES-based gaps as much as they had a decade prior. This change could be due to the failure of the index to fully capture parents’ efforts to nurture their children’s development and/or the index becoming somewhat out-of-date. In any event, the resistance of gaps to these controls should worry researchers and policymakers. The waning influence of these controls makes it harder to understand what drives SES gaps. It also suggests that the gaps may be growing more intractable or, at least are less easily narrowed via the enactment of known policy interventions.

Finally, we examine the association of performance outcomes (not performance gaps) with selected early educational practices, including having attended center-based pre-K, literacy/reading activities and other activities, and total number of children’s books in the home (Table 6). 19 We are mainly interested in two potential patterns: whether these factors are associated with outcomes (and, if so, how intense the associations are), and whether the relationships have changed over time.

In keeping with established research, having attended center-based pre-K is positively associated with children’s early reading and math skills. For 1998, the estimated coefficients are 0.11 sd for reading skills and 0.10 sd for math skills, substantial associations that do not change significantly over time. In other words, attending pre-K in 1998 improved kindergartners’ reading skills by 0.11 sd and improved kindergartners’ math skills by 0.10 sd relative to not attending pre-K. However, while center-based pre-K continues to reduce self-control as reported by teachers in 2010, the effect is less negative in 2010 (the 0.06 improvement from 1998 to 2010 shown in the bottom panel of the table shows us that the effect in 2010 was -0.07 [-0.13 plus 0.06], compared with -0.13 sd in 1998). We find no independent effect of center-based prekindergarten schooling (i.e., no effect in addition to SES, in addition to other individual and family characteristics, or in addition to other SES-mediated factors), on approaches to learning or on self-control as reported by parents. 20

The number of books children have at home likewise supports their skills at the beginning of kindergarten. Indeed, this factor is positively associated with all outcomes but self-control reported by parents. The coefficients are very small, of about 0.01 to 0.02 sd (associated with changes in outcomes for each 10 additional/fewer books the child has, as expressed by the continuous scale with which number of books in the home is measured, which is divided by 10 for the analyses (as mentioned in Appendix A), and these relationships do not change over the time period.

The two types of parenting activities that are summarized by the indices “reading/literacy activities” and “other activities” show interesting correlations with performance and patterns over time. On the one hand, the “reading/literacy activities” index (a composite of how frequently parents read books to their child, tell stories, sing songs, and talk about nature, and how frequently the child reads picture books and reads outside of school) is strongly and positively associated with all outcomes other than children’s self-control as reported by the teacher. The associations with cognitive skills, especially with reading, are strong and statistically significant—0.17 sd for reading performance and 0.07 sd for math—and these associations did not change significantly between 1998 and 2010. For noncognitive skills, the relationships are strong for those assessed by parents, though they shrink by about half over time: self-control is 0.14 sd in 1998 and decreases by 0.08 sd by 2010; approaches to learning is 0.32 sd in 1998 and decreases by 0.17 sd by 2010). The relationship is much weaker, though still statistically significant, for teachers’ assessed approaches to learning (it is 0.03 sd in 1998 and does not change significantly by 2010).

On the other hand, the index that measures other enrichment activities that parents do with their children (a composite of how frequently parents and children play games, do sports, build things, work on puzzles, do arts and crafts, and do chores) shows significant correlations with all of the skills, but they may be either positively correlated or negatively correlated, depending on the skill. For cognitive skills, the associations are statistically significant and negative, though stronger and somewhat more meaningful or more intense with reading achievement (-0.12 sd in 1998) than with math achievement (-0.04 sd). 21 These associations did not intensify nor weaken over time. For noncognitive skills the associations are highly positive and statistically significant, and very strong for parents’ assessment of approaches to learning (0.29 sd in 1998). As explained by García (2015), these correlations between “other activities” and noncognitive skills as assessed by parents could be bidirectional: engaging children in enrichment activities might enhance their noncognitive skills, but, at the same time, parents who are more inclined to participate in their children’s early play and educational time are probably more likely to perceive or judge that their engagement has an impact on their children’s skills. But the fact that both the frequency with which parents engage in most of these activities and the importance of this index for parent-assessed skills increased noticeably from 1998 to 2010 (by 0.22 sd for self-control and 0.27 sd for approaches to learning) suggests that parents are growing more informed and involved in their children’s early education over time. It also indicates that parents are increasingly acting on this knowledge and that this involvement will continue to grow, albeit potentially with decreasing marginal returns to time and resources invested. The association between “other activities” and teachers’ assessments of children’s noncognitive skills is also positive but weaker than that of parents’ assessments (about 0.03 sd for approaches to learning and 0.05 sd for self-control), and remained unchanged during the time period studied.

Finally, we find a strong association between parental expectations for their children’s educational attainment and all measured skills. In other words, net of socioeconomic status, the higher the expectations, the higher cognitive skills children have, and the higher the assessments by parents and teachers of children’s noncognitive skills. The parental expectations portion of the table measures children’s performance relative to children whose parents’ expectations are the lowest (high school diploma or less). While the expectation that a child will pursue some vocational education or complete college has a statistically positive influence on all skills measures except for reading, the expectation that their children will complete a bachelor’s degree or more education has a stronger influence, including on reading skills: between 0.11 to 0.16 sd higher in reading and between 0.17 to 0.22 sd higher in math in 1998. High expectations for children’s educational attainment also have a statistically positive effect on noncognitive skills. When the expectation is for an advanced degree (master’s or higher), coefficients vary from 0.12 sd in self-control by teachers to 0.38 sd in approaches to learning by parents in 1998. In addition, most of these associations—particularly the cognitive gradients—grow in 2010. Relative to children whose parents have low expectations, children whose parents have the highest expectations for their children’s attainment (graduate studies) perform much better in reading and math than in 1998 (relative gaps grow by 0.19 and 0.12 sd respectively). A similarly stronger association is noted for noncognitive skills assessed by teachers (though not for parents’ assessments of their children’s skills).

Sensitivity analyses: Do performance gaps vary based on which proxy for social class (socioeconomic status) is used?

Part of the challenge to making conclusive statements about trends in education gaps by social class is the existence of multiple valid proxies for measuring children’s social class or socioeconomic status. 22 Although researchers treat these proxies as equivalent, and even interchangeable, the lack of a comparison of results obtained using various indicators limits our capacity to extract major conclusions on social-class trends and their drivers, and hence hinders the plausibility and effectiveness of the policy recommendations that build on any specific indicator’s findings (net of other methodological and instrumental differences that may exist across studies).

We thus conduct analyses using several of the main proxies employed to measure socioeconomic status. The purpose of these analyses is twofold. The first purpose is to test the sensitivity of the estimated relative gaps, and of trends in them, to changes in the measurement of this key predictor of education performance. (In other words, if all the indicators are reliable proxies of SES, gaps and trends obtained using the various metrics should be similar.) The second purpose is to increase the comparability of the results of studies addressing trends in education inequalities that use various metrics of social class. This is an important issue; in addition to helping reconcile diverse results found in the literature, these analyses may reveal why patterns differ, and have significant policy implications.

As such, instead of the SES composite measure we use to estimate SES-based gaps in this report, we use three alternative indicators to run our analyses: mother’s educational attainment, household income, and number of books the child has in the home. Unlike the SES composite measure, two of these measures offer the advantage of being directly comparable over time. Both mother’s educational attainment and number of books the child has are objective categories. As a limitation, and mainly associated with the information that is available in the raw data, none of these categories can be transformed into a percentile-variable without major transformations. (The adjustments to ensure comparability over time are explained in Appendix A. See Reardon and Portilla 2016 for an analysis with a transformation of the income variable that offers a proper percentile comparison, based on the methodology developed by Reardon 2011.) Still, they are variables associated with social class and can be ordered in groups or categories that identify high- and low-social-class statuses. Thus, with the necessary caution when interpreting and using the findings, we offer this comparison of results as a sensitivity analysis.

We create five categories with these indicators, maintaining the structure of comparing “high-SES” (top quintile) with “low-SES” (bottom quintile) as in Tables 1–5 (note that we are using “SES” interchangeably with “social class” here). For simplicity, Tables 7–9  show only the results from two models: one without covariates (Model 1, baseline estimates) and one with all covariates (Model 4, fully adjusted estimates). We focus on the findings for the baseline relative gaps in 1998 and 2010 first ( Figures C–E ). The overall patterns found in the results suggest that all social-class gaps are statistically significant and sizable. However, the exact sizes of the gaps vary depending on the social-class indicator used and the outcome being assessed. Also, the changes in the gaps over time vary depending on the indicator used to capture children’s social class.

In addition to these general findings, we note some more detailed ones. For 1998, gaps by mother’s educational attainment (Figure C; Table 7) are the largest across all indicators (except for the gap in self-control as assessed by teachers, which is slightly smaller than the gaps as measured using household income and number of books the child has), while gaps by number of books (Figure E; Table 9) are the smallest across all indicators (except for the gap in approaches to learning as assessed by parents, which is slightly larger than the gap for household income). Again, according to the 1998 data, the coefficients of gaps by mother’s educational attainment are generally larger—and in three cases much larger—than those obtained using number of books in the home as the indicator of social class. For example, the relative gap is 1.29 sd in reading and 1.46 sd in math when mother’s education is the SES proxy, compared with gaps of 0.74 sd and 0.97 sd when number of books in the home is the SES proxy.

It is also important to note that gaps by mother’s educational attainment (Figure C; Table 7) and income (Figure D; Table 8)—two of the five components of the SES construct—are very close to the ones obtained by our SES composite measure (as shown in Figure A). All in all, results seem internally consistent as well as generally consistent with prior results on this topic (Reardon and Portilla 2016).

In terms of changes in the performance gaps over time (unadjusted), the findings vary depending on which indicators of social class are used, with mother’s education and household income being the indicators associated with the largest changes in the gaps. Changes in the performance gaps in cognitive skills between 1998 and 2010 by our composite SES measure and books are similar: an increase in the reading gap between children in the top and bottom quintiles of about a tenth of a standard deviation (0.10 sd with the composite SES measure [Figure A] and 0.08 sd if SES is proxied with books), and no significant change in mathematics (there are some differences in the noncognitive outcomes).

However, by mother’s educational attainment, there are no changes in relative reading and approaches to learning gaps reported by parents over time, and a significant reduction in the gaps in the remaining outcomes. Meanwhile, income-based gaps for the two cognitive skills—reading and math—decreased by -0.13 and -0.23 sd respectively, and for approaches to learning as reported by teachers by -0.13 sd. No significant changes occurred for the remaining noncognitive skills.

In sum, this sensitivity analysis demonstrates that all of the indicators are reliable proxies of SES for the estimation of early achievement gaps, though absolute gaps may vary slightly depending on the indicator used. However, the proxies are not equally reliable when we assess trends in the gaps by SES or their drivers. As such, aside from differences in the definitions and procedures used to construct each SES proxy, the proxies should not be treated as fully equivalent. The decomposition conducted here helps clarify the different weights that various components of SES may have in driving changes in gaps by social class. For example, variation in income across groups over time is associated with decreased performance gaps in the cognitive skills between 1998 and 2010, and variation in educational attainment quintiles or categories over time is associated with decreased performance gaps across cohorts in most noncognitive skills. But variation in books in the home over time and among groups is associated with increased gaps in reading and in parents’ assessed approaches to learning. Such findings also point to very different policy solutions: if mothers’ education is the main driver, enhancing that will improve children’s prospects. On the other hand, findings that indicate that income inequality is the larger culprit would point to the need for policies that reduce such inequalities. Future research should consider and look more closely into these questions.

What can we learn from these analyses?

The multiple factors and relationships examined in this section can now be examined from a policy perspective. If the aim is to increase equity, to improve children’s development across the board, and to improve our understanding of children’s development, there are two major policy recommendations:

• Directly support less-resourced families so that they have greater access to educational and economic resources (for the latter, see García and Weiss 2017). All the early educational and play activities measured, which include center-based pre-K care and literacy/reading and other activities, as well as the number of books a child has, are positively associated with children’s readiness, and in part account for social-class gaps, but are much less accessible to children of lower socioeconomic status. Virtually all of the associations between these factors and outcomes were strong and positive (with a handful of exceptions), and some even grew over time. A related research recommendation of particular interest would be to examine whether the intensity of these activities or practices has any threshold level of effectiveness (after which point they no longer affect children’s development). 23 Also, it would be helpful to understand why parents’ expectations of their children’s educational attainment increased so much and how this has affected children’s development. For example, do parents have a better understanding of the relationship between educational attainment and prospects for success in life and the workforce? Are children performing better because their parents expect more, or because parents who expect more are also delivering more in the form of enriching activities?
• Design and implement strategies that compensate at the community level for children’s lack of access to key foundational resources (economic and educational). These strategies can be considered indirect supports for less-resourced families that reduce inequities and complement the direct supports described above. Examples of communities that have enacted such comprehensive support initiatives provide a good starting point to explore how and why they emerge; the types of supports they provide (from preschool programs and home visits with parents to enriching summer programs, school-based health clinics, and more); the challenges of scaling them up and sustaining them; the benefits they deliver for students, and particularly for disadvantaged students; and their implications for policy at the local, state, and even federal levels. The next section of this report thus presents an analysis based on qualitative data from promising initiatives in a dozen school districts across the country (Weiss 2016a–h).

What are pioneering school districts doing to combat these inequities and resulting gaps?

This section of the report draws on a set of case studies published by the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education (BBA), a national campaign that advances evidence-based strategies to mitigate the impacts of poverty-related disadvantages on teaching and learning. 24 The case studies feature school districts that have employed comprehensive educational strategies to ensure that more children, especially low-income children, have strong early academic and life foundations, and that resulting early gains are sustained and built on through children’s K–12 years. (These strategies are often referred to as “whole-child” approaches to education, in reflection of their holistic nature.) We explore the premise that school districts that take a whole-child approach to education and a whole-community approach to delivering it are likely to enjoy larger gains in academic achievement and to narrow their race- and income-based achievement gaps. In doing so, we are building on evidence suggesting that consistent, strong supports for children and their families—both in and out of school—can avoid the “fade-out” seen among graduates of many pre-K programs and even enhance those programs’ early benefits.

This section is thus divided into four parts: (1) an introduction to the case study districts, followed by discussions of (2) how these districts invest in early childhood care and education, (3) how the districts’ investments in K–12 strategies sustain and boost the early childhood investments, and (4) how academic gains and narrowing achievement gaps indicate that the investments are paying off. Table 10 provides basic information on the 12 school districts/communities studied; Appendix E at the end of this report provides more information on key characteristics of these districts. 25

Introduction to the case studies: Why these districts enacted whole-child strategies

Large and growing disparities in the economic well-being of children in America and extensive evidence linking those disparities to widely diverging educational outcomes have prompted action among a growing number of communities and school districts. Heeding the evidence that out-of-school factors play even larger roles than school-based factors in school performance, these districts are seeking ways to mitigate the poverty-related impediments to effective teaching and learning.

These districts have benefited from a substantial body of research on strategies with promise to address core challenges that students and schools face—strategies that have been shown to shrink achievement gaps by narrowing major disparities in opportunity (Carter and Welner 2013). The first, and perhaps best-documented, of these strategies is high-quality early child care and education, especially when it engages parents early and in meaningful ways. High-quality early childhood education programs not only narrow achievement gaps at kindergarten entry but also deliver long-term benefits to children, their families, and society as a whole (Chaudry et al. 2017; Rolnick and Grunewald 2003).

Programs that support students’ physical and mental health and improve their nutrition are also known to reduce chronic absence and keep students focused and learning, and thus improve their academic performance (CDC 2016). Well-designed after-school and summer-enrichment programs likewise boost achievement, both directly and indirectly by enhancing students’ engagement in and attachment to school (Peterson 2013).

Whole-child approaches integrate these and other strategies into a comprehensive set of aligned interventions, leveraging the whole community’s resources to meet the broad range of student needs. While the impact of such comprehensive approaches has not been studied as extensively as the individual components, considerable theoretical and emerging empirical research point to the strong potential of such strategies to boost achievement and narrow gaps (Child Trends 2014; Oakes, Maier, and Daniel 2017; Weiss 2016i).

This section of the report seeks to add to that knowledge base by sharing qualitative information on how such comprehensive approaches have emerged and grown, what they look like when they are successfully implemented, and what types of outcomes and benefits result and how outcomes vary across diverse communities.

How are whole-child initiatives launched?

Each of the districts studied has distinct circumstances, and thus distinct reasons for coming to the conclusion, as a community, that it needed to take a comprehensive approach to education. At the same time, demographic trends that are affecting virtually every state—and many, if not most, school districts across the country—have played major roles in that decision in every case. 26 Indeed, community and school leaders in all of these districts cited students’ poverty (and, in some districts, demographic shifts) as posing challenges that required looking beyond the school walls to address.

How these factors triggered the initiative’s launch varied, but poverty was at the core in each community’s decision. For example, in 2008, community leaders identified East Durham as one of Durham, North Carolina’s, most distressed areas, based on a community risk assessment conducted by Duke University’s Children’s Environmental Health Initiative. The 120-block area’s 11,000 residents had a 40 percent poverty rate and a homeownership rate of just 19 percent, along with high rates of crime and unemployment, putting its 3,000 children and youth at high risk of academic failure (Weiss 2016e).

Across the country, in Vancouver, Washington, the share of children eligible for subsidized school meals rose from 39 percent to over 50 percent in less than a decade, such that, by 2015, in some central-city schools, more than four in five students qualified for subsidized school meals in 2015 (Weiss 2016b). In another distressed community, in north Minneapolis, median family income was just $18,000 in 2011, and fully one-fourth of the 5,500 Northside students were homeless or “highly mobile” (in such unstable housing that they were at risk of homelessness) (Weiss 2016d). In Pea Ridge, Arkansas, schools “had difficulty finding resources that met the needs of kids,” says superintendent Rick Neal. “We knew that we were not identifying all the needs that were there. I think that’s the way a lot of districts are” (Weiss 2016f). And in the early 1990s, the Tangelo Park neighborhood in Orlando, Florida—an isolated enclave of 3,000 residents, almost all low-income and African American—caught the attention of hotelier and philanthropist Harris Rosen, who was looking for a neighborhood in which to invest (Alvarez 2015).

Each of these districts took different approaches to enacting those comprehensive strategies, based on the community’s specific mix of needs and assets, ideological leaning, available sources of funding, and other factors. One of the most politically progressive of the districts studied, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland, paved the way for a whole-child approach in the early 1970s when it enacted housing policy that uses mixed-income residential developments to create communities with families of different income levels. In the 1990s, the county developed Linkages to Learning, a “community schools”–type approach targeted to engaging and partnering with low-income and immigrant parents and families and connecting them with a broad range of community resources (MCPS 2016). (Community schools are known for building partnerships with community agencies and private service providers to meet student and family needs.) Austin Independent School District (AISD), also in a politically progressive jurisdiction, began its whole-child efforts through parent- and community-organizing in schools. It has since invested in social and emotional learning and in a community schools strategy (CASEL 2017).

At the other end of the spectrum are whole-child approaches in Joplin, Missouri, and Pea Ridge, Arkansas, districts located in more politically conservative southern states. These districts operate under the umbrella of Bright Futures USA (a spinoff national nonprofit that began with Joplin’s Bright Futures initiative). The Bright Futures districts take a more individualistic angle, asserting that every member of the community has “time, talent, or treasure” to offer that can help children overcome disadvantage and ensure more equal opportunity (Weiss 2016a).

