# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oecd.org/stories/education-equity/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Equity: Tackling the Term “At Risk”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given the opportunity, any student will rise to the level of expectations. Providing students with many opportunities to do so is the key.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Gender Disparities Affect Classroom Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools have the responsibility to model, teach, and create conditions in which each child’s gender diversity is accepted and nourished.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gender roles are the patterns of behaviors, attitudes, and expectations associated with a particular sex-with being either male or female. For clarity, psychologists sometimes distinguish gender differences, which are related to social roles, from sex differences, which are related only to physiology and anatomy. Using this terminology, gender matters in teaching more than sex (in spite of any jokes told about the latter!).

Although there are many exceptions, boys and girls do differ on average in ways that parallel conventional gender stereotypes and that affect how the sexes behave at school and in class. The differences have to do with physical behaviors, styles of social interaction, academic motivations, behaviors, and choices. They have a variety of sources-primarily parents, peers, and the media. Teachers are certainly not the primary cause of gender role differences, but sometimes teachers influence them by their responses to and choices made on behalf of students.

Physical differences in gender roles

Physically, boys tend to be more active than girls, and by the same token more restless if they have to sit for long periods. They are also more prone than girls to rely on physical aggression if they are frustrated (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). Both tendencies are inconsistent with the usual demands of classroom life, of course, and make it a little more likely that school will be a difficult experience for boys, even for boys who never actually get in trouble for being restless or aggressive.

During the first two or three years of elementary school, gross motor skills develop at almost the same average rate for boys and girls. As a group, both sexes can run, jump, throw a ball, and the like with about equal ease, though there are of course wide significant differences among individuals of both sexes. Toward the end of elementary school, however, boys pull ahead of girls at these skills even though neither sex has begun yet to experience puberty. The most likely reason is that boys participate more actively in formal and informal sports because of expectations and support from parents, peers, and society (Braddock, Sokol-Katz, Greene, & Basinger-Fleischman, 2005; Messner, Duncan, & Cooky, 2003). Puberty eventually adds to this advantage by making boys taller and stronger than girls, on average, and therefore more suited at least for sports that rely on height and strength.

In thinking about these differences, keep in mind that they refer to average trends and that there are numerous individual exceptions. Every teacher knows of individual boys who are not athletic, for example, or of particular girls who are especially restless in class. The individual differences mean, among other things, that it is hard to justify providing different levels of support or resources to boys than to girls for sports, athletics, or physical education. The differences also suggest, though, that individual students who contradict gender stereotypes about physical abilities may benefit from emotional support or affirmation from teachers, simply because they may be less likely than usual to get such affirmation from elsewhere.

Social differences in gender roles

When relaxing socially, boys more often gravitate to large groups. Whether on the playground, in a school hallway, or on the street, boys' social groups tend literally to fill up a lot of space, and often include significant amounts of roughhousing as well as organized and "semi-organized" competitive games or sports (Maccoby, 2002). Girls, for their part, are more likely to seek and maintain one or two close friends and to share more intimate information and feelings with these individuals. To the extent that these gender differences occur, they can make girls less visible or noticeable than boys, at least in leisure play situations where children or youth choose their companions freely. As with physical differences, however, keep in mind that differences in social interactions do not occur uniformly for all boys and girls. There are boys with close friends, contradicting the general trend, and girls who play primarily in large groups.

Differences in social interaction styles happen in the classroom as well. Boys, on average, are more likely to speak up during a class discussion-sometimes even if not called on, or even if they do not know as much about the topic as others in the class (Sadker, 2002). When working on a project in a small co-ed group, furthermore they have a tendency to ignore girls' comments and contributions to the group. In this respect co-ed student groups parallel interaction patterns in many parts of society, where men also have a tendency to ignore women's comments and contributions (Tannen, 2001).

Academic and cognitive differences in gender

On average, girls are more motivated than boys to perform well in school, at least during elementary school. By the time girls reach high school, however, some may try to down play their own academic ability in order make themselves more likeable by both sexes (Davies, 2005). Even if this occurs, though, it does not affect their grades: from kindergarten through twelfth grade, girls earn slightly higher average grades than boys (Freeman, 2004). This fact does not lead to similar achievement, however, because as youngsters move into high school, they tend to choose courses or subjects conventionally associated with their gender-math and science for boys, in particular, and literature and the arts for girls. By the end of high school, this difference in course selection makes a measurable difference in boys' and girls' academic performance in these subjects.

But again, consider my caution about stereotyping: there are individuals of both sexes whose behaviors and choices run counter to the group trends. (I have made this point as well in "Preparing for Licensure: Interpreting Gender-Related Behavior" by deliberately concealing the gender of a student described.) Differences within each gender group generally are far larger than any differences between the groups. A good example is the "difference" in cognitive ability of boys and girls. Many studies have found none at all. A few others have found small differences, with boys slightly better at math and girls slightly better at reading and literature. Still other studies have found the differences not only are small, but have been getting smaller in recent years compared to earlier studies. Collectively the findings about cognitive abilities are virtually "non-findings," and it is worth asking why gender differences have therefore been studied and discussed so much for so many years (Hyde, 2005). How teachers influence gender roles?

Teachers often intend to interact with both sexes equally, and frequently succeed at doing so. Research has found, though, that they do sometimes respond to boys and girls differently, perhaps without realizing it. Three kinds of differences have been noticed. The first is the overall amount of attention paid to each sex; the second is the visibility or "publicity" of conversations; and the third is the type of behavior that prompts teachers to support or criticize students.

Attention paid

In general, teachers interact with boys more often than with girls by a margin of 10 to 30 percent, depending on the grade level of the students and the personality of the teacher (Measor & Sykes, 1992). One possible reason for the difference is related to the greater assertiveness of boys that I already noted; if boys are speaking up more frequently in discussions or at other times, then a teacher may be "forced" to pay more attention to them. Another possibility is that some teachers may feel that boys are especially prone to getting into mischief, so they may interact with them more frequently to keep them focused on the task at hand (Erden & Wolfgang, 2004). Still another possibility is that boys, compared to girls, may interact in a wider variety of styles and situations, so there may simply be richer opportunities to interact with them. This last possibility is partially supported by another gender difference in classroom interaction, the amount of public versus private talk.

Public talk versus private talk

Teachers have a tendency to talk to boys from a greater physical distance than when they talk to girls (Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985). The difference may be both a cause and an effect of general gender expectations, expressive nurturing is expected more often of girls and women, and a businesslike task orientation is expected more often of boys and men, particularly in mixed-sex groups (Basow & Rubenfeld, 2003; Myaskovsky, Unikel, & Dew, 2005). Whatever the reason, the effect is to give interactions with boys more "publicity." When two people converse with each other from across the classroom, many others can overhear them; when they are at each other's elbows, though, few others can overhear.

Distributing praise and criticism

In spite of most teachers' desire to be fair to all students, it turns out that they sometimes distribute praise and criticism differently to boys and girls. The differences are summarized in Table 1. The tendency is to praise boys more than girls for displaying knowledge correctly, but to criticize girls more than boys for displaying knowledge incorrectly (Golombok & Fivush, 1994; Delamont, 1996). Another way of stating this difference is by what teachers tend to overlook: with boys, they tend to overlook wrong answers, but with girls, they tend to overlook right answers. The result (which is probably unintended) is a tendency to make boys' knowledge seem more important and boys themselves more competent. A second result is the other side of this coin: a tendency to make girls' knowledge less visible and girls themselves less competent.

Table 1: Gender differences in how teachers praise and criticize students

Type of response from teacher

Boys

Girls

Praises

Correct knowledge

"Good" or compliant behavior

Overlooks or ignores

"Good" or compliant behavior; in correct knowledge

Mis behavior; correct knowledge

Gender differences also occur in the realm of classroom behavior. Teachers tend to praise girls for "good" behavior, regardless of its relevance to content or to the lesson at hand, and tend to criticize boys for "bad" or inappropriate behavior (Golombok & Fivush, 1994). This difference can also be stated in terms of what teachers overlook: with girls, they tend to overlook behavior that is not appropriate, but with boys they tend to overlook behavior that is appropriate. The net result in this case is to make girls' seem more good than they may really be, and also to make their "goodness" seem more important than their academic competence. By the same token, the teacher's patterns of response imply that boys are more "bad" than they may really be.

At first glance, the gender differences in interaction can seem discouraging and critical of teachers because they imply that teachers as a group are biased about gender. But this conclusion is too simplistic for a couple of reasons. One is that like all differences between groups, interaction patterns are trends, and as such they hide a lot of variation within them. The other is that the trends suggest what often tends in fact to happen, not what can in fact happen if a teacher consciously sets about to avoid interaction patterns like the ones I have described. Fortunately for us all, teaching does not need to be unthinking; we have choices that we can make, even during a busy class!

References

Basow, S. & Rubenfeld, K. (2003). "Troubles talk": Effects of gender and gender-typing. Sex Roles, 48(3/4), 183-188.

Braddock, J., Sokol-Katz, J., Greene, A., & Basinger-Fleischman, L. (2005). Uneven playing fields: State variations in boys' and girls' access to and participation in high school interscholastic sports. Sociological Spectrum, 25(2), 231-250.

Davies, J. (2005). Expressions of gender: An analysis of pupils' gendered discourse styles in small group classroom discussions. Discourse and Society, 14(2), 115-132.

Erden, F. & Wolfgang, C. (2004). An exploration of the differences in teachers' beliefs related to discipline when dealing with male and female students. Early Child Development and Care, 174(1), 3-11.

Espelage, D. & Swearer, S. (2004). Bullying in American schools: A socio-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Delamont, S. (1996). Women's place in education. Brookfield, MA: Avebury Publishers.

Freeman, D. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Golombok, S. & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592.

Maccoby, E. (2002). Gender and social exchange: A developmental perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Measor, L. & Sykes, P. (1992). Gender and schools. New York: Cassell.

Messner, M., Dunca, M., & Cooky, C. (2003). Silence, sports bras, and wrestling porn. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27(1), 38-51.

Myaskovsky, L, Unikel, E., & Dew, M. (2005). Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small work groups. Sex Roles, 52(9/10), 645-657.

Sadker, D. (2002). An educator's primer on the gender war. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 235-240.

Tannen, D. (2001). You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: Quill.

Wilkinson, L. & Marrett, C. (Eds.). (1985). Gender influences in classroom interaction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender roles are the patterns of behaviors, attitudes, and expectations associated with a particular sex-with being either male or female. For clarity, psychologists sometimes distinguish gender differences, which are related to social roles, from sex differences, which are related only to physiology and anatomy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary+

Impoverished children are severely disadvantaged before even reaching adulthood. In public schools, lower-income children are significantly less likely to succeed than their wealthier classmates. Poverty affects a child's brain development, inhibiting their ability to learn and understand. In addition, lower-income students go to schools with insufficient funding and resources: quality teachers or the lack thereof increase the inability to provide for these students adequately. The achievement gap affects students by increasing dropout rates. It involves the nation by costing the US nearly $700 billion annually. ¹ Even more grave than the financial consequences is the loss of every student-each with untold potential. Fortunately, something is being done. Early childhood education has proven to equip students with the tools before entering a public school. Each attempt to help a student, no matter what stage of education they're at, can help close the achievement gap.

Key Takeaways+

The socioeconomic achievement gap in public schools is a social issue that has evolved over time and affects the whole country.

Poverty affects all aspects of child development, emotional and physical, which limits an impoverished child's ability to learn and perform well in school.¹⁴⁰

Insufficient funding, lack of resources, and poor teacher training in low-income schools also contribute to the gap between lower-income and higher-income students.

The achievement gap reduces the potential of thousands of profitable workers and damages the US economy.

Poor school performance in lower-income students perpetuates chronic poverty through higher dropout rates and impeded employment.

Early childhood education provides structure during cognitive and social development, which can minimize the socioeconomic achievement gap.

Key Terms+

Achievement Gap-A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.

ECE -Early childhood education.

High Poverty-A term used to describe a school with a significant population of impoverished students. A school is considered high poverty when 75% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. ³

Longitudinal Study-A study that tracks the same participants over a long period of time. In the context of education, longitudinal studies are used to study the same individuals for different variables, using a variety of measurements such as test scores or qualitative data. ⁴

SES-An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES.

Title I-A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. ⁶

Q: What is the socioeconomic and academic achievement gap?

A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. A: An achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. occurs when any group of students performs at a statistically significantly lower rate than another group of students. This gap can appear at the individual student performance level as well as at the school test level. ⁷ Achievement gaps can be measured by race, ethnicity, gender, or social class. When lower-income students perform lower than their higher-income classmates, there is a socioeconomic status (SES ⁸ ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES.) academic achievement gap.

Research has confirmed that lower-income students perform worse in school as measured by academic tests-roughly 1 standard deviation lower, or about 3 academic years behind.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁹ Low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students enter high school with average literacy skills 5 years behind their high SES counterparts. ¹⁰ low SES students are behind in reading and math proficiency by 20-26 percentage points compared to high SES students. ¹¹ The success rate of low SES students in STEM fields is significantly lower than high SES students. ¹² Lower SES ¹³ The socioeconomic ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students are also disciplined and suspended more frequently and attend class less.achievement gap 14, 15, 16 ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. has been correlated with increased dropout rates (7.2% low SES students compared to 3.6% mid and 3.9% high SES students), lower likelihood of college graduation (14% compared to 60%), and a higher likelihood of incarceration.

