Addressing the Achievement Gap in the United States

This chapter focuses on the achievement gap in the United States, disparity in academic performance between groups of students, evidence of the gap, major research into the causes of gaps in student achievement, factors contributing to the gap, ways of narrowing the gap, as well as education, policy, and economic implications, and inequality of educational opportunities for all. It describes the academic achievement gap that exists in America between Black and Hispanic students, at the lower end of the performance scale, and their White peers, and the similar academic disparity between students from low-income families and students from more wealthy families. It discusses the gap based on students’ performance in elementary and secondary school with special emphasis on the subject areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and also on reading.

The Achievement Gap that exists in American Education is not a gap in ability, but a gap in resources and a gap in expectations. We know that students from all backgrounds can succeed at the highest levels of education, when they are given the support they need to succeed–the support that is regularly given to students from the top income brackets.

Lee Bollinger, President, Columbia University

Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education, our requirements for world leadership, our hopes for economic growth, and the demands of citizenship itself in an Era such as this all require the maximum development of every young American’s capacity. The human mind is our fundamental resource.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 117.69 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 158.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 158.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

A Potential Technological Solution for Reducing the Achievement Gap Between White And Black Students

Mind the Gap… But Which Gap? The Distinctions Between Social Inequalities in Student Achievement

What Do TIMSS Studies Show About Math Achievement Inequality? A Sociological Perspective

References

• American Educational Research Association. (2004). Closing the gap: High achievement for students of color. Research Points, Fall 2004. Google Scholar
• Barnett, W. S., & Yarosz, D. J. (2007). Who goes to preschool and why it matter? Revised. Preschool Policy Brief, 15. Google Scholar
• Barton, P. E. (2009). Chasing the high school graduation rate: Getting the data we need and using it right. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Google Scholar
• Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST). (2004). A bridge for all. San Diego: BEST Google Scholar
• Clark, J. V. (1996). Redirecting science education: Reform for a culturally diverse classroom. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement: How meta analysis provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Report by Rolf K. Blank, June 2009, under a grant to CCSSO, #REC-0635409. Washington, DC: CCSSO. Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Google Scholar
• Davenport, L. R. (1993). The effect of homogeneous grouping in mathematics. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. 2010. Quality Counts 2010: Education Week, 29(17). Google Scholar
• Dickens, W. T. (2005). Genetic differences and school readiness. New York: Worth. Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2005). Affirmative student development: Closing the achievement gap by developing human capital. Princeton: ETS. Google Scholar
• Education Testing Service (ETS). (2009). Parsing the Achievement Gap II. Princeton: ETS. Google Scholar
• Education Trust (2001). The other gap: Poor students receive fewer dollars. Education Trust Data Bulletin, March 6, 2001. Google Scholar
• Education Trust. (2003). African American achievement in America. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Google Scholar
• Education Trust. (2006). Teaching inequality. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Google Scholar
• Flynn, J. R. (1980). Race, IQ, and Jensen. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in Finance (pp. 197–210). NCES 97–535. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Google Scholar
• Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hallinan, M. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 78–91. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 84–117. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2010). U.S. math performance in global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high-achieving students? Cambridge: Harvard University Program on Education Policy & Governance, Harvard Kennedy School. Google Scholar
• Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K–16, 3(2). Google Scholar
• Hernstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
• Hirsch, E., Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improving the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends, Seattle: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Google Scholar
• Hodgkinson, H. L. (2003). Leaving too many children behind: A demographer’s view on the neglect of America’s youngest children. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Google Scholar
• Hyunsook, K. S. (2006). Urban teachers’ beliefs on teaching, learning, and students: A pilot study in the United States of America. Google Scholar
• Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The black–white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Google Scholar
• Johnson, L. B. (1965). Speech before the national conference on education legislation. March, 1, 1965. Google Scholar
• Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family–school relationships: The impact of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73–85. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lohman, J. (2011). Comparing No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top. Retrieved April 9, 2011. Google Scholar
• Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Magnuuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education, and ethnic and racial test score gaps at school entry. The Future of Children, 15, 169–196. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• McKinsey & Co. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap on America’s schools. New York: McKinsey & Co. Google Scholar
• Minority Achievement Report, Trends in Subgroup Performance. (2001). Raleigh. Google Scholar
• National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2000–2001). Science framework for the 1996 and 2000 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: NAGB. Google Scholar
• National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2002). Mathematics framework for the 2003 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: NAGB. Google Scholar
• National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2008). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: NAGB. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 1999. Educational Statistics Quarterly, 1(4). Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Policy (TIMSS) 203, NCES 2005-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2001a). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2000. NCES 2001-517. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2001b). The condition of education 2001. NCES 2001-072. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2011). The nation’s report card: Science 2009. NCES 2011-451. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000a). Highlights from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study—Repeat (TIMSS-R). NCES 2001-027. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000b). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999. NCES 2001-028. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education. Google Scholar
• National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF). (1996). What Matters Most. Teaching for America’s Future. New York: NCTAF. Google Scholar
• National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: NCTAF. Google Scholar
• National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF). (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: NCTAF. Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 2000. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM. Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
• National Science Board (NSB). (2003). Report of the National Board Committee on Education and Human Resources Task Force on National Workforce Policies for Science and Engineering. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Google Scholar
• National Science Board (NSB). (2004). Science and engineering indicators 2004. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Google Scholar
• National Science Board (NSB). (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Google Scholar
• National Science Board (NSB). (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Google Scholar
• National Science Board (NSB). (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington: National Science Foundation. (NSB 12-01). Google Scholar
• National Science Board Commission on Pre-college Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. (1998). Race, Genetics, and IQ. In C. Jencks, & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black–white test score gap (pp. 86–102). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of. (2001). Public Law No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress. Google Scholar
• Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 153–221). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar
• Ogbu, J. U., & Fordham, S. (1986). Black students’ success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting white.” The Urban Review. Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris. Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1. Paris. Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010a). Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. Paris. Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010b). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris. Google Scholar
• Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are short-changed on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K–12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Google Scholar
• Researchers bemoan lack of progress in closing education gaps between the races. The chronicle of higher education, March 26, 2008. Google Scholar
• Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). 1986 Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Research Progress Report. University of TennesseeValue-added Research and Assessment Center. Google Scholar
• Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday. Google Scholar
• Simmons, T. (1999). The News & Observer. Raleigh Google Scholar
• Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the test performance of academically successful African Americans. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black–white test score gap (pp. 401–430). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Current population survey, annual social and economic supplement. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Google Scholar
• VanderHart, P. G. (2006). Why do some schools group by ability? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65, 435–462. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• White House. (n.d.). Educate to innovate. Accessed May 2011 Google Scholar
• Workforce. (2000). Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century. 1987. Johnston & Packer. Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. 5600 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1205, 20815, Chevy Chase, MD, USA Julia V. Clark

1. Julia V. Clark