Two other districts have modeled their efforts on the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ). The Northside Achievement Zone in Minneapolis is funded through a grant from the federal Promise Neighborhoods initiative, enacted by the Obama Administration to help more communities dramatically improve the academic success for low-income children by adopting HCZ-like strategies. The East Durham Children’s Initiative in North Carolina is entirely privately funded so far (Weiss 2016e).

In both Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Orlando, Florida, pledges of “Promise” college scholarships have evolved into broader whole-child efforts (Alvarez 2015; Miller-Adams 2015).

Districts also take different approaches based on density. New York City—home to dozens of full-service community schools supported by the Children’s Aid Society and rapidly expanding to more—and Boston—home to the City Connects initiative—leverage a broad range of their respective cities’ arts and cultural offerings, along with health and nutrition and other social services (Weiss 2016g, 2016h). Cultural offerings to supplement other well-rounded services are also part of the full-service community schools district initiative in Vancouver, Washington. In contrast, Partners for Education, which serves the isolated region surrounding Berea College in Kentucky, was the first rural organization to receive a Promise Neighborhood grant and, thus, is a pioneer in exploring how well the model works outside the urban context (Berea College 2013).

What do whole-child initiatives do?

The sections below describe commonalities across these different approaches in terms of investments in children’s earliest years (before school starts), building on these investments throughout children’s K–12 years (both in and out of school), and the gains students and schools enjoy as a result of those investments. 27

How the case study districts invest in early childhood care and education

In keeping with their whole-child approaches to education policy and practice, every one of the 12 districts highlighted as a BBA case study has made investments in early childhood care and education, many of them substantial. These districts’ efforts begin long before children enter school and go beyond pre-K offerings to equip parents in the effort to ensure their children’s readiness for school.

One-on-one engagement with new parents

Investing in babies by engaging parents can include providing new parents with key information about child development and how to keep children healthy and safe. In Joplin, Missouri, Bright Futures Joplin partners with two of the area’s hospitals to deliver new baby “kits” with child development and early literacy information and is trying to raise funds to sustain the project long term and to expand it to reach every new parent (Weiss 2016a). In Vancouver, Washington, 6,000 “literacy packets” are delivered annually to families with children up to age five, providing child-development activities and lessons that families can complete at home (Weiss 2016b).

The districts leverage partnerships to connect parents with a range of school and community resources that support children from birth through kindergarten entry. In Eastern Kentucky, the whole-child program called Partners for Education works with Community Early Childhood Councils to host events such as Week of the Young Child, the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, and Kindergarten Transition Programs (Weiss 2016c). In Montgomery County, Maryland, “Judy Centers”—early child care and family education centers—leverage partnerships with social service agencies and local community nonprofits to increase parents’ access to mental health, nutrition, and other key services (Maryland State Department of Education 2017).

Educating and engaging parents early helps prepare children for school both academically and more broadly for healthy development. Those are the twin goals of the Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ), where currently only one in four preschoolers in the zone is ready for kindergarten based on standardized tests. To improve those odds, the zone has a team of “NAZ Navigators” who work with families to set and track progress toward goals in early childhood and to link this area of family support to goals in academics, housing, career and finance, and behavioral health (Weiss 2016d).

Parenting classes

Parents are children’s first and most important teachers. Like the one-on-one strategies described above, classes for parents provide information on child development, early literacy, health, and constructive disciplinary practices, and offer more specific guidance tailored to specific parents’ needs. Almost every district studied provides new-parent classes. The 1-2-3 Grow and Learn program is a weekly 90-minute literacy-rich program for young children and their parents offered at 12 elementary schools in high-poverty Vancouver neighborhoods. It lays the foundations for school readiness through social and education experiences. In addition, the district’s Family and Community Resource Centers offer parent workshops, groups, and courses to help parents support their children’s learning, while empowerment and skill-enhancement programs—such as job preparation, housing assistance, and parent leadership advisory groups—strengthen parents’ basic skills. Family Academy classes in the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone include “College Bound Babies” (for parents of children up to three years old), which teaches early literacy, numeracy, and positive discipline skills, and “Foundations,” which empowers parents to feel confident talking with their children’s teachers and advocating for their children and their children’s schools.

In many cases, districts employ a combination of one-on-one and group supports, along the lines of Early Head Start. 28 The East Durham Children’s Initiative, a private program modeled loosely after the Harlem Children’s Zone, includes Durham Connects, a home visiting program that supports zone families with children up to age 3 and is followed by weekly or biweekly in-home parent education and support provided by two nonprofit social service providers, Healthy Families Durham and Jumpstart (Weiss 2016e). In Montgomery County, Maryland, family social workers collaborate with classroom teachers to help them develop Family Partnership Agreements, which are based on the strengths, needs, and personal goals of each family. A social worker–led team follows up by phone and with visits. In two of the district’s highest-poverty schools, these supports are complemented by early child care and family education centers (Judy Centers), which provide comprehensive early childhood education and support to children from birth to age five and their families (Marietta 2010).

Big investments in prekindergarten programs

Almost every state in the country now invests at least minimally in pre-K programs for disadvantaged children, and a growing share of states make these programs widely available. 29 Most of the districts we studied, however, have gone far beyond state programs through one or more strategies and funding mechanisms.

A few of these districts benefit from high-quality state pre-K programs that serve a large share of children, freeing the districts to invest in other aspects of early childhood enrichment. The Partners for Education initiative based in Berea, Kentucky, leverages the state pre-K program, which serves all three- and four-year olds who are either low-income or have other risk factors. This enables Partners for Education to use Promise Neighborhood grant funds to place early childhood specialists in pre-K classrooms throughout the four-county region (the region is a Promise Neighborhood region, which means that federal funds are available for a variety of education- and health-related investments). The specialists also provide coaching, professional development, and support for Head Start classrooms, as well as in-home tutoring over the summer.

In East Durham, North Carolina, strong state early education programs are supplemented by partner-led low-cost half-day preschool and a summer kindergarten readiness program, and home visits by parent advocates provide a range of supports, such as connections to state pre-K. In Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Pre-Kindergarten Early Education Program (PEEP) offers half- or full-day pre-K classes in elementary schools for four-year-olds at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, per state law, but it adds transportation and meals for those children. PEEP also works with other programs such as Head Start to provide families who are ineligible for PEEP with other options for low- or no-cost quality early education (KPS 2017).

Other districts with less comprehensive state support use federal resources to expand local options. For example, Vancouver draws on both state and federally funded early learning programs to provide pre-K in seven schools, along with district-supported programs for children in Title I schools. As of fall 2015, Vancouver’s new early learning center serves up to 100 additional children or more, with hot meals and playground space from an adjacent elementary school. Montgomery County also enhances state and federal programs with district-level investments: it provides the same literacy-rich curriculum in its Head Start classrooms as in district pre-K classrooms. And Montgomery County uses a blend of federal Title I and Head Start dollars to offer full-day Head Start in 18 of the poorest schools, serving 460 children (Marietta 2010). The Northside Achievement Zone in north Minneapolis uses federal Race to the Top Early Learning Fund money for scholarships for three- and four-year-olds to attend high-quality pre-K, serving 127 children in 2012–2013 and 156 in 2013–2014.

Local programs can also fill in where state programs are weak. Austin, Texas, uses local funds to provide enriching, hands-on full-day programs for the four-year-olds who would otherwise participate in lower-quality half-day state programs. Austin also provides a half-day program for three-year-olds who aren’t served by the state. Families who qualify for both state pre-K and Head Start also receive nutrition, health, and other services (AISD 2017).

Pea Ridge is another community using local resources to supplant state resources. A lack of available seats for children who are eligible for the state’s high-quality Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) pre-K program prompted Pea Ridge to seek a grant to open its own program, which serves 40 children: 20 at-risk children, who receive tuition scholarships, and 20 others whose parents can pay tuition (Weiss 2016f). Missouri’s pre-K program also has too few slots, so Bright Futures Joplin is building a new early childhood learning center that will be funded jointly by the district and the state.

Strengthening the transition to kindergarten

Featured districts also build on pre-K gains and help narrow school-readiness gaps with such programs as full-day kindergarten. Montgomery County Public Schools first started full-day kindergarten in “red zone schools,” those deemed to be most affected by high rates of student poverty, in 2000. Full-day kindergarten has since expanded to every school in the district (Marietta 2010). And Vancouver offers Kindergarten Jump Start, a school readiness program, at all 21 elementary schools, and full-day kindergarten; both programs seek to enhance the transition from pre-K into formal schooling.

Other investments in young children and their families

In addition to the above range of supports for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers and their parents, several of the districts studied by BBA have made additional investments in young children and their families. The Community Storywalk in Clay County, Kentucky, and the Born Learning Trail in Joplin, Missouri, provide opportunities for parents and paid caregivers to learn with their children in a hands-on way through outdoor and physical activities. In Eastern Kentucky, Partners for Education’s Promise Neighborhood grant supports work by national nonprofit Save the Children to improve the health and education outcomes of the region’s children through a literacy program that provides kids ages 5–12 with books and tools to develop strong reading skills. The Promise Neighborhood grant also allows Partners for Education to offer the Children’s Healthy Choices program, which provides healthy snacks and 30 minutes of daily physical activity for children in districts across Eastern Kentucky.

Joplin’s Little Blue Bookshelf program gives age-appropriate books to those children whose families cannot afford them, making the goal of 1,000 hours of reading by kindergarten a viable reality for every child. And the city’s Lend & Learn Libraries provide stimulating toys and socialization time for young children and their parents.

How the school districts invest in K–12 strategies to sustain and boost their early childhood investments

The whole-child approaches these communities embrace for children from birth to five years old continue as those children transition to kindergarten and through elementary, middle, and high school. This represents a sharp difference from most other districts, which focus heavily on narrow academic factors and assessments and thus neglect characteristics emphasized in pre-K, such as building strong teacher–student relationships and attending to the full range of children’s assets and needs. As these examples illustrate, students continue to benefit from a more comprehensive approach to education and there is an array of strategies school districts can use to deliver that comprehensive approach.

Enriching K–12 curricula and activities to sustain pre-K’s whole-child emphasis

A broad set of investments and activities can help sustain pre-K’s whole-child approach, including enhancing classroom experiences, aligning classroom lessons with out-of-school activities that expand children’s worldviews, and using targeted strategies to improve students’ readiness for college, careers, and civic engagement.

Schools that ensure hands-on learning both in and out of the classroom make the most of this opportunity. Joplin and Pea Ridge students and their teachers enjoy service learning projects that are a core component of the Bright Futures strategy. These range from kindergartners organizing coat drives and canned food drives for their neighbors to high school students designing and implementing water research projects and reporting on the health and safety of Joplin’s water supply to the city’s water management agency. In East Durham, partnerships with community agencies and nonprofits enable clubs, field trips to museums, and other enrichment activities.

After-school and summer programs help students build on what they learned during the school year, broaden students’ worldviews and skills, and reduce summer learning loss. In most of the districts studied, schools partner with organizations such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts to provide out-of-school enrichment programs that range from organized sports and help with homework to math and book clubs, theater, and robotics. In addition to boosting student engagement, some focus in particular on academic and college preparatory help, and many also provide snacks or even full meals. Summer camps in Boston and East Durham and book deliveries and clubs in Pea Ridge and Eastern Kentucky—where online options help bridge long distances in rural areas—keep students reading, engaged, and on track for fall classes.

In several districts, the focus on nurturing not only students’ academic skills but also their social and emotional skills strengthens the transition to kindergarten and development throughout the K–12 years. Vancouver’s schools teach and model social and emotional learning in classrooms as part of the district’s work to improve school climate and track student data on engagement and mental health. Under City Connects—the whole-child collaboration among Boston College, Boston Public Schools, and community agencies—school coordinators meet at the start of the year with teachers to discuss the particular strengths and needs of each student and develop plans to support teachers with academic and enrichment activities and meet student needs with small-group sessions on healthy eating and dealing with bullies, referrals to mental health providers, and a range of other supports (Weiss 2016g).

Two districts have made social and emotional learning a particularly high priority. Austin is one of eight districts working with the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) to comprehensively embed social and emotional learning in teacher training, teacher standards, curricula, and metrics for assessing student and school progress (CASEL 2017). In Montgomery County, former superintendent Joshua Starr drew on the Common Core’s emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking to lead the design of a new curriculum and classroom practices that nurture social and emotional skills. These are complemented by enhanced support for teachers to nurture social and emotional learning in daily classroom practice, by standards-based report cards that track key social and emotional skills, and by constructive disciplinary policies that reengage students and build their soft skills instead of punishing them for infractions. 30

Several of the districts focus in particular on helping students—many of whom will be the first in their families to go to college—prepare for and make that leap. Strategies include middle-to-high-school transition programs in Joplin and Vancouver and clubs and specialized courses that advance students’ social and organizational skills in Vancouver and Montgomery County. In East Durham, three initiatives (Communities in Schools Durham, Student U, and Citizens in Schools) support youth who are preparing for graduation. They offer site-based mentoring from current undergraduates. Middle and high school students in the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone receive similar assistance. And Vancouver’s GRADS Teen Parent program helps teen parents stay in school, graduate, and be more effective parents. De-tracking, an intentional decision to not separate students who are achieving at different levels into different classrooms or types of courses, which is the norm in Austin and in some Montgomery County high schools, helps ensure that college preparatory classes serve students of all income levels rather than just wealthier, nonminority students. 31

College readiness is also a high priority for many Bright Futures districts. In Joplin, programs such as Operation College Bound enhance students’ understanding of and access to postsecondary education, complementing initiatives that help students navigate transitions to higher education and other sensitive periods of their academic lives. And in Pea Ridge, specialized high schools such as the Manufacturing and Business Academy and Pea Ridge Academy provide targeted support for students who want to go straight to jobs and careers or need special academic supports.

Mentoring and tutoring to get and keep students engaged

In the case study districts, the whole-child approach includes understanding the critical importance of one-on-one relationships with caring adults who support children’s academic and broader needs. Strategies can be as simple as the car and bus “buddies” who greet children in Pea Ridge each morning as they arrive at school, or as intensive as the volunteer “lunch buddies” who meet regularly with Joplin and Pea Ridge students to eat with them, talk about their days, and offer guidance. Northside Achievement Zone in North Minneapolis partners with Big Brothers Big Sisters to connect students with mentors, and over 500 volunteer mentors in Vancouver, Washington, support students in Family and Community Resource Centers.

These relationships are key to efforts in large urban districts and remote rural ones. The Children’s Aid Society has partnered with the New York City Department of Education to integrate a strong school curriculum with out-of-school enrichment programming, as well as provide child and family support services designed to remove barriers to students’ learning (Weiss 2016h). Children’s Aid community schools offer both tutoring and mentoring among their after-school options, as do Boston’s City Connects schools. In Eastern Kentucky, to bridge the long distances between one school and community and another, mentors use Skype to connect with eighth- and ninth-graders in Promise Neighborhood area schools.

Supports for student health and family wellness as a tool for sustaining early gains

Several of the districts studied have established health clinics in some or all of their schools, including Montgomery County, Vancouver, and New York City. In some other districts, such as Austin, school coordinators can arrange for mobile clinics to come to schools. These clinics provide basic preventive care through immunizations and check-ups, along with prescriptions and other care for sick children, physical and mental health screenings, follow-up counseling, mental health care, and even crisis intervention when needed.

Nutrition is another critical factor that affects physical and mental health and thus learning. In East Durham, Back Pack Buddies and summer lunch programs prevent hunger and keep kids nourished. Food and clothing pantries plus social media outreach in Pea Ridge and Joplin enable counselors and teachers to meet targeted immediate needs so students can focus and learn. Montgomery County has expanded its breakfast-in-the-classroom program to serve all students in a growing share of schools (MCPS 2017).

Many of these districts look beyond meeting students’ basic health and nutrition needs to advancing their and their families’ wellness and strengthening their ties to the community. Vancouver’s GoReady! back-to-school festivals provide backpacks, school supplies, shoes and socks, immunizations and dental screenings, and even haircuts, plus resources from community partners . In Eastern Kentucky, physical and mental health supports provided through state-supported Family Resource and Youth Service Centers are complemented by school–community collaborative activities through a run/walk club, a summer fitness program, a Jump Start program, and gardening and food preservation activities. And the East Durham Children’s Initiative runs a Healthy Living Initiative that refers families to nutrition counseling programs, Zumba classes, cooking demonstrations, and walking groups; it also distributes children’s bicycles and partners with local farmers markets to provide families with fresh produce.

Though research has long affirmed the importance of parental engagement, many schools struggle to meaningfully engage parents. The case study districts show how it can be done. In the rural regions around Berea, Kentucky, where physical distance makes engagement difficult, Partners for Education’s Families and Schools Together project convenes parents, school staff, and local agency professionals to help parents build social networks. In the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ), a high-poverty heavily minority area, regular one-on-one meetings between parents and “connectors”—specialized social workers who grew up in the area, are familiar with its challenges, and are a core component of the NAZ strategy—provide opportunities to conduct family needs assessments and provide referrals to relevant services. These regular meetings lead to deeper parental engagement in their children’s schools.

And full-service community schools such as those in Vancouver and New York City specialize in parent outreach and engagement. Community schools in these districts draw on parental input to shape school policies and practices and provide parents with an opportunity to meet one another. For example, a “parents’ coffee room” in a New York City school with a large Dominican population evolved from simply providing a space for parents to hang out after student drop-off to a center for parent-led workshops, parent–student collaborative plays, and more.

Other targeted supports provide added help for the most vulnerable students and their families. In Vancouver, for example, student advocates conduct home visits to parents of kindergartners and first-graders who are at risk of chronic absenteeism. In these visits, the advocates emphasize the importance of attendance and brainstorm with parents ways to reduce specific barriers to attendance. Complementary in-school efforts reward strong attendance. High-risk Montgomery County Public Schools students benefit from an unusual, but very effective, system of targeted support. Specifically, the districts’ funding system redistributes money from wealthier schools to higher-poverty schools, enabling the latter to provide smaller classrooms, more individualized attention, and more specialists in English language learning, special education, and other areas (Elmore, Thomas, and Clayton 2006).

How academic gains, including smaller achievement gaps, indicate that the investments are paying off

Providing children from birth through 12th grade and their families with targeted supports both within and outside of school has enabled these communities to make progress toward a range of goals. First, compared with students in peer districts, these districts’ students tend to have better outcomes on traditional measures of academic achievement such as test scores and graduation rates. Second and just as, if not more, important, these districts have improved students’ kindergarten readiness, engagement, and health and well-being, and helped the students be better prepared for college, careers, and civic engagement. This is true in large part due to these districts’ intentional bucking of a growing trend of diverging practices in which students in high-poverty schools are subject to narrow academic drilling while students in wealthy schools benefit from a broader set of activities and learning experiences beyond a narrow focus on preparing for standardized tests. These districts ensure enrichment for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status. Finally, in contrast with the national trend in recent decades of rapidly growing achievement gaps between wealthy and poor students, these districts are also narrowing race- and income-based achievement gaps: while all students are gaining ground, those who started off behind tend to see the largest gains.