Q: How is socioeconomic status defined and measured? Who qualifies as having lower socioeconomic status?

An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. A: As defined by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a congressionally mandated program overseen by the Department of Education, socioeconomic status is the combination of social and economic factors that indicate a child's household income or opportunity. ¹⁷ A variety of data is used to calculate SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. as accurately as possible, including household size, family income, parental occupation, and parental level of education. ¹⁸ For example, one common standard of measurement is that a child is considered impoverished if their guardians earn less than $25,926.00 per year. ¹⁹ Globally, SES is measured through the child's parents or guardians' education and occupation as well as the number of books in the home. ²⁰

When poverty is measured within the context of American public education, such as when schools are considered for Title I A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. ⁶ funding, those eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) is a proxy measurement of household income used by the government. This data is reliably available at the school level, unlike the poverty rate, income level, and occupation of parents. ²¹ A student is eligible for free lunch if their family income is 130% at or below the poverty level and eligible for reduced lunch if their family income falls between 130-185% of the poverty level. ²² For the 2021-2022 school year, the federal poverty guideline used to determine FRPL was an annual income of $26,500.00 for a family of 4. ²³ There has been recognition of the flaws of using FRPL as a proxy poverty measurement. In some cases, some students who live above the poverty rate may still be eligible for free or reduced lunch. ²⁴ These may be students within a foster program with disabilities or students who attend a school that is eligible to provide free lunch and breakfast for all students. 25, 26 It should also be noted that federal lunch eligibility was extended to all schoolchildren during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, FRPL is utilized today both at the national level of statistical analysis and in academic studies. ²⁷

The eligibility of FRPL is also used to measure the poverty level of public schools.A term used to describe a school with a significant population of impoverished students. A school is considered high poverty when 75% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. ²⁸ A school is considered high poverty ³ when 75% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. ²⁹

Q: Who in the US is most likely to experience the SES achievement gap?

A: Geographically, 17 states have higher child-poverty rates than the national average poverty rate for children. Of those 17 states, 13 were located in the South. ³⁰ For children living in poverty, the highest poverty rate is in mother-only households, while the lowest is in married-couple households. It is highest within families where parents have not completed high school and lowest where either parent has completed a bachelor's or higher degree. In 2018, 32% of Black children were living in poverty, 31% of Native American children, 25% of Hispanic children, and 25% of Pacific Islander children. ³¹

It is important to note that many disadvantaged populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, are significantly related to the wealth disparity in students. According to the 2020 Census Bureau, a disproportionate amount of children of color live in poverty.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ³² Many minority groups experience higher poverty rates than their white counterparts. ³³ This disparity means minority students are more vulnerable to low socioeconomic status. However, although socioeconomic status and race are congruent, they are not interchangeable; the focus of this brief is solely on the socioeconomic achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. Researchers have largely focused on the racial achievement gap, resulting in a lack of scholarship regarding the socioeconomic achievement gap. ³⁴ In fact, the racial achievement gaps appear to be decreasing, while the SES ³⁵ This decrease is likely due to greater awareness of the racial ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap remains stagnant or increasing.achievement gap ³⁶ ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. among Americans and the creation of more legislation to address it in recent years.

Q: How has the achievement gap evolved over the years?

An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. A: Though the SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ³⁷ However, the SES achievement gap was still monitored throughout the years. Among a 1950s cohort of schoolchildren, low SES children were 4 years behind their high SES peers. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. has existed since the Industrial Revolution, it has been documented since the late 1930s. Due to racism and biases, no action was taken to address the SES achievement gap for many years because of the high correlation between race and low SES. As late as 1995, some scholars falsely attributed low school performance to biological inadequacy among different races and ethnicities. ³⁸

Current research disagrees with whether the SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ³⁹ A working paper published by the American Research Institutes reported that 34 of the 50 states showed no statistically significant change in the SES achievement gap from 2003 to 2017. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. is stagnant or increasing, but all researchers agree it is not decreasing. Evidence of the stagnancy of the gap, research showed little variation in how students within each socioeconomic class performed between 1954-2001. ⁴⁰

Other data reveals that in 14 states, the gap is significantly widening.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁴¹ Only 2 states, New Mexico and Tennessee, showed significant decreases in the SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ⁴² Most reports indicate that the SES achievement gap has not increased but rather has remained the same since the 1950s. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. ⁴³

Q: What legislation exists to address the SES achievement gap in the US?

An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. A: The first federal policy intended to aid low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students was Title I ⁴⁴ This is why schools that receive federal funding today are called Title 1 schools. Measurements and studies of the ⁶ of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" in 1965. The act offered grants to lower-income school districts.achievement gap ⁴⁵ Twenty years later, the No Child Left Behind Act was instigated as an attempt to reduce the achievement gap and help low SES students improve their academic proficiency. The NCLB Act focused heavily on standardized testing, Title I spending, and school choice. If schools consistently failed state and national standards for at least 3 consecutive years, then the schools had to use Title I funding to help lower-income students find resources or other options in the public or private sector. ⁴⁶ The NCLB act focuses on literacy rates, assessment of ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. as it is known today began in the early 80s and 90s.Title I ⁴⁷ At the end of 2015, the Department of Education passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which focused on the equity of opportunity and allocating resources more equally across schools in order to decrease the achievement gap. Despite these policies and acts, there has been no significant nationwide decrease in the SES achievement gap. ⁶, and dropout prevention among disadvantaged students.

Q: Where is the socioeconomic achievement gap prominent?

The socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. exists in all countries to varying degrees; low SES ⁴⁸ For instance, low SES high school students in Canada performed 8% worse than their high SES peers in mathematics and 9% worse in English. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students perform worse than their high SES peers in each country. Additionally, a study comparing the international exams from 1964-2015 found that the SES achievement gap is increasing globally. ⁴⁹ However, for the purpose of this brief, we will focus on trends within the US. ⁵⁰

The research does not seem to indicate any significant trends by region in the US, although more children live in poverty in the South.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵¹ The socioeconomic achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. is also larger in areas near or within Native American reservations due to the greater prevalence of poverty among indigenous reservations. ⁵² Overall, low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. is an issue everywhere in the US.

As mentioned previously, 34 of the 50 United States have shown no significant change in the SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ⁵³ ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output., 14 have indicated significant widening, and 2 states have significant decreases.

The public school system varies by state, mainly due to factors in determining the extent of the socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output., like the state's ability to distribute funds and mandate what is taught, how districts are organized. About 92% of public school funding comes through state and local funding, with a wide range between states. ⁵⁴ For example, the per pupil expenditure (PPE) in Massachusetts was 145% more than the national average in the 2017-2018 school year. In comparison, Mississippi and other states spend significantly less than the national average on pupils. ⁵⁵ State funding for public schools varies widely between states, mirroring the varied academic achievement of state schools. The following paragraphs focus on 4 states that exemplify a variety of SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap trends. The analysis includes 2019 NAEP mathematics test scores for both high and low-income 8th graders. For comparison, the national average score was 282.

Massachusetts has some of the highest PPE but also high socioeconomic status and the highest test scores (1.18 grade levels above the average).A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵⁶ While the achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. has remained the same, both high and low SES ⁵⁷ ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students' test scores have improved over the past two decades. In Massachusetts, the average test score for the 2019 NAEP mathematics test for low SES was 272, and 303 for those with high SES-just below and above the national average.

Mississippi is a state with low economic status and low PPE.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵⁸ In 2019, 74% of all public students were eligible for FRPL. ⁵⁹ Low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students scored 267 on the NAEP math exam, while high SES students scored above average (295). ⁶⁰

According to a study comparing socioeconomic achievement gaps from 2003-2017, New Mexico was 1 of 2 states with a decrease in the SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ⁶¹ However, test scores for New Mexico are still 1.01 grades below the average. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. by 11 test score points. ⁶² The state faced failing schools and teacher shortages during the NCLB era. ⁶³ Nevertheless, New Mexico has installed an early literacy program and raised standards for test scores. ⁶⁴ The 2019 NAEP tests scored 262 for low SES ⁶⁵ ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students and 289 for their high SES peers.

California has the largest public school system in the United States. Lower-income Californian students scored 262 on the 2019 NAEP exam, while high SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students scored 298. ⁶⁶ Student test scores were 0.69 grade levels below average. ⁶⁷

Effects of Poverty on Physical and Emotional Development

Living in poverty affects all aspects of child development, including stunting normal brain development due to chronic poverty stressors, which limits an impoverished child's ability to learn and perform well in school.A study that tracks the same participants over a long period of time. In the context of education, longitudinal studies are used to study the same individuals for different variables, using a variety of measurements such as test scores or qualitative data. ⁷⁴ As the brain continues to react to high-stress indicators related to poverty, such as chronic noise in households and conflict among family members for a sustained period of time, the creativity portion decreases, switching into a "survival mode" mindset. 75, 76 The National Scientific Council of the Development of the Child calls this "toxic stress." ⁷⁷ Toxic stress can cause permanent damage once children have reached adulthood, including lasting physiological effects on the brain and other organ systems like the immune system. Diminished or harmed brain development can lead to cognitive impairment. One study found that by age 5, just as children enter school, impoverished children already experienced a significant difference in cognitive skills than wealthier children, which only accumulated as the child ages. ⁷⁸ A longitudinal study ⁴ from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that lower-income infants and toddlers had a significantly smaller amount of gray matter than their higher-income peers over time. ⁷⁹ Gray matter is where all the thinking processes, as well as motor control, happen within the brain. ⁸⁰ Having a smaller amount of gray matter is correlated with lower cognitive, memory, and motor function. ⁸¹ This finding is also concurrent with another study, which showed that impoverished children ages 4-18 had the least gray matter, the greatest delay in brain development, and the poorest academic achievement compared to other children. ⁸²

Apart from cognitive development issues, poverty can negatively affect students emotionally, which leads to behavioral issues that can negatively affect their academics. Due to the brain being stressed for such long periods of time, the child is more likely to overreact in low-stress situations.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁸³ Additionally, a child's ability to regulate emotion and attention is affected, as well as their ability to develop the mental process necessary for remembering instructions, juggling tasks, and paying attention. 84, 85 Students may act out or lack proper social skills in a school environment, ⁸⁶ which can affect academic performance. These negative effects on the cognitive brain of the child lead to a lowered ability to control behavior and plan ahead. ⁸⁷ These behaviors can widen the achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. because they cause a spiral that leads to more punishment and less time in class. For example, 35% of male students in low SES ⁸⁸ Additionally, a 2014 study done by Indiana University's Equity Project showed that low SES students receive higher rates of out-of-school suspension. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. schools were disciplined as compared to only 24% of their higher SES peers in a 2006 study. ⁸⁹

Insufficient Funding and Lack of Resources

Insufficient funding and lack of resources also play an important role in the achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. Low SES ⁹⁰ In 2018, the US spent about $1,000.00 less per pupil in a low SES school district than in a high SES district. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students do not have the same resources as their wealthier peers, so their likelihood of academic success is limited. Since school funding comes from the property taxes of the area, schools surrounded by lower-income families (who own smaller, less-taxed properties) receive less funding from the local community. ⁹¹ One report found that 263 districts nationwide did not consider the number of impoverished children as an important factor when distributing funding. ⁹² When school funding is allocated more equally across the school districts, high and lower-income, the test score gap is smaller between lower-income students and their wealthier peers. ⁹³

Beyond funding, a lack of resources impacts students' opportunities for academic success. High-poverty schools struggle to overcome obstacles that low-poverty schools don't have. For example, there is a high teacher turnover rate in high-poverty schools. Plus, less-experienced, cheap-to-hire teachers tend to work at high-poverty schools, which contributes to the socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. because teachers with multiple years of experience are more successful at helping students perform well. ⁹⁴ In high school, fewer AP courses are offered in lower-income high schools. Students from low SES ⁹⁵ Low SES schools have significantly fewer library resources than high SES schools, including fewer full-time librarians and fewer books added per year. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. backgrounds are less likely to have access to informational materials about college. 96, 97, 98 Ultimately, the lack of community funding and fewer resources limits the likelihood of success among low SES students.

Inadequate Teacher Training and Retention

Public school teachers receive no specific training for lower SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students to meet students' needs, which perpetuates the achievement gap ⁹⁹ and parent intervention. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. Unique needs for low SES students include specialized tutoring, more staff in the classroom, ¹⁰⁰ Highly qualified teachers are defined by their degree and certification, but no requirement for poverty training. ¹⁰¹ Poverty training mainly entails educating teachers about their poverty biases and unpacking poverty myths. Although there are a variety of nonprofit organizations that offer accreditation in poverty training, ¹⁰² there is little motivation for teachers to get trained since there is no requirement. ¹⁰³ A teacher may be considered highly qualified to teach children but lack any preparation for the unique needs of low socioeconomic students.

