Use of environmental functions to communicate the values of a

Fall and Winter 2013 Volume 11, Number 2

Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 36

And The Equity Gaps Continue in ACT Scores: A Multiyear Statewide Analysis

Donzel Wayne Harvey, John R. Slate, George W. Moore,

Wally Barnes, and Cynthia Martinez-Garcia

Sam Houston State University

Abstract

In this investigation, we analyzed the past 10 years of Texas statewide data on student ACT test

performance to determine the extent to which the achievement gap in college readiness skills had

changed among Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students. Statistically significant differences

were revealed in the average ACT scores between all ethnic groups, with the exception of one

school year in which the ACT scores of Black and Hispanic students did not differ. Effect sizes

for the ACT score differences were extremely large (partial eta squares > .45) and remained

unchanged across this 10-year time period. Despite education reform efforts in Texas, no

reductions in the achievement gap in college readiness skills were evident.

Lezotte (2009) stated that the birth rates of students who have historically been the easiest to

teach is declining and the birth rates of those students who have historically been more difficult

to teach is on the increase. Each year approximately one-third of all graduating students from

secondary public schools are academically underprepared for the rigors of college level courses

(Bettinger & Long, 2005). Only 22% of the 1.2 million students who completed the American

College Test (ACT) scored high enough to be college ready in English, math, reading, and

science, according to an ACT 2004 report in which student test scores did not indicate

improvement over a 10-year period. Similarly, of the 1.4 million students who completed the

ACT in 2009, only 23% scored high enough to be college ready in all areas bringing the

unchanged test results to 15 years of less than one-quarter of graduating seniors being college

ready (ACT, 2009). McCabe (2000), in a national study, determined that 29% of all first-time

entering college students were not prepared to perform at the college level in one or more areas

of math, reading, or writing. For the past 20 years, however, students who were not properly

prepared for college-level courses applied to colleges and universities in increasing numbers,

making college readiness a continuing problem (Conley, 2007).

Researchers (e.g., Adelman, 1999, 2006; Noble & McNabb, 1989; Noble & Schnelker, 2007;

Trusty & Niles, 2003; Wyatt, Saunders, & Zelmer, 2005) have suggested a variety of causes for

the discrepancy between the number of students enrolling in college and the number of students

who are prepared for college. Other researchers (e.g., Rescorla & Rosenthal, 2004; Roberts &

Gott, 2006; Spelke, 2005) have documented relationships between student factors such as

ethnicity, income level, and prior accomplishments with achievement in college. Additionally,

the U.S. Department of Education (2000) statistics revealed that college readiness was one of

seven educational priorities.

The federal government’s role in public secondary education policy has been extensive and

established far-reaching procedural, administrative, and implementation provisions that state

governments and local school districts must meet. Researchers at the U. S. Department of


Education (2003) recognized that even though billions of federal, state, and local dollars are

spent on improving public education, the achievement gap is still conspicuously present and is

apparent in advanced placement course enrollment, dropout rates, grades, and standardized test

scores (Metz, 2010). Noted in a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures

(2010) was that the federal government is strong on mandating procedural and administrative

compliance but weak on successful involvement and incentives for improved student

performance. Therefore, racial inequality issues still exist throughout public education (Paige &

Witty, 2010). The disparity that exists in academic achievement among ethnic groups of public

school students is referred to as the achievement gap (Holcomb-McCoy, 2007).

Statement of the Problem

Each year approximately one-third of all graduating students from secondary public schools are

academically underprepared for the rigors of college level courses (Barnes, 2010; Bettinger &

Long, 2005). Researchers have documented that math and reading standardized test scores

remain relatively flat, and the achievement gap continues to be large between White students and

ethnically diverse students (e.g., Black students and Hispanic students) during the period

between 1984 and 2004 (Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto & Sum, 2007). Nationally, fewer Black high

school graduates go to college than White high school graduates among 18 to 24 year olds

(Education Week, 2011; Haycock, Jerald, & Huang, 2001; Marklein, 2006). Regardless of the

ACT score that Black students attain prior to entering college, certain factors are frequently

mentioned in the research literature as contributors to the achievement gap between Black and

White college students. Contributors to the achievement gap include but are not limited to: (a)

education level of parents, (b) the quality of public school education, (c) study habits, and (d)

peer influences (Bennett, 2002; McWhorter, 2000).

Theoretical Framework

Bourdieu’s cultural capital refers to non-financial social assets that could be educational or

intellectual, which might promote upward social mobility beyond economic means (Barker,

2004). Cultural capital is a sociological concept that has gained widespread popularity since it

was first articulated by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron. Bourdieu fashioned the

theory of cultural capital by stating that capital acts as a social relation within the populace and

the term encompasses all goods, material and symbolic (Harker, 1990). The concept of cultural

capital has received widespread attention from theorists and researchers alike and is mostly

employed in relation to the education system (Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002). One of the

main strengths of the theory is that it focuses on how structures and institutions play an

instrumental role in producing inequality (Webb et al., 2002). Although persons who are

deemed disadvantaged, oppressed, or a descendent from the lower socioeconomic status may

find it difficult to obtain cultural capital, opportunities do exist to make positive personal

changes that will develop the possibility for the acquisition of cultural capital (Flessa, 2007;

Jennings & Lynn, 2005; Raines, 2006; Webb et al., 2002).

Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this study was to examine the college-readiness rates of Black, Hispanic, White,

and Asian students of public secondary schools in Texas using archival data from the Texas

Education Agency (TEA) Academic Excellence Indicator System. Data examined were the

average ACT scores for the past 10 school years (i.e., 2001-2002 through 2010-2011) for Texas

high school students. An examination of the ACT scores across a multi-year period assisted in

analyzing the extent to which college-ready rates have increased or decreased, and to what extent

parity has been established in the achievement gap between Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian

high school students.

Significance of the Study

Barnes (2010), in an extensive and detailed study of college readiness skills for Texas high

school students, stated:

Additional research related to the college-readiness of high school graduates in

Texas should be conducted using aggregated and student-level data. Future

research is needed in the following areas: (a) replication of this study; (b) ongoing

assessment to analyze trends; (c) cross-sectional studies conducted across grade

levels; (d) P-12 or P-16 longitudinal studies; (e) investigation of other college

readiness indicator data; and (f) prediction of college success based on high

school GPA and standardized test scores. (p. 240)

In the present study, college, university, and public secondary school administrators are provided

with information regarding the extent to which the ACT test scores, predictors of college

readiness, have changed over the past 10 school years. With numerous education reform efforts

having been implemented in Texas, findings delineated in this study may serve to elucidate the

extent to which these reform efforts have been successful.

Research Questions

The following questions were addressed in this study: (a) What is the difference in ACT

averages as a function of ethnic membership (i.e. Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian)? and (b)

What is the trend, if any, in the gap in ACT averages as a function of ethnic membership (i.e.,

Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian)? The first research question was repeated for 10 years of

statewide data. Research question two included the results from all 10 years of data analyzed

herein.

Participants

Participants for this study were selected from the TEA Academic Excellence Indicator System

(AEIS) database where information relevant to college-ready graduation rates is stored. Archival

data collected from Texas high schools and school districts pertaining to college-ready

graduation rates for 10 school years (i.e., 2001-2002 through 2010-2011) were utilized.

Participant consideration was determined by precluding ethnic groups that typically represent

small sample sizes and those students who might otherwise be included in the college-ready

graduate rate participants. Students entered in AEIS ethnic categories of Native Americans or as


multi-racial, and students categorized in AEIS as Limited English Proficient and Economically

Disadvantaged were excluded from this study. Students who attend charter high schools and

alternative high schools were not included in this study. Participants were male and female

students in the four predominant AEIS ethnic categories (i.e., Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian)

in Texas. Based on the parameters for college-readiness as determined by the TEA, all

participants for this study were enrolled in either the 11th or the 12th grade. With the exclusions

above, the four predominant ethnic groups in Texas schools with the same assessment and

accountability measures for college-ready graduation rates were compared.

Results

2001-2002 School Year

To ascertain the extent to which differences were present in the ACT averages of students by

ethnicity for the 2001-2002 school year, a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure

was calculated, after checking to determine the extent to which its underlying assumptions were

met. The majority of the measures of normality (i.e., skewness and kurtosis) were reflective of

normally distributed data, however, the Levene’s test of equality of error variances was violated.

Nevertheless, Field (2009), among other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be

used because of its robustness. A statistically significant difference was yielded, F(3, 1952) =

589.75, p < .001, η2 = .48, in ACT scores as a function of student ethnicity. The effect size for

this statistically significant difference was extremely large (Cohen, 1998). Scheffé post hoc

procedures revealed that statistically significant differences were present between each pair of

ethnic groups. As revealed in Table 1, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being 0.97,

3.54, and 4.79 points higher than the ACT averages of White, Hispanic, and Black students,

respectively. Similarly, White students had ACT averages that were 2.57 and 3.83 points higher

than the ACT averages of Hispanic and Black students. Black students had the lowest ACT

averages, being 1.25 points lower than the ACT average of Hispanic students. This stair step of

ACT performance by ethnic group is illustrated in Figure 1.


To determine the extent to which differences were present in the ACT averages of students by

ethnicity for the 2002-2003 school year, an ANOVA procedure was calculated, after checking to

determine the extent to which its underlying assumptions were met. The majority of the

measures of normality (i.e., skewness and kurtosis) were reflective of normally distributed data,

however, the Levene’s test of equality of error variances was again violated. Nevertheless, Field

(2009), among other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be used because of its

robustness. A statistically significant difference was yielded, F(3, 1943) = 611.23, p < .001, η2 =

.49, in ACT scores as a function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this statistically

significant difference was extremely large (Cohen, 1998). Scheffé post hoc procedures revealed

that statistically significant differences were present between each pair of ethnic groups. As

delineated in Table 1, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being 0.92, 3.54, and 4.73

points higher than the ACT averages of White, Hispanic, and Black students, respectively.