Most of the data presented in this section do not come from experimental studies; with a few exceptions (which are noted in the case studies), they rely on nonexperimental comparisons with a similar nontreatment group, such as other low-income children in the district or other high-poverty districts in the state. However, they are gathered from official district, state, or federal resources in all cases, except for the minority of cases in which such data are not publicly available. Perhaps most importantly, in contrast with many other programs that have reported substantially improved outcomes for very vulnerable groups of students, these programs do not cherry-pick students to get these results. Rather, these initiatives serve all students in the enrollment area for a school, a cluster of schools, or, in many cases, an entire district; as described above, they are serving some of the nation’s most vulnerable students and their families. 32 Moreover, many of these efforts are, for lack of a better term, “turnarounds.” That is, students in an existing system that is considered to be failing are offered a new approach in the same school building, making the large gains reported particularly striking given the notable lack of similar progress from much-larger-scale, more publicized attempts at employing other turnaround strategies. 33

Establishing more expansive goals and implementing ways to track progress toward those goals also offers timely guidance, given that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) asks states, districts, and schools to do just that. These districts have not only set broader goals, they are demonstrating real progress toward achieving these goals. Because of their success, many now serve as role models for other districts or entire regions, and a few are beginning to influence state policy as well.

Higher rates of kindergarten readiness predict school success

Some of the kindergarten readiness efforts described above have translated into improved readiness to learn and, thus, greater odds of success in kindergarten and throughout the K–12 years. In Eastern Kentucky, East Durham, and Minneapolis, children who participated in early learning programs significantly increased their rates of kindergarten readiness across a range of metrics and developmental domains. A study of Montgomery County Public Schools found much larger gains in reading for children in the full-day Head Start program than for children in the half-day program, with full-day students more than doubling their reading scores over the year and especially pronounced gains for the most vulnerable students: Hispanics and English language learners (Marietta 2010).

Rising test scores and narrowing gaps in core academic subjects are an important sign of sustained early gains

While only one of many indicators, rising test scores and narrowing gaps in core academic subjects are an important sign that schools in case study districts have sustained and enhanced early gains. Despite serving a higher percentage of low-income, black, Hispanic, and English language learner students than the district average, Austin’s Alliance Schools—schools in which community organizers have worked to empower parents in conjunction with teacher advocacy efforts—saw substantial gains in scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, the state’s main standardized test, in the three years after parent-organizing efforts began. Increases varied from four points to 15–19 points, with the latter increases occurring in schools with the highest levels of parental engagement (Henderson 2010). Subsequent rollout of social and emotional learning in district schools (some of which were also Alliance schools) produced gains in the share of students deemed proficient on the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR, the next-generation state assessments) in the years following that rollout, with students in the first set of schools with social and emotional learning programs scoring higher on state math and reading exams than those in later school cohorts. The small group of Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone students who were tested increased their proficiency on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA) exam, with the share scoring as proficient rising from 14 percent in the 2012–2013 academic year to 22 percent in 2013–2014. 34 Students who had enrolled in the Northside Achievement Zone in 2013 had larger gains than those who enrolled in 2014, and, overall the largest proficiency gains were among first- and second-graders, with the smallest gains in middle schools.

Despite serving a much poorer and socially and economically isolated student body than in state schools overall, the Eastern Kentucky schools served by Partners for Education have seen substantially higher increases in test scores: from 2012 to 2015, math test scores in the Promise Neighborhood region rose 7.0 percentage points compared with 4.4 percentage points across the state, and reading scores rose 7.3 percentage points, compared with 5.8 percentage points statewide.

An independent study of middle school students who participated in the after-school programs run by Children’s Aid Society community schools in New York City had bigger gains in math and reading test scores than peers who did not participate. They also had higher relative increases in school attendance and in teacher-reported “motivation to learn.” And while the Children’s Aid Society did not make early childhood education investments a core component of its strategy, its Zero-to-Five program, which connects the federal Early Head Start and Head Start programs, produced relative test score gains among participants. Specifically, a study found that participants outperformed their peers 97 percent of the time on third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade standardized tests in math and reading, demonstrating a significant long-term positive effect (Caspe and Lorenzo Kennedy 2014).

Increases (or lack of decreases) in reading scores over the summer months (between the end of the school year and the start of the following year) can be an especially important indicator of sustainable academic achievement, since low-income students tend to lose substantial ground when they are out of school for the summer. Students who attended the North Minneapolis Northside Achievement Zone’s extended learning summer programs increased their reading test scores between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next, a period when scores normally decrease. And an evaluation of students who attended the East Durham Children’s Initiative’s summer camp in the summer of 2014 found that they lost no ground in literacy over those months.

Case study districts with more mature initiatives and those offering higher or more intensive doses of whole-child interventions are producing particularly large academic gains. Students enrolled in City Connects elementary schools in Boston score significantly higher on tests of both academic and noncognitive skills in elementary and secondary school, with the highest-risk students, such as English language learners, showing especially large gains. Scores of City Connects elementary school students on the Stanford Achievement Test version 9 increased between one-fourth and one-half a standard deviation greater than scores of their non–City Connects peers. And graduates of City Connects secondary schools are more likely to attend one of Boston’s three most selective public high schools.

Better student attendance and engagement are also predictors of academic gains

Chronic absenteeism depresses achievement, particularly among low-income students. A 2009 study found that New York City Children’s Aid Society’s community schools had “far higher” attendance than peer schools, and that schools with health centers tended to have higher attendance than those without health centers (Clark et al. 2009). Students attending City Connects high schools in Boston have significantly lower rates of chronic absenteeism than their peers (Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support 2012). In Joplin, Missouri, attendance rates among high school students increased 3.7 percentage points, rising from 91.3 percent in 2008 to 95.0 percent in 2012; black and Hispanic students closed gaps with their white peers over that period. At the same time, reportable disciplinary incidents—which keep students out of school and are found to drive at-risk students to disengage—dropped by over 1,000, from 3,648 in 2008 to 2,376 in 2012. 35

Every infant and toddler in East Durham whose family participated in the Healthy Families Durham home visiting program is up to date on immunizations; this helps at-risk children avoid missing school due to illness. In Pea Ridge, collaboration with one of the city’s doctors enabled the district to provide physical exams for high school students who would otherwise go without them. This not only improved their health but enabled them to participate in the kinds of extracurricular sports activities that boost student engagement. And City Connects’ practice of helping families draw on Medicaid coverage and of referring eligible students to insurance-eligible providers increases students’ access to both physical and mental health care. Given extensive evidence linking reduced absenteeism and improved physical and mental health to academic gains, these initiatives’ records of boosting both attendance and health represent another pathway to student success. 36

Increases in advanced coursework and completion of associated exams suggest improved college and career readiness

Because most of the initiatives studied have been in place for less than 10 years, and a few for five or fewer, there is less evidence of their impact on high school graduation and college enrollment. Nonetheless, the degree to which low-income and minority students in these districts perform better and have seen greater gains on these key indicators than their peers in comparable districts or across the state highlights the promise of comprehensive education approaches and, in some instances, their capacity to sustain and even boost children’s early gains.

Parent-organizing in Austin helped establish a program to get more low-income and minority middle school students into rigorous science and math programs, enabling them to successfully compete for slots in the prestigious LBJ High School Science Academy. From the 2007–2008 to the 2014–2015 academic year, the number of Kalamazoo Public School students taking Advanced Placement (AP) courses more than doubled, with low-income and African American students experiencing the largest absolute gains in participation and Hispanic students experiencing the largest percentage gains. Black and low-income students roughly quadrupled their participation in such courses; 263 black students and 193 low-income students took AP classes during the 2014–2015 academic year, up from 63 and 53 respectively in 2007–2008 (Miller-Adams 2015). Over the same period, the number of Hispanic students taking AP courses increased by a magnitude of 10—from just 8 to 78. And in Vancouver, which also made socioeconomic diversity of students in advanced courses a priority, enrollment in AP courses rose by 67 percent overall from 2007–2008 to 2013 –2014, and nearly three times as fast, by almost 200 percent, among low-income students.

Higher graduation rates and increasing college attendance of disadvantaged students are another measure of success of comprehensive strategies

In the early 2000s, the graduation rate at Austin’s Reagan High School fell below 50 percent and enrollment dropped to just 600 students. By 2015, with the benefit of a community schools strategy, the school was serving more than 1,200 students and had a graduation rate of 85 percent.

In the first six years of Bright Futures, Joplin’s graduation rate rose from 73 to 87 percent; from 2012 to 2015 it rose 13 percentage points, versus just 5 percentage points across the state as a whole. At the same time, the cohort dropout rate fell from 6.4 percent to 2.8 percent, with the dropout rate for black students falling slightly more. And in Kalamazoo, incentives to finish high school have proven to be powerful tools for disadvantaged students when combined with mentoring, tutoring, and after-school options. The district’s graduation rate rose from 64 percent in 2009 to 69 percent in 2014, with “five-year cohort graduation rates consistently higher than four-year rates, suggesting that some students may be opting to stay in school an extra year (or even just for the summer) to complete the credits necessary to get a high school diploma” (Miller-Adams 2015, 67). Moreover, African American girls in Kalamazoo graduate at higher rates than their peers across the state, and 85 percent of those graduates go to college.

Initiatives that have had time to mature have made particularly large gains. Montgomery County’s Linkages to Learning initiative began in 1993 and it substantially expanded its pre-K program around a decade later; a county policy responsible for improved racial integration has been in place even longer, since the early 1970s. Hispanic, low-income, and African American students in Montgomery County Public Schools are much more likely than their counterparts across the state to graduate from high school—80.0 vs. 77.5 percent, 81.0 vs. 77.8 percent, and 86.4 versus 80.5 percent, respectively. And from 2011 to 2014, a period when the share of students in poverty and the share of minority students rose in the district, overall graduation rates rose 2.9 percentage points, from 86.8 to 89.7 percent. There were much larger gains for Hispanic and black students, whose graduation rates rose (respectively) by 4.7 percentage points (from 75.3 to 80.0 percent) and 5.1 percentage points (from 81.3 to 86.4 percent), thus narrowing their gaps with their white peers by 3.4 and 3.8 percentage points, respectively (MCPS 2015). Participation in Boston’s City Connects program, which began in 2001, cuts a student’s odds of dropping out of high school nearly in half: 8.0 percent versus 15.2 percent for comparison students (Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support 2014). In Vancouver, the four-year graduation rate rose from 64 percent in 2010 to almost 80 percent in 2013, and the five-year rate rose from 69 percent in 2010 to over 80 percent in 2013. Vancouver’s Hispanic students had five-year graduation rate gains of over 15 percentage points.

Strong parent and community engagement is another sign of progress

The comprehensive, whole-child, whole-community approaches in the featured school districts have built strong school–community partnerships. Two indicators of the strength of the partnerships are the levels of parent and community engagement. In Joplin, 194 more adults are now serving as mentors and tutors than five years ago. And the American Association of School Administrators, National School Public Relations Association, and Blackboard Connected selected Vancouver Public Schools Superintendent Steve Webb and Chief of Staff Tom Hagley for their 2011 Leadership through Communication Award for their successful efforts to increase family engagement in high-poverty VPS schools.

Parental engagement boosts student achievement both directly and through other improvements to families’ situations. As they work actively with their “connectors,” Northside Achievement Zone parents in North Minneapolis become more likely to make academics a priority, to engage with their children’s schools, and to be focused on sending their children to college. The support also helps more families connect with stable housing, substantially reducing the number of times that some vulnerable families move. In 2014–2015, up to 300 Austin families benefited from help with legal, employment, health, and housing issues at the family resource center, which also provides classes for parents, including English language learning classes. And Montgomery County Public Schools social workers who specialize in early childhood education make an average of 200 home visits, 1,000 phone contacts, and 300 direct contacts with parents at school or conferences each month. These lead to roughly 1,000 monthly referrals to community services—many of them emergency interventions dealing with food, clothing, and housing—that help families meet their children’s basic needs and, thus, support their children’s education (Marietta 2010).

In some cases, engagement enhances school leadership. Through access to supports such as social services and adult education, parents of students in New York’s Children’s Aid Society community schools got more involved in their children’s schools, took more responsibility for their children’s schoolwork, reported feeling more welcome within the schools, and were observed to be a greater presence in the community schools than in comparison schools. And over 2,000 Kentucky parents have undergone training at the Berea Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership since its creation in 1997. Many of these parents have gone on to join school boards, serve on school councils, and engage in day-to-day educational advocacy.

Expansion of these initiatives shows that other districts, and even state policymakers, consider them successful

After City Connects succeeded in improving student achievement in over a dozen of Boston’s highest-poverty schools, the initiative caught the attention of state policymakers, who recruited City Connects to help turn around schools in Springfield, home to another large high-poverty urban district in Massachusetts. Aided by federal School Improvement Grant funds, City Connects has operated in Springfield since 2010, expanding from six to 13 schools in its first four years there. In New York City, the Children’s Aid Society played a central role in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s 2016 decision to employ a community schools strategy to turn around 100 of the city’s most struggling schools. And in both Vancouver and Austin, district leaders have led advocacy efforts to bring community schools to other communities in the region and to support the introduction of state-level legislation to enhance the work.

Bright Futures began in Joplin, Missouri, in 2009 but is now a national organization. Bright Futures USA has 50 affiliates in eight states, many of which—such as Pea Ridge—are just two or three years old. The newest affiliate, in Fairbanks, Alaska, has just been made official. In Virginia, Dave Sovine, superintendent of a second-year affiliate, Frederick County Public Schools, is reaching out to several of his counterparts across the region to create the first regional Bright Futures initiative (Gizriel 2016). If established, this would allow for the kind of cross-district collaboration identified by Bright Futures founder C.J. Huff as critical to breaking down the silos created by arbitrary boundaries that reflect political preferences rather than children’s daily realities. 37

As this report demonstrates, very large social-class-based gaps in academic performance exist and have persisted across the two most recently studied cohorts of students starting kindergarten. The estimated gap between children in the top fifth and the bottom fifth of the SES distribution is over a standard deviation in both reading and math in 2010 (unadjusted performance gaps are 1.17 and 1.25 sd respectively). Gaps in noncognitive skills such as self-control and approaches to learning—which are critical not only as foundations for academic achievement but also more broadly for children’s healthy development—are about half as large (about 0.4 sd in self-control, and slightly over 0.5 sd in approaches to learning in 2010).

Another important finding from our study is that gaps were not, on average, sensitive to the set of changes that may have occurred between 1998 and 2010: gaps across both types of skills are virtually unchanged compared with the prior generation of students—those who entered school in 1998. The only cognitive gap that changed substantially was in reading skills, which increased by about a tenth of a standard deviation. The gaps by SES in mathematics, in approaches to learning as reported by parents, and in self-control as reported by teachers did not change significantly. And relative gaps in approaches to learning as reported by teachers and in self-control as reported by parents shrank between 1998 and 2010, by about a tenth of a standard deviation. 38

We also find that, while taking into account children’s personal and family characteristics, parental activities, and other factors reduces the gaps somewhat, it does not come close to eliminating them. This means that there is a substantial set of SES-related factors that are not captured by the traditional covariates used in this study but that are important to understanding how and why gaps develop. Moreover, the capacity for these other factors—child and family characteristics, early education investments, and expectations—to narrow gaps has decreased over time. This suggests that, while such activities as parental time spent with children and center-based pre-K programs cushion the negative consequences of growing up in a low-social-class context, they can do only so much, and that the overall toxicity of lacking resources and supports is increasingly hard to compensate for. The resistance of gaps to these controls should thus be a matter of real concern for researchers and policymakers.

These troubling trends point to critical implications for policy and for our society: clearly, we are failing to provide the foundational experiences and opportunities that all children need to succeed in school and thrive in life. The failure to narrow gaps between 1998 and 2010 suggests, too, that investments in pre-K programs and other early education and economic supports were insufficient to counter rising rates of poverty and its increasing concentration in neighborhoods where black and Hispanic children tend to live and learn.

But there is also good news. The case study review in the previous section of this report explores district-level strategies to address these gaps, strategies that are being implemented in diverse communities across the country. The most effective ones begin very early in children’s lives and are sustained throughout their K–12 years and beyond. The communities studied all employ comprehensive educational approaches that align enriching school strategies with a range of supports for children and their families. Their implementation is often guided by holistic data and, to the extent possible, this report provides a summary, as well, of student outcomes, using both traditional academic measures and a broad range of other measures.

These findings also point to further research questions that need to be addressed, including why gaps changed or did not change, for whom they changed (or did not change), and what is the absolute change in children’s skills over time. 39

Parents are doing what they need to do, and a growing number of communities are, too, but as a society, we are still falling far short

Over the period studied, parents across all social class groups became more involved in their young children’s early education and development, with increases in involvement being especially pronounced among low-SES parents. Parents were more likely in 2010 than in 1998 to read regularly to their children; to sing to them; to play games with them; and to enroll them in center-based pre-K programs. Parents in 2010 also had significantly higher expectations for their children’s educational attainment, and mothers themselves were more highly educated—both factors that are associated with higher achievement for those children. In other words, parents’ actions show that they are doing more of what the brain science indicates they need to do, which either suggests that information about children’s needs during those years is more widely disseminated than it was for the prior cohort we studied, or that parenting styles have changed in a way that benefits the development in the early years.

And, as the case studies indicate, the number of communities that have embraced systems of comprehensive enrichment and supports (“Broader, Bolder Approaches to Education”) is growing. As these communities have shown, such comprehensive education policies are feasible; embedded in these policies is an understanding that children’s development involves nurturing a variety of competencies throughout the stages of development, that there are many individuals participating in these processes, and that coordinated efforts by various stakeholders are needed to put these processes to work. Key principles that span across the case studies include very early interventions and supports, parental engagement and education, pre-K, kindergarten transitions, whole-child approaches to curricula, and wraparound supports that are sustained through the K–12 years. Given the significant need for more such strategies, it is important to understand the factors that drove their enactment in a diverse set of communities, and to continue to monitor both the challenges these communities (and others like them) encounter and the outcomes/benefits of the initiatives.

However, despite the abundance of child development information available to researchers and parents—about the serious impacts of child poverty, about what works to counter those effects, about the importance of the first years of life for children, and about the value of education—our data indicate insufficient policy response at all levels of government. Pre-K programs have expanded incrementally and unevenly, with both access and quality still wildly disparate across states and overall availability severely insufficient. There is a dearth of home visiting programs and of quality child care (Bivens et al. 2016). Child poverty has increased (see Proctor, Semega, and Kollar 2016 for recent trends in child poverty rates). And the schools these children enter face increasing economic and racial segregation but with even fewer resources than they had in 1998 to deal with them (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2012; Baker and Corcoran 2012; Carnoy and García 2017). And while a growing number of districts have embraced Broader, Bolder approaches, that number is failing to keep up with high and growing need.

In sum, it is actually positive, and somewhat impressive, that gaps by and large did not grow in the face of steadily increasing income inequality, compounded by the worst economic crisis in many decades (EPI 2012, 2013; Saez 2016). But it is disappointing and troubling that new policy investments made in the previous decade were insufficient to make even a dent in these stubborn gaps. We cannot ensure real opportunities for all our children unless we tackle the severe inequities underlying our findings. And while momentum to enact comprehensive and sustained strategies to close gaps is growing, such strategies are not being implemented nearly as quickly as children need them to be.

Next policy steps

These data on large, stubborn gaps across both traditional cognitive and noncognitive skills should guide the design of education policies at the federal, state, and local levels; the combined resources and support of government at all three levels are needed if we are to tackle these inequalities effectively. 40

Policymakers can begin by learning from the small-scale, district-level strategies presented in the review of case studies above (see the section “What are pioneering school districts doing to combat these inequities and resulting gaps?” above). Looking at these case studies, policymakers can ask: What are the key strategies these communities employed, what main components characterize these strategies, and how did these communities effectively implement the strategies? What challenges did these communities face, what was needed to overcome the challenges, and how can we shape policies that better support other communities’ abilities to respond to such challenges and, to the extent possible, avert them? The latter set of questions is particularly pertinent to issues of scalability, financing, and sustainability, all of which have posed significant challenges for the districts studied and others like them. Policymakers can further ask: What other sources or examples might we learn from? Obvious ones include other districts that employ “community schools” strategies (as Vancouver, New York City, and Austin do) and Promise Neighborhood initiatives beyond Berea/Eastern Kentucky and the Northside Achievement Zone. Bright Futures affiliates now exist in 50 districts across eight states—and the program continues to grow—offering another set of communities to look to.

