# Achievement Gap in the United States

The achievement gap refers to the observed, persistent disparity of educational measures between the performance of groups of students, especially groups defined by socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity and gender. The achievement gap can be observed on a variety of measures, including standardized test scores, grade point average, dropout rates, and college enrollment and completion rates. While this article focuses on the achievement gap in the United States, the gap in achievement between lower income students and higher income students exists in all nations[1] and it has been studied extensively in the U.S. and other countries, including the U.K.[2] Various other gaps between groups exist around the globe as well.

In the U.S., research studies into the causes of gaps in student achievement between low-income minority students and middle-income white students have been ongoing since the 1966 publication of the report, “Equality of Educational Opportunity” (more widely known as the Coleman Report), commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education. That research suggested that both in-school factors and home/community factors impact the academic achievement of students and contribute to the gap. American education researcher David Berliner indicated that home/community influences are weighted more heavily, in part, due to the increased time that students spend at home and in their communities compared to the amount of time spent in school, and that the out-of-school factors influencing children in poverty differ significantly from those typically affecting middle-income children.[3][4]

Race and the Achievement Gap

The education of African Americans and some other minorities lags behind those of other U.S. ethnic groups, such as Whites and Asian Americans, as reflected by test scores, grades, urban high school graduation rates, rates of disciplinary action, and rates of conferral of undergraduate degrees. Indeed, high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates are comparable to those of whites 25 or 30 years ago. It should also be noted that the category of African immigrant population (excluding Haitians and other foreign-born blacks born outside of Africa) has the highest educational attainment of any group in the United States, but they represent a small group within the larger African American population.[5]

Although African Americans generally lag behind Asian Americans in test scores, so do Whites to a lesser degree. However, compared with children in areas of China and India where some children, especially girls, end their education after the elementary level, education in the United States is compulsory to age 16 regardless of race or class. It is expected that over half of public education students will be required to pass standards-based assessments which expect that all students to be at least exposed to algebra by high school and exit prepared for college. In many other nations, such as Germany and Japan, those with lower test scores may be tracked as skilled tradespersons or unskilled laborers.

Education attainment (Issued August 2003) Educational attainment by race and gender: 2000[56]

Census 2000 Brief

Percent of Adults 25 and over in group

Asian alone . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80.4 64.6 44.1 17.4

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . .               80.1 52.5 26.1 10.0

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.. . . . 85.5 55.4 27.0  9.8

White alone... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  83.6 54.1 26.1  9.5

Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    80.7 51.1 22.8  7.8

Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . .    73.3 48.1 19.6  7.0

Black or African American alone . . . . .   72.3 42.5 14.3  4.8

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander  78.3 44.6 13.8  4.1

American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . 70.9 41.7 11.5  3.9

Hispanic or Latino (of any race).. . . . .  52.4 30.3 10.4  3.8

Some other race alone . . . . . . . . . . . 46.8 25.0  7.3  2.3

HS = high school completed SC = some college

African Americans lagged behind whites in 2000 by nearly a factor of two. However, it is less frequently observed[citation needed] that whites lag behind Asians by nearly as large a ratio. The group with the least education is not the African Americans, but the American Indians, Hispanic or Latino or other groups who have quite a different legacy of discrimination.[citation needed]. The African-American community is behind the curve in education but statistics show 9 out of 10 young black adults ages 25 to 29 have completed high school or its equivalent.

In 2008, over three millions degrees were awarded throughout the United States. Half of all degrees earned were bachelor’s degrees. The bachelor’s degree is one of the most awarded degrees for all ethnicities and races. Asians obtained bachelor’s degrees more than any other race, followed by Whites. Despite high educational expectations, Hispanics are among the least educated group in the United States: 11 percent of those over age 25 have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with 17 percent of blacks, 30 percent of whites, and 49 percent of Asian Americans in the same age group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).[57] Asians obtains more first professional degree than any other race. A high percentage[clarification needed] of Hispanics and American Indians/Alaska Natives own an associate’s degree compared with other races. About 1–2% doctorate degree are awarded to all races. The table below shows the number of degrees awarded for each group.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: United States Department of Education – 2008) [58]

 Race Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree First professional degree Cumulative% Asians 6.9% 31.6% 14.0% 6.4% 58.9% Whites 9.3% 21.1% 8.4% 3.1% 41.9% Blacks 8.9% 13.6% 4.9% 1.3% 28.7% American Indians/Alaska Natives 8.4% 9.8% 3.6% 1.4% 23.2% Hispanics 6.1% 9.4% 2.9% 1.0% 19.4%
Between 1978 – 2008, college enrollment rates increased for all races. The college enrollment rate is determined by the percentage of high school students who enroll in 2 year or 4 year college and universities immediately after completing high school. In 2008, the college enrollment rate for all races was 69%. Although the college rate increased for each racial and ethnic groups between 1980 and 2007, the enrollment rates for Blacks and Hispanics did not increase, the college enrollment rates for Blacks have increased from 44% to 56%. Between 1980 and 2007, the college enrollment rates for Hispanics have increased from 50% to 62%. In comparison, the same rate increased from 49.8% to 77.7% for Whites. There are no data for Asians or American Indians/Alaska Natives regarding enrollment rates from the 1980s to 2007.[59]

