Learning-Disadvantage Gap
Students of Socioacademic Disadvantage
The K-12 student of socioacademic disadvantage is identified simply by a low(er) standardized math or English "high-stakes" test score, and is the primary driver of the Learning-Disadvantage Gap* ** It is well known that socioeconomically disadvantaged students, as a group, often score lower on these tests than the advantaged, whereby they become students of socioacademic disadvantage as well. He/she often has limited educational support from a low income family, single-parent home, or is an English-language learner (ELL or LEP) or just behind in reading skills. Unstable home environment is also common, as is insufficient nutrition, sleep, medical care and dental health. Inadequate-learning opportunity for any or many reasons is often a reality.
A student in one or more of these situations is likely not a good high-stakes test taker,* which also causes a widening of the achievement gap of math and/or English test score comparisons. If a standardized test, excessive testing or surrounding circumstance is not fair to the student however, neither can it serve in the long-term interest and goals of the state or federal government.
A public or charter student’s low(er) standardized high-stakes testing score in math or English, in reality, causes “remedial” doubling of these selectively endorsed (required) "curricula" (subjects) that kids call "stupid class".** This routinely results in the de facto sanctioning (inaccessible or denied access) of school-day music and arts plus other non high-stakes whole-student curricula.*** Schools excuse it as “scheduling conflicts”, but it is not enough that the curricula material is in the state and districts curriculum if it is not actually taught in the classrooms and districts equally. "What gets tested gets taught."* **
All states provide public education, and therefore, each has a state and U.S. Constitutional duty to ensure "basic equality of educational opportunity" - Butt v. California, Ca Supreme Crt, 1992.† Standardized socio-academic discrimination comes, however, from an inaccessible or unequally-denied opportunity because of a low(er) high-stakes math and/or English testing score, putting him/her at an immediate and future disadvantage.
"A child is not a test score", yet government achievement and accountability goals routinely enforce top-down “no excuses” test-results designed to selectively endorse, enforce and guarantee only math and English instruction. This is the daily narrow-curriculum reality in public and charter schools that receive federal and/or state funding, contrary to the laws and a major public speech made by the U.S. Secretary of Education on April 9th, 2010. It included the statement, "we will not endorse or sanction any specific curricula -- the Department is in fact appropriately prohibited by law from endorsing or sanctioning curricula."††
The initial law restricting the activities of the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) is still the law today under the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, although it is not being enforced. It states clearly that no federal official should attempt to "exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration... of any educational institution." In early 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) came before Congress for reauthorization in the form of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Before NCLB was enacted, Congress was advised by its own commissioned non-partisan report and forewarned by testimonies and data. States' 1990's implementations of early forms of standardized testing in math and English were already raising inequality and inequity questions. As a result, NCLB section 9527 was added with a list of prohibitions on the department and use of federal funds.†† Section 9527 was (and still is) to protect student rights to an equal education (not equal testing), but was never enforced.†† This part of the current law remains valid to this day, plus a potentially powerful legal issue, and hopefully be included in any rewrite. This calls into question the morality and legality of the Department's implementation and of NCLB administration since its inception in 2002. NCLB was also specified to be reevaluated and renewed in 2007, but as of 2015, this non-compliance issue has still apparently not been specifically addressed and made public.
One example of the Department's Section 9527 inequality and inequity violation is their 2010 to 2015 Race to the Top (RttT) competitionized program which creates winners and losers based on math and English test scores in NCLB's Title I funding distribution to economically poor communities. Another example is the Departments' granting of conditional waivers from BCLB requirements only to states who agree to hold teachers accountable "for their students" math and English test scores. Common core "State" Standards plus other state standards, as well as the students they serve are also being negatively affected by the inequalities of the Department's non-compliance of funding restrictions and illegal influence over state testing.