Cross-cultural communication creates dissonance between lower-income students and their teachers, whose perspective typically comes from a middle-class demographic.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ¹⁰⁴ In the 2017-2018 school year, 58% of public school teachers held a post-baccalaureate degree and an average base salary of $57,900.00. ¹⁰⁵ Most low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students come from families with little formal education that may struggle to relate to their teachers' expectations. A 2019 interview of teachers in Pennsylvania found that teachers recognized the indirect sources of poor academic achievement in low SES students (such as lack of food or poor hygiene) but consistently disregarded the more important reasons for poor achievement (such as parent involvement and home life). ¹⁰⁶

Many teachers feel poorly prepared to teach in low-income schools and lack the time and resources to provide the attention that lower-income students need.A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. ¹⁰⁷ Few teachers change their curriculum to best suit the needs of their lower-income students, even in Title I ⁶ schools where the majority of students are considered impoverished. ¹⁰⁸

In addition, high-poverty schools lack the resources to facilitate teaching students with learning challenges, which can negatively affect academic success. One study found that teachers determined low SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students to have more subjective learning disabilities (such as an emotional disability) at around twice the rate as their wealthier classmates. ¹⁰⁹ Similarly, children from low SES backgrounds are twice as likely to exhibit behavioral issues in schools, like inattention, disinterest, and a lack of cooperation, than their peers from higher SES backgrounds. ¹¹⁰ Many teachers do not have the preparation to be able to recognize misbehavior as a learning disability or trauma. Impoverished students are less likely to be diagnosed with learning challenges like ADHD, which makes it difficult for teachers to accommodate. ¹¹¹ Many teachers choose to send low SES students into special needs education programs instead of addressing the student's learning issues stemming from their socioeconomic status. These unique accommodations take up a teacher's time and emotional resources, often leading to frustration and increased amounts of teachers leaving to find work elsewhere.

These differences in culture often lead teachers to leave the school or the profession entirely,An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ¹¹² which can lead to poor academic results in low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students. When teachers leave high-poverty schools, the disruption has a negative effect on students, who must then adapt to new teachers' teaching styles and methods. Schools with high teacher turnover rates perform worse than schools with low turnover rates; one study found that when teacher turnover rates were high, students' mathematics scores declined from 8.2% to 10.2%. ¹¹³ Turnover rate is a serious issue among high-poverty schools: 39% of high-poverty schools experience the highest rates of teacher turnover as opposed to only 13% of low-poverty schools. ¹¹⁴ Therefore, teachers who are hired at these high-poverty schools are less likely to have the experience and accreditation of a wealthier, better-funded school. This teacher quality gap and high turnover rate result in disrupted student learning ability and perpetuates the SES achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output..

Loss of Potential US Economic Growth

The achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. negatively affects the long-term health of the United State's economy and potential growth. In the short term, the achievement gap costs the US money because high-poverty schools require more funding in an effort to decrease the achievement gap with their more wealthy counterparts. ¹¹⁵ In 2019, the government, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, granted over $15 billion to low SES ¹¹⁶ The achievement gap has cost the US economy more than all the combined recessions since the 1970s. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students who are most at risk of failing or are failing academically. ¹¹⁷ If the US had eliminated the socioeconomic achievement gap by 1998, the US GDP in 2008 would have increased by $700 billion because of increased potential economic growth. ¹¹⁸

Additionally, the achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. limits the potential for long-term economic growth in the United States. Each student has the potential to work and provide value to the US economy and therefore raise the value of the GDP. In countries where students perform well in subjects such as math and science, economic growth and productivity are greater than in those countries that do not provide such opportunities to learn. ¹¹⁹ Even so, the achievement gap stifles the potential of thousands of profitable workers, and human capital is the base of the US economic system. ¹²⁰ The potential of all the students in the public education system is staggering, but the achievement gap decreases the fulfillment of that potential, which is a costly disadvantage.

One of the most debilitating effects of the socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.A study that tracks the same participants over a long period of time. In the context of education, longitudinal studies are used to study the same individuals for different variables, using a variety of measurements such as test scores or qualitative data.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. is the continuance of chronic poverty, mainly through the high school dropout rate. In 2012, a longitudinal study SES ⁴ found that 16% of low ¹²¹ Even those of lower income who are proficient readers in third grade, 11% still don't finish high school. ¹²² Impoverished students already have to deal with higher insecurity that leads to a higher dropout rate, including homelessness, job security, and family instability. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. third graders who are not reading proficiently will not graduate high school on time. ¹²³ The socioeconomic class of a student directly correlates with the dropout rate. A low-income student is 5 times more likely to drop out of high school. ¹²⁴ In 2014, 11.6% of low-income families had a high school dropout compared to 2.8% of high-income families. ¹²⁵ According to the American Psychological Association, this dropout can also be reflected in higher education; students who come from families that earn the top 25% of income are 8 times more likely to receive a degree than students from the bottom 25%. ¹²⁶ The achievement gap persists in creating a high dropout rate for lower-income families.

Dropping out perpetuates poverty in lower-income families by impeding employment, limiting salaries, and increasing the poverty rate of children in the home. As more employers require higher credentials for employment and lower-skilled job opportunities are shrinking, high school dropouts are struggling to find and remain employed. ¹²⁷ The rate of unemployment for high school dropouts is over 50%. ¹²⁸ Often these jobs are unstable, with fewer benefits. Even if a high school dropout is employed, a high school dropout aged 25-34 will earn about $26,000.00, while their peers who have completed high school will earn about $32,000.00. ¹²⁹ The dropout rate maintains poverty in the next generation as well. The poverty rate for a child where neither parent has received a high school diploma is 43%. In comparison, in a family where either parent has a college degree, the poverty rate is 4%. ¹³⁰

Poverty can disadvantage students at an early age, setting them up for failure well before they enter the public education system. Impoverished children are less likely to be read to and spoken to less before entering public school. ¹³¹ Early childhood education provides structure during a foundational stage: the development of a child's cognitive, social, and emotional skills. ¹³² In this period, children are highly influenced by the people and environment around them. ¹³³ Some early education options include government-funded organizations such as Head Start or private preschools.

Early education can help provide equal footing for children growing up in lower-income households. Early education teaches students vocabulary, social skills, and basic reading and math exposure. It also provides working parents with a safe place for children to attend during work hours. However, only 19% of low-income families enroll in high-quality early childhood education, while 29% of high-income families do. ¹³⁴

Research has shown that early education can have a meaningful impact on impoverished children, both in the short term and the long term. In the short term, early childhood education helps prepare students by developing their social, emotional, and cognitive growth. ¹³⁵ One study found that while students enrolled in ECE Early childhood education. tended not to receive better SAT or test scores, early education did affect their social and mental well-being. ¹³⁶ This study accounted for the variety of long-term success in students that matriculate in some form of preschool.

In the long term, students who have received early education tend to minimize threats that could potentially prolong their impoverished situation. Children of the Perry Preschool Project, a research study conducted in the 1960s to see if positive experiences in preschool had an impact on later school performance, were significantly more likely to have graduated from high school (66% versus 45%) and half as likely to have an unwanted teen pregnancy. By age 40, the participants were 46% less likely to be incarcerated or 33% less likely to have committed a violent crime. A researcher studied the children of these participants and also found the children to be less at-risk.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ¹³⁷ More recently, a 2017 study reiterated that children who receive ECE Early childhood education. are 22% less likely to be held behind and 74% more likely to graduate. ¹³⁸ The best practice of Early Childhood Education directly impacts significant negative consequences of the achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output..

A considerable gap in early education is the variety of early education quality. There are few regulations on early childhood education and no universal early childhood education in the United States. This variety leads to a variety in the quality of ECE Early childhood education.. Not all preschools are able to provide the structure and quality necessary to combat the achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ¹³⁹ One study suggests that, above all other qualities, the relationship between student and teacher is the most significant, even more, important than teacher certifications. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output..

Preferred Citation: Bradley, Kate. "The Socioeconomic Achievement Gap in the US Public Schools." Ballard Brief. December 2022. www.ballardbrief.byu.edu.
Viewpoints published by Ballard Brief are not necessarily endorsed by BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Kathryn Bradley is a senior in Public Relations. She has always been interested in education and pedagogy since being involved with the students at her own Title I school. One summer she spent every day organizing a local lower-income literary program called 'Reading Rocks.' Going from park to park and lugging hundreds of books every day to read with children eager to learn was a dream that has only inspired her further. She plans to continue advocating for education equality in Texas with her husband.

Summary+

Impoverished children are severely disadvantaged before even reaching adulthood. In public schools, lower-income children are significantly less likely to succeed than their wealthier classmates. Poverty affects a child's brain development, inhibiting their ability to learn and understand. In addition, lower-income students go to schools with insufficient funding and resources: quality teachers or the lack thereof increase the inability to provide for these students adequately. The achievement gap affects students by increasing dropout rates. It involves the nation by costing the US nearly $700 billion annually. ¹ Even more grave than the financial consequences is the loss of every student-each with untold potential. Fortunately, something is being done. Early childhood education has proven to equip students with the tools before entering a public school. Each attempt to help a student, no matter what stage of education they're at, can help close the achievement gap.

Key Takeaways+

The socioeconomic achievement gap in public schools is a social issue that has evolved over time and affects the whole country.

Poverty affects all aspects of child development, emotional and physical, which limits an impoverished child's ability to learn and perform well in school.¹⁴⁰

Insufficient funding, lack of resources, and poor teacher training in low-income schools also contribute to the gap between lower-income and higher-income students.

The achievement gap reduces the potential of thousands of profitable workers and damages the US economy.

Poor school performance in lower-income students perpetuates chronic poverty through higher dropout rates and impeded employment.

Early childhood education provides structure during cognitive and social development, which can minimize the socioeconomic achievement gap.

Key Terms+

Achievement Gap-A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.

ECE -Early childhood education.

High Poverty-A term used to describe a school with a significant population of impoverished students. A school is considered high poverty when 75% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. ³

Longitudinal Study-A study that tracks the same participants over a long period of time. In the context of education, longitudinal studies are used to study the same individuals for different variables, using a variety of measurements such as test scores or qualitative data. ⁴

SES-An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES.

Title I-A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. ⁶

Q: What is the socioeconomic and academic achievement gap?

A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. A: An achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. occurs when any group of students performs at a statistically significantly lower rate than another group of students. This gap can appear at the individual student performance level as well as at the school test level. ⁷ Achievement gaps can be measured by race, ethnicity, gender, or social class. When lower-income students perform lower than their higher-income classmates, there is a socioeconomic status (SES ⁸ ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES.) academic achievement gap.

Research has confirmed that lower-income students perform worse in school as measured by academic tests-roughly 1 standard deviation lower, or about 3 academic years behind.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁹ Low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students enter high school with average literacy skills 5 years behind their high SES counterparts. ¹⁰ low SES students are behind in reading and math proficiency by 20-26 percentage points compared to high SES students. ¹¹ The success rate of low SES students in STEM fields is significantly lower than high SES students. ¹² Lower SES ¹³ The socioeconomic ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students are also disciplined and suspended more frequently and attend class less.achievement gap 14, 15, 16 ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. has been correlated with increased dropout rates (7.2% low SES students compared to 3.6% mid and 3.9% high SES students), lower likelihood of college graduation (14% compared to 60%), and a higher likelihood of incarceration.

Q: How is socioeconomic status defined and measured? Who qualifies as having lower socioeconomic status?

An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. A: As defined by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a congressionally mandated program overseen by the Department of Education, socioeconomic status is the combination of social and economic factors that indicate a child's household income or opportunity. ¹⁷ A variety of data is used to calculate SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. as accurately as possible, including household size, family income, parental occupation, and parental level of education. ¹⁸ For example, one common standard of measurement is that a child is considered impoverished if their guardians earn less than $25,926.00 per year. ¹⁹ Globally, SES is measured through the child's parents or guardians' education and occupation as well as the number of books in the home. ²⁰

When poverty is measured within the context of American public education, such as when schools are considered for Title I A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. ⁶ funding, those eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) is a proxy measurement of household income used by the government. This data is reliably available at the school level, unlike the poverty rate, income level, and occupation of parents. ²¹ A student is eligible for free lunch if their family income is 130% at or below the poverty level and eligible for reduced lunch if their family income falls between 130-185% of the poverty level. ²² For the 2021-2022 school year, the federal poverty guideline used to determine FRPL was an annual income of $26,500.00 for a family of 4. ²³ There has been recognition of the flaws of using FRPL as a proxy poverty measurement. In some cases, some students who live above the poverty rate may still be eligible for free or reduced lunch. ²⁴ These may be students within a foster program with disabilities or students who attend a school that is eligible to provide free lunch and breakfast for all students. 25, 26 It should also be noted that federal lunch eligibility was extended to all schoolchildren during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, FRPL is utilized today both at the national level of statistical analysis and in academic studies. ²⁷

The eligibility of FRPL is also used to measure the poverty level of public schools.A term used to describe a school with a significant population of impoverished students. A school is considered high poverty when 75% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. ²⁸ A school is considered high poverty ³ when 75% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. ²⁹

Q: Who in the US is most likely to experience the SES achievement gap?