Similarly, White students had ACT averages that were 2.63 and 3.80 points higher than the ACT

averages of Hispanic and Black students. Black students had the lowest ACT averages, being


1.18 points lower than the ACT average of Hispanic students.


For the 2003-2004 school year, the assumptions underlying use of a parametric ANOVA were

checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions not being met, Field (2009), among

other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be used because of its robustness. A

statistically significant difference was yielded, F(3, 1987) = 578.09, p < .001, η2 = .47, as a

function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this statistically significant difference was

extremely large (Cohen, 1998). Scheffé post hoc procedures revealed that statistically significant

differences were present between each pair of ethnic groups. As revealed in Table 1, Asian

students had the highest ACT averages, being 1.24, 3.72, and 5.11 points higher than the ACT

averages of White, Hispanic, and Black students, respectively. Similarly, White students had

ACT averages that were 2.48 and 3.87 points higher than the ACT averages of Hispanic and

Black students. Black students had the lowest ACT averages, being 1.39 points lower than the

ACT average of Hispanic students.


Regarding the 2004-2005 school year, the assumptions underlying use of a parametric ANOVA

were checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions not being met, Field (2009),

among other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be used because of its

robustness. A statistically significant difference was yielded, F(3, 1641) = 654.59, p < .001, η2 =

.54, in ACT scores as a function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this statistically


that statistically significant differences were present between each pair of ethnic groups, with the

exception of Black and Hispanic students. A difference of only 0.33 points was present between

the ACT score averages of Black and Hispanic students. As indicated in Table 1, Asian students

had the highest ACT averages, being 1.17, 4.77, and 5.10 points higher than the ACT averages of

White, Hispanic, and Black students, respectively. Similarly, White students had ACT averages

that were 3.60 and 3.93 points higher than the ACT averages of Hispanic and Black students.



again checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions again not being met, Field


robustness. A statistically significant difference was revealed, F(3, 1967) = 568.07, p < .001, η2

= .46, in ACT scores as a function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this statistically


that statistically significant differences were present between each pair of ethnic groups. As

delineated in Table 2, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being 1.04, 3.82, and 5.03

points higher than the ACT averages of White, Hispanic, and Black students, respectively.

Similarly, White students had ACT averages that were 2.78 and 3.99 points higher than the ACT

averages of Hispanic and Black students. Black students had the lowest ACT averages, being

1.21 points lower than the ACT average of Hispanic students.



With respect to the 2006-2007 school year, the assumptions underlying use of a parametric

ANOVA were again checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions again not

being met, Field (2009), among other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be

used because of its robustness. A statistically significant difference was present, F(3, 1981) =




ethnic groups. As revealed in Table 2, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being 1.88,

4.64, and 6.00 points higher than the ACT averages of White, Hispanic, and Black students,

respectively. Similarly, White students had ACT averages that were 2.76 and 4.12 points higher

than the ACT averages of Hispanic and Black students. Black students had the lowest ACT

averages, being 1.36 points lower than the ACT average of Hispanic students.


Concerning the 2007-2008 school year, the assumptions underlying use of a parametric ANOVA

were again checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions again not being met,

Field (2009), among other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be used because

of its robustness. A statistically significant difference was revealed, F(3, 2015) = 601.91, p <

.001, η2 = .47, in ACT scores as a function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this

statistically significant difference was extremely large (Cohen, 1998). Scheffé post hoc


ethnic groups. As presented in Table 2, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being

1.93, 4.62, and 6.10 points higher than the ACT averages of White, Hispanic, and Black

students, respectively. Similarly, White students had ACT averages that were 2.69 and 4.17

points higher than the ACT averages of Hispanic and Black students. Black students had the

lowest ACT averages, being 1.48 points lower than the ACT average of Hispanic students.



again checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions again not being met, Field


robustness. A statistically significant difference was again yielded, F(3, 2043) = 629.60, p <

.001, η2 = .48, in ACT scores as a function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this

statistically significant difference was again extremely large (Cohen, 1998). Scheffé post hoc


ethnic groups. As presented in Table 2, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being







With respect to the 2009-2010 school year, the assumptions underlying use of a parametric

ANOVA were again checked. Despite the majority of the underlying assumptions again not

being met, Field (2009), among other statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be

used because of its robustness. A statistically significant difference was present, F(3, 2252) =




ethnic groups. As delineated in Table 3, Asian students had the highest ACT averages, being






