Dr. King and the Achievement Gap

Brain Jones a teacher and activist in New York City posted this blog in the Huffington Post remembering Dr. Martin Luther King’s views on education to gain perspective on today’s efforts to close the achievement gap between white children and children of color.  Many of his, and Dr. King’s, observations highlight what the OTL Campaign calls the Opportunity Gap.

By Brian Jones

Huffington Post

January 10, 2011

The approach of a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King provides an opportunity to reflect on one of the hot topics in education reform today: the racial achievement gap. Everyone wants to close the gap. Or so it would seem.



Despite the hope many invested in President George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) initiative, which highlighted the persistence of the gap, and set the goal of closing it by 2014, progress toward that end has been incremental at best.


In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed to have reduced the gap "by half" in some places. But in the summer of 2010, when city's tests were re-scaled, the scores were revealed to be only half as good as previously believed. Only 40 percent of Black students were found to have met the state's math standards, compared with 75 percent of white students. The new scoring revealed that only 33 percent of black students met the English standard, while 64 percent of whites and Asians did.


The most reliable measure of the country's academic trends, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), has confirmed a similar picture nation-wide. Apart from a period of dramatic progress in the 1970s and 80s, the NAEP has found that the gap widened substantially again during the 1990s, and has neither grown nor declined significantly since. In July of 2010, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) published a report based on the 2008 NAEP results, which showed, for 13-year-olds, a 28-point racial gap in math scores, and a 21-point gap in reading scores. Both of these results represent marginal progress since the 1990s, but both are also wider than they were in the late 1980s.


An analysis of the NAEP's most recent findings, published by the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), focused on the situation of African-American male students. Titled, "A Call for Change", the report is full of striking revelations. It points out, for example, that in 2009, in large cities, the average mathematics scale score of eighth-grade Black males without disabilities was two points lower than the average score of eighth-grade white males with disabilities.


While both reports hesitate to draw definitive conclusions, they point to glaring socioeconomic factors as the most likely culprit.


The forces working against Black families in the second half of the 20th century, and consequently, against Black education, the ETS finds, include: the concentration of public housing in relatively small areas, while well-paying jobs fled the central cities; the transportation systems built to increase the mobility of suburbanites, and reduce the mobility of urban-dwellers; and as a result of increasing geographic segregation, the inner city areas were cut off from important sources of tax revenues. "All of these things were going strong in the lives of Black people born after 1965," they write, "the beginning of birth cohorts when progress in closing the achievement gap stopped."


Likewise, the CGCS points to an array of statistical data that shows how the deck is stacked against African-American males before they even enter a classroom. In a section titled, "Readiness to Learn" they mention the fact that, in 2008, Black children 17 and under were fifty percent more likely to not be covered by any kind of health insurance. In the same year, they were also twice as likely to live in a household where no adult had full-time or year-round employment. In 2007, they point out, 34 percent of Black children lived in poverty, while only 10 percent of white children did.


The ETS report, looking back at the period when the achievement gap was closing, cites several progressive social programs as likely agents of the positive change. "At the top of the list of factors that may have contributed to progress in closing the gap" the ETS cautiously proposes, "are the federal government's investment in Head Start and Title I of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)." Furthermore, they assert that it's likely that desegregation had a positive impact, especially in the South. Third, they cite "compelling evidence" demonstrating that reduction in class sizes "generates higher achievement in the early grades but also that the effects are larger for minority students."


Predictably, some commentators have jumped on the fact that some sections of the CGCS report seem to challenge the notion that that socioeconomic conditions are a significant factor. "Poverty alone does not seem to explain the differences," The New York Times summarized, "poor white boys do just as well as African-American boys who do not live in poverty, measured by whether they qualify for subsidized school lunches." But instead of exploring the possibility that racism has manifestations beyond not for qualifying for school lunch, these voices are quick to conclude that the problem must be black parenting. Dr. Ronald Ferguson, director of the Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard, told the Times that there needs to be "conversations people are unwilling to have" about the practices of Black parents. "The activities that parents conduct with their 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds," he said. "How much we talk to them, the ways we talk to them, the ways we enforce discipline, the ways we encourage them to think and develop a sense of autonomy."


Of course, every educator knows that parenting plays an enormous role in a child's development and academic achievement. However, to divorce the question of parenting styles from larger social concerns is utter hypocrisy. Even with the "best" parenting techniques available, how much free time parents have to spend with their children, how stressed or relaxed those parents are able to be during that time, and a host of other factors are mostly not able to be changed merely through conversation.


But the current fad in education "reform" is to put as much daylight as possible between racial justice and social justice. The result is fine words about closing the achievement gap, but little to show for it. Worse, the proposals on offer today -- charter schools, privatization, testing, teacher data-reports -- threaten to actually widen the gap, while those that have demonstrably had some effect -- Head Start, desegregation, smaller class sizes -- are ignored.


This is an historic reversal. It was the Civil Rights Movement that placed the onus on society to deal with the effects of racism. "We are likely to find," Dr. King wrote, "that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished."


Today, the onus is increasingly placed on the individual teacher, or the individual student, or the parents. Any discussion of poverty or racism is tantamount to "making excuses."


"The task is considerable," King wrote, "it is not merely to bring Negroes up to higher educational levels, but to close the gap between their educational levels and those of whites."


But against the current "reform" consensus, King understood that providing a quality education is very much a question of resources. "Much more money has to be spent on education of the children of the poor;" King argued, "the rate of increase in expenditures for the poor has to be greater than for the well-off if the children of the poor are to catch up." He went on to argue for reductions in class sizes, for greater community involvement, a greater commitment from educators, and a strategy for promoting desegregation.


If we truly want to close the achievement gap, we should remember Dr. King's words. At the end of his life, his perspectives were diametrically opposed to those of today's political elites. Yet, come Monday, they will all line up to praise his dreams of equality. They will quote his famous speech from 1963, but not his perspectives from 1967:


"If the society changes its concept by placing the responsibility on its system, not on the individual, and guarantees secure employment or a minimum income, dignity will come within reach of all."

Read the full article