A: Geographically, 17 states have higher child-poverty rates than the national average poverty rate for children. Of those 17 states, 13 were located in the South. ³⁰ For children living in poverty, the highest poverty rate is in mother-only households, while the lowest is in married-couple households. It is highest within families where parents have not completed high school and lowest where either parent has completed a bachelor's or higher degree. In 2018, 32% of Black children were living in poverty, 31% of Native American children, 25% of Hispanic children, and 25% of Pacific Islander children. ³¹

It is important to note that many disadvantaged populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, are significantly related to the wealth disparity in students. According to the 2020 Census Bureau, a disproportionate amount of children of color live in poverty.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ³² Many minority groups experience higher poverty rates than their white counterparts. ³³ This disparity means minority students are more vulnerable to low socioeconomic status. However, although socioeconomic status and race are congruent, they are not interchangeable; the focus of this brief is solely on the socioeconomic achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. Researchers have largely focused on the racial achievement gap, resulting in a lack of scholarship regarding the socioeconomic achievement gap. ³⁴ In fact, the racial achievement gaps appear to be decreasing, while the SES ³⁵ This decrease is likely due to greater awareness of the racial ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap remains stagnant or increasing.achievement gap ³⁶ ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. among Americans and the creation of more legislation to address it in recent years.

Q: How has the achievement gap evolved over the years?

An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. A: Though the SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ³⁷ However, the SES achievement gap was still monitored throughout the years. Among a 1950s cohort of schoolchildren, low SES children were 4 years behind their high SES peers. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. has existed since the Industrial Revolution, it has been documented since the late 1930s. Due to racism and biases, no action was taken to address the SES achievement gap for many years because of the high correlation between race and low SES. As late as 1995, some scholars falsely attributed low school performance to biological inadequacy among different races and ethnicities. ³⁸

Current research disagrees with whether the SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ³⁹ A working paper published by the American Research Institutes reported that 34 of the 50 states showed no statistically significant change in the SES achievement gap from 2003 to 2017. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. is stagnant or increasing, but all researchers agree it is not decreasing. Evidence of the stagnancy of the gap, research showed little variation in how students within each socioeconomic class performed between 1954-2001. ⁴⁰

Other data reveals that in 14 states, the gap is significantly widening.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁴¹ Only 2 states, New Mexico and Tennessee, showed significant decreases in the SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ⁴² Most reports indicate that the SES achievement gap has not increased but rather has remained the same since the 1950s. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. ⁴³

Q: What legislation exists to address the SES achievement gap in the US?

An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. A: The first federal policy intended to aid low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students was Title I ⁴⁴ This is why schools that receive federal funding today are called Title 1 schools. Measurements and studies of the ⁶ of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" in 1965. The act offered grants to lower-income school districts.achievement gap ⁴⁵ Twenty years later, the No Child Left Behind Act was instigated as an attempt to reduce the achievement gap and help low SES students improve their academic proficiency. The NCLB Act focused heavily on standardized testing, Title I spending, and school choice. If schools consistently failed state and national standards for at least 3 consecutive years, then the schools had to use Title I funding to help lower-income students find resources or other options in the public or private sector. ⁴⁶ The NCLB act focuses on literacy rates, assessment of ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. as it is known today began in the early 80s and 90s.Title I ⁴⁷ At the end of 2015, the Department of Education passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which focused on the equity of opportunity and allocating resources more equally across schools in order to decrease the achievement gap. Despite these policies and acts, there has been no significant nationwide decrease in the SES achievement gap. ⁶, and dropout prevention among disadvantaged students.

Q: Where is the socioeconomic achievement gap prominent?

The socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. exists in all countries to varying degrees; low SES ⁴⁸ For instance, low SES high school students in Canada performed 8% worse than their high SES peers in mathematics and 9% worse in English. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students perform worse than their high SES peers in each country. Additionally, a study comparing the international exams from 1964-2015 found that the SES achievement gap is increasing globally. ⁴⁹ However, for the purpose of this brief, we will focus on trends within the US. ⁵⁰

The research does not seem to indicate any significant trends by region in the US, although more children live in poverty in the South.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵¹ The socioeconomic achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. is also larger in areas near or within Native American reservations due to the greater prevalence of poverty among indigenous reservations. ⁵² Overall, low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. is an issue everywhere in the US.

As mentioned previously, 34 of the 50 United States have shown no significant change in the SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ⁵³ ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output., 14 have indicated significant widening, and 2 states have significant decreases.

The public school system varies by state, mainly due to factors in determining the extent of the socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output., like the state's ability to distribute funds and mandate what is taught, how districts are organized. About 92% of public school funding comes through state and local funding, with a wide range between states. ⁵⁴ For example, the per pupil expenditure (PPE) in Massachusetts was 145% more than the national average in the 2017-2018 school year. In comparison, Mississippi and other states spend significantly less than the national average on pupils. ⁵⁵ State funding for public schools varies widely between states, mirroring the varied academic achievement of state schools. The following paragraphs focus on 4 states that exemplify a variety of SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap trends. The analysis includes 2019 NAEP mathematics test scores for both high and low-income 8th graders. For comparison, the national average score was 282.

Massachusetts has some of the highest PPE but also high socioeconomic status and the highest test scores (1.18 grade levels above the average).A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵⁶ While the achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. has remained the same, both high and low SES ⁵⁷ ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students' test scores have improved over the past two decades. In Massachusetts, the average test score for the 2019 NAEP mathematics test for low SES was 272, and 303 for those with high SES-just below and above the national average.

Mississippi is a state with low economic status and low PPE.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵⁸ In 2019, 74% of all public students were eligible for FRPL. ⁵⁹ Low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students scored 267 on the NAEP math exam, while high SES students scored above average (295). ⁶⁰

According to a study comparing socioeconomic achievement gaps from 2003-2017, New Mexico was 1 of 2 states with a decrease in the SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. achievement gap ⁶¹ However, test scores for New Mexico are still 1.01 grades below the average. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. by 11 test score points. ⁶² The state faced failing schools and teacher shortages during the NCLB era. ⁶³ Nevertheless, New Mexico has installed an early literacy program and raised standards for test scores. ⁶⁴ The 2019 NAEP tests scored 262 for low SES ⁶⁵ ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students and 289 for their high SES peers.

California has the largest public school system in the United States. Lower-income Californian students scored 262 on the 2019 NAEP exam, while high SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students scored 298. ⁶⁶ Student test scores were 0.69 grade levels below average. ⁶⁷

Effects of Poverty on Physical and Emotional Development

Living in poverty affects all aspects of child development, including stunting normal brain development due to chronic poverty stressors, which limits an impoverished child's ability to learn and perform well in school.A study that tracks the same participants over a long period of time. In the context of education, longitudinal studies are used to study the same individuals for different variables, using a variety of measurements such as test scores or qualitative data. ⁷⁴ As the brain continues to react to high-stress indicators related to poverty, such as chronic noise in households and conflict among family members for a sustained period of time, the creativity portion decreases, switching into a "survival mode" mindset. 75, 76 The National Scientific Council of the Development of the Child calls this "toxic stress." ⁷⁷ Toxic stress can cause permanent damage once children have reached adulthood, including lasting physiological effects on the brain and other organ systems like the immune system. Diminished or harmed brain development can lead to cognitive impairment. One study found that by age 5, just as children enter school, impoverished children already experienced a significant difference in cognitive skills than wealthier children, which only accumulated as the child ages. ⁷⁸ A longitudinal study ⁴ from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that lower-income infants and toddlers had a significantly smaller amount of gray matter than their higher-income peers over time. ⁷⁹ Gray matter is where all the thinking processes, as well as motor control, happen within the brain. ⁸⁰ Having a smaller amount of gray matter is correlated with lower cognitive, memory, and motor function. ⁸¹ This finding is also concurrent with another study, which showed that impoverished children ages 4-18 had the least gray matter, the greatest delay in brain development, and the poorest academic achievement compared to other children. ⁸²

Apart from cognitive development issues, poverty can negatively affect students emotionally, which leads to behavioral issues that can negatively affect their academics. Due to the brain being stressed for such long periods of time, the child is more likely to overreact in low-stress situations.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁸³ Additionally, a child's ability to regulate emotion and attention is affected, as well as their ability to develop the mental process necessary for remembering instructions, juggling tasks, and paying attention. 84, 85 Students may act out or lack proper social skills in a school environment, ⁸⁶ which can affect academic performance. These negative effects on the cognitive brain of the child lead to a lowered ability to control behavior and plan ahead. ⁸⁷ These behaviors can widen the achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. because they cause a spiral that leads to more punishment and less time in class. For example, 35% of male students in low SES ⁸⁸ Additionally, a 2014 study done by Indiana University's Equity Project showed that low SES students receive higher rates of out-of-school suspension. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. schools were disciplined as compared to only 24% of their higher SES peers in a 2006 study. ⁸⁹

Insufficient Funding and Lack of Resources

Insufficient funding and lack of resources also play an important role in the achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. Low SES ⁹⁰ In 2018, the US spent about $1,000.00 less per pupil in a low SES school district than in a high SES district. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students do not have the same resources as their wealthier peers, so their likelihood of academic success is limited. Since school funding comes from the property taxes of the area, schools surrounded by lower-income families (who own smaller, less-taxed properties) receive less funding from the local community. ⁹¹ One report found that 263 districts nationwide did not consider the number of impoverished children as an important factor when distributing funding. ⁹² When school funding is allocated more equally across the school districts, high and lower-income, the test score gap is smaller between lower-income students and their wealthier peers. ⁹³

Beyond funding, a lack of resources impacts students' opportunities for academic success. High-poverty schools struggle to overcome obstacles that low-poverty schools don't have. For example, there is a high teacher turnover rate in high-poverty schools. Plus, less-experienced, cheap-to-hire teachers tend to work at high-poverty schools, which contributes to the socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. because teachers with multiple years of experience are more successful at helping students perform well. ⁹⁴ In high school, fewer AP courses are offered in lower-income high schools. Students from low SES ⁹⁵ Low SES schools have significantly fewer library resources than high SES schools, including fewer full-time librarians and fewer books added per year. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. backgrounds are less likely to have access to informational materials about college. 96, 97, 98 Ultimately, the lack of community funding and fewer resources limits the likelihood of success among low SES students.

Inadequate Teacher Training and Retention

Public school teachers receive no specific training for lower SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students to meet students' needs, which perpetuates the achievement gap ⁹⁹ and parent intervention. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output.. Unique needs for low SES students include specialized tutoring, more staff in the classroom, ¹⁰⁰ Highly qualified teachers are defined by their degree and certification, but no requirement for poverty training. ¹⁰¹ Poverty training mainly entails educating teachers about their poverty biases and unpacking poverty myths. Although there are a variety of nonprofit organizations that offer accreditation in poverty training, ¹⁰² there is little motivation for teachers to get trained since there is no requirement. ¹⁰³ A teacher may be considered highly qualified to teach children but lack any preparation for the unique needs of low socioeconomic students.

Cross-cultural communication creates dissonance between lower-income students and their teachers, whose perspective typically comes from a middle-class demographic.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ¹⁰⁴ In the 2017-2018 school year, 58% of public school teachers held a post-baccalaureate degree and an average base salary of $57,900.00. ¹⁰⁵ Most low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students come from families with little formal education that may struggle to relate to their teachers' expectations. A 2019 interview of teachers in Pennsylvania found that teachers recognized the indirect sources of poor academic achievement in low SES students (such as lack of food or poor hygiene) but consistently disregarded the more important reasons for poor achievement (such as parent involvement and home life). ¹⁰⁶

Many teachers feel poorly prepared to teach in low-income schools and lack the time and resources to provide the attention that lower-income students need.A rating system that indicates a school is eligible to receive Title I funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It typically means a school where 40% or more of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. 70% of public schools receive some form of Title I funding. ¹⁰⁷ Few teachers change their curriculum to best suit the needs of their lower-income students, even in Title I ⁶ schools where the majority of students are considered impoverished. ¹⁰⁸

In addition, high-poverty schools lack the resources to facilitate teaching students with learning challenges, which can negatively affect academic success. One study found that teachers determined low SES An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students to have more subjective learning disabilities (such as an emotional disability) at around twice the rate as their wealthier classmates. ¹⁰⁹ Similarly, children from low SES backgrounds are twice as likely to exhibit behavioral issues in schools, like inattention, disinterest, and a lack of cooperation, than their peers from higher SES backgrounds. ¹¹⁰ Many teachers do not have the preparation to be able to recognize misbehavior as a learning disability or trauma. Impoverished students are less likely to be diagnosed with learning challenges like ADHD, which makes it difficult for teachers to accommodate. ¹¹¹ Many teachers choose to send low SES students into special needs education programs instead of addressing the student's learning issues stemming from their socioeconomic status. These unique accommodations take up a teacher's time and emotional resources, often leading to frustration and increased amounts of teachers leaving to find work elsewhere.