In 2009, the enrollment rate of high school graduates reached a historical high of 70.1% (see above for statistics on the racial gap in graduation rates). Asian Americans have the highest enrollment rate (92.2%), followed by Whites (69.2%), Blacks (68.7%), and Hispanics (59.3%).[60]

Causes of the Achievement Gap

Researchers have not reached consensus about the causes of the academic achievement gap; instead, there exists a wide range of studies that cite an array of factors, both cultural and structural, that influence student performance in school. Annette Lareau suggested that students who lack middle-class cultural capital and have limited parental involvement are likely to have lower academic achievement than their better resourced peers.[6] Other researchers suggest that academic achievement is more closely tied to race and socioeconomic status and have tried to pinpoint why.[7]For example, being raised in a low-income family often means having fewer educational resources in addition to poor nutrition and limited access to health care, all of which could contribute to lower academic performance.

Lack of school readiness Research shows that the achievement gap, which often is first measured (by standardized tests) in elementary school, actually begins well before students reach kindergarten as a “school readiness” gap.[14] One study claims that about half the test score gap between black and white high school students is already evident when children start school.[15]

A variety of different tests at kindergarten entry have provided evidence of such a gap, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey of Kindergarten children (ECLS-K). While results differ depending on the instrument, estimates of the black-white gap range from slightly less than half a standard deviation to slightly more than 1 standard deviation.[16]This early disparity in performance is critical, as research shows that once students are behind, they do not catch up. Children who score poorly on tests of cognitive skills before starting kindergarten are highly likely to be low performers throughout their school careers.[17] The evidence of the early appearance of the gap has led to efforts focused on early childhood interventions (see “Narrowing the achievement gap” below).

Additionally, poor and minority students have disproportionately less access to high-quality early childhood education, which has been shown to have a strong impact on early learning and development. One study found that although black children are more likely to attend preschool than white children, they may experience lower-quality care.[35] The same study also found that Hispanic children in the U.S. are much less likely to attend preschool than white children. Another study conducted in Illinois in 2010[36] found that only one in three Latino parents could find a preschool slot for his or her child, compared to almost two thirds of other families.

