By George Manthey
We have a very good idea about the role schools can play in closing the achievement gap. John Goodlad wrote in “A Place Called School” that “learning appears to be enhanced when students understand what is expected of them, get recognition for their work, learn quickly about their errors, and receive guidance in improving their performance.” Who would not agree with that statement? If we add “study what is tested,” we might have a pretty decent formula for maximizing the learning that is measured in this age of accountability. A formula would then be:
Measured academic success = study what is tested + understand what is expected + get recognition for work + learn quickly about errors + receive guidance in improving performance
The elements of this formula are not new knowledge. I’m sure that all of it could be discerned from research or expert opinion that predates Goodlad’s statement made in 1984. Yet, as you think of the classrooms in your school or district, what percentage of the time do you believe students are:
• studying what is tested,
• understanding what is expected,
• being recognized for their work,
• learning quickly about errors, or
• receiving guidance in improving performance?
My guess is that your response would total far from 100 percent. And here lies a dilemma for educators. Are we indeed responsible for the achievement gap if we are not doing all that we know should be done for our students? As the 90/90/90 schools are paraded in front of us, the implication is also made that any school with the will could also join this group. As an unprecedented 94 percent of high school seniors pass California’s high school exit exam in 2007, it is also pointed out that the gap between the percentage of African American and Caucasian students passing is unacceptable. In the words of our state superintendent of schools, “We can do better.”
And in the words of John Goodlad, we have a formula for doing exactly that. So what’s the problem? Our policy makers tell us that ending the gap is a priority. Our top-level researchers have shown us what it takes to maximize instruction. The problem is that until we as a society are serious about ending what UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education and Access and others have characterized as the “opportunity gap,” the achievement gap will always be with us.
The Institute points out that “educational opportunities converge in the state’s racially isolated schools in ways that have created a shocking racial ‘opportunity gap’ that severely disadvantages the state’s African American and Latino students. Forty-two percent of predominantly non-white schools have several serious opportunity problems, compared to only 7 percent of majority white schools.”
Among the many examples of this opportunity gap, here are just two:
• In “Class and Schools,” Richard Rothstein reminds us of research that demonstrated that the vocabulary of the average 3-year-old with parents with professional occupations is twice as large as a typical child in a family living on welfare.
• Statistics based on FBI records show that the violent crime rate in the city surrounding the lowest achieving schools in the San Francisco Bay Area is a 2 on a 10-point scale, with 10 being the lowest crime rate. The crime rate in the Bay Area city with the highest achieving schools is an 8. San Francisco principal Jim Dieke recently pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle article, “There’s not a box to check on the test form that says your sister got shot 10 days before the test.”
In “Turnaround Leadership,” Michael Fullan argues that the assault on the achievement gap must be addressed on three fronts: literacy, numeracy and the well-being of students. Some may argue that if literacy and numeracy are improved, then student well-being will also improve. But those of us who are serious about ending both the opportunity and achievement gaps know they must all be addressed simultaneously.
It is incumbent on school leaders to persistently advocate that all efforts to close the achievement gap include concrete steps to close the opportunity gap. In a recent report from Great Britain, “Experiences of Poverty and Educational Disadvantage,” author Donald Hirsch makes this conclusion: “Just 14 percent of variation in individuals’ performance is accounted for by school quality. Most variation is explained by other factors, underlining the need to look at the range of children’s experiences, inside and outside school, when seeking to raise achievement.”
As educators, we know what must be done to ensure a quality educational experience for each child, and as citizens, we know that efforts to close the gap are merely rhetoric if they don’t also include the full range of our students’ experiences “inside and outside of school.”
George Manthey is assistant executive director, ACSA Educational Services.