Also, new opportunities under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)—from funding to expand and align early childhood education programs to broader and more supports-based educator- and school-accountability systems—provide another avenue for exploration and educational improvement. This is already the focus of states and districts across the country—as well as of education policy nonprofits and associations—and is a focus that has the potential to inspire viable larger-scale models (Cook-Harvey et al. 2016).

We must take action, in particular, in those areas of policy related to early education in which we have seen little or no progress over the past decade. These include child care: comprehensive supports that engage parents as partners in their children’s education must start early and be of high quality to prevent the emergence of gaps and provide time to close any gaps that emerge (Bivens et al. 2016, among others). Quality preschool, among the most-agreed-upon strategies to avert and narrow early gaps, continues to be much talked about but far too little invested in and far too infrequently and shoddily implemented. The advantages of preschool have been known for decades, and significant progress has been made in preschool enrollment over that time; however, preschool enrollment stagnated soon after 2000 (Barnett et al. 2017; U.S. ED 2015) and there continue to be significant inequities in access (see Table 2; García 2015) and, just as important, in quality (NIEER 2016). And the gains made through these early, whole-child-oriented supports must be sustained through children’s K–12 years, with attention to issues of funding levels and equity, racial and socioeconomic integration, and enriching opportunities in the hours after school and in the summer months.

Altogether, this report adds to the strong evidentiary base that identifies strategies to reduce the education consequences of economic inequality. It also sheds light on the need to conduct further research on the channels that drive or cushion changes in readiness. A close follow-up of these trends in the near future and of the measures adopted to really tackle inequities will not only determine what type of society we will be, but will also say a lot about what type of society we actually are. This study, affirming a growing number of other studies on these issues, points to an “American Dream” that is alive in public pronouncements but dormant and pale in reality.

About the authors

Emma García  is an education economist at the Economic Policy Institute, where she specializes in the economics of education and education policy. Her areas of research include analysis of the production of education, returns to education, program evaluation, international comparative education, human development, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in education. Prior to joining EPI, García conducted research for the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education and other research centers at Teachers College, Columbia University, and did consulting work for the National Institute for Early Education Research, MDRC, and the Inter-American Development Bank. García has a Ph.D. in economics and education from Teachers College, Columbia University.

Elaine Weiss  served as the national coordinator for the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education (BBA) from 2011 to 2017, in which capacity she worked with four co-chairs, a high-level task force, and multiple coalition partners to promote a comprehensive, evidence-based set of policies to allow all children to thrive. Weiss came to BBA from the Pew Charitable Trusts, where she served as project manager for Pew’s Partnership for America’s Economic Success campaign. Weiss was previously a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s task force on child abuse and served as volunteer counsel for clients at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. She holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the George Washington University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was prepared for “Strong Foundations: The Economic Futures of Kids and Communities,” the Federal Reserve System Community Development Research Conference, Washington, D.C., March 23–24, 2017. We appreciate the feedback we received from our discussant Richard Todd and from the audience. The authors gratefully acknowledge Rob Grunewald and Milagros Nores for their insightful comments and advice on earlier drafts of the paper. Special gratitude is expressed to Sean Reardon, for his advice and thorough guidance on the sensitivity analyses affecting the measurement of the cognitive skills and their implications for our study, and for sharing useful materials to help test our results. We thank Ben Zipperer and Yilin Pan for their advice on issues associated with multiple imputation of missing data. We are also grateful to Lora Engdahl and Krista Faries for editing this report, and to Margaret Poydock for her work preparing the tables and figures and formatting the report. Finally, we appreciate the assistance of communications staff at the Economic Policy Institute who helped to disseminate the study, especially Dan Crawford, Kayla Blado, and Elizabeth Rose.

Address correspondence to: Economic Policy Institute, 1225 Eye St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20005. Email: [email protected] ; [email protected] .

Figures and tables

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-ses and low-ses children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010.

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

The data underlying the figure.

Notes: SES refers to socioeconomic status. The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For example, the gap in approaches to learning as reported by teachers in 2010 is 0.51 sd (0.63 – 0.12). For statistical significance of these numbers, see Tables 3 and 4, Model 1.

Source: EPI analysis of ECLS-K, kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Fully adjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010

Note: SES refers to socioeconomic status. The gaps are standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children after adjusting for all family and child characteristics, pre-K schooling, and enrichment activities with parents, and parental expectations for children’s educational attainment. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Tables 3 and 4, Model 4.

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using mother's educational attainment as a proxy for socioeconomic status

Notes: The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children where high-SES children have mothers in the top quintile of the education distribution and low-SES children have mothers in bottom quintile of the education distribution. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Table 7, Model 1.

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using household income as a proxy for socioeconomic status

Notes:  The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children where high-SES children are in households with incomes in the top quintile of the income distribution and low-SES children are in households with incomes in bottom quintile of the income distribution. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Table 8, Model 1.

Unadjusted cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using number of books the child has in the home as a proxy for socioeconomic status

Notes:  The gaps are the baseline unadjusted standard deviation scores for high-SES children relative to low-SES children where high-SES children have a number of books in the home in the top quintile of the books-in-the-home distribution and low-SES children have a number of books in the home in the bottom quintile of the books-in-the-home distribution. The gap in 2010 equals the gap in 1998 plus the change in the gap from 1998 to 2010. For statistical significance of these numbers, see Table 9, Model 1.

Reading and math achievement gaps, and principal noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 2010–2011, under unadjusted and clustered models

Note: Using the full sample. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Sizes may differ from those inferred from Tables 3–6, and from those in García 2015, due to differences in the sample sizes or to rounding.

Source: EPI analysis of ECLS-K, kindergarten class of 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Child and family characteristics, main developmental activities, and parental expectations for children, kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011, by socioeconomic status (SES)

Note: SES refers to socioeconomic status.

Reading and math skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, under unadjusted to fully adjusted models

Notes: Models 1 and 2 use the full sample; Models 3 and 4 use the complete cases sample. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. SES refers to socioeconomic status.

Noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, under unadjusted to fully adjusted models

Reductions in skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children after accounting for missingness and covariates, 1998 and 2010

Note: SES refers to socioeconomic status. Declining values from 1998 to 2010 indicate that factors such as early literacy activities and other controls were not as effective at shrinking SES-based gaps in 2010 as they were in 1998.

Summary of association between cognitive and noncognitive skills at kindergarten entry and selected early educational practices, fully adjusted differences (Model 4)

Notes: The robust standard errors are in parentheses. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children using mother's educational attainment as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), under unadjusted and fully adjusted models

Notes: Model 1 uses the full sample; Model 4 uses the complete cases sample. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. For statistical significance, *** denotes p < 0.01, ** denotes p < 0.05, and * denotes p < 0.1. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children using household income as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), under unadjusted and fully adjusted models

Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children using number of books child has in the home as a proxy for socioeconomic status, under unadjusted and fully adjusted models

'Whole-child' case study initiatives, by service area

*Indicates that while the initiative covers the entire county or region, a portion of the county or region receives more intensive services. **Indicates that the initiative will cover the entire school district under plans to expand.

Source: Case studies published on the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education website (www.boldapproach.org/case-studies)

1. Values are in 2008 dollars.

2. Early investments in education strongly predict adolescent and adult development (Cunha and Heckman 2007; Heckman 2008; Heckman and Kautz 2012). For instance, students with higher levels of behavioral skills learn more in school than peers whose attitudinal skills are less developed (Jennings and DiPrete 2010). In general, as Heckman asserted, “skills beget skills,” meaning that creating basic, foundational knowledge makes it easier to acquire skills in the future (Heckman 2008). Conversely, children who fail to acquire this early foundational knowledge may experience some permanent loss of opportunities to achieve to their full potential. Indeed, scholars have documented a correlation between lack of kindergarten readiness and not reading well at third grade, which is a key point at which failing to read well greatly reduces a child’s odds of completing high school (Fiester 2010; Hernandez 2011).

3. Research by Reardon (2011) had found systematic increases in income gaps among generations. Recent studies by Bassok and Latham (2016) and Reardon and Portilla (2016), however, show narrower achievement gaps at kindergarten entry between a recent cohort and the previous one, and thus a possible discontinuation or interruption of that trend. (Bassok et al. [2016] use an SES construct to compare relative teacher assessments of cognitive and behavioral skills among low-SES children versus all children, adjusted by various other characteristics; Reardon and Portilla [2016] look at relative performance of children in the 90th and 10th income percentiles, and use age-adjusted, standardized, outcome scores.) Research by Carnoy and García (2017) shows persistent social-class gaps, but no solid evidence regarding trends: their findings for students in the fourth and eighth grades, in math and reading, show that achievement gaps neither shrink nor grow consistently (they are a function of the social-class indicator, the grade level, or the subject).

4. Clustering takes into account the fact that children are not randomly distributed, but tend to be concentrated in schools or classrooms with children of the same race, social class, etc. These estimates offer an estimate of gaps within schools. See Appendix B for more details.

5. Results available upon request. See García 2015 for results for all SES-quintiles (the baseline or unadjusted gaps in that report correspond with Model 2 in this paper).

6. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study asks both parents and teachers to rate children’s abilities across a range of these skills. The specific skills measured may vary between the home and classroom setting. Teachers likely evaluate their students’ skills levels relative to those of other children they teach. Parents, on the other hand, may be basing their expectations on family, community, culture, or other factors.

7. See García 2015 for a discussion of which factors in children’s early lives and their individual and family characteristics (in addition to social class) drive the gaps among children of the 2010 kindergarten class.

8. Note that the SES quintiles are constructed using each year’s distribution, and that changes in the overall and relative distribution may affect the characteristics of children in the different quintiles each year (i.e., there may be some groups who are relatively overrepresented in one or another quintile if changes in the SES components changed over time).

9. The detailed frequency with which parents develop or practice some activities with their children at home and others is available upon request.

10. Literature on expectations and on parental behaviors in the home find that they positively correlate with children’s cognitive development and outcomes (Simpkins, Davis-Kean, and Eccles 2005; Wentzel, Russell, and Baker 2016). This literature acknowledges the multiple pathways through which expectations and behaviors influence educational outcomes, as well as the importance of race, social class, and other factors as moderators of such associations (Davis-Kean 2005; Redd et al. 2004; Wentzel, Russell, and Baker 2016; Yamamoto and Holloway 2010).

11. This may be affected by the fact that the highest number of reported books in 1998 was “more than 200,” while in 2010 parents could choose from more categories, up to “more than 1,000.” We had to use 200 as our cap in order to compare data for the two kindergarten classes.

12. Evidence also points to many other factors that affect children’s school readiness, and these, too, likely changed over this time period. For example, access to prenatal care, health screenings, and nutritional programs could all have affected children’s development differently across these two cohorts, but we do not have access to these data and thus cannot control for them in our study. For links between school readiness, children’s health, and poverty, see AAP COCP 2016; Currie 2009; U.S. HHS and U.S. ED 2016.

13. Models include all quintiles in their specification. Tables that offer a comparison for all quintiles relative to the first quintile are available upon request. We focus the discussion on the gap between the top and bottom.

14. As a result, sample sizes become smaller (see Appendix Table C1). Assuming “missingness” (observations without full information) is completely at random, the findings are representative of the original sample and of the populations they represent. Analytic samples once missingness is accounted for are called the complete case samples. We tested to see whether the unadjusted gaps estimated above with the full sample remained the same when using the complete case samples. For Model 1, we found an average difference of 0.01 sd in the estimates of 1998 SES gaps, and an average difference of 0.02 sd in the estimates of the change in the gaps. For Model 2, the differences were 0.01 sd for the gaps’ estimates and 0.04 for changes in the gaps’ estimates. In terms of statistical significance, there are no significant changes in the estimates associated with the 1998 gaps, but there are two changes in the statistical significance of the estimates associated with the changes in the gaps by 2010 – 2011, and one change in the magnitude of the coefficient. The first change in the statistical significance of the estimates associated with the changes in the gaps by 2010 – 2011 is the change in the gap in approaches to learning as reported by parents, which is statistically significant when using the restricted sample (0.07 sd, at the 10 percent significance level, Model 1); and the second is the change in the gap in math which also becomes statistically significant when using the restricted sample (0.09, at the 10 percent significance level, Model 2). Finally, the one change in the magnitude of the coefficient, in this model, is the estimate of the change in the gap in reading, which increases when using the restricted sample (from 0.12 sd to 0.18 sd). Results are available upon request.

15. These interactions between inputs and time test for whether the influence of inputs in 2010 is smaller than, the same as, or larger than the influence of inputs in 1998. Also, although only the fully specified results are shown, as noted in Appendix B, these sets of controls are entered parsimoniously in order to determine how sensitive gaps and changes in gaps over time are to the inclusion of family characteristics only, to the added inclusion of family investments, and, finally, to the inclusion of parental expectations (for the inclusion of parental expectations, we incorporated interactions of the covariates with time parsimoniously as well). For all outcomes, and focusing on the models without interactions between covariates and time, we find that all gaps in 1998 continuously shrink as we add more controls. For example, in reading, adding family characteristics reduces the gap in 1998 by 11 percent, adding investments further reduces it by 15 percent, and adding expectations further reduces it by 9 percent. In math, these changes equal to 16 percent, 13 percent, and 10 percent. For changes in the gap by 2010–2011, for both reading and math, adding family characteristics and investments shrink the changes in the gaps, but adding expectations slightly increases the estimated coefficients (which are statistically significant for reading, but not for math in these models. For self-control (as reported by teachers) and approaches to learning (by parents), which are the only two noncognitive skills for which the change in the gap is statistically significant, adding family characteristics reduces the change in the “gap [by 2010–2011” coefficient], but adding investments increases it, and adding expectations further increases the changes in the gaps by 2010–2011. These results are not shown in the appendices, but are available upon request.

16. The interactions between parental expectations of children’s educational attainment and the time variable test for whether the influence of expectations in 2010 is smaller, the same, or larger, than the influence of expectations in 1998.

17. The change in the skills gaps by SES in 2010 due to the inclusion of the controls is not directly visible in the tables in this report. To see this, see the comparison of estimates of models MS1–MS3 in García 2015. The change in the skills gaps by SES in 1998 is directly observable in Tables 3 and 4 and is discussed below.

18. The numbers in the “Reduction” column in Table 5 (showing the shares of the SES-based skills gaps that are accounted for by controls) are always higher for 1998 than for 2010.

19. Please note that until this point in the report we have been concerned with SES gaps and not with performance directly (though SES gaps are the result of the influence of SES on performance, which leads to differential performance of children by SES and hence to a performance gap). The paragraphs above emphasize how controls mediate or explain some of the skills gaps by SES, so, in a way, controls inform our analysis of gaps because they reveal how changes in gaps may have been affected by changes in various factors’ capacity to influence performance. Now the focus is on exploring the independent effect of the covariates of interest on performance. In this report, because we address whether the education and selected practices affect outcomes, the main effect is measured for the 1998 cohort, and we measure how it changed between 1998 and 2010. The detailed discussion for the correlation between covariates and outcomes in 2010 is provided in Table 3 in García 2015.

20. This variable indicates whether the child was cared for in a center-based setting during the year prior to the kindergarten year, compared with other options (as explained in García 2015, these alternatives include no nonparental care arrangements; being looked after by a relative, a nonrelative, at home or outside; or a combination of options. Any finding associated with this variable may be interpreted as the association between attending prekindergarten programs, compared with other options, but must be interpreted with caution. In other words, the child may have attended a high-quality prekindergarten program, which could have been either private or public, or a low-quality one, which would have different impacts. He or she might have been placed in (noneducational) child care, either private or public, of high or low quality, for few or many hours per day, with very different implications for his or her development (Barnett 2008; Barnett 2011; Magnuson et al. 2004; Magnuson, Ruhm, and Waldfogel 2007; Nores and Barnett 2010). For the extensive literature explaining the benefits of pre-K schooling, see Camilli et al. 2010, and for a meta-analysis of results, see Duncan and Magnuson 2013. Thus, more detailed information on the characteristics of the nonparental care arrangements (type, quality, and quantity) would help researchers further disentangle the importance of this variable. This additional information would provide a much clearer picture of the effects of early childhood education on the different educational outcomes.

21. Because these associations seemed counterintuitive, we tested whether they were sensitive to the composition of the index. We removed one component of the index at a time and created five alternative measures of other enrichment activities that parents do with their children. The results indicate that the negative association between the index and reading is not sensitive to the components of the index (the coefficients for the main effect, i.e., for the effect in 1998 range between -0.14 and -0.09, are all statistically significant). For math, the associations lose some precision, but retain the negative sign (negative association) in four out of the five cases (minimum coefficient is -0.06). As a caveat, these components do not reflect whether the activities are undertaken by the child or guided by the adult, the time devoted to them, or how much they involve the use of vocabulary or math concepts. The associations could indicate that time spent on nonacademic activities detracts from parents’ time to spend on activities that are intended to boost their reading and math skills, among other possible explanations. These results are available upon request.

22. Note that in this section, “social class” and “socioeconomic status” (SES) are treated as equivalent terms; in the rest of the report, we refer to SES as a construct that is one measure of social class. See Appendices C and D for discussions of two other sensitivity analyses, one based on imputation of missing values for the main analysis in this paper, and the other on the utilization of various metrics of the cognitive variables. Overall, our findings were not sensitive to various multiple imputation tests. In terms of the utilization of different metrics for the cognitive variables, some sensitivity of the point estimates was detected.

23. With certain activities that are already so provided to high-SES children, there may be little room for doing more for them. For example, there are only 24 hours per day to read to your child, so there is a cap on reading from a cap on time. But perhaps there is still room to improve the influence of reading, if, for example, the way reading is done changes.

24. Eight of the 12 districts explored in this paper are the subjects of published case studies. Case studies for the other four are in progress and will be published later this year. When citing information from the published case studies, we cite the specific published study. For the four that are not yet published, we refer to the original sources being used to develop the case studies.

25. Missing or incomplete cells in the table indicate that data were not available on that aspect of student demographics or other characteristics. As per the source note, most data came either from the districts’ websites or from NCES.

26. In the country as a whole, poverty rates, which had been rising prior to 2007, sped up rapidly during the recession and in its aftermath (through 2011–2012), and minority students (mainly Hispanic and Asian) grew as a share of the U.S. public school student body. Between 2000 and 2013, even with a decline in the proportion of black students, the share of the student body that is minority (of black or Hispanic origin) increased from 30.0 percent to 40.5 percent, and the proportion of low-income students (those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) also increased, up from 38.3 percent of all public school students in 2000 to 52.0 percent in 2013 (Carnoy and García 2017). The Southern Education Foundation revealed a troubling tipping point in 2013: for the first time since such data have been collected, over half of all public school students (51 percent) qualified for free or reduced-priced meals (i.e., over half of students were living in households at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line). Across the South, shares were much higher, with the highest percentage, 71 percent—or nearly three in four students—in Mississippi (Southern Education Foundation 2015).

27. A full cross-cutting analysis of why and how these districts have employed whole-child/comprehensive educational approaches will be published as part of a book that draws on these case studies.

28. The federal Early Head Start (EHS) program includes both a home visiting and a center-based component, with many of the low-income infants and toddlers served benefiting from a combination of the two. Studies of EHS find improved cognitive, behavioral, and emotional skills for children as well as enhanced parenting behaviors.