Finally, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), families with modest incomes (less than $60,000) have the least access to preschool education.[37] Research suggests that dramatic increases in both enrollment and quality of prekindergarten programs would help to alleviate the school readiness gap and ensure that low-income and minority children begin school on even footing with their peers.[35] Poverty and lack of stability Many children who are poor, regardless of race, come from homes that lack stability, continuity of care, adequate nutrition, and medical care creating a level of environmental stress that can affect the young child’s development. As a result, these children enter school with decreased word knowledge that can affect their language skills, influence their experience with books, and create different perceptions and expectations in the classroom context.[20] Studies show that when students have parental assistance with homework, they perform better in school.[21] This is a problem for many minority students due to the large number of single-parent households (67% of African-American children are in a single-parent household)[22] and the increase in non-English speaking parents. Students from single-parent homes often find it difficult to find time to receive help from their parent. Similarly, some Hispanic students have difficulty getting help with their homework because there is not an English speaker at home to offer assistance.[21] Structural and institutional factors Different schools have different effects on similar students. Children of color tend to be concentrated in low-achieving, highly segregated schools. In general, minority students are more likely to come from low-income households, meaning minority students are more likely to attend poorly funded schools based on the districting patterns within the school system. Schools in lower-income districts tend to employ less qualified teachers and have fewer educational resources.[28] Research shows that teacher effectiveness is the most important in-school factor affecting student learning. Good teachers can actually close or eliminate the gaps in achievement on the standardized tests that separate white and minority students.[29] Schools also tend to place students in tracking groups as a means of tailoring lesson plans for different types of learners. However, as a result of schools placing emphasis on socioeconomic status and cultural capital, minority students are vastly over-represented in lower educational tracks.[30] Similarly, Hispanic and African American students are often wrongly placed into lower tracks based on teachers’ and administrators’ expectations for minority students. Such expectations of a race within school systems are a form of institutional racism. Some researchers compare the tracking system to a modern form of racial segregation within the schools.[31] Studies on tracking groups within schools have also proven to be detrimental for minority students.[32] Once students are in these lower tracks, they tend to have less-qualified teachers, a less challenging curriculum, and few opportunities to advance into higher tracks.[33] There is also some research that suggests students in lower tracks suffer from social psychological consequences of being labeled as a slower learner, which often leads children to stop trying in school.[7] In fact, many sociologists argue that tracking in schools does not provide any lasting benefits to any group of students.[34] Parenting influence Parenting methods are different across cultures, thus can have dramatic influence on education outcomes.[citation needed] For instance, Asian parents often apply strict rules and parental authoritarianism to their children while many white American parents deem creativity and self-sufficiency to be more valuable.[citation needed] The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom by Yale Professor Amy Chua, especially highlights some of the very important aspects in Asian parenting method in comparison to the “American way”. Chua’s book has generated interests and controversies in “Tiger Mom” parenting method and its role in determining the education outcome of the children.[61] Many Hispanic parents and their children believe that a college degree is necessary for obtaining stable and meaningful work (Schneider and Stevenson, 1999).[62] This attitude is reflected in the educational expectations parents hold for their children and in the expectations that young people have for themselves (U.S. Department of Education, 1995b, p. 88).[57] High educational expectations can be found among all racial and ethnic groups regardless of their economic and social resources (p. 73). Although parents and children share high educational aims, their aspirations do not necessarily translate into postsecondary matriculation. This is especially the case for Hispanic high school students, particularly those whose parents have not attended college (Nuñez, Cuccaro-Alamin, and Carroll, 1998).[63] Controversial research Hernstein and Murray claimed in the book The Bell Curve,[10] creating much controversy, that genetic variation in average levels of intelligence (IQ) are at the root of racial disparities in achievement. Other researchers have argued that there is no significant difference in inherent cognitive ability between different races that could help to explain the achievement gap, and that environment is at the root of the issue.[11][12][13] Economic Implications of the Racial Achievement Gap In addition to the moral and social justice arguments for closing the achievement gap, there are strong economic arguments for doing so. A 2009 report by the management consulting firm McKinsey & Company asserts that the persistence of the achievement gap in the U.S. has the economic effect of a “permanent national recession.”[38] The report claims that if the achievement gap between black and Latino performance and white student performance had been narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been$310 billion to $525 billion higher (2–4 percent).[38] If the gap between low-income students and their peers had been narrowed, GDP in the same year would have been$400 billion to 670 billion higher (3–5 percent). In addition to the potential increase in GDP, the report projects that closing the achievement gap would lead to cost savings in areas outside of education, such as incarceration and healthcare. The link between low school performance and crime, low earnings and poor health has been echoed in academic research.