National Academies Press: OpenBook

Monitoring Educational Equity (2019)

Chapter: Front Matter

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page R14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs Monitoring Educational Equity Committee on Developing Indicators of Educational Equity Christopher Edley, Jr., Judith Koenig, Natalie Nielsen, and Constance Citro, Editors Board on Testing and Assessment and Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by the American Educational Research Association (unnumbered), the Atlantic Philanthropies (Award No. 23223), the Ford Foundation (Award No. 0145-1710), the Spencer Foundation (Award No. 201500103), the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (Award No. P3033235), the William T. Grant Foundation (Award No. 184262), and the U.S. Department of Education (Award No. R305U150002). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25389 Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https:// doi.org/ 10.17226/25389

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPING INDICATORS OF EDUCATIONAL EQUITY CHRISTOPHER EDLEY, JR. (Chair), School of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law ELAINE ALLENSWORTH, University of Chicago Consortium on School Research, University of Chicago ALBERTO CARVALHO, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Miami, FL STELLA FLORES, Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy, New York University NANCY GONZALES, College of Liberal Arts and Statistics, Arizona State University LAURA HAMILTON, RAND Education, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA JAMES KEMPLE, The Research Alliance for New York City Schools, New York University, Steinhardt SHARON LEWIS, Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, DC (retired) MICHAEL J MACKENZIE, Centre for Research on Children and Families, McGill University, Montreal, Canada C. KENT MCGUIRE, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, Menlo Park, CA SARA MCLANAHAN, Department of Sociology, Princeton University MEREDITH PHILLIPS, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles MORGAN POLIKOFF, School of Education, University of Southern California, Rossier SEAN REARDON, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University KAROLYN TYSON, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill JUDITH KOENIG, Study Director NATALIE NIELSEN, Senior Program Officer CONSTANCE CITRO, Senior Scholar KELLY ARRINGTON, Senior Program Assistant FM-v

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs BOARD ON TESTING AND ASSESSMENT DAVID J. FRANCIS (Chair), Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston MARK DYNARSKI, Pemberton Research, LLC, East Windsor, NJ JOAN HERMAN, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles SHARON LEWIS, Council of Great City Schools, Washington, DC BRIAN STECHER, Education Program, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA JOHN ROBERT WARREN, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota PATTY MORISON, Acting Director FM-vi

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS ROBERT M. GROVES (Chair), Office of the Provost, Department of Mathematics and Statistics and Department of Sociology, Georgetown University FRANCINE BLAU, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University MARY ELLEN BOCK, Department of Statistics (emerita), Purdue University ANNE C. CASE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University MICHAEL E. CHERNEW, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School JANET CURRIE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University DONALD A. DILLMAN, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University JAMES S. HOUSE, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan THOMAS L. MESENBOURG, U.S. Census Bureau (retired) SARAH M. NUSSER, Office of the Vice President for Research and Department of Statistics, Iowa State University COLM O’MUIRCHEARTAIGH, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago JEROME P. REITER, Department of Statistical Science, Duke University ROBERTO RIGOBON, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JUDITH A. SELTZER, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University and Arizona State University BRIAN HARRIS-KOJETIN, Director CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Senior Scholar FM-vii

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs PREFACE The challenge of monitoring disparities in educational achievement and opportunities shares some characteristics with other complex regulatory problems. For example, when Congress adopted the Clean Air Act (1970) nearly 50 years ago, it emphasized the importance of public health but provided no clear line for distinguishing clean air from dirty air. Most fundamentally, regulating pollution has required choices about what indicates that air is “polluted” for regulatory purposes, how to measure and monitor those indicators, and when the measured level of an indicator should trigger enforcement or other intervention. The statute provided few answers, or even a definitive list of “pollutants” to be regulated. Nor were there definitive answers in the Constitution, economics, the biological sciences, or epidemiology. Instead, definitions and decisions have been a continuous enterprise involving interpretations of vague statutory language, promulgation of hundreds of federal and state regulations, enforcement experience, research in multiple disciplines, and the turbulence of politics. So it is with “regulating” educational equity and inequity—distinguishing between the good and the problematic in a system that powerfully shapes socioeconomic opportunity, outcomes, and mobility. For a century following the Civil War, the issue was largely a matter of antidiscrimination litigation, based on the U.S. Constitution. This is what can be thought of as constitutional equality. Beginning with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, however, Congress and the executive branch built a broader, complementary framework for an evolving social policy construct of regulatory equity. Given the extensive disparities that still exist in the nation’s educational system, what can policy makers do to better support goals for a just and prosperous society? What evidence can best inform their decision? Specifically, if an educational equity construct is to have practical use, policy makers must choose indicators and measures. This report provides the architecture for a system to help policy makers address questions of educational equity. It lays out not only a system of indicators of educational equity, but also describes some of the follow-on work needed to advance such a system through public consensus, engineering, construction, and continuous maintenance. The closest analogy in the education realm is probably the history the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), whose planning began in the early 1960s, was first fielded in 1969, has become a trusted measure of the knowledge of U.S. students, and continues to evolve. This report would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. On behalf of the committee, I extend our deepest appreciation to the sponsors of this work: the American Educational Research Association, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Ford Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the William T. Grant Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Without their support, this study would not have come to fruition. We also thank the experts who volunteered their time to share their knowledge with us: Ilene Berman, the Annie E. Casey Foundation; Betsy Brand, American Youth Policy Forum; Catherine Lhamon, Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Nat Mulkas, American Enterprise Institute; Douglas Ready, Columbia University Teachers College; David Murphey, Child Trends; Amber Northern, Fordham Institute; Jennifer Park, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and FM-ix

