User:MusicTeacherClub/Sandbox

"The Learning-Disadvantage Gap, describes a substantial and growing divergence of K-12 educational opportunities for public and charter school students in the USA. This report is an ongoing critique that directs attention to the controversial federal and states standardized testing and reform that includes an equality and legal analysis of the difference between learning opportunities for the socio-academically disadvantaged versus advantaged.

The Learning-Disadvantage Gap, researched and developed over a 5 year period, is articulated by John Charles "Johnny" Thompson and team, with Parents and Students for Music and Arts aka allartsallkids.org. It is not to be confused with the achievement gap accountability of divergence between minorities and non-minority students' math and English standardized "high-stakes" testing. In comparison, the Learning-Disadvantage Gap is concerned with the divergence between equal and unequal-learning opportunities for all, and how it becomes standardized socio-academic discrimination." Students of Socio-Academic Disadvantage

The student of socio-academic disadvantage is identified simply by a low(er) math or English high-stakes test score.* **See notes section He/she often has limited educational support from a low income family,       single-parent home, or is an English-language learner (ELL or LEP). Unstable home environment is also common, as is malnutrition, insufficient sleep and/or inability to sit and concentrate for long periods. This student is likely not a good high-stakes test taker.*notes       This adds to widening of the math and English achievement gap. If a test or surrounding circumstance, however, is not fair to the student, neither can it serve in the long-term interest and goals of the state and federal governments.

A public or charter student’s low(er) standardized high-stakes testing score in math or English causes “remedial” (doubling) of these selectively endorsed (required) high-stakes "curricula" (subjects).**notes This routinely results in the standardized sanctioning (denied access) of school-day music and arts plus other non high-stakes whole-student curricula.***notes    Governments and schools excuse and dismiss it as “scheduling conflicts”,       but it is not enough that the curricula material is in the state and districts curriculum if it is not actually taught in the classrooms 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   Standardized socio-academic discrimination comes from an unequally-denied opportunity because of a low(er) high-stakes math and/or English testing score, putting him/her at an immediate and future disadvantage.†notes  School-districts' implementation of test-driven math and English "achievement" goals, however, routinely enforce top-down “no excuses” test-results.

Federal and states K-12 education laws and policies today in the U.S. emphasize "rigor" and "grit", "readiness" and "success",       but are designed to selectively endorse, enforce and guarantee only math and English instruction. This is the daily narrow-curriculum and test-driven reality in all 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 being enforced. 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." 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).

Before NCLB was enacted, Congress was advised by its own commissioned non-partisan report and forewarned by testimonies and scores of data. States' 1990's implementations of early forms of standardized testing in math and English were already raising inequality and inequity questions. As a result, NCLB section 9527 was added which, in part, forbid the federal government from creating any curriculum of nationalized standards or endorsing a state's curriculum.††notes          USDOE restrictions continue to be unenforced, which includes negative effects from NCLB and its Title I distribution for economically-poor communities. Common Core "State" Standards plus copy-cat cores, and Race to the Top and other competitionized programs are also being affected.

In so far as federal authorities and state governments test-driven and accountability systems standardize inequality and promote socio-academic discrimination, the unintentional negative impact versus the intentional civil-rights discriminatory model are the same. The higher courts have been trending in agreement particularly when the 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 #36] 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 [unequal-opportunity] discrimination as well as deliberate racial discrimination".

Today's student of socio-academic disadvantage endures high-stakes test intimidation and humiliating "stupid class" remediation (repeated curricula), repeated grade levels, aka rank and label profiling or negative stereotyping and segregated, denied-access educational opportunities that rival the 1950s.† ††notes      The student of socio-academic disadvantage too often has a daily-learning environment that may be described in a simple civil-rights K-12 "math" equation: standardization + high-stakes testing = standardized inequality and discrimination.* ** ***notes

Students of Socio-Academic Advantage

The student of socio-academic advantage is identified simply by a high(er) math and English test score. He/she often comes from a mid to upper-income family in an academically supportive environment. This student is likely a good high-stakes test taker. That said, educators explain that this is a poor substitute for real learning.* ** ***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.***notes Even when such well-balanced curricula are increasingly sanctioned for all students, the socio-academic advantaged can often outsource for opportunistic advantages. The primary-curriculum issue here is not of funding per se, but of excessive and high-stakes standardized testing of math and English, which dominates funding and dictates today’s two-tier enabling-versus-disabling educations.

The student of socio-academic advantage is disproportionately and unequally enabled by high(er) high-stakes math and English test scores to avoid standardized discrimination, and benefit from well-balanced whole-student educational opportunities. He/she is advantaged to compete and succeed in personal development and social skills, education, career and life.