[39][40] Attempts at Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap The achievement gap, as noted in the trend data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, has become a focal point of education reform efforts. Groups like The Education Trust, Democrats for Education Reform and the Education Equality Project have made it their mission to close the achievement gap. Efforts to combat the gap have been numerous but fragmented, and have ranged from affirmative action and multicultural education to finance equalization, improving teacher quality, and school testing and accountability programs to create equal educational opportunities. Standards-based reform and No Child Left Behind The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) focuses on standards, aligned tests and school accountability to ensure that all students have the same educational opportunities. As written, the legislation incentivizes that schools show continual improvement toward this goal (otherwise known as “Adequate Yearly Progress,” or AYP) or face sanctions. Some have noted that schools with the highest proportion of poor and minority students generally face the greatest challenges to meeting these goals, and are therefore punished unfairly by the law. More recently, the Obama Administration has instituted the Race to the Top (RTTT) program which provides financial incentives to states to produce measurable student gains. RTTT’s primary goals are to improve student achievement, close achievement gaps, and improve high school graduation rates.[42] The initiative is similar to the No Child Left Behind Act in that it has many of the same goals, though there is a bigger emphasis on closing the achievement gap between high and low performing schools[43] The major difference between the two educational reform programs is that RTTT is a competitive grant program that provides incentives for schools to change, while the NCLB Act mandated various changes in state and local education systems.[44] School-based reform A number of interventions have been implemented at the school, district and state level to address the achievement gap. These have included investment in pre-kindergarten programs, class size reduction, small schools, curricular reform, alignment of pre-kindergarten through college standards and expectations, and improved teacher education programs.[45] Many schools have started using after-school tutoring sessions and remedial programs. Such efforts aim to accelerate the learning of minority students to greater than a year’s growth in one year’s time so that over time they catch up to their peers. Other schools have started de-tracking their students in order to provide the same quality education for all students, regardless of race. Teacher-focused reform Another focus of reform efforts to address the achievement gap has been on teacher development, as research shows teachers to be the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement. This reform effort has been both top-down, in the form of higher state standards for teacher education and preparation,[46] as well as bottom-up, through programs like Teach for America and AmeriCorps that aim to address educational inequity by recruiting and training teachers specifically to work in high-needs schools.[47][48] Investment in early childhood One policy strategy aimed at preventing, or at least mitigating, the achievement gap at its earliest stages is investment in early childhood education. Economic research shows that investment at this stage is both more effective and cost effective than interventions later in a child’s life.[49] Head Start and various state-funded pre-kindergarten programs target students from low-income families in an attempt to level the playing field for these children before school begins. In addition to increased access, there has also an increased national focus on raising quality standards for Head Start and state-funded pre-K programs, and in improving training and professional development for early care providers.[50] The evidence in favor of investing in early childhood education as a means of closing the achievement gap is strong: various studies, including the Carolina Abecedarian study, Child-Parent Center study, and HighScope Perry Preschool study, have shown that pre-K programs can have a positive and long-lasting impact on academic achievement of low-income and minority students.[51][52][53] High-Performing High-Poverty and High-Minority Schools Exceptions to the achievement gap exist. Schools that are majority black, even poor, can perform well above national norms, with Davidson Magnet School[citation needed] in Augusta, Georgia being a prominent example. Another school with remarkable gains for students of color is Amistad Academy in New Haven, Connecticut.Additionally North Star Academy has been awarded the National Blue Ribbon School for two years in a row. These schools offer more rigorous, traditional modes of instruction, including Direct Instruction. In one study, Direct Instruction was found to be the single most effective pedagogical method for raising the skill levels of inner-city students (Project Follow Through). [3] High performing Black schools are not unique to the twentieth century. In Washington, DC in the late 19th century, a predominantly low income Black school performed higher than three White schools in yearly testing. This trend continued until the mid 20th century, and during that time the M Street School exceeded national norms on standardized tests. [4] In addition, each year the Education Trust identifies and honors high-performing high-poverty and high-minority schools. All of the “Dispelling the Myth” schools, as they are called, have made significant strides in narrowing achievement gaps, attaining proficiency levels that significantly exceed the averages in their states, or improving student performance at an especially rapid pace. These schools do not offer simple answers or easy solutions, but several common strategies emerge from their practices. They provide a rich curriculum coupled with strong, focused instruction. They have high expectations for all students. They use data to track student progress and individual student needs. And they employ purposeful professional development to improve teachers’ skills.[citation needed] Governmental Policies Successive U.S. governments have implemented many policies aimed at improving African American education.[citation needed] Schools were once legally segregated, and African American children often assigned to inferior schools, before people like Ruby Bridges challenged these policies in the 1960s.[citation needed] However, scholars, such as Gary Orrfield of Harvard, observe that many African Americans continue to be effectively segregated from other races in low-scoring schools.[citation needed] Some desegregation programs, such as that in Seattle, Washington, have been opposed as stepping over the original goal of simply creating freedom to attend schools nearby their communities to making certain politically determined racial percentages a goal in itself.[citation needed] Multiculturalism has been introduced to be more inclusive of African American and other minority cultures and history.[citation needed] Most school districts have also adopted diversity policies to encourage the hiring of more minority teachers and staff.[citation needed] Many progressive education curriculum reform policies, such as reform mathematics and inquiry-based science, were designed to be more inclusive of minority students and cultures and learning styles.