To ascertain the extent to which differences were present in the ACT averages of students by

ethnicity for the 2010-2011 school year, an ANOVA procedure was calculated, after checking to

determine the extent to which its underlying assumptions were met. The majority of the

measures of normality were reflective of normally distributed data, however, the Levene’s test of

equality of error variances was again violated. Nevertheless, Field (2009), among other

statisticians, contends that a parametric ANOVA can be used because of its robustness. A

statistically significant difference was yielded, F(3, 2381) = 643.86, p < .001, η2 = .45, as a

function of student ethnicity. The effect size for this statistically significant difference was

extremely large (Cohen, 1998). Scheffé post hoc procedures revealed that statistically significant

differences were present between each pair of ethnic groups. As revealed in Table 3, Asian

students had the highest ACT averages, being 2.04, 4.90, and 6.26 points higher than the ACT

averages of White, Hispanic, and Black students, respectively. Similarly, White students had

ACT averages that were 2.85 and 4.22 points higher than the ACT averages of Hispanic and

Black students. Black students had the lowest ACT averages, being 1.36 points lower than the

ACT average of Hispanic students. This stair step of ACT performance is illustrated in Figure 2.

Discussion

In this investigation, college-readiness rates of all students in Texas high schools and the

disparity in academic achievement among Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students were

examined over a 10-year period. In each of the 10 school years (i.e., 2001-2002 through 2010-

2011) of data analyzed, a clear stair step of achievement by student ethnicity was present. The

average ACT scores were always highest for Asian students, followed by White students, then

Hispanic students, and then Black students. The effect sizes for these statistically significant

differences were extremely large, as revealed in Table 4.

Unfortunately, in our opinion, strong trends in academic achievement gaps for the ACT for the

10 years (i.e., 2001-2002 through 2010-2011) were determined. For all of the school years of

data analyzed, academic achievement gaps remained relatively constant between each ethnic


pairwise comparison. The trend for Black students’ ACT academic achievement gap revealed

the smallest difference in the average scores between Black and Hispanic students of 1.31 points

and the greatest difference of 5.48 points between Black and Asian students. Trends in the

academic achievement gap on the ACT for Hispanic students disclosed the smallest difference in

the average between Black and Hispanic students of 1.31 points and the greatest difference of

4.27 points between Hispanic and Asian students. For White students, the trends in academic

achievement gaps on the ACT revealed the smallest difference in the average between Asian

students and White students of 1.48 points with the greatest difference being 4.11 points between

the ACT average scores of Black and White students.

Provided through this study was a 10 school year statistical analysis representing the

performance of four ethnic groups of students on college readiness benchmarks for the ACT.

College readiness benchmarks are the minimum standardized test scores necessary for students

to be successful in first-year credit-bearing courses, at postsecondary institutions. In 2011, 1.62

million high school students, the largest and most ethnically diverse group in ACT’s 52-year

history, completed the exam; however, only one in four graduates met the four college-readiness

benchmarks (ACT, 2011). The consequences for students who do not meet the college readiness

benchmarks are multiple. First and foremost, students who do not meet the college readiness

benchmarks are not eligible to participate in first-year credit-bearing courses, at postsecondary

institutions, and additional placement tests (i.e., mathematics, reading, and writing) are required

to avoid taking remedial courses. If students do not obtain the necessary score on the

aforementioned placement tests, developmental coursework is required. Students who are placed

in remedial courses incur additional costs and have more years to degree attainment (Barnes &

Slate, 2011).

Student success can be based on the predictive validity of a given indicator, allowing for a good

match between the student and the educational mission of the institution. The ACT was

designed to serve two purposes: to help high school students develop postsecondary educational

plans and to assist postsecondary educational institutions to meet the needs of their students

(ACT, 2007b). In a national survey, Kirsch et al. (2007) reported that a high percentage of high

school graduates did not demonstrate the necessary skill level for reading and mathematical

ability to be successful in postsecondary education. To meet college admission standards in

Texas, students are required to attain a composite score of 23 on the ACT. Revealed in this

investigation was that the average ACT score of Black students in Texas was 5.5 to 6 points

below the college admission standard, ranging from ACT scores of 17.0 in 2007 to 17.5 in 2011.

Similarly, the average ACT scores of Hispanic students increased slightly from 18.1 in 2007 to

18.5 in 2011; however, these scores were still 4.5 points below the Texas college admission

standard of 23 points. Furthermore, the average ACT scores for White and Asian students

increased only slightly from 2007 to 2011. White students’ ACT average scores ranged from

22.2 in 2007 to 23.2 in 2011. Similarly, Asian students’ ACT average scores improved

moderately from 23.2 in 2007 to 24.8 in 2011.

In this study, statistical power was present because data were collected for all Texas public high

schools. Researchers (e.g., Moore, Slate, Edmonson, Combs, Bustamante, & Onwuegbuzie,

2009; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009) validated the findings of this study, reporting that

lower socioeconomic, ethnically-diverse students who exhibit persistently low college-readiness


rates would need extensive involvement by mentors if students were to be successful at the

postsecondary level. Based on the data from the most recent NAEP student performance report,

the low academic performance rates of students enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade

indicated that improvement is needed at all grade levels but moreso in the later grades (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2010). The findings of this study were congruent with the results

of other researchers (e.g., Amrein-Beardsley, 2009; Nichols & Berliner, 2008; Ravitch, 2010).