29. According to one important source for data on access to and quality of state pre-K programs, the State of Preschool yearbook produced annually by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University, as of 2015, 42 states and the District of Columbia were funding 57 programs. Moreover, programs continued to recover from cuts made during the Great Recession; enrollment, quality, and per-pupil spending were all up, on average, compared with the year before, albeit with the important caveat that two major states—Texas and Florida—lost ground, and that “[f]or the nation as a whole,…access to a high-quality preschool program remained highly unequal, and this situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future unless many more states follow the leaders” (NIEER 2016).

30. Elaine Weiss interview with Joshua Starr, June 2017.

31. Murnane and Levy 1996; Elaine Weiss interview with Joshua Starr, June 2017.

32. In recent years, a growing number of reports have emerged that some charter schools—which are technically public schools and often tout their successes in serving disadvantaged students—keep out students unlikely to succeed through complex application processes, fees, parent participation contracts, and other mechanisms, and then further winnow the student body of such students by pushing them out when they struggle academically or behaviorally. For more on this topic, see Burris 2017,  PBS NewsHour 2015, and Simon 2013.

33. See AIR 2011 and Sparks 2017. The federal school improvement models, in order of severity (from lightest to most stringent) are termed “transformation,” “turnaround,” “restart,” and “closure” (AIR 2011, 3).

34. While the cut score on any given assessment/test needed for a student to be considered “proficient” is an arbitrary one, and, in Minnesota and many other states, changes from year to year and from one assessment to another, these gains are a helpful indicator of program effectiveness, as they are comparable over the time period described.

35. Joplin statistics are from internal data produced for the superintendent at that time that are no longer available.

36. Attendance Works , a national campaign to reduce chronic absence, points to a range of studies that document and explain the connections between chronic absenteeism, student physical and mental health, and student achievement. Areas of research include elementary school absenteeism, middle and high school absenteeism, health issues, and state and local data on how these problems play out, among others.

37. Elaine Weiss interview with C.J. Huff, June 2016.

38. See Appendix D for a discussion of results using other metrics for reading and math achievement. Results are not meaningfully different across metrics, though the point estimates differ slightly.

39. This last feature will be explored in a companion paper to this one, as soon as the necessary information is released by NCES. (As Tourangeau et al. [2013] note, the assessment scores for the 2010–2011 cohort are not directly comparable with those for the 1998–1999 cohort. We are waiting on the availability of this data to conduct a companion study that allows us to learn whether starting levels of knowledge rose over these years, and what the relative gains were for different demographic groups.)

40. We acknowledge that there are multiple noneducation public policy and economic policy areas to be called upon to address the problems studied in this report, namely, all the ones that ensure other factors that correlate with low-SES are attended, and, obviously, the ones that lead to fewer low-SES children. These other policies could help ensure that more children grow up in contexts with sufficient resources and healthy surroundings, or would leave fewer children without built-in supports at home that need to be compensated for afterwards. We made these points in two early studies, and in the policy brief companion to this study (García 2015; García and Weiss 2015; García and Weiss 2017). A similar comprehensive approach in terms of policy recommendations was used by Putnam (2015).

AAP Council on Community Pediatrics (AAP COCP). 2016. “Poverty and Child Health in the United States.” Pediatrics vol. 137, no. 4. pii:e20160339.

Adamson, Frank, and Linda Darling-Hammond. 2012. “Funding Disparities and the Inequitable Distribution of Teachers: Evaluating Sources and Solutions.” Education Policy Analysis Archives vol. 20 (November), 37.

Alvarez, Lizette. 2015. “ One Man’s Millions Turn a Community in Florida Around .” New York Times , May 25.

American Institutes for Research (AIR). 2011. School Turnaround: A Pocket Guide .

Austin Independent School District (AISD). 2017. “ Pre-K 4 ” (section on the AISD website).

Baker, Bruce D., and Sean P. Corcoran. 2012.  The Stealth Inequities of School Funding . The Center for American Progress.

Barbarin, O.A., J. Downer, E. Odom, and D. Head. 2010. “Home–School Differences in Beliefs, Support, and Control during Public Pre-Kindergarten and Their Link to Children’s Kindergarten Readiness.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly vol. 25, no. 3, 358–72.

Barnett, W. Steven. 2008.  Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications . Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

Barnett, W. Steven. 2011. “Effectiveness of Early Educational Intervention.”  Science  vol. 333, no. 6045, 975–78. doi:10.1126/science.1204534.

Barnett, W. Steven, Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, Eric Dearing, and Megan E. Carolan. 2017. “Publicly Supported Early Care and Education Programs.” In The Wiley Handbook of Early Childhood Development Programs, Practices, and Policies , Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal and Eric Dearing, eds. Malden, Mass., and Oxford: John Wiley.

Bassok, Daphna, Jenna E. Finch, RaeHyuck Lee, Sean F. Reardon, and Jane Waldfogel. 2016. “Socioeconomic Gaps in Early Childhood Experiences: 1998 to 2010.” AERA Open vol. 2, no. 3.

Bassok, Daphna, and Scott Latham. 2016. “ Kids Today: Changes in School-Readiness in an Early Childhood Era .” EdPolicyWorks Working Paper Series no. 35.

Berea College. 2013. “ U.S. Secretary of Education Visits First Rural Promise Neighborhood ” (news release). November 12.

Bradbury, Bruce, Miles Corak, Jane Waldfogel, and Elizabeth Washbrook. 2015. Too Many Children Left Behind: The U.S. Achievement Gap in Comparative Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, and Lisa Markman. 2005. “The Contribution of Parenting to Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness.” Future of Children vol. 15, no. 1, 139–68.

Bivens, Josh. 2016. Progressive Redistribution without Guilt. Using Policy to Shift Economic Power and Make U.S. Incomes Grow Fairer and Faster . Economic Policy Institute.

Bivens, Josh, Emma García, Elise Gould, Elaine Weiss, and Valerie Wilson. 2016. It’s Time for an Ambitious National Investment in America’s Children: Investments in Early Childhood Care and Education Would Have Enormous Benefits for Children, Families, Society, and the Economy . Economic Policy Institute.

Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support. 2012. The Impact of City Connects: Progress Report 2012 .

Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support. 2014. The Impact of City Connects: Progress Report 2014 .

Burris, Carol. 2017. “ What the Public Isn’t Told about High Performing Charter Schools in Arizona .” Washington Post Answer Sheet blog, March 30.

Camilli, Gregory, Sadako Vargas, Sharon Ryan, and W. Steven Barnett. 2010. “Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Early Education Interventions on Cognitive and Social Development.”  Teachers College Record  vol. 112, no. 3, 579–620.

Carnoy, Martin, and Emma García. 2017. Five Key Trends in U.S. Student Performance. Progress by Blacks and Hispanics, the Takeoff of Asians, the Stall of Non-English Speakers, the Persistence of Socioeconomic Gaps, and the Damaging Effect of Highly Segregated Schools . Economic Policy Institute.

Carter, Prudence L., and Kevin G. Welner, eds. 2013. Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance . New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Caspe, Margaret, and Joy Lorenzo Kennedy. 2014. Sustained Success: The Long-Term Benefits of High Quality Early Childhood Education. New York: Children’s Aid Society.

Chaudry, Ajay, Taryn Morrissey, Christina Weiland, and Hirokazu Yoshikawa. 2017. Cradle to Kindergarten: A New Plan to Combat Inequality . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Chetty, Raj, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. 2016. “ The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940 .” NBER Working Paper no. 22910.

Child Trends. 2014. Making the Grade: Assessing the Evidence for Integrated Student Supports .

Clark, H., et al. 2009. Study Comparing Children’s Aid Society Community Schools to Other New York City Public Schools (All Schools and Peer Schools ). ActKnowledge.

Coleman, J.S., E. Campbell, C. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. Mood, F. Weinfeld, and R. York. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). 2017. “ Partner Districts: Austin ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Cook-Harvey, C.M., L. Darling-Hammond, L. Lam, C. Mercer, and M. Roc. 2016. Equity and ESSA: Leveraging Educational Opportunity Through the Every Student Succeeds Act . Palo Alto, Calif.: Learning Policy Institute.

Cunha, Flavio, and James J. Heckman. 2007. “The Technology of Skill Formation.”  American Economic Review  vol. 97, no. 2, 31–47.

Currie, Janet. 2009. “Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Socioeconomic Status, Poor Health in Childhood, and Human Capital Development.” Journal of Economic Literature  vol. 47, no. 1, 87–122.

Davis-Kean, Pamela E. 2005. “The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home Environment.” Journal of Family Psychology vol. 19, no. 2 (June 2005), 294–304. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294.

Duncan, Greg J., Chantelle J. Dowsett, Amy Claessens, Katherine A. Magnuson, Aletha C. Huston, Pamela Klebanov, Linda S. Pagani, Leon Feinstein, Mimi Engel, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology vol. 43, no. 6, 1428–46.

Duncan, Greg J., and Katherine A. Magnuson. 2011. “The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds., 47–69. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Duncan, Greg J., and Katherine Magnuson. 2013. “Investing in Preschool Programs.”  Journal of Economic Perspectives  vol. 27, no. 2, 109–32.

Duncan, Greg J., Pamela A. Morris, and Chris Rodrigues. 2011. “Does Money Really Matter? Estimating Impacts of Family Income on Young Children’s Achievement with Data from Random-Assignment Experiments.”  Developmental Psychology vol. 47, no. 5, 1263–79. doi:10.1037/a0023875.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard Murnane. 2011. “Introduction: The American Dream, Then and Now.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2012. “ The Great Recession .” State of Working America feature.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2013. “ Inequality.is ” (interactive website).

Elmore, Richard, David Thomas, and Tonika Cheek Clayton. 2006. Differentiated Treatment in Montgomery County Public Schools . Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University.

Fiester, Leila. 2010. Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters. KIDS COUNT Special Report . Annie E. Casey Foundation.

García, Emma. 2015. Inequalities at the Starting Gate: Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills Gaps between 2010–2011 Kindergarten Classmates . Economic Policy Institute.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2015. Early Education Gaps by Social Class and Race Start U.S. Children Out on Unequal Footing. A Summary of the Major Findings in Inequalities at the Starting Gate . Economic Policy Institute.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2016. Making Whole-Child Education the Norm: How Research and Policy Initiatives Can Make Social and Emotional Skills a Focal Point of Children’s Education . Economic Policy Institute.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. 2017. Key Findings from the Report “Education Inequalities at the School Starting Gate” . Economic Policy Institute.

Hart, Betty, and Todd R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children . Baltimore, Md.: Brookes.

Heckman, James J. 2008. “Schools, Skills, and Synapses.”  Economic Inquiry  vol. 46, no. 3, 289–324.

Heckman, James J., and Tim Kautz. 2012. “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills.”  Labour Economics vol. 19, no. 4, 451–64.

Henderson, Anne T. 2010. Community Organizing to Build Partnerships in Schools: The Alliance Schools Movement in Austin . Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

Hernandez, Donald J. 2011. Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Gizriel, Sarah. 2016. “ Bright Futures Looking to Expand to Schools across Shenandoah Valley .” localDVM.com , December 9.

Jennings, J.L., and T.A. DiPrete. 2010. “Teacher Effects on Social and Behavioral Skills in Early Elementary School.” Sociology of Education vol. 83, no. 2, 135.

Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS). 2017. “ PEEP Information and Applications ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Lee, Valerie E., and David T. Burkam. 2002. Inequality at the Starting Gate . Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Levin, Henry M. 2012a. “More Than Just Test Scores.” Prospects vol. 42, no. 3, 269–84.

Levin, Henry M. 2012b. “The Utility and Need for Incorporating Noncognitive Skills into Large-scale Educational Assessments.” In The Role of International Large-Scale Assessments: Perspectives from Technology, Economy, and Educational Research , Matthias von Davier et al., eds. Springer.

Magnuson, Katherine, and Greg J. Duncan. 2016. “Can Early Childhood Interventions Decrease Inequality of Economic Opportunity?” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences vol. 2, no. 2, 123–41.

Magnuson, Katherine A., M.K. Meyers, C.J. Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2004. “Inequality in Preschool Education and School Readiness.”  American Educational Research Journal  vol. 41, no. 1, 115–57.

Magnuson, Katherine A., Christopher Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2007. “Does Prekindergarten Improve School Preparation and Performance?”  Economics of Education Review  vol. 26, no. 1, 33–51.

Marietta, Geoff. 2010. Lessons for PreK-3rd from Montgomery County Public Schools: An FCD Case Study . Foundation for Child Development.

Maryland State Department of Education. 2017. “ Judy Centers ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Miller-Adams, Michelle. 2015. Promise Nation: Transforming Communities through Place-Based Scholarships . Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2015. “ The Opportunity Dodge .” American Prospect , April 9.

Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012. The State of Working America, 12th Edition , An Economic Policy Institute Book. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Jessica Schieder. 2016. Stock Market Headwinds Meant Less Generous Year for Some CEOs . Economic Policy Institute.

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). 2015. Graduation Rate Rises, Gap Narrows for MCPS Class of 2014  (public announcement). January 27.

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). 2016. Linkages to Learning  (brochure).

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). 2017. “ Maryland Meals for Achievement ” (webpage). Accessed August 31, 2017.

Morsy, Leila, and Richard Rothstein. 2015. Five Social Disadvantages That Depress Student Performance: Why Schools Alone Can’t Close Achievement Gaps . Economic Policy Institute.

Murnane, Richard J., and Frank Levy. 1996. Teaching the New Basic Skills: Principles for Educating Children to Thrive in a Changing Economy . New York: The Free Press.

Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, Kristen L. Bub, and Kathleen McCartney. 2006. “Understanding Trends in the Black-White Achievement Gaps during the First Years of School.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs.

Najarian, M., K. Tourangeau, C. Nord, K. Wallner-Allen, and J. Leggitt. Forthcoming. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), First-Grade and Second-Grade Psychometric Report . Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (U.S. Department of Education). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K 1998–1999) .

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (U.S. Department of Education).  Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K 2010–2011) .

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). 2016. The State of Preschool 2015: State Preschool Yearbook .

New York Times /CBS News. 2015. “ Americans’ Views on Income Inequality and Workers’ Rights ” (poll results). June 3.

Nores, Milagros, and W. Steven Barnett. 2010. “Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions across the World: (Under) Investing in the Very Young.”  Economics of Education Review  vol. 29, no. 2, 271–82.

Nores, Milagros, and W. Steven Barnett. 2014. Access to High Quality Early Care and Education: Readiness and Opportunity Gaps in America . New Brunswick, N.J.: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.

Nores, Milagros, and Emma García. 2014. “Language, Immigration and Hispanics. Understanding Achievement Gaps in the Early Years.” Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference, November 6–8, Albuquerque, N.M.

Oakes, Jeannie, Anna Maier, and Julia Daniel. 2017. Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for Equitable School Improvement , Learning Policy Institute, June 5.

PBS NewsHour . 2015. “ In Reforming New Orleans, Have Charter Schools Left Some Students Out? ” (news segment).

Peterson, T.K., ed. 2013. Expanding Minds and Opportunities: Leveraging the Power of Afterschool and Summer Learning for Student Success . Washington, D.C.: Collaborative Communications Group.

Phillips, Meredith. 2011. “Parenting, Time Use, and Disparities in Academic Outcomes.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Proctor, Bernadette D., Jessica L. Semega, and Melissa A. Kollar. 2016. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015 . U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-256(RV).

Putnam, Robert. 2015. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ready, Douglas D. 2010. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage, School Attendance, and Early Cognitive Development.” Sociology of Education vol. 83, no. 4, 271–86.

Reardon, Sean F. 2007. “ Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Black-White Test Score Gap .” Working paper.

Reardon, Sean F. 2011. “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations.” In Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , Greg J. Duncan and Richard Murnane, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Reardon, Sean F., and Ximena A. Portilla. 2016. “Recent Trends in Income, Racial, and Ethnic School Readiness Gaps at Kindergarten Entry.” AERA Open vol. 2, no. 3, 1–18. doi: 10.1177/2332858416657343.

Redd, Z., L. Guzman, L. Lippman, L. Scott, and G. Matthews. 2004. Parental Expectations for Children’s Educational Attainment: A Review of the Literature . Prepared by Child Trends for the National Center for Education Statistics.

Rolnick, Art, and Rob Grunewald. 2003. “Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return.” The Region vol. 17, no. 4, 6–12.

Rothstein, Richard. 2004. Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Achievement Gap . Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute; New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

Rothstein, Richard. 2010. “Family Environment in the Production of Schooling.” In International Encyclopedia of Education , Dominic J. Brewer, Patrick J. McEwan, eds. Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01233-1.

Saez, Emmanuel. 2016. Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2015 Preliminary Estimates) .

Schanzenbach, Diane, Megan Mumford, Ryan Nunn, and Lauren Bauer. 2016. Money Lightens the Load . The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institute.

Selzer, Michael H., Ken A. Frank, and Anthony S. Bryk. 1994. “The Metric Matters: The Sensitivity of Conclusions about Growth in Student Achievement to Choice of Metric.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis vol. 16, 41–49.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality . Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Simon, Stephanie. 2013. “ Class Struggle: How Charter Schools Get Students They Want .” Reuters , February 15.

Simpkins, Sandra D., Pamela E. Davis-Kean, and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2005. “Parents’ Socializing Behavior and Children’s Participation in Math, Science, and Computer Out-of-School Activities.” Applied Developmental Science vol. 9, no. 1, 14–30. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0901_3.

Southern Education Foundation. 2015. A New Majority: Low-Income Students Now a Majority in the Nation’s Public Schools . January.

Sparks, Sarah D. 2017. “Billions in School Improvement Spending but Not Much Student Improvement.” EdWeek , January 19.

StataCorp. 2015. Stata: Release  14 [statistical  software]. College  Station,  Texas: StataCorp LP.

Stringhini, Silvia, et al. 2017. “Socioeconomic Status and the 25×25 Risk Factors as Determinants of Premature Mortality: A Multicohort Study and Meta-Analysis of 1.7 Million Men and Women.” The Lancet . Published online January 31, 2017. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32380-7.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, A.G. Sorongon, and M. Najarian. 2009. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K): Combined User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Eighth-Grade and K–8 Full Sample Data Files and Electronic Codebooks (NCES 2009-004) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, A.G. Sorongon, M.C. Hagedorn, P. Daly, and M. Najarian. 2013. Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), User’s Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten Data File and Electronic Codebook (NCES 2013-061). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, K. Wallner-Allen, M.C. Hagedorn, J. Leggitt, and M. Najarian. 2015. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), User’s Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten–First Grade Data File and Electronic Codebook, Public Version (NCES 2015-078) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Tourangeau, K., C. Nord, T. Lê, K. Wallner-Allen, N. Vaden-Kiernan, L. Blaker, and M. Najarian. 2017. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) User’s Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten–Second Grade Data File and Electronic Codebook, Public Version (NCES 2017-285) . U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED). 2015.  A Matter of Equity: Preschool in America .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. HHS) and U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED). 2016. Policy Statement to Support the Alignment of Health and Early Learning Systems .

Van Voorhis, F.L., M.F. Maier, J.L. Epstein, C.M. Lloyd, and T. Leung. 2013. The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8: A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes and Social-Emotional Skills . MDRC.