[citation needed] As in the larger majority community, there remains a split between conservatives who believe that individuals should concentrate on a race-blind programs to master the same content as the most educated ethnic groups, and liberals who believe that the long historical legacy of discrimination and exclusion remains the largest impediment to equality in education. They emphasize race-conscious policies and the continued application of affirmative action and desegregation principles. Gender Achievement Gap in the United States See also: Sex and intelligence For the past fifty years, there has been a gap in the educational achievement of males and females in the United States, but which gender has been disadvantaged has fluctuated over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s, data showed girls trailing behind boys in a variety of academic performance measures, specifically in test scores in math and science.[80] Data in the last twenty years shows the general trend of girls outperforming boys in academic achievement in terms of class grades across all subjects and college graduation rates, but boys scoring higher on standardized tests and being better represented in the higher-paying and more prestigious STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math).[80] Gender gap in literacy Achievement gaps between boys and girls in the United States are more pronounced in reading and writing than in math and science. Traditionally, girls have outperformed boys in reading and writing. Although this gap may be minimal in kindergarten, it grows as students continue their education. According to the 2004 National Reading Assessment measured by the US Department of Education, the gap between boys and girls, only slightly noticeable in 4th grade, left boys 14 points behind girls during their 12th grade year.[81] On the 2008 test, female students continued to have higher average reading scores than male students at all three ages. The gap between male and female 4th graders was 7 points in 2008. By 12th grade, there was an 11-point gap between males and females.[81] On the 2002 National Writing Assessment, boys scored on average 17 points lower than girls in 4th grade. The average gap increased to 21 points by 8th grade and widened to 24 points by senior year in high school.[82] In the more recent 2007 National Assessment of Writing Skills, female students continued to score higher than male students, though margins closed slightly from previous assessments. The average score for female eighth-graders was 20 points higher than males, down 1 point from the 2002 score. For twelfth-graders, females outscored males by 18 points as opposed to 21 points in 2002.[83] All of these assessments were conducted on a 100-point scale.[81][82][83] Gender gap in math and science Which gender is disadvantaged by the gap in math and science achievement largely depends on how academic achievement is being measured. Female students generally have better grades in their math classes, and this gap starts off very minimal but increases with age.[84] However, males score higher on standardized math tests, and these score gaps also increase with age. Male students also score higher on measures of college readiness, such as the AP Calculus exams and the math section of the SAT.[85] The differences in National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) math scores between boys and girls nearly double from the 9-year-olds to the 17-year-olds.[86]This inconsistency in which gender shows more achievement could be due to the fact that class grades, especially in middle and high school, usually depend on a student’s completion of homework assignments, and studies have shown that girls report spending more time on homework than boys.[87] The gender gap in mathematics is particularly large among the highest-achieving students; for example, there is a 2.1 to 1 male-female ratio among students who score an 800 on the math portion of the SAT.[88] At least one study has challenged the existence of the gender gap in mathematics. In 2008 Janet Hyde and others published a study showing that male and female students did equally well on No Child Left Behind standardized tests that were administered in second through eleventh grades in ten states. However, Hyde and her team did find gaps that favored males at the upper end of the achievement distribution and tried to examine gaps on more difficult test questions (previous research has shown that males outperform females on more challenging items), but the tests they examined lacked adequately challenging items. This raised questions about whether there is still a gender gap in math achievement.[89] There is also a large discrepancy between the number of men and women working in STEM fields. Women have been, and continue to be, underrepresented in these fields. This underrepresentation is evident in the distribution of college majors among men and women; from 1997 to 2007, women earned only 18% of engineering bachelor’s degrees.[90] Gender gap in graduation rates According to recent data, 55 percent of college students are females and 45 percent are males. From 1995 until 2005, the number of males enrolled in college increased by 18 percent, while the number of female students rose by 27 percent.[91] Males are enrolling in college in greater numbers than ever before, yet fewer than two-thirds of them are graduating with a bachelor’s degree. The numbers of both men and women receiving a bachelor’s degree have increased significantly, but the increasing rate of female college graduates exceeds the increasing rate for males.[92] A higher proportion of men (29.4%) hold bachelor’s degrees than women (26.1%). In 2007, the United States Census Bureau estimated that 18,423,000 males ages over the age of 18 held a bachelor’s degree, while 20,501,000 females over the age 18 held one. In addition, fewer males held master’s degrees: 6,472,000 males compared to 7,283,000 females. However, more men held professional and doctoral degrees than women. 2,033,000 males held professional degrees compared to 1,079,000, and 1,678,000 males had received a doctoral degree compared to 817,000 females.[93] Gender gap in lifetime earnings See also: Gender pay gap Although more women are graduating with undergraduate degrees, men are still earning disproportionately more in their lifetimes. This could be due to many factors, including different types of jobs for males and females. Females are greatly underrepresented in science and engineering fields, which are typically correlated with high lifetime earnings.[94] Males and females also have vastly different labor market histories based on type of job and time spent in each job.[90] Possible Causes of the Gender Achievement Gap in the United States Teacher interactions How a student interacts with and is evaluated by his or her teachers is closely correlated with that student’s future academic achievement.[citation needed] According to researcher Thomas Good, there are two competing views of how teachers can indirectly impact the achievement of their students. The first is that teachers are more likely to give special attention and extra assistance to students who appear to be struggling in their class. In reading and writing classes, male students are often behind female students in terms of achievement. Therefore, male students are more likely to get more teacher attention, and this extra interaction could give males an advantage in terms of future achievement. The second view is that teachers demand more and show more respect toward students who they view to be high achievers, which creates a cycle in which only students who are perceived to be intelligent receive extra help and teacher attention.