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs Family Statistics; Natasha Ushomirsky, Education Trust; and Stephanie Wood-Garnett, Alliance for Excellence in Education. The committee commissioned a set of experts to author literature reviews to help us identify indicators. We thank those writers for their invaluable input: David Campbell, University of Notre Dame; Jennifer Jennings, Princeton University; Katherine Magnuson, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Nicholas Mark, New York University; Jenny Nagaoka, University of Chicago Consortium on School Research; Jay Plasman, University of California, Santa Barbara; Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, R. Hayes & Associates, LLC; Russell Rumberger, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Lori Taylor, Texas A&M University. The committee also extends its gratitude to members of the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, for their significant contributions to this report. Kelly Arrington, senior program assistant, provided key administrative and logistical support, made sure that committee meetings ran smoothly, and provided critical support in managing the manuscript. Constance Citro, former director of CNSTAT and now its senior scholar, leant to this project her vast knowledge about federal agencies and the data they maintain. Natalie Nielsen, former acting director of BOTA, was instrumental in making this project a reality, guiding it from its initial inception to this final report. Kirsten Sampson-Snyder and Yvonne Wise masterfully shepherded the report through the review and production process, and Eugenia Grohman provided her always-sage editorial advice. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Alice Merner Agogino, Mechanical Engineering and Development Engineering Graduate Group, University of California, Berkeley; Dianne Chong, Assembly, Factory & Support Technology (retired), Boeing Research and Technology; Jamel K. Donnor, Holmes Scholars Program and Interdisciplinary Educational Studies Minor, College of William and Mary; Edward H. Haertel, School of Education, Stanford University; Kristen Harper, Policy Development, Child Trends; John Hattie, Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia; Brian W. Junker, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University; Jennifer O'Day, Institute Fellow, American Institutes for Research; Ricki Price-Baugh, Director of Academic Achievement, Council of the Great City Schools; and Deborah J. Stipek, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lauress L. Wise, Education Policy Impact Center, HumRRO (retired), and Deb A. Niemeier, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis. They responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. FM-x

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs I have been a member of many committees of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and chaired a handful. I have been privileged again to work with Judith Koenig, our study director, whose talent and contributions exceed all superlatives that come to mind. As for my fellow panel members, I have never worked with a more capable and inspiring set of colleagues. They gave generously of their time and worked tirelessly to ensure that the final product accurately represents our consensus findings, conclusions, and recommendations. These efforts manifested the panel members’ deep dedication to improving equity across the country. Our work has been the most difficult and humbling I have encountered at the National Academies. And no subject has been as important. Christopher Edley, Jr., Chair Committee on Developing Indicators of Educational Equity FM-xi

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs Contents Summary 1 Why Indicators of Educational Equity Are Needed Goals of This Report Committee’s Conception of Equity Guiding Conclusions Committee’s Conception of an Indicator System Committee’s Approach to Its Charge Organization of the Report 2 Committee’s Framework for Indicators of Educational Equity Expert Guidance Existing Initiatives Stakeholder Insights on Uses Considerations in Developing a Set of Key Equity Indicators Proposed Indicators 3 Contextual Influences on Educational Outcomes: Families and Neighborhoods Family Resources Neighborhood Resources Safety, Trauma, and Chronic Stress Conclusions 4 Indicators of Disparities in Student Outcomes Domain A: Kindergarten Readiness Domain B: K-12 Learning and Engagement Domain C: Educational Attainment Review of Existing Data Sources and Publications 5 Indicators of Disparities in Access to Opportunities Domain D: Extent of Racial, Ethnic, and Economic Segregation Domain E: Equitable Access to High-Quality Early Learning Programs Domain F: Equitable Access to High-Quality Curricula and Instruction Domain G: Equitable Access to Supportive School and Classroom Environments Review of Existing Data Sources and Publications 6 Paths Forward: Recommendations FM-xiii

Prepublication copy: Uncorrected proofs Readiness of Indicators for Operational Use Implementation Recommendations References and Bibliography Appendixes A Review of Existing Data Systems B Assessment of Relevant Publications C Data and Methodological Opportunities and Challenges for Developing K–12 Education Equity Indicators D Agendas for Open Sessions E Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff FM-xiv

Next: Summary »
Monitoring Educational Equity Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $74.00 Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Disparities in educational attainment among population groups have characterized the United States throughout its history. Education is sometimes characterized as the “great equalizer,” but to date, the country has not found ways to successfully address the adverse effects of socioeconomic circumstances, prejudice, and discrimination that suppress performance for some groups.

To ensure that the pursuit of equity encompasses both the goals to which the nation aspires for its children and the mechanisms to attain those goals, a revised set of equity indicators is needed. Measures of educational equity often fail to account for the impact of the circumstances in which students live on their academic engagement, academic progress, and educational attainment. Some of the contextual factors that bear on learning include food and housing insecurity, exposure to violence, unsafe neighborhoods, adverse childhood experiences, and exposure to environmental toxins. Consequently, it is difficult to identify when intervention is necessary and how it should function. A revised set of equity indicators should highlight disparities, provide a way to explore potential causes, and point toward possible improvements.

Monitoring Educational Equity proposes a system of indicators of educational equity and presents recommendations for implementation. This report also serves as a framework to help policy makers better understand and combat inequity in the United States’ education system. Disparities in educational opportunities reinforce, and often amplify, disparities in outcomes throughout people’s lives. Thus, it is critical to ensure that all students receive comprehensive supports that level the playing field in order to improve the well-being of underrepresented individuals and the nation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!