In so far as federal authorities and state governments high-stakes testing and accountability systems may standardize inequality and unintentionally promote socioacademic discrimination, the inequalitative disparate impact (as it is legally known) versus the intentional civil-rights discriminatory model, are the same. The higher courts have been trending in agreement, including under — but not limited to — the when discriminatory effects have fallen more harshly on one group than another.† (p.26) “” - Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. B.o.E., U.S. Supreme Court, 1954.†
"The Supreme Court has since held that proof of discriminatory intent is not required in a Title VI action of equitable relief. [refer to p.26 previous citation #96] The Title, furthermore, has been consistently administered in this manner for almost two decades without interference by Congress. Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that Title VI reaches unintentional, 'disparate-impact' discrimination as well as deliberate racial discrimination".
The student of socioacademic disadvantage is more likely to experience high-stakes rank and label profiling, negative stereotyping and segregation, as well as to drop out. This student is denied equal opportunities daily with effects lasting a lifetime that rival the 1950s.†† In summary, the student of socioacademic disadvantage often has a daily-learning environment that may be described in a common sense "math" equation: standardization + high-stakes testing = standardized inequality and discrimination.* ** ***
Students of Socio-Academic Advantage
The K-12 student of socioacademic advantage is identified simply by a high(er) math and/or English test score. He/she often comes from a mid to upper-income family in an academically-supportive environment. This student is likely a good high-stakes test taker. That said, educators explain that this is a poor substitute for real learning.* ** ***
When a public or charter school student "achieves" a good score on a high-stakes standardized test in math and/or English, this often allows for continued school-day access (via “electives” and “pullouts”) to whole-student non high-stakes curricula such as music and arts.*** Even when such well-balanced curricula are increasingly sanctioned for all students, the socioacademically advantaged can often outsource for opportunistic advantages. The primary-curriculum issue here is not of funding per se, but of excessive and high-stakes standardized testing of math and English, which dominate funding and dictates today’s two-tier accessible and enabling-opportunities versus inaccessible and denied-opportunities.
The student of socioacademic advantage is disproportionately and unequally enabled by high(er) high-stakes math and English test scores to avoid standardized discrimination, and benefit from well-balanced whole-student educational opportunities. He/she is advantaged to compete and succeed in personal development and social skills, education, career and life. The moral but also very doable goal in academic curriculum and reform, is to provide equal "schools of opportunity" for each-and-every publicly-funded student in K-12 American education.
The K-12 student of socioacademic disadvantage is identified simply by a low(er) standardized math or English "high-stakes" test score, and is the primary driver of the Learning-Disadvantage Gap* ** It is well known that socioeconomically disadvantaged students, as a group, often score lower on these tests than the advantaged, whereby they become students of socioacademic disadvantage as well. He/she often has limited educational support from a low income family, single-parent home, or is an English-language learner (ELL or LEP) or just behind in reading skills. Unstable home environment is also common, as is insufficient nutrition, sleep, medical care and dental health. Inadequate-learning opportunity for any or many reasons is often a reality.
A student in one or more of these situations is likely not a good high-stakes test taker,* which also causes a widening of the achievement gap of math and/or English test score comparisons. If a standardized test, excessive testing or surrounding circumstance is not fair to the student however, neither can it serve in the long-term interest and goals of the state or federal government.
A public or charter student’s low(er) standardized high-stakes testing score in math or English, in reality, causes “remedial” doubling of these selectively endorsed (required) "curricula" (subjects) that kids call "stupid class".** This routinely results in the de facto sanctioning (inaccessible or denied access) of school-day music and arts plus other non high-stakes whole-student curricula.*** Schools excuse it as “scheduling conflicts”, but it is not enough that the curricula material is in the state and districts curriculum if it is not actually taught in the classrooms and districts equally. "What gets tested gets taught."* **
All states provide public education, and therefore, each has a state and U.S. Constitutional duty to ensure "basic equality of educational opportunity" - Butt v. California, Ca Supreme Crt, 1992.† Standardized socio-academic discrimination comes, however, from an inaccessible or unequally-denied opportunity because of a low(er) high-stakes math and/or English testing score, putting him/her at an immediate and future disadvantage.