[95] Teacher evaluations How teachers perceive students’ knowledge and abilities varies by gender and influences classroom processes and student achievement in both reading and math. Teachers usually have higher expectations for students they view as higher achievers and treat these students with more respect.[95] A study by Tach and Farkas has also found that when students are split into reading groups based on their abilities, the students in the higher-ability reading groups are more likely to demonstrate positive learning behaviors and higher achievement.[96] Teachers are more likely to favor girls when evaluating what types of readers students seem to be. Because studies have shown that teacher perceptions of students can determine how much individualized attention a student receives and can serve as an indicator of future academic progress, if teachers underestimate males’ reading abilities and use ability grouping in their classrooms, male students might be put at a disadvantage and have their learning in reading classes be negatively affected.[96][97]The opposite trend has been found in math classes. Teachers still tend to view math as a “masculine” subject and tend to have higher expectations for and better attitude towards their male students in these classes.[98] A study by Fennema et al. has also shown that teachers tend to name males when asked to list their “best math students.”[99] Females are more likely than males to be negatively impacted than male students by this underestimation of their math abilities.[100] These gender-specific evaluations from teachers are implicit; usually the teachers have no idea that they are favoring one gender over the other until they are shown concrete evidence, such as a video recording of their classroom. However, even though the discrimination is implicit, it still has negative effects on both male and female students.[95] There is conflicting evidence about whether teacher assessments of student performance and ability are consistent with cognitive assessments like standardized tests. Teacher assessment evidence comes from a relatively small number of classrooms when compared to standardized tests, which are administered in every public school in all fifty states.[101] Stereotyping See also: Stereotype threat There is speculation that gender stereotyping within classrooms can also lead to differences in academic achievement and representation for female and male students. Math and science are often perceived as “masculine” subjects because they lead to success in “masculine” fields, such as medicine and engineering. English and history, on the other hand, are often perceived as “feminine” subjects because they are more closely aligned with “feminine” jobs, such as teaching or care work. These stereotypes can influence student achievement in these areas.[102] Research on stereotype threat has shown that gender stereotypes decrease the mathematical self-esteem of many female students, and that this lack of academic confidence leads to anxiety and poorer performance on math exams.[103] Parent socialization How a child’s parents view his or her skills can also contribute to the gender achievement gap in education. A study by Jacobs and Eccles has shown that adults rate female children as having better social skills than male children, and that girls are more likely to be seen as “good children” than boys.[104] These gender-based stereotypes can perpetuate the gender achievement gap in education by influencing parents’ perceptions of their children’s skills, and these perceptions can influence the types of activities and subjects parents steer their children toward.[104] Implications of the Gender Gap It is important to address the gender achievement gap in education because failure to cultivate the academic talents of any one group will have aggregate negative consequences. If women are underrepresented in STEM fields, and if men are underrepresented in the social sciences and humanities, both genders are missing opportunities to develop diverse skill sets that can help them in the workplace.[102] If the gender achievement gap in education continues to exist, so does the stereotype that medicine, science, and engineering are all “masculine” fields and that women belong in fields like teaching, counseling, or social work. This stereotype can lead to the image that women who pursue careers in the STEM fields are seen as “nerdy” or “geeky,” and this can have a detrimental effect on the self-esteem of females who do choose to enter these fields.[102] Researchers have found that the gender achievement gap has a large impact on the future career choices of high-achieving students. Part of this is a result of the college majors that men and women choose; men are more likely to major in engineering or the hard sciences, while women are more likely to receive degrees in English, psychology, or sociology. Therefore, men are statistically more likely to enter careers that have more potential for higher long-term earnings than women.[90] The careers that are aligned with these majors have different levels of prestige and different salaries, which can lead to a gender wage gap. U.S. Census data indicates that women who work full-time earn only 77% of what their male counterparts earn. For men and women who are ten years out of college, women earn only 69% of the salaries of their male workers.[90] Attempts to Reduce the Gender Gap There have been several studies done of interventions aimed at reducing the gender achievement gap in science classes. Some interventions, such as instituting mentoring programs aimed at women or restructuring the course curriculum, have had limited success. The most successful interventions have been a form of psychological interventions called values affirmation. In a famous study of women’s achievement in college science by Miyake et al., values affirmation was successful in reducing the differences between male and female academic achievement in college-level introductory physics classes, and it has been particularly effective at combating the psychological phenomenon known as stereotype threat.[105] Values affirmation exercises require students to either write about their most important values or their least important values two times at the beginning of the 15-week course. After this intervention, the modal grades of women enrolled in the course increased from a C to a B. Psychological interventions such as this one show promise for increasing women’s achievement in math and science courses and reducing the achievement gap that exists between the genders in these subject areas, but further research will need to be done in order to determine whether the positive effects are long-lasting.[105] Return to Table of Contents See also • Math–verbal achievement gap • Occupational segregation • Racial achievement gap in the United States • Standards based education reform General: • Education in the United States References 1. Jump up ^ Carnoy & Rothstein, “International Tests Show Achievement Gaps in All Countries”, Economic Policy Institute, January 15, 2013 2. Jump up ^ Joseph Rowntree Bawlls vs Lunch “Education and Poverty”, “How Does Poverty Affect Children’s Education?” 