Waldfogel, Jane. 2006. “What Do Children Need?” Public Policy Research vol. 13, no. 1, 26–34.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016a. Bright Futures in Joplin, Missouri . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016b. Vancouver Public Schools (Vancouver, WA) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016c. Partners for Education at Berea College, Berea, Kentucky . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016d. Northside Achievement Zone (North Minneapolis, MN) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016e. East Durham Children’s Initiative (East Durham, NC). A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016f. Bright Futures (Pea Ridge, AR) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016g. City Connects (Boston, MA) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016h. The Children’s Aid Society Community Schools (New York, NY) . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Weiss, Elaine. 2016i. A Broader, Bolder Education Policy Framework . A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Wentzel, Kathryn R., Shannon Russell, and Sandra Baker. 2016. “Emotional Support and Expectations from Parents, Teachers, and Peers Predict Adolescent Competence at School.” Journal of Educational Psychology vol. 108, no. 2, 242–255.

Yamamoto, Yoko, and Susan D. Holloway. 2010. “Parental Expectations and Children’s Academic Performance in Sociocultural Context.” Educational Psychology Review vol. 22, no. 3, 189–214. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z.

Appendix A. Data

Introduction.

Our research benefits from the existence of two companion studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten Class of 2010–2011 (hereafter, ECLS-K 1998–1999 and ECLS-K 2010–2011). The data from these studies come with multiple advantages and a few disadvantages.

The studies follow two nationally representative samples of children starting in their kindergarten year and continuing through their elementary school years (eighth grade for 1998–1999 cohort and fifth grade for the 2010–2011 cohort). The tracking of students over time is one of the most valuable features of the data. The studies include assessments of the children’s cognitive performance and knowledge as well as skills that belong in the category of noncognitive, or social and emotional, skills. The studies also include information on teachers and schools (provided by teachers and administrators) and interviews with parents.

Another valuable feature of the data is the availability of two ECLS-K studies (ECLS-K 1998–1999 and ECLS-K 2010–2011), which allows for cross-comparisons “of two nationally representative kindergarten classes experiencing different policy, educational, and demographic environments” (Tourangeau et al. 2013). The two studies are 12 years apart, or a full school cycle apart: when the 2010–2011 kindergarten class was starting school, the 1998–1999 class was starting the grade leading to their graduation. A comparison of the studies thus offers insightful information about the consequences of changes in the system that may have occurred during an entire cohort’s school life. For the 2010 study, the sample included 18,174 children in 968 schools. i The 1998 study sample included 21,409 children in 903 schools. ii

This existence of data from two cohorts is also a limitation to the current study, as explained by Tourangeau et al. (2013), who note that the assessment scores for the 2010–2011 class are not directly comparable with those developed for the class of 1998–1999. Although the IRT (Item Response Theory) procedures used in the analysis of data were similar across the two studies, each study incorporated different items, which means that the resulting scales are different. Tourangeau et al. (2013) state that “a subsequent release of the ECLS-K: 2010–2011 data will include IRT scores that are comparable with the ECLS-K 1998 cohort.” Up to the point of publication of the current study, this information had not yet been released, and we use standardized scores, instead of raw scores, for the outcomes examined. We can assess changes in the relative position in a distribution (i.e., how far apart high- and low-SES children are in 1998 and how far apart high- and low-SES children are in 2010), but not overall changes in their performance (i.e., it is not possible to ascertain whether performance has improved overall, or if gaps are smaller or larger due to an improvement in performance of children at the low end (specifically the lowest fifth) of the distribution or due to a decrease in the performance of children at the high end (highest fifth) of the distribution, etc.). A full comparison remains to be produced, upon data availability.

We use data for the first wave of each study, corresponding with fall kindergarten (or school entry).

For the analyses, we use the by-year standardized scores corresponding to the fall semester. (The 1998 IRT scale scores for reading and mathematics achievement and assessments of noncognitive skills are standardized using the 1998 distribution and its mean and sd; for 2010, we use the mean and sd of the 2010 distribution.)

Cognitive skills

Cognitive skills are assessed with instruments that measure each child’s:

• Reading skills: print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension
• Math skills: conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and problem-solving; number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and patterns, algebra, and functions

Principal noncognitive skills

We use the term “principal” to identify a set of noncognitive skills that are measured by both the ECLS-K 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 surveys, and that have been relatively extensively used in research.

Teachers are asked to assess each child’s:

• Self-control: ability to control behavior by respecting the property rights of others, controlling temper, accepting peer ideas for group activities, and responding appropriately to pressure from peers
• Approaches to learning: organizational skills (keeps belongings organized); curiosity (is eager to learn new things); independence (works independently); adaptability (easily adapts to changes in routine); persistence in completing tasks; focus (ability to pay attention); and ability to follow classroom rules

Parents are asked to assess their child’s:

• Self-control: ability to control behavior by refraining from fighting, arguing, throwing tantrums, and getting angry
• Approaches to learning: persistence (keeps working at something until finished); curiosity (shows interest in a variety of things); focus (concentrates on a task and ignores distractions); helpfulness (helps with chores); intellectual curiosity (is eager to learn new things); and creativity (in work and play)

For the analyses, we use the following set of covariates. The definitions, and the coding used for the covariates, by year, are shown in Appendix Table A1 .

Appendix B. Methodology 

Gaps by socioeconomic status.

The expressions below show the specifications used to estimate the socioeconomic status–based (SES-based) performance gaps. For any achievement outcome A , we estimate four models:

• Model 1 shows the unadjusted (descriptive) differences for children belonging to different racial/ethnic groups or SES quintiles (the reference group is children in the lowest SES quintile, “low SES”).
• Model 2 adjusts for school clustering of students in different schools (i.e., gaps of students in the same schools). The purpose of this clustering is to account for school segregation (i.e., concentration of children of the same race, socioeconomic status, etc., in schools, which causes the raw average performance of students to differ from the adjusted-by-clustering average). It offers a comparison of the gaps shown by peer students in the same schools and classrooms (García 2015; Magnuson and Duncan 2016 offer these estimates as well).

These estimates build on all the available observations (i.e., only those children who have missing values in the outcome variables are eliminated from the analysis).

Because of lack of response in some of the covariates used as predictors of performance, we construct a common sample with observations with no missing information in any of the variables of interest (see information about missing data for each variable in Appendix Table C1 ). We estimate two more models: iii

• Model 3 shows gaps adjusted for child and family characteristics, prekindergarten care arrangements, number of books the child has, and early literacy practices at home iv
• Finally, Model 4 shows the fully adjusted differences (adjusted for child and family characteristics, prekindergarten care arrangements, early literacy practices at home, number of books the child has, and parental expectations)

The equation below shows the equation we estimate for Models 1 through 4.

Appendix C. Sensitivity analysis (I): Multiple imputation 

Following standard approaches in this field, we use multiple imputation to impute missing values in both the independent and dependent variables, for the analysis of skills gaps and changes in them from 1998 to 2010 by socioeconomic status (main analysis). See share of missing data by variable in Appendix Table C1 . We use the mi commands in Stata 14, using chained equations, which jointly model all functional terms. The number of iterations was set up equal to 20. Imputation is performed by year.

Our functional form of the imputation model is specified using SES, gender, race, disability, age, type of family, number of books, educational activities, and parental expectations, as well as the original cognitive and noncognitive variables, as variables to be imputed. We use various specifications, combining different sets of auxiliary variables, mi impute methods, and other parameters, to capture any sensitivity of the results to the characteristics of the model. For example, income, family size, and ELL status are set as auxiliary variables and used in several of the imputation models. Another imputation option that was altered across models is the use of weights, as we ran out of imputation models using weights and not using them.

In the imputation model, in order to impute categorical variables’ missingness, we use the option augment, to prevent the large number of categorical variables to be imputed from causing problems of perfect prediction (StataCorp. 2015). The rest of the variables are first imputed as continuous variables. In a second exercise, we also impute SES and educational expectations as ordinal variables (also using the option augment).

In order to calculate the standardized dependent variables, we use the variables derived from the imputation variables (also known as passive imputation). This “fills in only the underlying imputation variables and computes the respective functional terms from the imputed variables” (StataCorp. 2015). In one case, we imputed the dependent variables directly as continuous variables (though we anticipated that the distribution of the scores imputed this way would not necessarily have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1).

Using the imputed data, we estimate Models 1 through 4 following the specifications explained above (from no regressors to fully specified models).

The main findings of our analysis are not sensitive to missing data imputation. The estimates of the gaps in 1998 and the changes in the gaps from 1998 to 2010 are consistent across models in terms of statistical significance. There are some minor changes in the sizes of the estimated coefficients, especially those associated with the changes in the gaps (though all are statistically not different from 0, as discussed in the report using the results from the analysis with the complete cases). There are also some minor changes in the standard errors, though they are small enough to widen the coefficients’ statistical bandwidth to not include the 0.

Appendix D. Sensitivity analysis (II): The different scores available in ECLS-K and the sensitivity of the results to changing them 

Children’s reading and mathematics skills are measured using several different metrics in ECLS-K. Among these, the best-known or more commonly used metrics in research are the IRT-based theta scores and the IRT-based scale scores (IRT stands for Item Response Theory). NCES provides data users with definitions of these metrics and recommendations on how to appropriately choose among the different metrics. NCES explains that both theta and IRT-based scale scores are valid indicators of ability. This makes them suitable for research purposes, even though each is expressed in its own unit of measurement. NCES recommends that analysts “consider the nature of their research questions, the type of statistical analysis to be conducted, the population of interest, and the audience” when choosing the appropriate score for analysis (see Tourangeau et al. 2013).

Although nothing would indicate that this could be the case, our work noted that results of analyses such as the one developed in this study are in some ways sensitive to the metrics used as dependent variables. v Thus, the purpose of this appendix is to illustrate the differences in the results associated with different analytic decisions in terms of the metrics used. As we will see, in essence, point estimates depend on the metric used, but the results do not change in a meaningful way and conclusions and implications remain unchanged. That is, although caution is required when interpreting the results obtained using different combinations of metrics, procedures (including standardization), and data waves, it is important to state that the main conclusions of this study— that social-class gaps in cognitive and noncognitive skills are large and have persisted over time — hold . So do the policy recommendations derived from those findings: sufficient, integrated, and sustained over-time efforts to tackle early gaps in a more effective manner.

The scores: Which one to use and definitions

NCES makes the following recommendations for researchers who are choosing among scales (see Tourangeau et al. 2013): vi

When choosing scores to use in analysis, researchers should consider the nature of their research questions, the type of statistical analysis to be conducted, the population of interest, and the audience. […] The IRT-based scale scores […] are overall measures of achievement. They are appropriate for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. They are useful in examining differences in overall achievement among subgroups of children in a given data collection round or in different rounds, as well as in analysis looking at correlations between achievement and child, family, and school characteristics. […] Results expressed in terms of scale score points, scale score gains, or an average scale score may be more easily interpretable by a wider audience than results based on the theta scores. The IRT-based theta scores are overall measures of ability. They are appropriate for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. They are useful in examining differences in overall achievement among subgroups of children in a given data collection round or across rounds, as well as in analysis looking at correlations between achievement and child, family, and school characteristics. […] The theta scores may be more desirable than the scale scores for use in a multivariate analysis because generally their distribution tends to be more normal than the distribution of the scale scores. However, for a broader audience of readers unfamiliar with IRT modeling techniques, the metric of the theta scores (from -6 to 6) may be less readily interpretable. […]

The two scores are defined as follows (see Tourangeau et al. 2013, section “3.1 Direct Cognitive Assessment: Reading, Mathematics, Science”):

The IRT-based scale score is an estimate of the number of items a child would have answered correctly in each data collection round if he or she had been administered all of the questions for that domain that were included in the kindergarten and first-grade assessments. To calculate the IRT-based overall scale score for each domain, a child’s theta is used to predict a probability for each assessment item that the child would have gotten that item correct. Then, the probabilities for all the items fielded as part of the domain in every round are summed to create the overall scale score. Because the computed scale scores are sums of probabilities, the scores are not integers. The IRT-based theta score is an estimate of a child’s ability in a particular domain (e.g., reading, mathematics, science, or SERS) based on his or her performance on the items he or she was actually administered. […] The theta scores are reported on a metric ranging from -6 to 6, with lower scores indicating lower ability and higher scores indicating higher ability. Theta scores tend to be normally distributed because they represent a child’s latent ability and are not dependent on the difficulty of the items included within a specific test.

Reardon (2007) describes the calculation of the theta scores in the following manner: vii

For each test [math and reading], a three-parameter IRT model was used to estimate each student’s latent ability…at each wave…. The IRT model assumes that each student’s probability of answering a given test item correctly is a function of the student’s ability and the characteristics [discrimination, difficulty, and guessability] of the item…. Given the pattern of students’ responses to the items on the test that they are given, the IRT model provides estimates of both the person-specific latent abilities at each wave… and the item parameters. (Reardon 2007, 10) viii

He also notes that “[b]ecause the ECLS-K tests contain many more ‘difficult’ items than ‘easy’ items, the relationship between theta and scale scores is not linear (a unit difference in theta corresponds to a larger difference in scale scores at theta=1 than at theta=-1, for example). The scale scores are difficult to interpret as an interval-scale metric (or are an interval-scaled metric only with respect to the specific set of items on the ECLS-K tests),” while he shows that the “theta scores are interval-scale metrics, in a behaviorally-meaningful sense” (Reardon 2007, 11, 13). ix

The analyses

For the analyses, both the scale and the theta scores need to be standardized by year (the original variables are not directly comparable because they rely on different instruments, as explained by NCES, and the resulting standardized variables have mean 0 and standard deviation 1). This is a common practice in the education field, as it allows researchers to use data that come from different studies and would not have a common scale otherwise. We need to take into consideration that the underlying units of measurement for each variable are different, but after standardization, the metrics are common, expressed in standard deviations and represent the population’s distribution of abilities.

The distributions of the scale and theta scores are shown in Appendix Figures D1 and D2 . In each figure, the plots reflect a more normally distributed pattern for the theta scores (right panel) than for the scale scores (left panel). The companion table, Appendix Table D1 , shows the range of variation for the four outcomes (mean and standard deviations are 0 and 1 as per construction).

We next offer a comparison of the results obtained when using the scale scores versus using the theta scores ( Appendix Table D2 ). We highlight the following main similarities and differences between the results obtained using the scale scores and the results using the theta scores.

• Gaps are all equally statistically significant and persistent.
• For example, looking at the unadjusted estimates in reading, the gap in 1998 between high- and low-SES children is 1.071 sd if using the scale scores and 1.233 sd if using the theta scores. In math, the gap between high- and low-SES children in 1998 is 1.258 sd if using the scale scores and 1.330 sd if using the theta scores.
• Looking at the adjusted estimates in reading, the 1998 gap between high- and low-SES children is 0.596 sd if using the scale scores and 0.684 sd if using the theta scores. In math, the gap between high- and low-SES children is 0.610 sd if using the scale scores and 0.632 sd if using the theta scores.
• For example, looking at the unadjusted estimates in reading, the change in the gap between 1998 and 2010 for high- and low-SES children is 0.098 sd if using the scale scores and -0.052 sd (not statistically significant) if using the theta scores. In math, the change in the gap between high- and low-SES children is -0.008 sd (not statistically significant) if using the scale scores and -0.078 sd if using the theta scores.

In Appendix Table D3 , we compare the results obtained using the different scales and the different proxies of socioeconomic status (our composite SES index, mother’s education, number of books, and household income).

• Gaps are larger, as mentioned above, when we use the theta scores than when we use the scale scores.
• Among the four social-class proxies, the largest gaps are associated with mother’s education, and the smallest gaps are associated with number of books. All are statistically significant.
• Looking at the unadjusted gaps, we note that trends are the same (and similar in size) if income is used as the proxy. For mother’s education, the change in the gap between 1998 and 2010 is -0.020 sd in reading (not statistically significant) and -0.154 sd in math if using the scale scores and -0.135 sd in reading and -0.218 sd in math if using the theta scores.
• With respect to the adjusted gaps, changes in the gaps are larger when using the theta scores both for household income and mother’s education as indicators of social class. Using the theta scores, the gaps in reading and math shrank over time, while using the scale scores, the only significant reduction was in math when mother’s education was the social class proxy.

Other considerations

There are two other significant pieces of information affecting the cognitive scores in more recent documentation released by NCES. In 2015, NCES announced in its ECLS-K User’s Manual that a

change in methodology required a re-calibration and re-reporting of the kindergarten reading scores since the release of the base-year file. Therefore, the kindergarten reading theta scores included in the K-1 data file are calculated differently than the previously released kindergarten theta scores and replace the kindergarten reading theta scores included in the base-year data file. The modeling approach stayed the same for mathematics and science, so the recalculation of kindergarten mathematics and science theta scores was not needed. (Tourangeau et al. 2015)

Following up on this, the most recent (2017) data user’s manual explains that

The method used to compute the theta scores allows for the calculation of theta for a given round that will not change based on later administrations of the assessments (which is not true for the scale scores, as described in the next section). Therefore, for any given child, the kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade theta scores provided in subsequent data files will be the same as theta scores released in earlier data files , with one exception: the reading thetas provided in the base-year data file . After the kindergarten-year data collection, the methodology used to calibrate and compute reading scores changed; therefore, the reading thetas reported in the base-year file are not the same as the kindergarten reading thetas provided in the files with later-round data [emphasis added]. Any analysis involving kindergarten reading theta scores and reading theta scores from later rounds, for example an analysis looking at growth in reading knowledge and skills between the spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade, should use the kindergarten reading theta scores from a data file released after the base year. The reading theta scores released in the kindergarten-year data file are appropriate for analyses involving only the kindergarten round data; analyses conducted with only data released in the base-year file are not incorrect, since those analyses do not compare kindergarten scores to scores in later rounds that were computed differently. However, now that the recomputed kindergarten theta scores are available in the kindergarten through first-grade and kindergarten through second-grade data files, it is recommended that researchers conduct any new analyses with the recomputed kindergarten reading theta scores. For more information on the methods used to calculate theta scores, see the ECLS-K: 2011 First-Grade and Second-Grade Psychometric Report (Najarian et al. forthcoming). (Tourangeau et al. 2017)

Therefore, because of these changes in NCES methodology and reporting, and in light of the comparisons in this appendix, one could expect additional slight changes in the estimates using the IRT-theta scores for reading for kindergarten if using rounds of data posterior to the first round (and probably if using the IRT-scale scores as well, as these values are derived from the theta scores), relative to the first data file of ECLS-K: 2010-2011 released by NCES in 2013. We would not necessarily expect, though, any changes when using the standardized transformation of those scores, because NCES’s documentation does not mention changes to the distribution of the scores, only to their values. We will explore these issues further upon the release of the scores that are comparable across the two ECLS-K studies without any transformation.

Appendix E. Descriptions of 12 community-level whole-child education initiatives 

Initiatives that serve part of a school district, austin, texas.

The needs of children in Austin Independent School District (AISD) schools with the highest concentrations of poor, immigrant, and non-English-speaking families are supported through a combination of parent-organizing (schools with parent-organizing programs, led by the nonprofit Austin Interfaith, form a network of “Alliance Schools”), intensive embedding of social and emotional learning (SEL) in all aspects of school policy and practice, and the transformation of schools into “community schools” (i.e., schools that are hubs for the provision of academic, health, and social services).