"A child is not a test score", yet government achievement and accountability goals routinely enforce top-down “no excuses” test-results designed to selectively endorse, enforce and guarantee only math and English instruction. This is the daily narrow-curriculum reality in public and charter schools that receive federal and/or state funding, contrary to the laws and a major public speech made by the U.S. Secretary of Education on April 9th, 2010. It included the statement, "we will not endorse or sanction any specific curricula -- the Department is in fact appropriately prohibited by law from endorsing or sanctioning curricula."††
The initial law restricting the activities of the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) is still the law today under the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, although it is not being enforced. It states clearly that no federal official should attempt to "exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration... of any educational institution." In early 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) came before Congress for reauthorization in the form of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Before NCLB was enacted, Congress was advised by its own commissioned non-partisan report and forewarned by testimonies and data. States' 1990's implementations of early forms of standardized testing in math and English were already raising inequality and inequity questions. As a result, NCLB section 9527 was added with a list of prohibitions on the department and use of federal funds.†† Section 9527 was (and still is) to protect student rights to an equal education (not equal testing), but was never enforced.†† This part of the current law remains valid to this day, plus a potentially powerful legal issue, and hopefully be included in any rewrite. This calls into question the morality and legality of the Department's implementation and of NCLB administration since its inception in 2002. NCLB was also specified to be reevaluated and renewed in 2007, but as of 2015, this non-compliance issue has still apparently not been specifically addressed and made public.
One example of the Department's Section 9527 inequality and inequity violation is their 2010 to 2015 Race to the Top (RttT) competitionized program which creates winners and losers based on math and English test scores in NCLB's Title I funding distribution to economically poor communities. Another example is the Departments' granting of conditional waivers from BCLB requirements only to states who agree to hold teachers accountable "for their students" math and English test scores. Common core "State" Standards plus other state standards, as well as the students they serve are also being negatively affected by the inequalities of the Department's non-compliance of funding restrictions and illegal influence over state testing.
In so far as federal authorities and state governments high-stakes testing and accountability systems may standardize inequality and unintentionally promote socioacademic discrimination, the inequalitative disparate impact (as it is legally known) versus the intentional civil-rights discriminatory model, are the same. The higher courts have been trending in agreement, including under — but not limited to — the when discriminatory effects have fallen more harshly on one group than another.† (p.26) “” - Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. B.o.E., U.S. Supreme Court, 1954.†
"The Supreme Court has since held that proof of discriminatory intent is not required in a Title VI action of equitable relief. [refer to p.26 previous citation #96] The Title, furthermore, has been consistently administered in this manner for almost two decades without interference by Congress. Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that Title VI reaches unintentional, 'disparate-impact' discrimination as well as deliberate racial discrimination".
The student of socioacademic disadvantage is more likely to experience high-stakes rank and label profiling, negative stereotyping and segregation, as well as to drop out. This student is denied equal opportunities daily with effects lasting a lifetime that rival the 1950s.†† In summary, the student of socioacademic disadvantage often has a daily-learning environment that may be described in a common sense "math" equation: standardization + high-stakes testing = standardized inequality and discrimination.* ** ***
Students of Socio-Academic Advantage
The K-12 student of socioacademic advantage is identified simply by a high(er) math and/or English test score. He/she often comes from a mid to upper-income family in an academically-supportive environment. This student is likely a good high-stakes test taker. That said, educators explain that this is a poor substitute for real learning.* ** ***
When a public or charter school student "achieves" a good score on a high-stakes standardized test in math and/or English, this often allows for continued school-day access (via “electives” and “pullouts”) to whole-student non high-stakes curricula such as music and arts.*** Even when such well-balanced curricula are increasingly sanctioned for all students, the socioacademically advantaged can often outsource for opportunistic advantages. The primary-curriculum issue here is not of funding per se, but of excessive and high-stakes standardized testing of math and English, which dominate funding and dictates today’s two-tier accessible and enabling-opportunities versus inaccessible and denied-opportunities.
The student of socioacademic advantage is disproportionately and unequally enabled by high(er) high-stakes math and English test scores to avoid standardized discrimination, and benefit from well-balanced whole-student educational opportunities. He/she is advantaged to compete and succeed in personal development and social skills, education, career and life. The moral but also very doable goal in academic curriculum and reform, is to provide equal "schools of opportunity" for each-and-every publicly-funded student in K-12 American education.
Comments