3. Jump up ^ Berliner, D., “Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success”, Education Public Interest Center, 2009 4. Jump up ^ Berliner, D., “Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform”, Teachers College Record, 2006 5. Jump up ^ U.S. Census http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml 6. Jump up ^ Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships: The Impact of Cultural Capital Annette Lareau, 1987 7. ^ Jump up to: a b Tracking: From Theory to Practice Maureen Hallinan 1994 8. Jump up ^ Hanlon, Harriet; Robert Thatcher; Marvin Cline (1999). “Gender Differences in the Development of EEG Coherence in Normal Children”. Developmental Neuropsychology. 16 (3): 479–506. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1603_27. 9. Jump up ^ Sax, Leonard (2005). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. Portland: Doubleday. 10. Jump up ^ Hernstein, R. J., and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (The Free Press, 1994). 11. Jump up ^ “Genetic Differences and School Readiness” William T. Dickens, 2005 12. Jump up ^ “Race, IQ, and Jensen” James R. Flynn (London: Routledge, 1980) 13. Jump up ^ Nisbett, Richard. “Race, Genetics, and IQ,” in The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (Brookings, 1998), pp. 86–102. 14. Jump up ^ “School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps” Cecilia Rouse, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, & Sara McLanahan, 2005 15. Jump up ^ Meredith Phillips, James Crouse, and John Ralph, “Does the Black-White Test Score Gap Widen after Children Enter School?” in The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Jencks and Phillips (Brookings, 1998) 16. Jump up ^ “Assessment Issues in the Testing of Children at School Entry” Donald A. Rock and A. Jackson Stenner, 2005 17. Jump up ^ “School Readiness and Later Achievement” G. J. Duncan et al, 2007 18. ^ Jump up to: a b c America’s Next Achievement Test: Closing the Black-White Test Score GapChristopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips 1998 19. Jump up ^ Sparks, Sarah D. (April 22, 2015). “Researchon Quality of Conversation Holds Deeper Clues Into Word Gap”. Education Week. Educational Projects in Education, Inc. p. 1. 20. Jump up ^ Hart and Risley (1995). Meaningful differences in the every day experiences of young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes. 21. ^ Jump up to: a b Immigration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation Among Latino Adolescents Carola Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco 1995 22. Jump up ^ “Children in single-parent families by race”. Retrieved May 2, 2015. 23. Jump up ^ Reese, Ronnie (February 21, 2013). “Minority Testing Bias Persists”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 15, 2015. 24. Jump up ^ Rooks, Noliwe M. (October 11, 2012). “Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests”. TIME. Retrieved November 15, 2015. 25. Jump up ^ Steele, C., and J. Aronson, “Stereotype Threat and the Test Performance of Academically Successful African Americans” (pp. 401–430), in C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1998). 26. Jump up ^ Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the “Burden of ‘Acting White'”Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu 1986 27. Jump up ^ Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the “Burden of ‘Acting White'”Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu 1986 28. Jump up ^ Education and the Inequalities of Place Vincent J.Roscigno, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley 2006 29. Jump up ^ Gordon, Kane & Staiger (2006). ‘Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job.’ Brookings Institution. 30. Jump up ^ Why Do Some Schools Group By Ability? Peter G. VanderHart 2006 31. Jump up ^ Detracking: The Social Construction of Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform Jeannie Oakes, Amy Stuart Wells, Makeba Jones, and Amanda Datnow 1997 32. Jump up ^ Urban Teachers’ Beliefs on Teaching, Learning, and Students: A Pilot Study in the United States of America Kim Hyunsook Song 2006 33. Jump up ^ Social Class in Public Schools Jennifer L. Hochschild 2003 34. Jump up ^ Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Adam Gamoran 1992 35. ^ Jump up to: a b “Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness” Katherine A. Magnuson & Jane Waldfogel, 2005 36. Jump up ^ Bruce Fuller, 2010 (referenced in: http://www.mccormickfoundation.org/pdf/press%20release%20-%20NJLC%20Illinois%20as%20Trailblazer.pdf 37. Jump up ^ “Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does it Matter?” W. Steven Barnett & Donald J. Yarosz, 2007 38. ^ Jump up to: a b c “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap on America’s Schools” McKinsey & Company, 2009 39. Jump up ^ “The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence From Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-reports” L. Lochner & E. Moretti, 2004 40. Jump up ^ Krueger, Alan B. & Diane M. Whitmore. “Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap?” in Bridging the Achievement Gap (The Brookings Institution, 2002). 41. Jump up ^ “The Crisis in the Education of Latino Students”. NEA. Retrieved 2015-11-23. 42. Jump up ^ “Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top”. The White House. Archived from the original on 9 April 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011. 43. Jump up ^ Lohman, Judith. “Comparing No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top”. Retrieved April 9, 2011. 44. Jump up ^ Lohman, Judith. “Comparing No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top”. Retrieved April 9, 2011. 45. Jump up ^ “Bridging the Achievement Gap” John E. Chubb & Tom Loveless, 2002 46. Jump up ^ “Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching” Linda Darling-Hammond(prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1997) 47. Jump up ^ “Teach for America: Our Approach”. Retrieved April 13, 2011. 48. Jump up ^ “Federal Way Public Schools AmeriCorps team”. Retrieved October 17, 2011. 49. Jump up ^ “Investments in Early Childhood as a Means for Deficit Reduction” James Heckman, 2010 50. Jump up ^ “The Changing Landscape of Pre-K: Examining the changes and impacts of quality standards in prekindergarten at the national, state, district and program levels”Archived from the original on 17 April 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. 51. Jump up ^ Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772. 52. Jump up ^ “The Chicago Child-Parent Centers: A Longitudinal Study of Extended Early Childhood Intervention” Arthur J. Reynolds, 1997 53. Jump up ^ “Long-term Study of Adults who Received High-Quality Early Childhood Care and Education Shows Economic and Social Gains, Less Crime” (http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=282) 54. Jump up ^ Mann, D. & Shafer, E. (1997). Technology and Achievement. The American School Board Journal. Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/achievement/cilcilo.html 55. ^ Jump up to: a b c Richardson, W. (2010), Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms 56. Jump up ^ [1] Education Attainment in the United States 2000 57. ^ Jump up to: a b Schhneider, Barbara; Martinez, Sylvia; Ownes, Ann (2006-01-01). “Barriers to Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the United States”. 58. Jump up ^ U.S. Department of Education 59. Jump up ^ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf 60. Jump up ^ Rampell, Catherine (April 28, 2010). “College Enrollment Rate at Record High”. The New York Times. 61. Jump up ^ “Tiger Moms: Is Tough Parenting Really the Answer?”. Time Magazine. January 20, 2011. 62. Jump up ^ Schneider, Barbara; Stevenson, David. The Ambitious Generation: America’s Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless. Yale University Press, P.O. Box 209040, New Haven, CT 06520-9040; Tel: 800-987-7323 (Toll Free); Fax: 800-779-9253 (Toll Free); Web site: www.yale.edu/yup (26). ISBN 0-300-07982-6.