• Organizing partners: Austin Interfaith (a nonprofit of congregations, public schools, and unions that is part of the national Industrial Areas Foundation [IAF]); the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL); the American Federation of Teachers (AFT); and the National Education Association (NEA).
• Schools and students reached: The IAF/Alliance Schools network extended at its zenith into one-fourth of AISD elementary schools and one-half of AISD high-poverty elementary schools. CASEL worked in five high schools, and in the seven middle schools and 43 elementary schools that feed into these high schools, to embed social and emotional learning in school policies and practices. A middle school and a high school have been transformed into community schools and serve as the models for planned districtwide expansion of the “community schools” strategy into all AISD schools.
• General makeup of the student body: In the district overall, 60 percent of students qualify for subsidized meals, i.e., are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL); 28 percent are English language learners (ELL); and 10 percent are special education students. In schools targeted for whole-child supports, relative to the general student body, students are poorer, more heavily minority and immigrant, and more likely to be living in single-parent households.
• Key features: Parent-organizing with teachers in Alliance Schools enables parents to partner with teachers to advocate for comprehensive supports for their children. Also, social and emotional learning (SEL) is embedded in all aspects of school efforts in the high schools and the feeder elementary and middle schools that worked with CASEL. Finally, health and other wraparound supports in high-needs middle and high schools, along with other community schools features, are expanding to additional district schools.
• Core funding: The district received a CASEL grant to embed social and emotional learning in school policies and practices, and also received in-kind support from the NoVo Foundation in the form of technical assistance. The United Way of Greater Austin provides funds for wraparound support, and AFT and NEA fund community schools work and expansion.

Boston, Massachusetts

The City Connects program provides targeted academic, social, emotional, and health supports to every child in 20 of the city’s schools with the highest shares of low-income, black, Hispanic, and immigrant students.

• Organizing partners: Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support, Boston Public Schools (BPS), and community agencies.
• Schools and students reached: The 20 BPS schools in the program serve more than 8,000 of the city’s most disadvantaged students (out of 125 BPS schools and 56,000 students).
• General makeup of the student body: The 20 urban schools serve neighborhoods that are poor and racially and ethnically diverse, with a heavy concentration of Hispanic English-language learners. Over 80 percent of the students in these schools are FRPL-eligible and roughly half do not speak English at home.
• Key features: School site coordinators in each school connect students with a tailored set of services and enrichment opportunities provided by a variety of public and private agencies. Universal state health care supports all students’ physical and mental health needs, and the city’s Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK) program now offers quality pre-K for all four-year-olds in Boston.
• Core funding: In addition to school district budget revenue, federal Race to the Top funds allocated to City Connects help defray costs. Several private foundations support various aspects of City Connects’ work.

Durham, North Carolina

The East Durham Children’s Initiative (EDCI) concentrates services and supports for the children and their families living in a 120-block, heavily distressed area of concentrated poverty and high crime within the city.

• Organizing partners: Community leaders launched EDCI and engaged the Duke University Center for Child and Family Health to grow capacity. EDCI is now a fully staffed nonprofit that runs the initiative.
• Schools and students reached: The 120-block area targeted by EDCI serves students in two neighborhood elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and two charter schools.
• General makeup of the student body: The 120-block area is urban and poor with a predominantly black but very diverse student body. In Durham schools overall, 66 percent of students are FRPL-eligible, nearly half are black, almost one-third are Hispanic, and 18 percent are white.
• Key features: EDCI is a place-based initiative modeled on the Harlem Children’s Zone, providing a pipeline of high-quality cradle-to-college-or-career services. These include early childhood supports (that complement state pre-K programs), health and mental health services, and after-school and summer enrichment activities.
• Core funding: EDCI has an annual fund receiving contributions from individuals, corporations, fundraising events, and private foundations; it neither seeks nor receives public funding.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

The Northside Achievement Zone (NAZ) is a Promise Neighborhood, a designation awarded by the U.S. Department of Education Promise Neighborhoods program to some of the most distressed neighborhoods in the nation. Through the program, children and families who live in the 13-by-18 block NAZ receive individualized supports.

• Organizing partners: NAZ, the Promise Neighborhood grantee organization, is guided by a 20-member board of directors consisting of local leaders.
• Schools and students reached: The 13-by-18 block zone in North Minneapolis serves 5,500 students in 10 public, charter, and parochial K–12 schools, including one high school.
• General makeup of the student body: In this racially concentrated area of poverty, almost all residents are African American, and median family income is $18,000. One-third of children are homeless or “highly mobile” (not technically homeless but without stable housing).
• Key features: “Connectors” are in essence case managers who help families develop achievement plans, and “Navigators” connect families with community resources to move toward goals. The zone offers access to high-quality pre-K and parenting supports, as well as mentoring, enrichment, college preparatory support, and after-school and summer programs.
• Core funding: NAZ is anchored by a federal Promise Neighborhood grant. NAZ also receives private grants and is able to leverage federal Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge funds to support pre-K scholarship slots.

New York, New York

Through a collaboration between The Children’s Aid Society and the New York City Department of Education, 16 community schools in some of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in three of the city’s five boroughs provide wraparound health, nutrition, mental health, and other services to students along with enriching in-and-out-of-school experiences, amplified by extensive parental and community engagement.

• Organizing partners: The Children’s Aid Society, the New York City Department of Education, the New York State Education Department, and other local and state agencies.
• Schools and students reached: Sixteen community schools in three boroughs serve some of the poorest immigrant and minority students in a school system of roughly one million students.
• General makeup of the student body: Students in Children’s Aid Society community schools are disadvantaged relative to the system overall, which serves a heavily low-income and minority student body: more than three quarters of New York City public school students are FRPL-eligible, 13 percent are English language learners, and nearly one in five receive special education services. These schools also have high concentrations of students of color: 27 percent are African American and 41 percent are Hispanic.
• Key features: Close coordination with local and state education, health, and other agencies along with community partnerships at each school enables wraparound health, mental health, and after-school and summer enrichment, as well as deep parental and community engagement.
• Core funding: A range of public dollars, including federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I funds and funds from the federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, together with state and local funding for after-school and other programs, is supplemented by funds from individuals and foundations.

Orange County, Florida

The Tangelo Park Project (TPP) provides cradle-to-college support for all children residing in Orlando’s high-poverty, heavily African American Tangelo Park neighborhood.

• Organizing partners: The Tangelo Park Program board, along with Harris Rosen (the hotelier who envisioned and funds the program), work in close collaboration with the Tangelo Park Civic Association and the University of Central Florida.
• Schools and students reached: The program serves all children in the Tangelo Park neighborhood.
• General makeup of the student body: Virtually all residents in the low-income neighborhood are African American or Afro-Caribbean.
• Key features: Universal college scholarships—called “Promise” scholarships because they are guaranteed by an established fund—are supported by quality neighborhood-based early childhood education, health, counseling, and after-school and summer programs.
• Core funding: Harris Rosen funds early child care providers and universal college scholarships. Rosen also supports other services, such as a lifeguard at the YMCA, as needed.

Initiatives that serve all of a school district

Joplin, missouri.

Joplin’s Bright Futures initiative (which has spawned dozens of other Bright Futures affiliate districts under a Bright Futures USA umbrella since it launched in 2010) has a rapid response component that addresses children’s basic needs (within 24 hours of a need being reported), while strong school–community partnerships help meet students’ longer-term needs. Bright Futures also provides meaningful service learning opportunities in every school.

• Organizing partners: The Joplin School District’s superintendent and top leadership, in collaboration with parents and community, faith, business, and social service leaders.
• Schools and students reached: Bright Futures serves all of the district’s 7,874 students in all 17 schools.
• General makeup of the student body: Joplin is a heavily white community. As of 2015, nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of Joplin students are FRPL-eligible and 16 percent are classified as needing special education; just 3 percent are English language learners.
• Key features: The Bright Futures USA framework has three components. First, a rapid response system is designed to meet any student’s basic health, nutrition, or physical need within 24 hours of such a need being reported; this system is supported by combined resources from social service agencies, businesses, faith organizations, and individual community members. Second, school- and community-level councils build community leadership and partnerships with schools to meet longer-term needs and sustain systems. Third, service learning opportunities are embedded in all schools to help develop children as citizens. Teachers lead the service learning and receive training to do so. In addition to these three components, Joplin also provides pre-K for at-risk students, as well as tutoring, mentoring, and after-school and college preparatory programs based on student need.
• Core funding: Federally funded Americorps VISTA volunteers provide in-kind support; funds from the state departments of Elementary and Secondary Education and of Economic Development support Bright Futures work and conferences; and the regional Economic Security Corporation and a range of private funders supplement these federal and state funding sources.

Kalamazoo, Michigan

The “Kalamazoo Promise,” a guarantee by a group of anonymous local philanthropists to provide full college scholarships in perpetuity for graduates of the district’s public high schools brought Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS), the city, and the community together to develop a set of comprehensive supports that enable more students to use the scholarships.

• Organizing partners: Kalamazoo Promise and Kalamazoo Public Schools, the local school district, in collaboration with Communities in Schools Kalamazoo (CIS) and other nonprofit entities.
• Schools and students reached: All KPS students (12,216 in 25 schools) who graduate from Kalamazoo public high schools are eligible for Promise scholarships. CIS works in all schools but to varying degrees and with varying levels of financial support.
• General makeup of the student body: In this combination urban–suburban district, a large majority of students (over 70 percent) are FRPL-eligible, 12 percent receive special education services, and 7 percent are English language learners. The share of African American students grew from less than one-third in 1987 to over half 30 years later; over this period the share of Hispanic students increased as well.
• Key features: The anchor for comprehensive supports is universal “Promise” college scholarships, which have spurred community leadership to provide quality pre-K programs and wraparound health, mental health, and other supports, and to launch a districtwide effort to create a college-going culture and resources to support that culture.
• Core funding: Anonymous donors have committed to funding Promise scholarships in perpetuity. CIS is supported by a combination of Title I funding, which helps support school coordinators; 21st Century Learning grants for after-school activities; and private individual and philanthropic donations.

Montgomery County, Maryland

All students in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) benefit from zoning laws that advance integration and strong union–district collaboration on an enriching, equity-oriented curriculum. These efforts are bolstered by extra funding and wraparound supports for high-needs schools and communities.

• Organizing partners: MCPS, Montgomery County Education Association (the local teachers union), Montgomery County Council, and Linkages to Learning (a joint initiative of MCPS and the county council that provides an integrated focus on health, social services, community development, and engagement to support student learning, strong families, and healthy communities.)
• Schools and students reached: All 160,000 students in more than 200 schools are served via some services. Higher-poverty schools and their communities receive additional funds and supports that are broader and more intensive. For example, Linkages to Learning serves more than 5,400 individuals—students and their family members—per year at 29 schools. Over 3,700 of them receive comprehensive behavioral health or social wraparound services to mitigate the effects of poverty and reduce nonacademic barriers to learning.
• General makeup of student body: The MCPS school district as a whole is racially and socioeconomically diverse: 30 percent of students are Hispanic, 29 percent are white, 22 percent are African American, 14 percent are Asian, and 35 percent are FRPL-eligible (more than 40 percent of students have been FRPL-eligible at some point). On the poorer, Eastern side of the county, where more intensive whole-child supports are provided, the 10 highest-poverty schools have student bodies that are at least 80 percent FRPL-eligible.
• Key features: Mixed-use housing policies that enable racial and socioeconomic integration advance school-level integration that boosts low-income students’ learning, which the district enhances through various forms of support, including high-quality early childhood education, parent and community outreach, reallocation of funds to high-needs schools and students, nutrition and health services, and an emphasis on social and emotional learning.
• Core funding: MCPS is heavily locally funded, with almost no federal Title I dollars. The district’s whole-child approach draws on a combination of school district and county revenues, along with federal funding for Head Start programs, state pre-K dollars, and assorted other grants.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas

The Pea Ridge School District, a small suburban–rural district outside Fayetteville, Arkansas, is among the newer affiliates of Bright Futures USA, a national umbrella group that grew out of Bright Futures Joplin. As a Bright Futures affiliate, Pea Ridge is making good progress toward identifying and meeting students’ basic needs, engaging the community to meet longer-term needs, and making service learning a core component of school policy and practice.

• Organizing partners: Pea Ridge School District and Bright Futures USA.
• Schools and students reached: Eight hundred and fifty students are served in one primary school, one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school, as well as an alternative high school and a new career-tech charter high school.
• General makeup of the student body: The suburban–rural district is mostly white, with a small but growing Hispanic population, and predominantly middle-income with pockets of both higher-income families and families in poverty.
• Key features: The first component of the three-part Bright Futures USA framework is a rapid response system to meet every student’s basic health, nutrition, and physical needs within 24 hours through a combination of social service agency, business, faith, and individual community contributions. Other components include school- and community-level councils, which build community leadership and partnerships with schools to meet longer-term needs and sustain systems, and service learning embedded in all schools that is enhanced by supportive training for teachers. Pea Ridge also provides pre-K for at-risk students, as well as tutoring, mentoring, and after-school and college preparatory programs for students who need them.
• Core funding: State funds support meals and other needs for high-poverty schools, and Pea Ridge has secured a three-year private grant to support access to pre-K for low-income students.

Vancouver, Washington

Family and Community Resource Centers (FCRCs) currently serve 16 of the highest-needs Vancouver Public Schools (VPS) district schools, with mobile and lighter-touch support in other schools and plans to expand districtwide by 2020.

• Organizing partners: School district leaders coordinate the program with the support of six central-office staff (three of whom just support FCRCs). Technical and other assistance is provided by the Coalition for Community Schools.
• Schools and students reached: FCRCs serve 23,500 students in 16 VPS schools: 11 elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, and the Fruit Valley Learning Center (a combination elementary school and community center that also offers child care and Head Start programs). Plans are being made to expand FCRCs to all 35 VPS schools by 2020.
• General makeup of the student body: As of 2015, more than half of students were FRPL-eligible, with FRPL-eligibility rates in some central-city schools exceeding 80 percent. More than one in five students speak a language other than English at home and 12.5 percent of students are special education students; in FCRC schools, the shares of non–English speakers and special education students are even higher.
• Key services: VPS supports a range of early childhood education programs, including quality pre-K; middle and high school in-school enrichment; after-school and summer programs (provided by VPS partners); and help for parents and families through workshops, assistance, and referrals to a range of community resources.
• Core funding: District and Title I funds, which support basic FCRC needs, are supplemented by cash and in-kind donations from faith-based, social service, business, and association partners.

Initiative that serves multiple school districts

Eastern (appalachian) kentucky.

A federal Promise Neighborhood grant helps Berea College’s Partners for Education provide intensive supports for students and their families in four counties in the Eastern (Appalachian) region of Kentucky and provide lighter-touch supports in an additional 23 surrounding counties. (Berea College, which was established in 1855 by abolitionist education advocates, is unique among U.S. higher-education institutions. It admits only economically disadvantaged, academically promising students, most of whom are the first in their families to obtain postsecondary education, and it charges no tuition, so every student admitted can afford to enroll and graduates debt-free.)

• Organizing partners: Berea College launched Partners for Education (PfE), which is now a fully staffed nonprofit that runs the initiative.
• Schools and students reached: PfE serves 35,000 students in 22 schools in Clay, Jackson, Knox, and Owsley counties; tens of thousands more are served less intensively in an additional 23 counties in the region.
• General makeup of the student body: The Appalachian region is rural, very poor, and heavily white. The regional poverty rate is around 27 percent (in 2015), and reaches as high as 40 percent in some counties. About 80 percent of students are FRPL-eligible and 97 percent are white.
• Key features: Family engagement specialists meet directly with families and help coordinate services provided by a range of community partners. Other specialists provide basic academic, college preparatory, and health and other wraparound services to students.
• Core funding: Federal Promise Neighborhood, Full Service Community Schools, and Investing in Innovation grants are the most prominent sources of funding, but the initiative receives a range of other cash and in-kind supports.

Appendix tables and figures 

Covariates from these models : ecls-k 1998--1999 and 2010--2011.

Source: ECLS-K, kindergarten classes of 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Missing data

Note: For detailed information about the construction of these variables, see Appendix Table A1.

Distribution of standardized scale and theta scores in mathematics, by year

Scale scores, 1998 (left) and 2010 (right).

Theta scores, 1998 (left) and 2010 (right)

Distribution of standardized scale and theta scores in reading, by year

Descriptive statistics of standardized scale and theta scores, by year (not weighted)

Note: N is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.

Reading and math skills gaps between high-SES and low-SES children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using scale and theta scores as dependent variables

Notes:  Standard errors are in the parentheses. N is rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Asterisks denote statistical significance: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Source: ECLS-K, kindergarten classes of 1998-1999 and 2010–2011 (National Center for Education Statistics)

Reading and math skills gaps between high-social class and low-social class children at the beginning of kindergarten in 1998 and change in gaps by the beginning of kindergarten in 2010, using scale and theta scores as dependent variables

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Asterisks denote statistical significance: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Endnotes to the appendices 

i. The sample design used to select the individuals in the study was a three-stage process that involved using primary sampling units and schools with probabilities proportional to the number of children and the selection of a fixed number of children per school. In the last stage, children enrolled in kindergarten or ungraded schools were selected within each sampled school. A clustered design was used to limit the number of geographic areas and to minimize the number of schools and the costs of the study (Tourangeau et al. 2013, 4-1).

ii. The dataset in the first year followed a stratified design structure (Ready 2010, 274), in which the primary sampling units were geographic areas consisting of counties or groups of counties. About 1,000 schools — 903 for 1998 and 968 for 2010—were selected, and about 24 children per school were surveyed. Assessment of the children was performed by trained evaluators, while parents were surveyed over the telephone. Teachers and school administrators completed the questionnaires in their schools.

iii. As a sensitivity check, we estimate Models 1 and 2 using Models 1’s and Model 2’s specifications but using the restricted sample (these results are not shown here, but are available upon request).

iv. As a sensitivity check, we estimate Model 3 parsimoniously, by including family characteristics only, and then adding family investments (prekindergarten care arrangements, early literacy practices at home, and number of books the child has), and then adding parental expectations (with and without interactions with time); results of the sensitivity check are not shown, but are available upon request).

v. We refer to the fact that we are using the same data and that the scale and theta scores are based on the same instruments and are not independent from each other. Advice on this possibility is found in Reardon (2007), who cites work by Murnane et al. (2006) and Selzer, Frank, and Bryk (1994) that also warn about this option.

vi. From NCES: “IRT uses the pattern of right and wrong responses to the items actually administered in an assessment and the difficulty, discriminating ability, and guess-ability of each item to estimate each child’s ability on the same continuous scale. IRT has several advantages over raw number-right scoring. By using the overall pattern of right and wrong responses and the characteristics of each item to estimate ability, IRT can adjust for the possibility of a low-ability child guessing several difficult items correctly. If answers on several easy items are wrong, the probability of a correct answer on a difficult item would be quite low. Omitted items are also less likely to cause distortion of scores, as long as enough items have been answered to establish a consistent pattern of right and wrong answers. Unlike raw number-right scoring, which treats omitted items as if they had been answered incorrectly, IRT procedures use the pattern of responses to estimate the probability of a child providing a correct response for each assessment question” (Tourangeau et al. 2017, 3-2).

vii. The quoted text is abridged to remove variables and formulas specific to Reardon’s study and not central here.

viii. Also, “the estimated scale score is the estimated number of questions the student would have gotten correct if he or she had been asked all of the items on the test. The estimated scale score is obtained by summing the predicted probabilities of a correct response over all items, given the student’s estimated theta score and the estimated item parameters” (Reardon 2007, 11).

ix. They are equally spaced units along the scale without a predefined zero point.