Also, revealed in this investigation was that only small incremental improvements in academic

achievement had occurred among Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students even though three

decades have passed since the reform suggested by the authors of A Nation at Risk and10 years

of rigorous academic accountability mandated by the NCLB Act (2002).

Barnes, Slate, and Rojas-LeBouef (2010) stated that “within the last several decades,

academically rigorous curriculum and stringent accountability measures have been mandated by

state and federal legislation in hopes of increasing the likelihood of students graduating from

high school college-ready” (p. 1). However, the aforementioned strategies have had minimal

effect on college readiness. In public 2-year colleges, remediation courses were necessary for

51% of entering students (NCES, 2010), at a cost of $1.4 billion a year. In consideration of the

cost per year spent on remediation, McKinsey and Company (2009) determined the academic

achievement gap has imposed “the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession” (p.

6).

Connection to Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework by which the research questions were examined was derived from

Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of cultural capital. Bourdieu’s (1986) cultural capital refers to non-

financial social assets that could be educational or intellectual, which might promote upward

social mobility beyond economic means (Barker, 2004). Education is seen as a viable deterrent

against poverty and social inequality and the most viable solution to escape poverty and

dependence on social services (Allen & Hood, 2000; Lareau, 2001). An achievement gap among

public high school students that exists is primarily associated with socioeconomic status.

Poverty (De Civita, Pagani, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 2004), ethnic diversity, primarily Black and

Hispanic populations (Bali & Alvarez, 2004), and low levels of parental educational attainment

(Hakkinen, Kirjavainen, & Uusitalo, 2003) are determinants of lower academic achievement.

Students who come from low socioeconomic households may find it difficult to obtain cultural

capital; however, opportunities exist for positive personal changes that will enable the

acquisition of cultural capital (Flessa, 2007; Jennings & Lynn, 2005; Raines, 2006; Webb et al.,

2002).

Approximately 18-20% of U.S. public school students are living in poverty, and in some areas,

the poverty rate is as high as 34% (Louis, 2003). If poverty level students who scored below

average on the NAEP could have improved their scores to the national average over the past 15

years, the gross domestic product would be several hundred billion dollars higher (McKinsey &

Company, 2009) thereby enriching their cultural, economic and social capital. The theory of

cultural capital, as applied by Bourdieu (1986), was used to provide a theoretical structure to

explain the positive attributes to improving the ACT averages for Black, Hispanic, White, and

Asian students. The statistical procedures of this study revealed that the college-readiness rates


of White and Asian students were significantly higher than the college-readiness rates of

Hispanic students, and Hispanic students’ college readiness scores were statistically higher than

Black students’ college-readiness scores based on one Texas college readiness indicator (i.e.,

ACT).

Implications for Policy

The level of preparation required for students to enroll in and succeed at post-secondary

institutions should be an expectation for all high school graduates (ACT, 2007b; Conley, 2007).

Many studies, reports, and legislative acts have been conducted, presented, and enacted based on

multiple data sets regarding student academic achievement and the academic achievement gap

pertaining to public school students. A comparison of ACT tests that measure college readiness

with those tests that measure workforce readiness yielded similar content and expectations on

both types of tests (ACT, 2006). With respect to the knowledge and skills in English and

mathematics expected by employers and postsecondary faculty, being ready for college or being

ready for a career requires similar knowledge and skills in math and English (Byrd & McDonald,

2005; TEA, 2009a).

With the judicial and legislative policy decisions over the last 30 years, America’s educational

systems should have made definitive strides to be inclusive and equitable in access and quality

for all students. Although progress has been made, that progress is minute when considering the

achievement gap that still exists between the middle- and upper-class students attending

predominantly suburban schools, and the poor and poverty-stricken students attending urban and

rural schools (Gray, 2005; Lutz, 2005; Orfield & Lee, 2007; Reber, 2005; Williams, 2005).

Although policy makers on the national, state, and local levels have been working tenaciously to

improve schools and create equality, excellence, and equity for all students, their efforts may be

misguided (Anyon, 1995, 1997, 2005; Gray, 2005; Rothstein, 2004b). According to Anyon

(1995), “the structural basis for failure in inner-city schools is political, economic, and cultural,

and must be changed before meaningful school improvement can be successfully implemented.

