Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Achievement Gap (Blanchett (A Historical Analysis of Brown’s Relationship…

- - - - o contemporary thinkers have invoked it to refer to the amplification of any initial advantage (e.g., economic resources, health status, cognitive ability) that leads to cumulative differences that widen preexisting gaps (Walberg & Tsai, 1983). 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). This effect has been observed in numerous areas affecting children (e.g., in the use of cognitive strategies [Gaultney, 1998] and comprehension [Nicholson, 1999; Stanovich, 1986]), as well as in areas affecting adults (e.g., pay differentials [Tang, 1996] and accumulation of scientific prestige [Merton, 1968]) (Ceci, 2005, p.149).
      - • 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, 2005, p.149).
      - o The very children who are reading well and who have good vocabularies will read more, learn more word meanings, and hence read even better. Children with inadequate vocabularies— who read slowly and without enjoyment—read less, and as a result have slower development of vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in reading ability.
- - - - “Many forms of intervention, across different domains, have the surprising effect of widening preexisting gaps between disadvantaged youth and their advantaged counterparts—if such interventions are made available to all students, not just to the disadvantaged. Whether this widening of gaps is incongruent with American interests and values requires an awareness of this gap-widening potential when interventions are universalized and a national policy that addresses the psychological, political, economic, and moral dimensions of elevating the top students—tomorrow’s business and science leaders—and/or elevating the bottom students to redress past inequalities and reduce the future costs associated with them. This article is a first step in bringing this dilemma to the attention of scholars and policymakers and prodding a national discussion (Ceci, 2005, p.149).”
    - - “A performance-based benefit operates when both the advantaged and disadvantaged groups participate in the same intervention but the former group performs disproportionately better on some outcome measure.” (Ceci 153).
    - - They reported that although the intervention improved the vocabulary of all children, analyses of pre- and post test vocabulary measures revealed significant interactions between testing conditions and children’s ability. Of particular relevance to this article is their finding that higher ability children demonstrated significantly greater benefit from both the repeated exposure and the explanation of target vocabulary words (i.e., greater accuracy in the use of target words).” (Ceci 153).
      - If society deems the improvement of all children as a paramount goal, regardless of preexisting differences, then such demonstrations may not pose a problem because they elevate the advantaged group to levels greater than what could be achieved by them in the absence of the interventions. However, if policymakers intend some cognitive interventions to close preexisting gaps, then such demonstrations underscore the need for more focused, targeted interventions that boost the lower scoring group without adding to the higher scoring group’s preintervention advantage (Ceci, 2005, p.153).
    - - “For some social programs, the advantage of being made universally available is that the people who have the greatest need for the intervention maybe more likely to utilize it than their more advantaged peers if it is not advertised as a program targeted to them.” (Ceci 154).
      - o In the economic domain, similar examples of utilization differences exist. Many economic interventions are made available without regard to income or SES, with the result that these interventions end up disproportionately benefiting middle- and upper-income students. For example, Dynarski (2000) showed that President Clinton’s Hope scholarships benefited college-bound students who came from middle- and upper-class homes more than they benefited poor students (i.e., middle- and upper-class students were more likely to use them)
      - This favoring of students from advantaged backgrounds was apparent even after controlling for cognitive aptitude (see also Cameron & Heckman, 1999, for similar results). Along the same lines, Stanley (1999) found in a retrospective analysis of Korean War veterans that college subsidies associated with the various provisions of the GI Bills were used disproportionately by returning veterans from advantaged backgrounds. Once again, gaps that may have existed prior to the implementation of these nontargeted interventions were widened as a result of the differential utilization of such programs, regardless of whether the programs were intended to produce this effect
    - - “The objective here, however, may not be to reduce inequalities in any general sense but rather to remove impediments that particularly apply to some groups but not to others—impediments to reaching a level of competence that one is capable of attaining.” (Ceci 159).
      - o As far as impediments with sources external to the individual are concerned, it might well be argued that it is reasonable to provide special help or special services for those who would otherwise be handicapped, impaired, or disadvantaged as a result of their group membership (as a result of where they live, their ethnicity, social circumstances, institutional discrimination, etc.). The objective here, however, may not be to reduce inequalities in any general sense but rather to remove impediments that particularly apply to some groups but not to others—impediments to reaching a level of competence that one is capable of attaining.
      - In such an analysis, we agree that clearly identifying the role of institutional discrimination and power differentials in producing differences between haves and have-nots becomes central in order to remedy roadblocks to utilizing interventions described earlier that may be the result of oppressive living conditions (Ceci, 2005, p.158).
    - - Undoubtedly, there is a mix of interventions, some targeted and some universal, that produces the best overall cost– benefit ratio for a nation on political, economic, and moral grounds. To some extent this is an empirical question, but the point of this article is to foster a national dialogue on the heretofore undiscussed social, political, ethical, and economic aspects of this issue. America has no national policy that (a) explicitly frames intervention programs in terms of consensual political philosophy that is mindful of both the need to elevate the top students and the need to redress past injustice, (b) acknowledges the types of outcomes that we have described here, and (c) considers what mix of interventions will best achieve national interests and values. In closing, we reiterate that we take no position on this debate but hope that our analysis is a first step in promoting a needed discussion of whether national policies should be aimed at raising the top students, bottom students, or both, and the political, moral, and economic ramifications associated with each of these options (Ceci, 2005, p.159).