Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Ceci (“Interventions of this type aim to reduce group differences…

- - - - “Toward this end, American educational, public health, social service, and other governmental agencies invest billions of dollars in various forms of intervention (e.g., the 2004 Federal Budget requested $12.4 billion for Title 1, over $1 billion for reading programs [e.g., Reading First], and the modernization of programs designed to provide $40 billion over 10 years for health care coverage of low-income, uninsured children [SCHIP]).” (Ceci, & Papierno, 2005, 149)
        
        “These interventions run a gamut from highly targeted programs to remediate specific deficits (e.g., providing special services to teach poorly performing children basic number skills or to enhance the reading comprehension skills of middle school students), to somewhat less targeted programs aimed at increasing access to health care for the poor or reducing social problems (e.g., juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, emotional neglect, etc.) of children deemed to be at risk, to very broad interventions that are not targeted to any group, such as pro- viding tuition subsidies to increase college matriculation rates (e.g., Hope scholarships). “ (Ceci, & Papierno, 2005, 149)
        
        “We refer to these latter interventions as universalized interventions to distinguish them from those that are targeted to a high-risk or disadvantaged group.” (Ceci, & Papierno, 2005, 149)
        
        “One motivation for targeted interventions is what theorists from multiple disciplines (e.g., economics, sociology, psychology) have described as the Matthew effect.” (Ceci, & Papierno, 2005, 149)
        
        “For example, in the domain of early reading, Shaywitz et al. (1995) succinctly summarized it as “the notion of cumulative advantages leading to still further advantage or, conversely, initial disadvantage being accentuated over time” (p. 894)” (Ceci & Papierno, p.149).
        
        “Looking across rather than within age groups, one sees that a similar gap widening occurs as older children increase their advantage over their younger counterparts when they are offered the same intervention given to younger children” (Ceci & Papierno, p.153).
        
        “Early analyses of Sesame Street by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) appeared to show that increased viewing of the show did, in fact, promote improved intellectual development mainly of poor children, thereby narrowing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children” (Ceci & Papierno, p.155).
        
        “AP classes are an example of nontargeted interventions because they are made available to all eligible students who attain a given level of achievement, without regard to income or race. Unlike Sesame Street, however, AP offerings were never intended to narrow the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Because of the self selection process involved in deciding to take AP courses, this intervention was primarily utilized by the highest performing groups of achievers” (Ceci & Papierno, p.155).
      - “The basic idea of a cumulative, or “multiplier,” effect is not new; Stanovich (1986) discussed the concept in terms of the principle of “organism– environment correlation” to show that disparity increases when children with different genotypes or from different backgrounds are selectively exposed to different types of environments” ( Ceci & Papierno, p. 149)
- - - - “Racism, discrimination, and White privilege have been combined in current practice to form a deadly cocktail consisting of the Black/White achievement gap, accountability, high-stakes testing, inadequately prepared teachers, culturally unresponsive curriculum, and No Child Left Behind. In their attempt to go for broke, several scholars (Bell, Ladson-Billings, Haberman, Ayers) have been the lone voices crying in the wilderness to put a stop to these practices that, if not by design, have certainly resulted in even greater educational inequities for African American and other poor children in urban schools.”
- - - - “The liberal individualist view, drawn heavily from Rawls, elevates fairness as the central feature of justice.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11
        
        “Two principles of Rawls (1972) come into play in the liberal individualist perspective.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11
        
        “First, each person is entitled to as much freedom as possible as long as others share the same freedom. Second, social goods should be distributed as equally as possible, with inequities being allocated in a way that benefits the least privileged members of society.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11
      - “The social democratic perspective, largely drawn from Marx, considers justice in relationship to the needs of various individuals, emphasizing a more collectivist or cooperative vision of society.” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11
      - “Almost diametrically opposed to Rawls, the market individualist view of justice emphasizes that people are entitled in relationship to their efforts. Rizvicites Nozick’s (1976)work to support this perspective on social justice which advocates that justice is measured by fair starting conditions. Rizvi (1998) writes that in this perspective, it is ‘the justice of the competition—that is, the way competition was carried out and not its outcome—that counts’ (p. 49).” Hytten & Bettez, 2011, Pg. 11