Educational reforms cannot compensate for the ravages of society” (p. 88). Also, Berliner

(2006) stated:

schooling alone may be too weak an intervention for improving the lives of most children

living in poverty now….more politicians need to turn their attention to the outside-of-

school problems that affect the inside-of-school academic performance. (pp. 955, 977)

Findings of this study and other relevant research appear to refute the assertions of excellence

and equity based on high-stakes testing and stringent accountability measures purported by the

NCLB Act (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Barnes & Slate, 2011; Berliner, 1993, 2006; Braun,

Wang, Jenkins, & Weinbaum, 2006; Gray, 2005; Greene & Winters, 2005; Lutz, 2005; Orfield,

2000; Orfield & Lee, 2007; Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004; Reber, 2005; Williams,

2005). However, the NCLB Act (2002) does not stand alone in its inaccurate assertions. In

every decade since the late 1940s, national and state executive, judicial, and legislative mandates

and guidelines have been enacted and implemented to improve student academic achievement

and narrow the academic achievement gap with little success in creating solutions for the two

ever-present issues (Civil Rights Act, 1964; ESEA, 1965; GOALS 2000,; IASA, 1994; National


Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; NCLB, 2002; NDEA, 1958; Zook, 1947-1948).

Low graduation rates, low college- and career-readiness rates, high dropout rates, and the wide

student academic achievement gap still persist regardless of assessment forms, accountability

measures, funding appropriations, academic resources, and teacher qualifications mandated by

policy makers, which indicates that alternative solutions to the aforementioned problems must be

developed and implemented.

Rather than recreating and reenacting similar policies at the national level and creating false hope

for academic improvement, state, and possibly district level, policy makers should create

education task forces that are charged with thinking creatively and critically to implement new

avenues for increased academic achievement for all students. Some states and school districts

have begun to form education task forces in efforts to increase student learning and academic

achievement. Also, state policy makers and school district leaders should be able to make more

informed decisions about the needs of students.

Conclusion

Documented in this research were statistically significant differences and trends in the ACT

averages for Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students over 10 school years (i.e., 2001-2001

through 2010-2011). The results of this study expand the current body of knowledge regarding

achievement gaps between and among members of the aforementioned ethnic groups.

Outcomes of this statewide, multiyear investigation established that scores on the ACT have

improved minimally, at best, over the 10 years of data analyzed herein. Furthermore, efforts by

local, state, and federal education entities to narrow the academic achievement gaps among

Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students have not been successful. Findings of this study

were commensurate with other research investigations on college-readiness and the gaps in

academic achievement among Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students (Amrein & Berliner,

2002; Berliner, 2006; Braun et al., 2006; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Haney, 2000, 2001;

Lee & Kim, 2010). Though school reform efforts have been underway for decades, results for

students in Texas schools do not provide evidence of their effectiveness.


References

ACT. (2004). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa City, IA:

Author.

ACT. (2006). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different? Iowa City, IA.: Author.

ACT. (2007). ACT college readiness standards 2007. Explaining what college readiness scores

mean. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT. (2009). 2009 national and state scores. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT. (2011). ACT profile report—national: Graduating class 2011. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and

bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through

college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Allen, E., & Hood, L. (2000). Biotechnology, inquiry, and public education. Trends in

Biotechnology, 18, 329-330.

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). The unintended pernicious consequences of staying the course on

the United States No Child left Behind policy. International Journal of Education Policy and

Leadership, 4(6). Retrieved from http://www.ijepl.org

Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class, and educational reform in an inner city school. Teachers

College Record, 97, 69–94.

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling. A political economy of urban school reform. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.

Anyon, J. (2005). What ‘‘counts’’ as educational policy? Notes toward a new paradigm. Harvard

Educational Review, 75(1), 65–88.

Arenson, K. (2004, October 14). Study of college readiness finds no progress in decade. New

York Times. Retrieved from / http://www.nytimes.com 2004/10/14/education/14act.html

Bali, V. A., & Alvarez, R. M. (2004). The race gap in student achievement scores: Longitudinal

evidence from a racially diverse school district. Policy Studies Journal, 32, 393-415.

Barker, C. (2004). The Sage dictionary of cultural studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Barnes, W. (2010). College-readiness rates of Black, Hispanic, and White high school graduates

in Texas (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/pqdtft/docview/851547276/fulltextPDF/136933510DC5D63A7F6/1?

accountid=7065

Barnes, W., & Slate, J. R. (2011). College-readiness rates in Texas: A statewide, multiyear study

of ethnic differences. Education and Urban Society, 44(6). doi:10.1177/0013124511423775

Barnes, W., Slate, J. R., & Rojas-LeBouef, A. (2010). College-readiness and academic

preparedness: The same concepts? Current Issues in Education, 13(4). Retrieved from

http://cie.asu.edu./ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/678/56

Bennett, C. (2002). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (5th ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Berliner, D. C. (1993). Mythology and the American system of education. Phi Delta Kappan,

74(8), 632, 634-640.

Berliner, D. C. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College

Record, 108, 949-995.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2005, May). Addressing the needs of under-prepared students in

higher education: Does college remediation work? NBER Working Paper Series, Vol. w11325.

Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=720411

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and

research in the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

doi:10.1002/9780470755679

Bowman, B., (1994). Cultural diversity and academic achievement. North Central Regional

Laboratory. Medford, MA: Tufts University.