These differences in culture often lead teachers to leave the school or the profession entirely,An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ¹¹² which can lead to poor academic results in low SES ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students. When teachers leave high-poverty schools, the disruption has a negative effect on students, who must then adapt to new teachers' teaching styles and methods. Schools with high teacher turnover rates perform worse than schools with low turnover rates; one study found that when teacher turnover rates were high, students' mathematics scores declined from 8.2% to 10.2%. ¹¹³ Turnover rate is a serious issue among high-poverty schools: 39% of high-poverty schools experience the highest rates of teacher turnover as opposed to only 13% of low-poverty schools. ¹¹⁴ Therefore, teachers who are hired at these high-poverty schools are less likely to have the experience and accreditation of a wealthier, better-funded school. This teacher quality gap and high turnover rate result in disrupted student learning ability and perpetuates the SES achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output..

Loss of Potential US Economic Growth

The achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. negatively affects the long-term health of the United State's economy and potential growth. In the short term, the achievement gap costs the US money because high-poverty schools require more funding in an effort to decrease the achievement gap with their more wealthy counterparts. ¹¹⁵ In 2019, the government, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, granted over $15 billion to low SES ¹¹⁶ The achievement gap has cost the US economy more than all the combined recessions since the 1970s. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. students who are most at risk of failing or are failing academically. ¹¹⁷ If the US had eliminated the socioeconomic achievement gap by 1998, the US GDP in 2008 would have increased by $700 billion because of increased potential economic growth. ¹¹⁸

Additionally, the achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. limits the potential for long-term economic growth in the United States. Each student has the potential to work and provide value to the US economy and therefore raise the value of the GDP. In countries where students perform well in subjects such as math and science, economic growth and productivity are greater than in those countries that do not provide such opportunities to learn. ¹¹⁹ Even so, the achievement gap stifles the potential of thousands of profitable workers, and human capital is the base of the US economic system. ¹²⁰ The potential of all the students in the public education system is staggering, but the achievement gap decreases the fulfillment of that potential, which is a costly disadvantage.

One of the most debilitating effects of the socioeconomic achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.A study that tracks the same participants over a long period of time. In the context of education, longitudinal studies are used to study the same individuals for different variables, using a variety of measurements such as test scores or qualitative data.An acronym frequently used that stands for socioeconomic status. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output. is the continuance of chronic poverty, mainly through the high school dropout rate. In 2012, a longitudinal study SES ⁴ found that 16% of low ¹²¹ Even those of lower income who are proficient readers in third grade, 11% still don't finish high school. ¹²² Impoverished students already have to deal with higher insecurity that leads to a higher dropout rate, including homelessness, job security, and family instability. ⁵ It can reference any socioeconomic class, such as low SES or high SES. third graders who are not reading proficiently will not graduate high school on time. ¹²³ The socioeconomic class of a student directly correlates with the dropout rate. A low-income student is 5 times more likely to drop out of high school. ¹²⁴ In 2014, 11.6% of low-income families had a high school dropout compared to 2.8% of high-income families. ¹²⁵ According to the American Psychological Association, this dropout can also be reflected in higher education; students who come from families that earn the top 25% of income are 8 times more likely to receive a degree than students from the bottom 25%. ¹²⁶ The achievement gap persists in creating a high dropout rate for lower-income families.

Dropping out perpetuates poverty in lower-income families by impeding employment, limiting salaries, and increasing the poverty rate of children in the home. As more employers require higher credentials for employment and lower-skilled job opportunities are shrinking, high school dropouts are struggling to find and remain employed. ¹²⁷ The rate of unemployment for high school dropouts is over 50%. ¹²⁸ Often these jobs are unstable, with fewer benefits. Even if a high school dropout is employed, a high school dropout aged 25-34 will earn about $26,000.00, while their peers who have completed high school will earn about $32,000.00. ¹²⁹ The dropout rate maintains poverty in the next generation as well. The poverty rate for a child where neither parent has received a high school diploma is 43%. In comparison, in a family where either parent has a college degree, the poverty rate is 4%. ¹³⁰

Poverty can disadvantage students at an early age, setting them up for failure well before they enter the public education system. Impoverished children are less likely to be read to and spoken to less before entering public school. ¹³¹ Early childhood education provides structure during a foundational stage: the development of a child's cognitive, social, and emotional skills. ¹³² In this period, children are highly influenced by the people and environment around them. ¹³³ Some early education options include government-funded organizations such as Head Start or private preschools.

Early education can help provide equal footing for children growing up in lower-income households. Early education teaches students vocabulary, social skills, and basic reading and math exposure. It also provides working parents with a safe place for children to attend during work hours. However, only 19% of low-income families enroll in high-quality early childhood education, while 29% of high-income families do. ¹³⁴

Research has shown that early education can have a meaningful impact on impoverished children, both in the short term and the long term. In the short term, early childhood education helps prepare students by developing their social, emotional, and cognitive growth. ¹³⁵ One study found that while students enrolled in ECE Early childhood education. tended not to receive better SAT or test scores, early education did affect their social and mental well-being. ¹³⁶ This study accounted for the variety of long-term success in students that matriculate in some form of preschool.

In the long term, students who have received early education tend to minimize threats that could potentially prolong their impoverished situation. Children of the Perry Preschool Project, a research study conducted in the 1960s to see if positive experiences in preschool had an impact on later school performance, were significantly more likely to have graduated from high school (66% versus 45%) and half as likely to have an unwanted teen pregnancy. By age 40, the participants were 46% less likely to be incarcerated or 33% less likely to have committed a violent crime. A researcher studied the children of these participants and also found the children to be less at-risk.A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ¹³⁷ More recently, a 2017 study reiterated that children who receive ECE Early childhood education. are 22% less likely to be held behind and 74% more likely to graduate. ¹³⁸ The best practice of Early Childhood Education directly impacts significant negative consequences of the achievement gap ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output..

A considerable gap in early education is the variety of early education quality. There are few regulations on early childhood education and no universal early childhood education in the United States. This variety leads to a variety in the quality of ECE Early childhood education.. Not all preschools are able to provide the structure and quality necessary to combat the achievement gap A gap occurs when one group of students performs better than another, and the difference is statistically significant. The groups may be classified by race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. ¹³⁹ One study suggests that, above all other qualities, the relationship between student and teacher is the most significant, even more, important than teacher certifications. ² Occasionally, the achievement gap will be referred to as an opportunity gap to focus more on the lack of resources than student output..

Preferred Citation: Bradley, Kate. "The Socioeconomic Achievement Gap in the US Public Schools." Ballard Brief. December 2022. www.ballardbrief.byu.edu.
Viewpoints published by Ballard Brief are not necessarily endorsed by BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Kathryn Bradley is a senior in Public Relations. She has always been interested in education and pedagogy since being involved with the students at her own Title I school. One summer she spent every day organizing a local lower-income literary program called 'Reading Rocks.' Going from park to park and lugging hundreds of books every day to read with children eager to learn was a dream that has only inspired her further. She plans to continue advocating for education equality in Texas with her husband.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Socioeconomic Achievement Gap in the US Public Schools - Ballard Brief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The socioeconomic achievement gap in public schools is a social issue that has evolved over time and affects the whole country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education and Socioeconomic Status Factsheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impact of socioeconomic status on educational outcomes and reducing slow academic skills development, low literacy, chronic stress and increased dropout rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Honoring the mandate to provide all students with an equal education requires adaptation. Shifting demographics in the United States have dramatically altered the ethnic and racial makeup of student populations, and a growing number of students do not speak English fluently. These changes present significant challenges for educators, requiring them to rethink their curricula and teaching strategies.

Examining the growing need for diversity and exploring ways to modify behavior in the classroom constitute a critical step toward creating linguistically inclusive and culturally sensitive learning environments.

The Growing Need for Diverse Teaching Strategies

US school districts are required to provide equal educational opportunities to language minority students, but meeting that standard has become more challenging as the number of students classified as an "English language learner," or ELL, has grown.

Generally, the term "English language learner" describes a student who is learning English in addition to their native language. Exact definitions of ELL vary, as do delineations between ELL and ESL (English as a second language), but by any measure, the number of students for whom English is not their first and primary language is growing as a percentage of all students enrolled in US public schools.

An average of 10 percent of students in US public schools are English language learners, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). In cities, the average is close to 15 percent. (NCES defines ELL students as those being served by programs of language assistance, including ESL, high-intensity language training, and bilingual education.) Among ELL students in the US, Spanish is the most common language spoken at home (75 percent), followed by Arabic (3 percent).

The increase in ELLs in public schools reflects a larger demographic shift. The percentage of non-white students in US public schools has increased significantly over the last decade, from 48 percent in 2010 to an estimated 54 percent in 2020. The percentage of Hispanic students enrolled in public schools grew from 23 percent to 28 percent over the same period.

While addressing diversity in the classroom largely consists of focusing on ELL students, cultural and linguistic divides are not exclusive to that segment of learners. In 2018, 47 percent of students and 79 percent of teachers in US public schools were white. This contrasts starkly with the student-teacher ratio for Hispanics (27 percent of students, 9 percent of teachers), Blacks (15 percent of students, 7 percent of teachers), and Asians (5 percent of students, 2 percent of teachers). Such disparities in representation of races and ethnicities among educators constitute a longstanding issue in US public schools.

Teaching Strategies for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

The first step in addressing cultural and linguistic diversity is to be aware. The very act of considering culture and language skills when developing curricula and activities makes it more likely that lessons will be inclusive. Teaching culturally diverse students entails the following additional steps:

Learn about your students' cultural backgrounds and demonstrate appreciation of those cultures. Teachers show students how to embrace different cultures by modeling respect and acceptance.

Learn more about students' lives outside of the classroom, and let that information inform lessons. For example, try to find examples that are relevant to students with different cultures and backgrounds.

Embrace diversity in teaching styles. Making an effort to accommodate different communication preferences, cognitive styles, and aptitudes results in lessons with a greater chance of reaching all students.

Encourage students to relate the benefit of a lesson to their own lives.

Bring diverse guest speakers into the classroom.

Educators can also benefit from the following tips for teaching linguistically diverse students:

Develop a relationship and work closely with an ESL teacher or interpreter.

Incorporate more group work. This allows students to practice their language skills in a more personal, less intimidating setting than the front of the classroom.

Make things as visual as possible by writing on the board, diagraming, and using pictures.

Allow ELL students to preview materials before a lesson when possible.

Understand that some students may experience a silent period. Students learning a new language commonly go through a period of several weeks or longer when they are taking in the new language but do not yet speak it.

Efforts to better serve culturally and linguistically diverse student populations are not limited to the classroom. Developing responsive curricula and teaching strategies is critical, but a holistic approach that includes families and the larger school community promises better outcomes.

Working With Parents

Positive parent-teacher relationships can influence any student's success, but they can be particularly important for students whose culture or dominant language differs from that of the majority of their classmates. Developing a relationship with the parents of ELL students or any student who is outside the dominant cultural or ethnic group, or whose culture or ethnicity differs from that of the teacher, builds a sense of trust and acceptance among students and their families. Making the effort to build such relationships can be challenging for teachers, and in cases where there is a language barrier, it may be necessary to engage with a language instructor or interpreter for support.

Support From Schools

Schools can address linguistic and cultural diversity by working to recruit teachers of color and instructors who can teach and tutor in languages other than English. Demonstrating support for student diversity is also crucial. Measures such as providing school signage in different languages, encouraging students to speak their first language at school, and displaying non-English books and materials creates an environment of acceptance and appreciation that benefits all students.

Schools can also play a role in supporting more training designed to mitigate implicit bias. Research has shown that teachers are just as likely to have a racial bias as non-teachers.

Create Inclusive Classrooms

American University's Online EdD in Education Policy and Leadership prepares educators to shape education policy and create more inclusive learning environments.

The degree program provides future teachers and education leaders with the tools they need to transform the education system to benefit all learners. With a focus on building equitable learning environments, the curriculum emphasizes systems change, personal leadership, social justices and anti-racism, and policy and research.

Learn more about American University's Online EdD in Education Policy and Leadership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students | American University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students in US schools are increasingly diverse. Learn more about teaching strategies that address culturally and linguistically diverse students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pervasive ethnic and racial disparities in education follow a pattern in which African-American, American Indian, Latino and Southeast Asian groups underperform academically, relative to Caucasians and other Asian-Americans.

These educational disparities

Mirror ethnic and racial disparities in socioeconomic status as well as health outcomes and health care.

Are evident early in childhood and persist through K-12 education.

Are reflected in test scores assessing academic achievement, such as reading and mathematics; percentages of those repeating one or more grades; dropout and graduation rates; proportions of students involved in gifted and talented programs; enrollment in higher education; as well as in behavioral markers of adjustment, including rates of being disciplined, suspended and expelled from schools.

Psychological science offers an understanding of educational disparities and strategies to redress them. Developmental psychologists have identified how differences in early childhood education and childcare are associated with academic performance and school readiness for ethnic and racial minority children prior to their entry into K-12 schools.

Psychological science examining second language acquisition has produced important findings about how linguistic minority children function, identifying the resources they need to perform commensurate with their cognitive abilities. Psychological theory informs our understanding of how immigration is related to educational disparities and explains why some Asian-American groups do well educationally compared to Latinos, despite both groups having large segments born outside the U.S. and a home language that is not English.

The organization of schools and how students are engaged in their learning are of critical importance for the educational achievement of students across ethnic and racial groups. Educational disparities are evident in markers of low academic performance and graduation rates, as well as the underrepresentation of students of color in gifted and talented educational programs, and psychological theory speaks to how to cultivate academic talent across the range of students in schools.