63. Jump up ^ “National Center for Education Staistics” (PDF).
64. Jump up ^ Marva Collins Seminars, Inc.
65. Jump up ^ Excerpts from Ordinary Children, Extraordinary Teachers and Marva Collins’ Way
66. Jump up ^ Marva Collins School to close, ABC News, June 05, 2008
67. Jump up ^ Chicago students skip school in funding protest, Associated Press, September 2, 2008
68. Jump up ^ http://www.uwec.edu/geography/ivogeler/w188/datarace.htm
69. Jump up ^ Nadra Kareem Nittle. “Ethnicities Eligible for College Affirmative Action”. About.com News & Issues. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
70. ^ Jump up to: a b c http://www.aracorporation.org/files/14._africans_most_educated.pdf
71. Jump up ^ Africa. “African Immigrants are the Most Educated”. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
72. Jump up ^ Public Information Office, U.S. Census Bureau. High School Completions at All-Time High, Census Bureau Reports. 15 September 2000.
73. Jump up ^ [2] Hu’s Index of Diversity
74. Jump up ^ See 2006 Wall Street article by Charles Murray which claims NCLB punishes minority students and does not close basic skill differences
75. ^ Jump up to: a b Pew Research Center (12 May 2015). “America’s Changing Religious Landscape” (PDF). The Pew Forum. p. 56. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
76. Jump up ^ “Odds and Ends”. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
77. Jump up ^ Elliott, R. (1987). Litigating intelligence: IQ tests, special education, and social science in the courtroom. Dover, MA: Auburn House.
78. Jump up ^ Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136. doi:10.1177/0016986208330564
79. Jump up ^ Warne, R. T., Anderson, B., & Johnson, A. O. (2013). The impact of race and ethnicity on the identification process for giftedness in Utah. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 487-508. doi:10.1177/0162353213506065
80. ^ Jump up to: a b Kafir, Krista (April 2007). “Taking the Boy Crisis in Education Seriously: How School Choice can Boost Achievement Among Boys and Girls.” Independent Women’s Forum.
81. ^ Jump up to: a b c Perie, M. (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
82. ^ Jump up to: a b Persky, H. (2003). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2002. US Department of Education.
83. ^ Jump up to: a b Salahu-Din, Debra (2008). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007. US Department of Education.
84. Jump up ^ Dee, T. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 1–28; Adeleke, M. (2007). Gender disparity in mathematical performance revisited: can training in problem solving bring difference between boys and girls?. Essays in Education, 21.
85. Jump up ^ Amelink, C. (2009). Information sheet: gender differences in math performance . Assessing Women in Engineering, 1–4.
86. Jump up ^ Dee, T. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. The Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 1–28.
87. Jump up ^ Lubienski, S. T., McGraw, R., & Strutchens, M. (2004). NAEP findings regarding gender: Mathematics achievement, student affect, and learning practices. In P. Kloosterman, & F. K. Lester Jr. (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 305–336). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
88. Jump up ^ CollegeBoard.com. 2010. “SAT Percentile Rank or Males, Females, and Total Group, 2007 College-Bound Seniors—Mathematics.” A table. h t t p : // w w w . c o l l e g e b o a r d . c o m / p r o d _ d o w n l o a d s /highered/ra/sat/SAT_percentile_ranks _males_females_total_group_mathematics.pdf.
89. Jump up ^ Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize mathematics performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495.
90. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Dey, J. G., & Hill, C. (2007). Beyond the pay gap. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
91. Jump up ^ Digest of Education Statistics 2007
92. Jump up ^ Mead, Sara. (2006). The Evidence Suggests Otherwise: The Truth About Boys and Girls. Washington: Education Sector.
93. Jump up ^ U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2007.
94. Jump up ^ Bedard, Kelly and Insook Cho. (2010). Early gender test score gaps across OECD countries. Economics of Education Review, 29(1): 348-363.
95. ^ Jump up to: a b c Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32–47.
96. ^ Jump up to: a b Tach, L. M., & Farkas, G. (2006). Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when schooling begins. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1048–1079.
97. Jump up ^ Nigro, G., M. Tappan, and S. Desrochers. (2008). The gender divide in academic engagement: Perspectives from Maine boys and young men. Report presented at the annual meeting of the Maine Boys Network conference, Bates College, Lewiston, ME.
98. Jump up ^ Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41(1), 63–76.
99. Jump up ^ Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(1), 55–69.
100. Jump up ^ McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gen- der in children’s differential response to teacher expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 159–184.
101. Jump up ^ Robinson, Joseph Paul and Sarah Theule Lubienski. (2010). The Development of Gender Achievement Gaps in Mathematics and Reading During Elementary and Middle School: Examining Direct Cognitive Assessments and Teacher Ratings. American Education Research Journal 48(268): 268-302.
102. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ellison, Glenn and Ashley Swanson. (2010). The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2): 109-128.
103. Jump up ^ Amelink, C. (2009). Information sheet: gender differences in math performance. Assessing Women in Engineering, 1–4.
104. ^ Jump up to: a b Jacobs, Janis E. and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. (1992). The Impact of Mothers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(6): 932-944.
105. ^ Jump up to: a b Akira Miyake, Lauren E. Kost-Smith, Noah D. Finkelstein, Steven J. Pollock, Geoffrey L. Cohen, and Tiffany A. Ito. (2010). Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation. Science 330(6008): 1234-1237.