Braun, H. I., Wang, A., Jenkins, F., & Weinbaum, E. (2006). The Black-White achievement gap:

Do state policies matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(8). Retrieved from

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n8/

Byrd, K. L., & McDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First-

generation student perspectives. Community College Review, 33(1), 22-37.

Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1996). School quality and the return to education. In G. Burtless (Ed.),

Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success

(pp. 118-119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. doi:10.1086/261805

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241. (1964).


Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conley, D. (2007, March). Redefining college readiness. Educational Policy Improvement

Center, University of Oregon. Retrieved from

http://www.epiconline.org/files/pdf/RedefiningCollegeReadiness.pdf

Cremin, L. (1990). Public education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

De Civita, M., Pagani, L., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. (2004). The role of maternal educational

aspirations in mediating the risk of income source on academic failure in children from

persistently poor families. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 749-769.

Education Week. (2011, July). Achievement gap. Bethesda, MD: Author.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89-10, 108 Stat. 3519. (1965).

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Flessa, J. J. (2007). Poverty and education: Towards effective action: A review of the literature.

Retrieved from http://cus.oise.utoronto.ca/UserFiles/File/

Poverty%20lit%20review%20(J_%20Flessa%20-%2010_2007).pdf

GOALS 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125-191, 200-211,

265-280 (1994).

Gray, L. H. (2005). The Charles H. Thompson Lecture-colloquium presentation: No Child Left

Behind: Opportunities and threats. Journal of Negro Education, 74(2), 95-111.

Greenberg, M. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: The researcher

perspective, Prevention Science, 5(1), 5-13. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013976.84939.55

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2005). Public high school graduation and college- readiness

rates: 1991-2002. (Education Working Paper No. 8). Center for Civic Innovation at the

Manhattan Institute.

Hakkinen, F., Kirjavainen, T., & Uusitalo, R. (2003). School resources and student achievement

revisited: New evidence from panel data. Economics of Education Review, 22, 329-335.

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2011). Differentiated instruction and implications for

UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.

Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/

backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl?CampaignID=2687


Harker, R. (1990). Education and cultural capital. In R. Harker, C. Mahar, & C. Wilkes (Eds.),

An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory (pp. 218-233). London,

England: Macmillan Press.

Haycock, K., Jerald, C., & Huang, S. (2001). Closing the gap: Done in a decade. Thinking K-16,

5, 3-22.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2007). School counseling to close the achievement gap: A social

justice framework for success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518 (1994).

Jennings, M. E., & Lynn, M. (2005). The house that race built: Critical pedagogy, African-

American education, and the re-conceptualization of critical race pedagogy. Educational

Foundations, 19(3/4), 15-32.

Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces

changing our nation's future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Lareau, A. (2001). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of

cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73-85.

Lezotte, L. (2009, June). Effective schools: Past, present, and future. Retrieved from

http://www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/brockpaper.pdf

Louis, K. S. (2003). School leaders facing real change: Shifting geography, uncertain

paths. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 371-384. doi:10.1080/0305764032000122087

Lutz, B. F. (2005). Post Brown vs. the Board of Education: The effects of the end of court-

ordered desegregation. FEDS Working No. 2005-64. Retrieved from

http://ssrn.com/abstract=874753

Marklein, M. (2006, October 30). Minority enrollment in college still lagging. USA Today.

McCabe, R. (2000). No one to waste: A report to public decision-makers and community college

leaders. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

McKinsey & Company. (2009, April). The economic impact of the achievement gap in

America’s schools. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/images/

page_images/offices/socialsector/pdf/achievement_gap_report.pdf

McWhorter, J. (2000). Losing the race: Self-sabotage in Black America. New York, NY: The

Free Press.

Metz, S. (2010). Closing the academic achievement gap. The Science Teacher, 77(3), 6.


Mizell, H. (2003, April). NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity? Paper presented at the

spring conference of the Maryland Council of Staff Developers, at the Howard County Schools

Faulkner Ridge Staff Development Center in Columbia, MD.

Moore, G. W., Slate, J. R., Edmonson, S., Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R. M., & Onwuegbuzie, A.

J. (2010). High school students and their lack of preparedness for college: A statewide study.

Education and Urban Society, 42, 817-838. doi:10.1177/0013124510379619

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 reading and

mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results. Washington, DC: Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at-risk: The imperative for

educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2010). Common academic standards. Washington,

DC: Author.

National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-864, 72 Stat. 1581 (1958).

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Why has high-stakes testing so easily slipped into

contemporary life? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 672-676.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107–110, Stat. 1425.

Noble, J., & McNabb, T. (1989). Differential course work and grades in high school:

Implications for performance on the ACT Assessment. (ACT Research Report No. 89-5). Iowa

City, IA: ACT.

Noble, J., & Schnelker, D. (2007). Using hierarchical modeling to examine course work and

ACT score relationships across high schools. (ACT Research Report Series 2007-2). Iowa City,

IA: ACT. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research /reports/pdf/ACT_RR2007-2.pdf

Orfield, G. (2000). Our resegregated schools. Principal, 79(5), 6-11.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the need for

new integration strategies (A Report of the Civil Rights Project). Retrieved from

http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/aug-2007-desegregation-report.pdf

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth

are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at

Harvard University.