The psychology of individual and group differences can inform our understanding of the educational implications of important forms of human difference and exceptionality in educational systems.

Recommendations emerging from the task force's work include:

Advocacy

1. Advocate for wider access to high quality, early childhood education programs, which have been shown to help redress disparities associated with poverty in early childhood.

2. Empower immigrant families to be informed consumers of the U.S. educational system by providing information about how their children can be successful in U.S. schools, including prerequisite skills for elementary, middle and high schools, as well as in higher education.

3. Promote expansion of access to high-quality bilingual education that provides linguistically competent education to children.

4. Educate the public and policymakers about the consequences of increasing ethnic and racial segregation to the educational experiences of ethnic and racial minority children.

5. Promote allocating resources for increasing the capacity of teachers to deliver evidence-based, gap-closing instructional and learning strategies.

Educational Practice

1. Identify and promote the cultural competencies of service providers in early childhood education.

2. Train and consult with educators to capitalize on the generally high educational aspirations and valuing of education that immigrant students tend to bring with them to school.

3. Educate prospective and in-service educators about supports to ethnic and racial minority boys and to inoculate children against stereotyping.

4. Introduce prospective teachers and in-service teachers on how culture, identity and context interact, and interventions that have been demonstrated to increase achievement in ethnic and racial minority students.

5. Build on the social, cultural, linguistic, experiential and intellectual assets that students from diverse backgrounds bring with them into classrooms.

Research

1. Adopt a broad definition of educational disparities to include those differences that (a) overlap with social class; (b) reflect bias and differential treatment in the educational system; and (c) are based on different responses to the educational system.

2. Study the significant challenges faced by children of parents who hold undocumented immigrant status in the U.S.

3. Identify psychological factors associated with immigrant status that have contributed to academic success as well as educational factors associated with school environments that have been successful at cultivating academic achievement on the part of immigrant children and youth.

4. Examine the factors that contribute to the success of ethnic and racial minority students who participate in selective academic programs.

5. Investigate the teacher-student dynamics that are associated with discipline and academic achievement gaps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ethnic and racial disparities in education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethnic and racial disparities in education follow a pattern in which African-American, American Indian, Latino and Southeast Asian groups underperform academically, relative to Caucasians and other Asian-Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the fifth installment in a series of blog posts on racial inequality produced by the Office of Economic Policy. The other posts can be found at these links: 1. Racial Inequality in the United States, 2. Racial Differences in Economic Security: The Racial Wealth Gap, 3. Racial Differences in Economic Security: Housing, 4. Racial Differences in Economic Security: Non-housing Assets
Introduction
Table 1. Racial Achievement Gaps in Elementary and Middle School Notes: Table shows estimated achievement gaps in standard deviations for each racial and ethnic group relative to white students. Standard deviation units are based on the standard deviation across all students for a given test-grade-year combination. The Asian category is comprised of Asian-origin students who are proficient in oral English at the beginning of kindergarten. Data are from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 public-use K-9 longitudinal data set. See Reardon, Robinson-Cimpian, and Weathers (2015) for details. Source: Table 3 of Reardon, Sean F., Joseph P. Robinson-Cimpian, and Ericka S. Weathers. 2015. "Patterns and Trends in Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Academic Achievement Gaps." In Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Margaret E. Goertz, 499-518. New York: Routledge.
Free public primary and secondary education in the United States was established to ensure that all Americans have access to educational opportunity and are equipped to fully participate in our democracy. However, laws banning enslaved people from being taught to read, exclusionary Jim Crow laws, and the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson entrenched racial segregation of public schools in the South, and, while not mandated by law, a de facto system of segregation became commonplace in Northern states at the same time. These systems were used to deprive people of color of the educational resources required to prosper in society throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Nearly 70 years after the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that ended legal school segregation, substantial racial disparities in educational opportunity and attainment still exist. Recognizing these disparities and understanding their determinants is important because they have stark implications for labor market outcomes, including employment, wages and earnings, and occupations and job quality, all key factors in individuals' economic wellbeing.
Figure 1. Racial Differences in 4th Grade Reading Achievement Notes: Figure displays differences between the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading composite scale score for 4th graders in each racial/ethnic group relative to the score for white 4th graders. Source: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessments, retrieved from the Figure 2. Racial Differences in 4th Grade Math Achievement Notes: Figure displays differences between the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Mathematics composite scale score for 4th graders in each racial/ethnic group relative to the score for white 4th graders. Source: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Mathematics Assessments, retrieved from the Main NAEP Data Explorer Figure 3. High School Completion Rates by Race and Ethnicity Notes: Figure displays the percent of people 25-years-old and older who have graduated from high school by race and ethnicity. . Main NAEP Data Explorer. Figure 4. College Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity Notes: Figure displays the percent of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college or graduate school by race and ethnicity. Data for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander individuals separately and for individuals of two or more races are not available until 2003.
In addition, since education is the bedrock of labor productivity, policies that raise the quality and quantity of education for underserved groups have and would boost productivity for the country as a whole. One well-cited study finds that 40 percent of per capita GDP growth from the period of 1960 to 2010 can be accounted for by women and Black men entering into highly skilled occupations. Although disparity in access to high quality education is only one of many barriers faced by workers of color, these findings demonstrate the potential magnitude of the gains that would come from better fostering the talent innate in our future workforce. Indeed, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimate that removing racial gaps in educational attainment alone-separate from any effect on employment or hours-would have increased GDP in 2019 by $190 billion.

In this blog post, we discuss racial differences in K-12 and postsecondary educational experiences, highlighting current disparities and changes in these disparities during the recent past. We then discuss their key determinants and show these determinants are factors outside students' control, including the socioeconomic status of their parents, the schools they attend, the neighborhoods in which they live, discrimination in disciplinary actions, the race of the teacher to which they are assigned, and implicit bias in teacher expectations.
Figure 5. Racial Differences in Undergraduate Enrollment by Level and Type Notes: Figure displays the percent of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college or graduate school by race and ethnicity.
Racial Disparities in Elementary and Secondary Education
Figure 6. Racial Differences in Bachelor's Degree Attainment Notes: Figure displays the percent of people 25 years old and older who have earned a bachelor's degree by race and ethnicity.
Childhood educational experiences have been shown to shape academic outcomes in adolescence and later in life, impacting indicators of well-being far into adulthood. Racial differences in childhood educational experiences thus have the potential to place children of different races on different trajectories at an early age, making it more difficult for some to achieve economic security in adulthood than others. In future blog posts in this series, we will discuss the disparities in labor market outcomes and how they are intertwined with the educational disparities outlined in today's post.

Although school enrollment rates are similar across race and ethnicity for three- to five-year-old children, research indicates that substantial gaps in reading and math achievement exist at the beginning of kindergarten as shown in Table 1. Black-white gaps in reading and math are about one-half and three-quarters of a standard deviation, respectively, and Hispanic-white gaps in both subjects are similarly large.Gaps between students of any other race, a diverse category which includes Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native children in addition to children of multiple races, and white students are about 0.4 standard deviations for both reading and math.

Although the Black-white and Hispanic-white gaps for reading and math are similar at the beginning of elementary school, the Black-white gaps widen as students progress through secondary school while the Hispanic-white gaps shrink. The Black-white gaps in reading and math expand from 0.53 and 0.73 standard deviations, respectively, in the fall of kindergarten to 0.95 and 1 standard deviations, respectively, in the spring of 8th grade. In contrast, the Hispanic-white reading and math gaps fall from 0.48 and 0.76 to 0.36 and 0.44, respectively, over the same period.

Most of the widening of the Black-white gaps occurs in elementary school, with evidence of little change after eighth grade.Similarly, most of the narrowing of the Hispanic-white gaps occurs early in elementary school, and research shows the gaps continue to narrow (less rapidly) as students progress through middle and high school. These patterns, coupled with evidence that gains early in elementary school are concentrated among recent immigrants and students with low levels of English proficiency, have led some scholars to conclude that the improvements among Hispanic students are likely driven in part by the development of English language skills among these students.

In addition to highlighting trends in achievement gaps as students progress through school, it is important to understand how achievement gaps have changed over time for students in a given grade. To that end, Figures 1 and 2 display differences in scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics, respectively, for students of different races and ethnicities relative to white students. In 2003, the gaps between white and Black 4th grade reading and math scores were 31 and 27 points, respectively. By 2009, both gaps had closed to 26 and stayed relatively constant throughout the 2010s before widening to 28 (reading) and 29 (math) in 2022, likely due to differential impacts of pandemic-related learning disruptions. In contrast, the Hispanic-white gaps in reading and math have been steadily closing over the last 20 years, improving from 28 and 22, respectively, in 2000 to 22 and 21 in 2022.

Prior to 2011, the scores of Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students were reported together, and students in this combined group performed similarly to if not slightly better than white students in both reading and math. However, as evident from the trends for students in these two groups reported separately after 2011, this aggregation masks important heterogeneity, with Asian students consistently outperforming white students in both reading and math and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students consistently lagging behind.

High school completion rates are another important measure of academic achievement in secondary school since high school completion is required for many jobs and to pursue postsecondary education. Figure 3 shows differences in high school completion by race and ethnicity over the last three decades. Since 1992, the percent of adults 25-years-old and older who have graduated from high school has increased for all racial and ethnic groups, with the largest improvements occurring among Black and Hispanic individuals, the groups with the lowest completion rates in 1992. High school completion rates increased from 68 percent in 1992 to 91 percent in 2021 for Black individuals and from 53 percent to 74 percent over that same period for Hispanic individuals. While there is still a relatively large gap in the Hispanic high school completion rate relative to others, it is clear that progress has been and continues to be made on this dimension.

Racial Disparities in Postsecondary Education

Racial disparities in education persist beyond high school and into postsecondary education and are evident in the differences in college enrollment rates visible in Figure 4, which shows the percent of 18- to 24-year-olds in each group enrolled in college or graduate school. College premiums remain high, such that these differences in enrollment and graduation rates will contribute to large disparities in lifetime earnings.

Overall, the share of young adults enrolled in college has increased over the last three decades, with the largest gains occurring for Black and Hispanic individuals. In 1990, 25 percent of Black 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in college or graduate school, and by 2020, that number had risen to 36 percent. Over the same period, the share of Hispanic young adults enrolled in college or graduate school more than doubled from 16 percent to over 35 percent. White and Asian young adults, who had the highest rates of college enrollment in 1990, experienced smaller gains of roughly 6 to 7 percentage points, as did American Indian/Alaska Native young adults.In contrast, the enrolled share of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander young adults and those belonging to two or more races declined between 2010 and 2020 from 36 percent to 34 percent and from 38 percent to 34 percent, respectively.

In addition to comparing overall college enrollment rates, it is important to consider the types of schools students enroll in. Students may enroll in institutions of different levels (two-year or four-year) and type (not-for-profit or for-profit). Given evidence of higher returns to an additional year of schooling at four-year institutions than at two-year institutions and evidence that attending a for-profit institution may lead to worse post-college labor market and financial outcomes than not attending college at all, differential enrollment patterns by race and ethnicity may lead to lasting differences in economic security post-college.

Figure 5 shows, for each racial and ethnic group, the distribution of undergraduates across institution levels and control of institution in Fall 2020. Asian and white undergraduates, along with undergraduates of two or more races are most likely to be enrolled at four-year institutions. In contrast, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander undergraduates are most likely to be enrolled at two-year institutions, although, notably, the share of Hispanic students enrolled at two-year institutions is nearly 10 percentage points larger than the share of Black students enrolled at these institutions. Black and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students are much more likely than any other group to enrolled at for-profit institutions, both two- and four-year.

These differences in enrollment patterns contribute to the racial differences in bachelor's degree attainment that are evident in Figure 6. Since 1990, the percent of people 25 years old and older with a bachelor's degree has increased for all racial and ethnic groups, but Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals still lag behind Asian and white individuals and those of two or more races.

Determinants of Racial Disparities in Educational Experiences and Attainment

The Role of Socioeconomic Status

In this section, we will discuss the determinants of the racial disparities in education outlined above. Recall that sizeable achievement gaps exist at the beginning of kindergarten despite relatively similar pre-school enrollment rates. Therefore, these early disparities in achievement must be driven by something other than differences in access to formal schooling prior to elementary school. Research suggests that nearly all of the Black-white reading gap and over 80 percent of the Black-white math gap at the beginning kindergarten can be explained by differences in socioeconomic status and observed family background characteristics. Similarly, there is evidence that socioeconomic factors and family background account for 85 percent of the Hispanic-white gap in reading achievement and 75 percent of the Hispanic-white math gap in kindergarten. Socioeconomic status is measured using total family income and parental education and occupations, and family background characteristics include the age of the child's mother at first birth, indicators for receiving aid from government social safety net programs, and the number of children's books in the home.

The role that socioeconomic status plays in kindergarten achievement suggests that race-neutral policies designed to provide resources to underserved families may aid in closing racial achievement gaps early in elementary school. Head Start is one such policy, created in 1965 to improve school readiness of low-income three- and four-year-olds. While there is evidence that Head Start is effective at improving school readiness, there is also evidence that its effects on test scores fade out by the end of kindergarten. These findings highlight both the benefits of supporting under-resourced families with young children and the limitations of temporary assistance.

