User:JCharlesThompson/sandbox

"SPECIAL NOTE: The title of Learning-Disadvantage Gap may be replaced with a more suitable title.

The following referenced-based report on socioeconomic and academic-opportunity discrimination identifies what K-12 public-school educators, parents and their students are experiencing, and what academic studies and court cases are informing."

Students of Socioeconomic Disadvantage with Academic-Opportunity Discrimination

Socioeconomically disadvantaged K-12 students, as a group, which include racial minorities disproportionately score lower than the advantaged on standardized math and/or English "high-stakes" and excessive testing, according to educators, institutions and studies. This may put the disadvantaged at a risk of becoming, if not already, students of standardized academic-opportunity discrimination, defined in this context as "restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group" (refer to "See also").* **See notes section

The student of socioeconomic disadvantage often has limited educational support from a low income family or single-parent home,      or is an English-language learner (ELL/LEP). Many disadvantaged primarily English-speaking students also arrive at school behind in grade-level reading skills. Unstable home environment is not uncommon, as is insufficient nutrition, sleep, medical, dental, emotional or special needs.

These situations contribute to a widening of the much-watched and quoted achievement gap of math and/or English test-score comparisons.notes   Also. if a government standardized test, excessive testing or circumstance is not fair to the student, 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 and/or English, in "curricula" reality, requires “remedial” (doubling) of these selectively endorsed (required) subjects that has been called "stupid class".**notes 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.***notes   Schools excuse it as “scheduling conflicts”. "What gets tested gets taught."* **

It is not good enough however, that the curricula material is in the state and districts curriculum if it is not actually taught in the classrooms and districts equally. 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.†notes

"My child is not a test score",   yet government achievement and “no excuses” accountability goals endorse and guarantee only math and English curricula. 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 fully enforced by the Department. It states clearly that no federal official should attempt to "exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration... of any educational institution." (References 71 to 78 are U.S. government originated or sourced, and include letters from the Department stating their education policies and goals)

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) with its signature nationally standardized high-stakes testing accountability for not only students, but teachers, administrators, and schools as well. Before the law was enacted, Congress was advised by its own commissioned non-partisan report, testimonies and data. States' 1990's implementations of early forms of state-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.††notes  Section 9527 was (and still is) intended to protect student rights to an equal education, but was never enforced.†† This part of the current law remains legally valid and not optional to this day, as it is the primary protection against standardized unequal-learning opportunities and academic discrimination. NCLB, by law, was supposed to be reevaluated and renewed in 2007.

One of numerous examples of the Department's Section 9527 violations 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. Competitive testing was never intended or allowed withing the law. Another one is the Departments' influence and the granting of conditional waivers from NCLB requirements only to states who agree to hold teachers accountable (high-stakes) for their students math and English test scores. Common core plus other state standards, as well as the students they serve, are also being affected by the Department's non-compliance to the law's restrictions on funding and influence over state testing.††

In so far as federal authorities and state governments high-stakes testing and its accountability systems may standardize inequality and unintentionally promote academic-opportunity discrimination, the inequalitative disparate impact versus the intentional civil-rights discriminatory model, may legally be the same. The higher courts have been trending in agreement, including under — but not limited to — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI when discriminatory effects have fallen more harshly on one group than another.†notes (p.26) “Separate educational facilities [or curriculum] are inherently unequal” - Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. B.o.E., U.S. Supreme Court, 1954.†notes

"The [U.S.] Supreme Court has since held that proof of discriminatory intent is not required in a [Civil Rights Act] 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 results of the US Department of Educations' decision to not enforce Section 9527 of NCLB has been reported separately in many published articles and may meet the requirements of disparate impact to K-12 students.(refer to "See also")

In summary, the student of socioeconomic disadvantage with low(er) math and/or English test score is more likely to experience high-stakes rank and label profiling, negative stereotyping and segregation that has been referred to as "academic impact of structural economic discrimination",††notes         as well as to drop out.

Students of Socioeconomic and Academic-Opportunity Advantage

K-12 socioeconomically advantaged students, as a group, often score higher on standardized math and/or English "high-stakes" tests over the disadvantaged. He or she often comes from a socio-economically advantaged mid to upper-income family and in an academically supportive environment.* ** ***notes

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, physical education (P.E.), computers and others.***notes Even when such well-balanced curricula are increasingly sanctioned for all students, the socioeconomically and academically advantaged can often outsource for opportunistic advantages. According to educator sources, 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 systems of disproportionately enabling opportunities versus inaccessible and denied-opportunities.

The student of socioeconomic and academic-opportunity advantage most often disproportionately avoids standardized discrimination by benefiting from available well-balanced curriculum with whole-student educational opportunities. He or she is more often advantaged to compete and succeed in personal development and social skills, education, career and life. Educators ask for "schools of equal opportunities" for each-and-every publicly-funded student in K-12 American education.

References/Citations
Category:Education Category:Education in the United States Category:Education policy in the United States Category:Education reform Category:Standards-based education Category:United States federal education legislation