Paige, R., & Witty, E. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap: Why closing it is the

greatest civil rights issue of our time. The Education Digest, 75(8), 69-70.


Raines, J. (2006). College and social class: The broken promise of America. Crosscurrents,

56(1), 46-57.

Ratner, G. (1985). A new legal duty for urban public schools: Effective education in basic skills.

Texas Law Review, 63, 777-864.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and

choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Reber, R. J. (2005). Court-ordered desegregation: Successes and failures integrating American

schools since Brown versus Board of Education. Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 559-590.

Rescorla, L., & Rosenthal, A. (2004). Growth in standardized ability and achievement test scores

from 3rd to 10th grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 85-96.

Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2006). Assessment of performance in practical science and pupil

attributes. Assessment in Education, 13(1), 45-67.

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness: The challenge for urban high

schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185-210. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0024

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to

close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Spelke, E. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? American

Psychologist, 60, 950-958.

Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the

field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas college and career readiness standards: Standards for

ensuring student success from kindergarten to college and career. Austin, TX: Education Policy

Improvement Center. Retrieved from

http://www.neisd.net/curriculum/SchImprov/ela/documents/ela_ccrs_out.pdf

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classroom (2nd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Trusty, J., & Niles, S. G. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the bachelor’s

degree. Professional School Counseling, 7, 99-107.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Corporate involvement in education: Achieving our

national education priorities. The seven priorities of the U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC: Author.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6yin6ky6VvMC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=state+budgets+nclb&source=bl&ots=d1lDRUY6RR&sig=INQGt3O9X79o51GmslFU6prqKCE&hl=en&ei=MEzASZrsBImeM6TooLIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA9,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=6yin6ky6VvMC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=state+budgets+nclb&source=bl&ots=d1lDRUY6RR&sig=INQGt3O9X79o51GmslFU6prqKCE&hl=en&ei=MEzASZrsBImeM6TooLIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA9,M1


U.S. Department of Education. (2003). The condition of education 2003. National Center for

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Author.

Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London, England: Sage.

Williams, J. (2005). The ruling that changed America. In D. N. Byrne (Ed.), Brown v. Board of

Education: The impact on public education, 1954-2004. Brooklyn, NY: Word for Word

Publishing.

Wyatt, G., Saunders, D., & Zelmer, D. (2005). Academic preparation, effort and success: A

comparison of student and faculty perceptions. Education Research Quarterly, 29(2), 29-36.

Zook, G. F. (Ed.). (1947-1948). Higher education for American democracy (Vols. 1-6).

President’s Commission on Higher Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the ACT Score Averages by Ethnicity for the 2001-2002 Through the

2004-2005 School Years

Ethnic Group by School Year n of schools M SD

2001-2002

Black 348 17.21 1.76

Hispanic 542 18.46 1.86

White 943 21.03 1.52

Asian 123 22.00 2.53

2002-2003

Black 350 17.13 1.66

Hispanic 546 18.31 1.86

White 934 20.94 1.53

Asian 117 21.86 2.28

2003-2004

Black 366 16.96 1.72

Hispanic 566 18.35 1.96

White 940 20.84 1.63

Asian 119 22.07 2.33

2004-2005

Black 366 17.13 1.77

Hispanic 252 17.46 1.84

White 915 21.06 1.62

Asian 112 22.23 2.53


Table 2




2005-2006

Black 363 17.12 1.84

Hispanic 577 18.33 2.06

White 914 21.11 1.64

Asian 117 22.15 2.62

2006-2007

Black 364 17.10 1.90

Hispanic 599 18.46 2.10

White 900 21.22 1.61

Asian 122 23.10 2.53

2007-2008

Black 368 17.01 1.82

Hispanic 619 18.49 2.22

White 909 21.18 1.73

Asian 123 23.11 2.57

2008-2009

Black 402 17.41 1.84

Hispanic 640 18.65 2.18

White 858 21.39 1.69

Asian 147 23.39 2.55


Table 3




2009-2010

Black 430 17.42 1.97

Hispanic 718 18.74 2.16

White 941 21.56 1.89

Asian 167 23.17 2.63

2010-2011

Black 458 17.45 2.15

Hispanic 787 18.81 2.32

White 960 21.67 1.94

Asian 180 23.71 2.77


Table 4

Effect Sizes for the ACT Differences by Ethnicity for the 2001-2002 Through the 2010-2011

School Years

School Year Statistically Significant

Difference

Partial eta

squared

Effect Size Range

2001-2002 Yes .48 Extremely Large











Figure 1. ACT averages for Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students in the 2001-2002 school

year.


Figure 2. ACT averages for Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian students in the 2010-2011 school

year.

Use of environmental functions to communicate the values of a

Documents

Transcript of Use of environmental functions to communicate the values of a