While most of the achievement gaps at the beginning of kindergarten are attributable to differences in socioeconomic status, evidence on the extent to which differences in socioeconomic factors can explain Black-white achievement gaps later in elementary school is somewhat mixed. Older studies find that as students progress through school, socioeconomic factors explain a smaller and smaller share of the Black-white gap, with these factors accounting for just 35 percent (or less) of the Black-white achievement gaps from third grade onward. In contrast, more recent work that uses permanent (long-run) income as opposed to current income as a measure of socioeconomic status finds that these factors explain 40 to 75 percent of the gaps at the end of elementary school. Similarly, recent research that takes into account the fact that test scores are imperfect measures of true skills finds that most, if not all, of the gaps throughout elementary and middle school can be explained by socioeconomic and family background factors.

Research on the importance of socioeconomic factors in explaining Hispanic-white achievement gaps in elementary school is less mixed. Most research finds that these factors can explain an increasing share of Hispanic-white achievement gaps as students move through elementary school, so much so that estimates of the gap that are adjusted for differences in socioeconomic status disappear completely by fifth grade.

The Role of Schools

While research suggests observable family background characteristics contribute substantially to racial achievement gaps in elementary and secondary school, there is an active debate about the extent to which schools reduce or exacerbate those disparities.

First, there is evidence that racial segregation in school districts is strongly associated with the magnitude of racial achievement gaps. This is particularly concerning because although it has been nearly 70 years since the end of legal segregation, many of America's public schools remain segregated by race and ethnicity today: 31 and 23 percent of Hispanic and Black students, respectively, attended a predominately same-race-or-ethnicity school, where 75 percent or more of the students are of their own race or ethnicity, in the 2020-2021 school year. Additional research suggests that school segregation itself may have no effect on achievement gaps independent of the effects of neighborhood segregation, so understanding the mechanisms through which school and neighborhood segregation impact racial achievement gaps (e.g., school and teacher quality, school funding, peer effects, crime, etc.) together and in isolation and their relative importance is a critical area for future research.

Second, differences in discipline rates by race and ethnicity may contribute to differences in achievement and educational attainment across groups. There is evidence both that being formally disciplined in school negatively impacts educational attainment, and that Black public school students are disproportionately disciplined (via suspensions and expulsions) relative to public school students of other racial and ethnic groups for the same violations. These disparities persist no matter the type or poverty level of the public school attended.

Finally, schools may impact racial differences in achievement and completion through the (non-disciplinary) interactions teachers have with students. For example, there is evidence that same-race elementary school teachers increase the likelihood of high school graduation and college enrollment among Black students, with role model effects as a potential mechanism,and that teacher expectations - even overly optimistic ones - impact the likelihood of college graduation.

Existing research on the determinants of racial college enrollment and completion gaps indicates that nearly all these gaps are attributable to differences in pre-college characteristics, including family socioeconomic status, other family background variables, and pre-college test scores, the latter of which, as discussed earlier in this blog post, are also largely determined by family characteristics. For example, there is evidence that once pre-college characteristics are taken into account, Black and Hispanic students are more likely to attend and complete colleges of all quality levels than white students. These findings suggest that to improve racial gaps in college attendance and completion, policymakers should focus on improving educational opportunity much earlier in life and economic opportunity for families more broadly.

Conclusion

Racial disparities in educational experiences and attainment begin early in life and persist as individuals progress through school. Recognizing these disparities and understanding their determinants is important because they have stark implications for labor market outcomes, including employment, wages and earnings, and occupations and job quality, all of which are key determinants of economic wellbeing.

In particular, it is important to recognize that the key determinants of many of these disparities are factors outside students' control, including the socioeconomic status of their parents, the schools they attend, the neighborhoods in which they live, discrimination in disciplinary actions, the race of the teacher to which they are assigned, and implicit bias in teacher expectations. Reducing these economic and educational disparities is an important policy goal, not only because of the benefits for individual students, but also because of the benefits to our national economy.

Overall, the findings in this blog post highlight both the limited progress that has been made over the last three decades in closing racial gaps in educational attainment, as well as the substantial work that remains to ensure equal access to high quality educational opportunities for all Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post 5: Racial Differences in Educational Experiences and Attainment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the fifth installment in a series of blog posts on racial inequality produced by the Office of Economic Policy. The other posts can be found at these links: 1. Racial Inequality in the United States, 2. Racial Differences in Economic Security: The Racial Wealth Gap, 3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The digital divide has long existed, but the global pandemic has illuminated this divide. In 2020, Common Sense Media and Boston Consulting Group reported that 15-16 million students lacked sufficient internet access or devices to participate in remote or online learning.

While we often focus on adequate internet access and devices, the digital divide encompasses more than equitable access to high-speed internet and powerful computing devices. It goes beyond this to include Digital Inclusion.

What is digital inclusion? The Digital Equity Act of 2021 defines it as:
The activities necessary to ensure that individuals have full access to and use of affordable information and communication technologies, including reliable broadband internet service; internet-enabled devices that meet the individual needs of the user; access to digital literacy training; and the applications and online content that enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration.
Digital inclusion can not stand alone without digital equity; it takes equity a step further into digital literacy training and an individual's engagement utilizing the tools needed to fully participate in their classroom, school, and community. In other words, digital inclusion may be viewed by educators as the "teaching and learning" aspect of digital equity. As a district sets its vision for student success, digital equity and digital inclusion must be integrated into that vision to fully realize an equitable education for all students. When there are gaps in either of these areas, it creates a digital divide. This divide exists across the country for many students and their families.

Ensuring that digital access is available, leaders must also communicate a shared understanding around the possibilities for student learning. A clearly defined vision for how devices and expanded broadband access should augment and broaden students' learning opportunities helps district leadership teams to gain buy-in and support from stakeholders, including teachers, families, students, local officials, and the broader community. So what are the possibilities when it comes to full digital inclusion? It is when leaders move beyond boxes and wires and engage in conversations about TEACHING & LEARNING.

On its own, access to connectivity and devices does not guarantee access to engaging educational experiences or quality education. Without thoughtful intervention and attention to the way technology is used for learning, the digital use divide could grow even as access to technology in schools increases. (USDE Office of Ed Tech, https://tech.ed.gov/netp/learning/

As we look more closely at digital inclusion, the recent pandemic has highlighted students' need for devices that meet their learning needs and a skill set that includes the ability to engage in learning in new ways. Inside digital inclusion, we also see the need for educators to be well versed in utilizing digital tools to engage their students. So let's take a closer look at digital inclusion as we examine the teaching and learning aspect and explore what district leaders need to look for and include in their vision for student success.

TEACHING
As we work to get devices in the hands of students and ensure that there is adequate broadband coverage for them to participate in learning meaningfully, we must go beyond the devices and connectivity and look towards our instructional practices. Closing the digital equity gap isn't just about devices or connectivity; it is as much about teaching as it is about technology.

Educators skilled in technology integration are essential because technology can help teachers personalize instruction and engage students in more meaningful ways. In addition, district leaders must understand and value the digital integration and acknowledge the following as they craft their vision:

1. Training is often needed to support a teacher's expertise to integrate technology into learning effectively. Giving teachers time to explore the available technology resources in collaboration with their colleagues and how to utilize them plays an essential role in digital inclusion.

2. Teachers should be skilled and proficient at determining when technology will support learning and when it is not needed for a learning goal or impedes the learning process.

A few questions that a leader can begin with as you examine the teaching that is taking place in your district to determine your teachers' needs might include:

Do you have a district-wide LMS? If so, what training is available to support teachers in using it effectively?

Do you have feedback loops to gather information from teachers on their use of the LMS and their needs related to its use?

Do our teachers have training opportunities to grow their ability to utilize technology to teach both in-person and online effectively?

Foundational skills - using technology

Effectively blending technology into instruction, transforming pedagogy

Are digital tools being used in equitable ways? Do all students have equitable access to high-quality digital learning tools? (Are students just consuming information with the technology, or are they using technology to produce content and create products to showcase their learning?)

In addition, the ISTE Standards for Educators provide good support for leaders who want to identify the teachers' skills needed to engage students in meaningful ways with technology.

LEARNING
Closing the digital divide doesn't stop with access, robust devices and teachers who can effectively integrate technology into their instruction. Students should experience curriculum-rich opportunities that are meaningful and offer options that empower them as learners.

Accessibility: We must ensure that all members of school communities, including those that need additional support, can access essential learning experiences. This access includes but is not limited to students with disabilities and those who might need more help accessing and fully utilizing digital tools and software available to them.

Digital Literacy: Students must be supported to develop the digital literacy skills to navigate virtual learning environments.

Digital equity and inclusion ensure that students have the knowledge and skills to use technology for learning, frequently interact with robust and accessible content and programs, see their identities represented in and by the technologies they use and experience meaningful opportunities that empower them as learners.

The ISTE Standards for Students can also help educators understand and articulate the skills students need and the types of learning opportunities they must experience to close the digital divide. Finally, school leaders must consider how these standards align with their vision for teaching and learning or their portrait of a graduate profile.

To see how digital inclusion is prioritized within a school district, look at this video from Vancouver Public Schools in Vancouver, Washington. As you watch this video, look for the aspects of digital inclusion that include teaching and learning and observe Vancouver's work to close the digital divide for its students.

CoSN has additional Digital Equity resources at https://www.cosn.org/edtech-topics/digital-equity/

Nancy Magnum
CoSN Subject Matter Expert, Digital Equity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Inclusion: Key to Student Learning for All | CoSN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The digital divide has long existed, but the global pandemic has illuminated this divide. In 2020, Common Sense Media and Boston Consulting Group reported that 15-16 million students lacked sufficient internet access or devices to participate in remote or online learning. While we often focus on adequate internet access and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Equity in the experiences they have is an important element of education that's missing for too many K-12 students. Despite all of the advances in technology and the ability to seemingly create it for students more easily, many of them still suffer from a lack of inclusion when it comes to digital education-something that was also greatly exacerbated with remote instruction. As information and communications technology (ICT) continues to dominate the workforce, the resulting need for skills has become more urgent in education. That starts with improving digital inclusion and equity in the classroom. We need to do more to slim the starting with making digital inclusion a right, not a privilege.

Among all the technologies that help prepare students for the future, access to the Internet is probably the most important. It has obviously become the backbone for how individuals, companies, communities, and even the economy function optimally on a day-to-day basis. And, students can develop skills to maximize their efficiency by drawing on the power of the Internet. They also need assurance that they'll have access to this tool, which isn't always a given. Efforts to improve digital inclusion have been in the works for quite a while now, however. Most aim to address both digital literacy issues and that lack of access to ICT tools. Simply put, all students (and adults) should be able to access and use the ICT tools that are available.

Digital inclusion is important because it helps to ensure that all members of school communities, including any who might be at more of a disadvantage, are able to access key learning experiences. Digital inclusion should involve affordable and strong Internet service, Internet-connected devices, and even digital literacy training. Other elements that can help ensure true digital inclusion are quality technical support and online content that encourages self-sufficiency. Our reliance on these digital tools isn't going to drop off and this, of course, means that educational leaders need to do everything possible to equip K-12 students with the skill sets to contribute in a global society.

Once these plans are in place, school leaders then need to act on them with concerted integration efforts. Access to the Internet is the biggest digital inclusion need for students. So many school leaders, especially in rural areas, have had success with turning to mobile hotspots in some instances rather than overhauling their existing networks. These are key in schools or libraries because they help to provide that access 21st century students need. Besides that, another trend is the modernization of both school and public libraries. This enables them to offer free and reliable computer access to anyone in their community. In recent years, libraries have obviously become hubs for content creation, digital exploration, and even manufacturing. So, for educators looking to ramp up digital inclusion, focusing on the school library is a logical place to start.

As implementation unfolds, school leaders and educators quickly need to begin thinking about measuring its performance and impact. To do this, they need access to relevant data so they can see what's working, what's improved, and what may not be worth pursuing. For school purposes, it's very helpful to get an idea of how much time students can spend on the Internet. This sheds light on how much they rely on it in order to complete assignments. Finally, those at the forefront of digital inclusion efforts must deliver a consistent message about its importance. This helps make sure everybody has bought in to the improvement efforts. And, that sense of community can ensure that students and teachers consistently have digital needs met.

Essentially, we bring this up because we think that teachers could leverage some of the values the Maker Movement promotes in the same way when they try to maximize digital inclusion. The Maker Movement is for everyone-just like access to digital technology should be. If somebody can't find a natural way to join the Maker Movement, it's members of that community who help. Not that it's entirely up to them to ensure they have the tools to complete assignments and prepare for the future, but children do have a voice when it comes to their learning experiences. If students who can't always access technology discover a realistic solution, then that's great. In any case, utilizing the tools that they do have to create a solution is the ideal outcome and one of the principles of the Maker Movement.