See related work on Student achievement | Education | Educational inequity | Children | Economic inequality | Inequality and Poverty | Early childhood

See more work by Emma García and Elaine Weiss

Advertisement

Unequal Opportunity: School and Neighborhood Segregation in the USA

• Published: 20 January 2020
• Volume 12 , pages 29–41, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Ann Owens 1  

7588 Accesses

69 Citations

30 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 20 November 2020

This article has been updated

School and neighborhood segregation are intertwined in complex ways. Schools reflect segregated neighborhoods, and school considerations reinforce neighborhood segregation. Over the past 25 years, racial segregation in neighborhoods and schools has slightly declined in terms of sorting, though children remain racially isolated in their neighborhoods and schools. Income segregation between schools, school districts, and neighborhoods has increased among children. Recent educational policy and demographic changes may break the link between neighborhood and school segregation. As population diversity increases, the proliferation of school choice leads schools and neighborhoods to resemble one another less, with schools becoming more segregated than their local neighborhoods. Regardless of the complicated and changing ways neighborhood and school segregation shape and reshape one another, segregation in both contexts remains high in the twenty-first century. Drawing on administrative data, I provide a quantitative portrait of the schools and neighborhoods of children from different racial/ethnic groups in 2015, documenting stark inequalities in these contexts. I conclude with a discussion of why segregation matters, what can be done about it, and why something must be done.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Perpetuating Separate and Unequal Worlds of Educational Opportunity Through District Lines: School Segregation by Race and Poverty

Racial Inequities in Educational Opportunity: Variation Across Socioeconomic Status

The Racial Achievement Gap, Segregated Schools, and Segregated Neighborhoods: A Constitutional Insult

Change history, 20 november 2020.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained an error. The author would like to correct the error with this erratum.

I use “Hispanic” to be consistent with the wording of the data collection instruments.

For reference, in 2015–2016, the US public school student body was 26% Hispanic, 15% Black, 48% White, and 5% Asian; if there were no segregation, each group should attend a school with these proportions.

ACS has a lower sampling rate than the Decennial Census, so analyzing small geographic units like tracts requires five-year aggregations.

Baker, B. D., Srikanth, A., & Weber, M. A. (2016). Rutgers graduate school of education/education law center: School funding fairness data system . Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education/Education Law Center. Rutgers Graduate School of Education/Education Law Center.

Google Scholar  

Billingham, C. M. (2019). Within-district racial segregation and the elusiveness of white student return to urban public schools. Urban Education, 54 (2), 151–181.

Billings, S. B., Deming, D. J., & Rockoff, J. (2014). School segregation, educational attainment, and crime: Evidence from the end of busing in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 (1), 435–476.

Bischoff, K. (2008). School district fragmentation and racial residential segregation: How do boundaries matter? Urban Affairs Review, 44 (2), 182–217.

Bischoff, K., & Owens, A. (2019). The segregation of opportunity: Social and financial resources in the educational contexts of lower- and higher-income children, 1990-2014. Demography, 56 (5), 1635–1664.

Bischoff, K., & Tach, L. (2018). The racial composition of neighborhoods and local schools: The role of diversity, inequality, and school choice. City & Community, 17 (3), 675–701.

Bischoff, K., & Tach, L. M. (2020). School choice, neighborhood change, and racial imbalance between public elementary schools and surrounding neighborhoods. Sociological Science .

Brown, D. A. (2009). Shades of the American dream. Washington University Law Review, 87 (2), 329.

Candipan, J. (2019). Neighbourhood change and the neighbourhood-school gap. Urban Studies . https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018819075 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Candipan, J. (forthcoming). Choosing homes in changing places: Examining school enrollment in gentrifying neighborhoods. Sociology of Education .

Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2018). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: County-level estimates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133 (3), 1163–1228.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity project. American Economic Review, 106 (4), 855–902.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 (4), 1553–1623.

Clotfelter, C. T. (1976). School desegregation,” tipping,” and private school enrollment. Journal of Human Resources, 11 (1), 28–50.

Clotfelter, C. T. (2004a). After brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Clotfelter, C. T. (2004b). Private schools, segregation, and the Southern States. Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (2), 74–97.

Cutler, D. M., & Glaeser, E. L. (1997). Are ghettos good or bad? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (3), 827–872.

Davis, T., & Oakley, D. (2013). Linking charter school emergence to urban revitalization and gentrification: A socio-spatial analysis of three cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35 (1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12002 .

De la Roca, J., Ellen, I. G., & O’Regan, K. M. (2014). Race and neighborhoods in the 21st century: What does segregation mean today? Regional Science and Urban Economics, 47, 138–151.

Delmont, M. F. (2016). Why busing failed: Race, media, and the national resistance to school desegregation . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Diem, S., Holme, J. J., Edwards, W., Haynes, M., & Epstein, E. (2019). Diversity for whom? Gentrification, demographic change, and the politics of school integration. Educational Policy, 33 (1), 16–43.

Domina, T., Pharris-Ciurej, N., Penner, A. M., Penner, E. K., Brummet, Q., Porter, S. R., et al. (2018). Is free and reduced-price lunch a valid measure of educational disadvantage? Educational Researcher, 47 (9), 539–555.

Ellen, I., Steil, J., & De la Roca, J. (2016). The significance of segregation in the 21st century. City & Community, 15 (1), 8–13.

Farley, R. (1975). Residential segregation and its implications for school segregation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 164–193.

Farley, R., & Taeuber, A. F. (1974). Racial segregation in the public schools. American Journal of Sociology, 76 (4), 888–905.

Fiel, J. E. (2013). Decomposing school resegregation: Social closure, racial imbalance, and racial isolation. American Sociological Review, 78 (5), 828–848.

Fiel, J. E., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Three dimensions of change in school segregation: A grade-period-cohort analysis. Demography, 55 (1), 33–58.

Frankenberg, E. (2005). The impact of school segregation on residential housing patterns. In J. C. Boger & G. Orfield (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the south turn back? (pp. 164–184). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Frankenberg, E. (2013). The role of residential segregation in contemporary school segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45 (5), 548–570.

Frankenberg, E., Ee, J., Ayscue, J. B., & Orfield, G. (2019). Harming our common future: America’s segregated schools 65 years after brown . Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

Frankenberg, E., & Lee, C. (2003). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Educationl Policy Analysis Archives , 11 (32).

Gamoran, A., & An, B. P. (2016). Effects of school segregation and school resources in a changing policy context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38 (1), 43–64.

Gottfried, M. A. (2011). Absent peers in elementary years: The negative classroom effects of unexcused absences on standardized testing outcomes. Teachers College Record, 113 (8), 1597–1632.

Goyette, K. A. (2017). Inequality by race and ethnicity, immigrant status, and language ability. Education in America (pp. 89–130). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Goyette, K. A., Iceland, J., & Weininger, E. (2014). Moving for the kids: Examining the influence of children on white residential segregation. City & Community, 13 (2), 158–178.

Grady, S., & Bielick, S. (2010). Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 2007 (NCES 2010-004) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Hall, M., & Hibel, J. (2017). Latino students and white migration from school districts, 1980-2010. Social Problems, 64 (4), 457–475.

Hannah-Jones, N. (2015). The problem we all live with. This American life, Episode 562.

Hanselman, P., & Fiel, J. E. (2017). School opportunity hoarding? Racial segregation and access to high growth schools. Social Forces, 95 (3), 1077–1104.

Houston, D. M., & Henig, J. R. (2019). The effects of student growth data on school district choice: Evidence from a survey experiment (Annenberg EdWorking Paper No. 19–87). Providence, RI.

Howell, J., & Emerson, M. O. (2018). Preserving racial hierarchy amidst changing racial demographics: How neighborhood racial preferences are changing while maintaining segregation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40 (15), 2770–2789.

Iceland, J., Goyette, K. A., Nelson, K. A., & Chan, C. (2010). Racial and ethnic residential segregation and household structure: A research note. Social Science Research, 39 (1), 39–47.

Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Journal of Quarterly Economics, 131 (1), 157–218.

Jargowsky, P. A. (2014). Segregation, neighborhoods, and schools. In A. Lareau & K. Goyette (Eds.), Choosing homes, choosing schools (pp. 97–136). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Johnson, R. C. (2019). Children of the dream: Why school integration works . New York: Basic Books.

Kappan, P. D. (2017). The 49th Annual PDK Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan , V99 (N1).

Kirwan Institute. (2012). The opportunity communities program: Building opportunity - rich neighborhoods and developing pathways to opportunity . Columbus, OH.

Lareau, A., & Goyette, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Choosing homes, choosing schools . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lewis, V. A., Emerson, M. O., & Klineberg, S. L. (2011). Who we’ll live with: Neighborhood racial composition preferences of whites, blacks and Latinos. Social Forces, 89 (4), 1385–1407.

Liebowitz, D. D. (2018). Ending to what end? The impact of the termination of court-desegregation orders on residential segregation and school dropout rates. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40 (1), 103–128.

Liebowitz, D. D., & Page, L. C. (2014). Does school policy affect housing choices? Evidence from the end of desegregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (4), 671–703.

Logan, J. R., Oakley, D., Smith, P., Stowell, J., & Stults, B. (2001). Separating the children . Lewis Mumford Center Working Paper. Albany, NY: SUNY Albany.

Logan, J. R., & Stults, B. J. (2011). The persistence of segregation in the metropolis: New findings from the 2010 census . Providence, RI: US 2010 Project, Russell Sage Foundation.

Massey, D. S., Albright, L., Casciano, R., Derickson, E., & Kinsey, D. N. (2013). Climbing mount laurel: The struggle for affordable housing and social mobility in an American suburb . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mayer, S. E. (2002). How economic segregation affects children’s educational attainment. Social Forces, 81 (1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0053 .

Mordechay, K., & Ayscue, J. B. (2019). School integration in gentrifying neighborhoods: Evidence from New York City . Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2016 . Washington, DC.

Nechyba, T. (2003). School finance, spatial income segregation, and the nature of communities. Journal of Urban Economics, 54 (1), 61–88.

Nguyen-Hoang, P., & Yinger, J. (2011). The capitalization of school quality into house values: A review. Journal of Housing Economics, 20, 30–48.

Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation . Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat, and an uncertain future . Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E Pluribus…separation: deeping double segregation for more students . Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the need for new integration strategies . Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project, UCLA.

Owens, A. (2016). Inequality in Children’s contexts. American Sociological Review, 81 (3), 549–574.

Owens, A. (2017). Racial residential segregation of school-age children and adults: The role of schooling as a segregating force. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3 (2), 63–80.

Owens, A. (2018). Income segregation between school districts and inequality in students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 91 (1), 1–27.

Owens, A., & Candipan, J. (2019). Spatial inequality of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high- and low-income neighborhoods. Urban Studies, 56 (15), 3178–3197.

Owens, A., Reardon, S. F., & Jencks, C. (2016). Income segregation between schools and school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53 (4), 1159–1197.

Pearman, F. A., & Swain, W. A. (2017). School choice, gentrification, and the variable significance of racial stratification in urban neighborhoods. Sociology of Education, 90 (3), 213–235.

Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79 (6), 1067–1087.

Quillian, L. (2014). Does segregation create winners and losers? Residential segregation and inequality in educational attainment. Social Problems, 61 (3), 402–426.

Reardon, S. F. (2016). School segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2 (5), 34–57.

Reardon, S. F., Bischoff, K., Owens, A., & Townsend, J. B. (2018). Has income segregation really increased? Bias and bias correction in sample-based segregation estimates. Demography, 55 (6), 2129–2160.

Reardon, S. F., Fox, L., & Townsend, J. (2015). Neighborhood income composition by household race and income, 1990–2009. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 660 (1), 78–97.

Reardon, S. F., Grewal, E. T., Kalogrides, D., & Greenberg, E. (2012). Brown fades: The end of court-ordered school desegregation and the resegregation of American Public Schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31 (4), 876–904.

Reardon, S. F., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 years after brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–218.

Reardon, S. F., & Rhodes, L. (2011). The effects of socioeconomic school integration plans on racial school desegregation. In E. Frankenberg & E. DeBray-Pelot (Eds.), Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation (pp. 187–208). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Reardon, S. F., Weathers, E. S., Fahle, E. M., Jang, H., & Kalogrides, D. (2019). Is separate still unequal? New evidence on school segregation and racial academic achievement gaps (CEPA Working Paper No. CEPA Working Paper No. 19-06). Stanford, CA.

Reardon, S. F., & Yun, J. T. (2003). Integrating neighborhoods, segregating schools: The retreat from school desegregation in the south, 1990-2000. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1563–1596.

Rich, P. M. (2016). White parental flight and avoidance: Neighborhood choices in the era of school district desegregation . Working Paper.

Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America . New York: Liveright.

Sampson, R. J., & Sharkey, P. (2008). Neighborhood selection and the social reproduction of concentrated racial inequality. Demography, 45, 1–29.

Sampson, R. J., & Winter, A. S. (2016). The racial ecology of lead poisoning. Du Bois Review, 13 (2), 261–283.

Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50 (2), 181–203.

Saporito, S. (2009). School choice in black and white: Private school enrollment among racial groups, 1990-2000. Peabody Journal of Education, 74 (2), 172–190.

Saporito, S., & Sohoni, D. (2006). Coloring outside the lines: Racial segregation in public schools and their attendance boundaries. Sociology of Education, 79 (2), 81–105.

Saporito, S., & Sohoni, D. (2007). Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces, 85 (3), 1227–1254.

Schwartz, H. (2012). Housing policy is school policy: Economically integrative housing promotes academic success in montgomery county, Maryland. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), The future of school integration (pp. 27–65). New York: The Century Foundation.

Scott-Railton, T. (2018). Shifting the scope: How taking school demographics into acccount in college admissions could reduce K-12 segregation nationwide. Yale Law & Policy Review, 36, 219.

Sharkey, P. (2014). Spatial segmentation and the black middle class. American Journal of Sociology, 119 (4), 903–954.

Sharkey, P., & Faber, J. W. (2014). Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 559–579.

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34 (4), 317–342.

Sohoni, D., & Saporito, S. (2009). Mapping school segregation: Using GIS to explore racial segregation between schools and their corresponding attendance areas. American Journal of Education, 115 (4), 569–600.

Stroub, K. J., & Richards, M. P. (2013). From resegregation to reintegration: Trends in the racial/ethnic segregation of metropolitan public schools, 1993-2009. American Educational Research Journal, 50 (3), 497–531.

The College of William and Mary and the Minnesota Population Center. (2011). School Attendance Boundary Information System (SABINS): Version 1.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). Better use of information could help agencies identify disparities and address racial discrimination . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Wodtke, G. T., Harding, D. J., & Elwert, F. (2011). Neighborhood effects in temporal perspective the impact of long-term exposure to Concentrated disadvantage on high school graduation. American Sociological Review, 76 (5), 713–736.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Southern California, University Park Campus, MC 1059, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-1059, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann Owens .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Owens, A. Unequal Opportunity: School and Neighborhood Segregation in the USA. Race Soc Probl 12 , 29–41 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-019-09274-z

Download citation

Published : 20 January 2020

Issue Date : March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-019-09274-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Neighborhood segregation
• School segregation
• Residential segregation
• School choice
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

St. Petersburg Parks & Recreation

Jobs & Volunteer Opportunities

Parks & recreation job fair.

Make it your job to bring the fun to the Sunshine City!

Saturday, February 26 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. Gladden Park Recreation Center

Click Here to learn more.

Opportunities with the St. Petersburg Parks & Recreation Department

Job opportunities:.

The City of St. Petersburg's Human Resource Office is located on the fourth floor of the Municipal Services Center .

Hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. For updated job vacancies, please visit our website, www.stpete.org/jobs , or call our 24-hour JobLine at 727-893-7033 .

Volunteer Opportunities:

We offer a range of volunteer opportunities at a variety of our divisions and events, including Boyd Hill Nature Preserve , Sunshine Center , Enoch Davis Center , the Green Thumb Festival , recreation centers , and more.

Internship Opportunities:

Boyd Hill Nature Preserve offers internships at the preserve and at the Lake Maggiore Environmental Education Center located at the preserve. Check out the Boyd Hill Nature Preserve opportunity section below to learn more.

Job Openings

List of seasonal and year-round positions (full-time and part-time):

Opportunities

• Lifeguard & Water Safety Instructor

Boyd Hill Nature Preserve

Sunshine senior center.

• Therapeutic Recreation

Green Thumb Festival

• TASCO Teen Programs
• Recreation Centers

More opportunities listed below.

Junior Leader Program

Volunteer opportunities.

For more information call (727) 893-7441

Teens entering tenth to twelfth grade can volunteer at Boyd Hill Nature Preserve , a City recreation center , or a city pool .

Junior Leaders are carefully recruited, trained, and placed in leadership positions with the opportunity to gain hands-on experience from professionals.

LEARN MORE:

Aquatics Opportunities

Job opportunities.

For more information, call (727) 893-7727 .

• Lifeguard: $13.65/hour
• Lifeguard Instructor: $14.24/hour
• Water Safety Instructor: $13.65

Click here to apply!

Looking to become a certified lifeguard or water safety instructor? We offer lifeguard and water safety instructor training classes throughout the year.

Recreation Center

Teaching opportunities.

All instructors must be permitted and approved.

To apply to teach a class or specialty camp at one of our recreation centers, please contact the center directly that you would like to teach at.

Youth Development Opportunities

Youth Development Worker positions are available throughout the year, including summers. This position works as a counselor in youth programs at our recreation centers by overseeing a group of 25 children in Kindergarten to eighth grade. The position monitors activities, plans programs and maintains the facility in a safe and efficient manner. Work involves actively engaging youth in positive character building and youth development activities while providing leadership and instruction in games, sports, crafts, and other programs and activities.

You must be 18 years of age with a high school diploma to apply. Pay is $16.25 an hour and position requires 15-29 hours per week during the school year and 35-40 hours per week during the summer.

For more information, contact Parks & Recreation Administration at 727-893-7441.

Internship & Volunteer Opportunities

For more information call (727) 893-7326 .

• - Junior Leaders Program (Must be 14 to 18 years old and in high school)
• - Program Animal Care (Must be 14 years old and younger)
• - Birds of Prey Program Steward (Must be 16 years old and up)
• - Environmental Education/Envrionmental Outreach
• - Gardening
• - Land Management/Invasive Plant Removal
• - Pinellas Pioneer Settlement
• - Special Events and Festivals
• - Tram Tour Docent (Must be 18 years old and up with a valid driver's license)
• - Wildlife Research
• We also accept court adjudicated community service workers.

How to become a volunteer:

• Step 1: Fill out the volunteer application prior to attending a volunteer orientation
• Step 2: Attend an orientation. Sign up for an orientation by calling the preserve at (727) 893-7326 .
• PLEASE NOTE: Volunteers are expected to commit to volunteer at least once every 90 days.

PLEASE NOTE: Internship interest should be reported at least two months to the date that you expect to start your internship.

• - Land Management Internship focuses on learning plant identification and land management strategies
• - Environmental Education Internship focuses on leading public programs, learning to create lesson plans, and developing evaluation tools.

Background Checks

For more information call (727) 893-7441 .

The Green Thumb Festival is seeking adult, teenage, and family volunteers for the annual Arbor Day celebration at Walter Fuller Park, 7891 26th Avenue North.

Family and friend groups are welcome and credit for school volunteer hours is available for students who volunteer.

For more information about volunteer opportunities, visit Green Thumb Festival page.

For more information call (727) 893-7622 .

The Sunshine Center Volunteer Office coordinates several part-time staffed positions through the Senior Community Employment Service Office with AARP as well as overseeing the operations of the three enterprise operations at the Sunshine Center including the snack bar, gift shop, resale shop and greenhouse as well as scheduling the positions for those operations.

Several collating and mailing projects are coordinated utilizing various volunteers for city and county agencies throughout the year. Call for volunteer opportunities, (727) 893-7622 .