Despite the general spirit of the Maker Movement, those with more means can access more innovative and powerful technologies. This is consistent with digital tools in school systems, too. Leaders from the affluent areas can provide better digital tools and more effective digital learning for their students. But, the question remains-money concerns aside-how school leaders can adopt those principles of the Maker Movement when they're unable to provide the best digital learning. Can they get by with simply promoting the values of creative thinking and innovative problem solving? Possibly. But, that will likely only get things so far. So, education leaders can perhaps find motivation from makers to discover a creative solution. We know that it's tough, but maybe there's a way in your school or district to try something inventive.

Digital equity isn't always solvable despite being pretty simple for many students, parents, and teachers to recognize when it's occurring. Unfortunately, some students fall behind in tech skills development because they don't always have access to the right technology. True digital inclusion, if we're being honest, involves more than just student access. Teachers need access to digital technologies as well. They might be behind in developing digital fluencies in various technologies, which we attempt to prevent from happening among students, and it could be for the same reason. Despite knowing these technologies can help their students, not all teachers have equal access. They may also need PD on how to properly use them in instruction.

On the other hand, if trying a BYOD program, be mindful that not all students have a device. Being one of the only students to show up without a device can make students feel insecure and cause them to regress socially and emotionally. As we alluded to, maker education could help students build up key skills and feel included-with or without technology. Everybody has the same ability to be creative and they could start to see this through the hands-on work. Finally, educators should keep in mind that some students may not be able to use a computer or the Internet to complete homework assignments. This is something they need to know about, which they can do by sending home surveys to parents. This also helps educators to be more mindful of how they teach and what they say in the classroom.

One of the reasons true digital inclusion across the board is this tough is because students are so diverse. This means that the pedagogical methods teachers use are often intended to embrace this diversity, which is tricky to accomplish. For educators to understand how each student will navigate their learning process and arrive at desired learning outcomes, they'll need to first understand their learning characteristics. Kids may have some experience using digital media, though that experience will vary. Some of them might only get it in school, so much of their digital media exposure may be educational. Others may only access it at home, so much of their exposure could be, well, the exact opposite of educational. Finding a balance and helping students realize that they could be using technology for learning is one road to take.

Studies show that certain factors contribute to some children having lower amounts of digital literacy than their peers. They are generally made up of things they can't control, like gender and geographical location. We don't want to stereotype, but it's logical that students who live in more densely populated or rural areas won't have as much exposure to technology outside school. This could lead to them coming to school with lower levels of technology fluencies while peers are at higher levels. Different groups of children will always interact differently with technology, which is important for educators to recognize. The optimal pedagogical approaches and an up-to-date understanding of each students' comfort levels helps teachers to use where their students are as a starting point. From there, they can build on these proficiencies until their classroom reaches true digital inclusion.

For the latest EdTech, STEAM, and 21st century education news, follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Like us on Facebook, too, or sign up for our newsletter for our latest product announcements and offerings. If you have an idea for a blog theme, send us a message on social media or comment below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Inclusion: Why Is It So Important In Education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Digital inclusion has become increasingly vital and, when not equitable, it's extremely noticeable. Here's why it's key and how to attain it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children.

The IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to more than 8 million (as of school year 2022-23) eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

Infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, with disabilities and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth ages 3 through 21 receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B.

Additionally, the IDEA authorizes:

Formula grants to states to support special education and related services and early intervention services.

Discretionary grants to state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technical assistance and dissemination, technology development, personnel preparation and development, and parent-training and -information centers.

Congress reauthorized the IDEA in 2004 and most recently amended the IDEA through Public Law 114-95, the Every Student Succeeds Act, in December 2015.

In the law, Congress states:

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.

Other Laws for Children with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) provides additional resources of interest for individuals with disabilities and their families.

OCR does not enforce the IDEA; however, OCR does enforce the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title II rights of IDEA-eligible students with disabilities.

To learn more, visit the OCR's Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities.

Visit OCR's website for additional resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The IDEA is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anne M. Hayes and Jennae Bulat.

Research Triangle Park (NC): ; 2017 Jul.

Having a disability can be one of the most marginalizing factors in a child's life. In education, finding ways to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities can be challenging, especially in schools, districts, regions, and countries with severely limited resources. Inclusive education-which fully engages all students, including students with disabilities or other learning challenges, in quality education-has proven particularly effective in helping all students learn, even while challenges to implementing inclusive education systems remain. This guide provides suggestions for developing inclusive education systems and policies, especially for low- and middle-income countries that are moving from a segregated system toward an inclusive system of education. We specifically address the needs of countries with limited resources for implementing inclusive education. However, our strategies and recommendations can be equally useful in other contexts where inclusive education practices have not yet been adopted.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank reviewers Elizabeth Randolph, Alastair Rodd, Pamela Baird, and Ann Turnbull and editors Amy Morrow and Lynda Grahill for their expert input and recommendations. They express sincere appreciation to Felice Sinno-Lai for her diligent and responsive assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Abbreviations Used

Introduction

Disability is present in every race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, and religion. More than a billion people, or 15 percent of the world's population, have some category of disability. Of these, an estimated 150 million children have a disability, and 80 percent of these children live in the developing world (World Health Organization [WHO], 2011). These children often face conditions of extreme poverty, exclusion, and discrimination and are denied the basic services offered to their peers without disabilities. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) estimates that 90 percent of children with disabilities in low-income countries have never received any form of education ( UNICEF, 2014a). Also, once enrolled, students with disabilities are more likely to drop out of school than students without disabilities.

It is estimated that only 5 percent of all students with a disability complete primary school ( Peters, 2003). Even when students with disabilities attend school, a curriculum that has not been adapted to their needs may mean they do not have the same access to education as their classmates do. Moreover, teachers may not know how to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, books may not be available in braille for students who are blind, and teachers may not know sign language for students who are deaf ( International Disability and Development Consortium, 2013).

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) signifies a paradigm shift from seeing disability as a clinical and social welfare issue toward recognizing that disability is a fundamental human rights issue and that meeting the development goals of persons with disabilities is necessary to meeting overall global development goals. This Convention provides a legal framework for all issues related to the lives of persons with disabilities, and it includes explicit language stating that children with disabilities have the right to receive education in an inclusive setting and with the supports needed to succeed. Currently, 173 countries have ratified the CRPD ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2016) and are developing new policies and reforming educational systems to align and comply with the treaty.

For many low- and middle-income (LMI) countries, ratifying the CRPD signals that they are following the global shift of moving from a system where children with disabilities are educated in segregated schools or classrooms toward a system that allows for children to be educated in the same classrooms as their nondisabled peers. However, many countries struggle with this development and are seeking recommendations on how to transition and examples of proven good practices in special education and inclusive education reform. This guide provides recommendations for developing inclusive education policies and systems and examples of effective models from around the world. Although each country will undoubtedly approach reform differently based upon its cultural context, current education programs, and existing special education systems and needs, the recommendations provided in this guide can serve as an additional resource to help each country meet its goal of inclusive education reform.

At the heart of this guide is the premise that all children can and deserve the right to learn and reach their full potential. For many children with disabilities, this means receiving specialized supports or special education to address students' individual learning differences and needs. This guide discusses the supports that should be provided within an education system and provides suggestions on how to adjust education systems to affect improved learning outcomes for students with, and without, disabilities.

Structure and Purpose of the Guide

The guide's primary audiences are policymakers and national-level education stakeholders working on education reform, although international organizations working in the field of education and other education program implementers can also benefit from understanding and, hopefully, supporting the strategies provided. Disabled persons' organizations (DPOs) and parents may also find the guide helpful when advocating for improved educational policies and programs. The principles of this guide align closely with Article 24 of the UN CRPD and the recent general comments on Article 24 (https://www.ohchr.org/). A user-friendly checklist included as Appendix A to this paper covers the core elements that are typically found in inclusive systems and policies based upon the guidance provided by the Committee on the CRPD on Article 24. Appendix B provides a glossary of terms related to disabilities inclusive education.

This guide encourages strategies that are specifically intended to support inclusive education strategies for all children, regardless of the type or severity of disability, because an ideal system would be able to serve all children equitably. At its core, this guide recognizes that inclusive schools and classrooms benefit all students, not just those with disabilities, and that students do not need to be officially identified as having a disability to benefit from inclusive education strategies.

This guide outlines the relevant international legislations and policy frameworks that have set the stage for inclusive education and highlights the core principles of these documents that may be relevant for countries looking to develop more inclusive education systems. This guide also provides recommendations for elements to include in national education policies to help ensure compliance with the CRPD and suggestions for other components that often exist in successful inclusive systems. Finally, the guide introduces models for how to move from segregated systems toward inclusive ones, including basic suggestions for teacher training budget development, data collection, and monitoring.

This guide does not address barriers that extend beyond the school system, such as those related to inadequate transportation systems or parental or community-based resistance to enrolling children with disabilities in school. Such barriers are real, relevant, and deserve serious attention in all communities. However, they are not included in this guide so that the guide can focus more deeply on the characteristics, constraints, and opportunities of education systems themselves.

Summary of the School and Classroom Disabilities Guide

This guide serves as a companion piece to the School and Classroom Disability Inclusion Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries (School and Classroom Guide) ( Bulat et al., 2015), which provides school- and classroom-based guidance for including children with mild to severe disabilities in general education schools and classrooms. The School and Classroom Guide provides practical classroom strategies and suggestions that build upon the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model and that encourage instruction that benefits all children, regardless of the presence or type of disability.

The School and Classroom Guide is particularly useful for schools that have not yet implemented inclusive education or are only beginning to do so. Basic concepts of Response to Intervention and practical modifications to classroom instruction to ensure that children with physical, sensory, communication, and intellectual disabilities benefit from instruction are also highlighted within the guide. Together, the School and Classroom Guide and this guide on inclusive education systems and policies can provide policymakers and implementers with recommendations and concrete suggestions regarding how to better provide quality education services for students with disabilities.

What Is Inclusive Education?

The goal of educating children with disabilities is the same as that of educating children without disabilities: to support children in reaching their full potential and leading productive lives as active members of their communities. Children with disabilities often require specialized services and supports to master content being taught. Unfortunately, however, in many countries, specialized education services take the form of segregating students with disabilities in separate classrooms or schools, with no opportunities for engaging with peers who do not have disabilities and often no access to the curriculum that these peers are learning. Shifting away from segregation toward including all students in general education classrooms and schools means providing all students in these classrooms with the unique supports and services that they need-such as access to assistive devices, teacher assistants, and an adapted curriculum-to participate effectively in the classroom. This shift is often a substantial one that requires time, political will, and an understanding of the benefits of inclusive education for all students.

That said, no universal definition of disability exists. The CRPD states that disability is an "evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." The CRPD further elaborates that "Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others" ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006). This definition provides important guidelines for disability but leaves specific categorization based on diagnosis to education systems themselves.

Similarly, there is no single concept of inclusive education that applies across all contexts. Most fundamentally, inclusive education is considered to be the "least restrictive environment" for children with disabilities. As such, it is the preferred educational setting, as specified in Article 24 of the CRPD and many domestic laws, including the US Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

However, some organizations and countries have used a broader definition of inclusion that includes the education of all individuals who may be marginalized. For example, the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education states that inclusive schools should:

accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas or groups. ( UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1994)

Regardless of how inclusive education systems are defined, educational stakeholders should have a clear understanding of the principles of inclusive education as they develop and strengthen special education systems. Following is a text box below that provides a general overview of what are-and are not-characteristics of inclusive education.

Dispelling Myths about Inclusion and the Education of Learners with Disabilities

Misperceptions related to the education of students with disabilities can impact the motivation of government officials, school administrators, teachers, communities, and international development staff to implement or support inclusive education systems. In some cases, the largest resistance to the shift from segregated to inclusive systems comes from special education teachers themselves, who may be concerned about their place within inclusive systems and can have unsubstantiated prejudices against inclusion ( McLeskey & Waldron, 2000). This section helps to dispel some of the more frequently held myths about inclusive education and teaching students with disabilities.

Myth 1. Inclusive Education Will Have a Negative Impact on Students Without Disabilities

Decades of research in the United States and other high-income countries have demonstrated that inclusive education benefits not only students with disabilities but also students without disabilities. Inclusive classrooms teach all students about the importance of diversity and acceptance. Evidence also indicates that students with and without disabilities who are educated in inclusive classrooms have better academic outcomes than students who are educated in noninclusive classrooms. For example, several studies have shown that students without disabilities make significantly greater progress in reading and math when taught in an inclusive setting with students with disabilities ( Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis, 2013). One meta-analysis of existing research demonstrated that 81 percent of the reported outcomes showed that including students with disabilities in the general education classroom resulted in either a positive or neutral effect on students without disabilities ( Kalambouka, Farrell, & Dyson, 2007). A possible reason for this improved educational outcome is that all students benefit from differentiated learning techniques and other accommodations-such as visual schedules, manipulatives, and comprehension strategies-that are used in inclusive classrooms.

Myth 2. Inclusive Education Is More Expensive Than Educating Students in Special Education Settings

Inclusive education is the most pedagogically effective way to support the education of students with disabilities; it is also the most financially effective. More than 100 studies have shown that establishing segregated, separate, and parallel education systems within a country (i.e., one system of schools for the general population and a different system of segregated schools for students with disabilities) is more expensive and less sustainable than inclusive education models ( McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998). This is partly because segregated school systems incur additional costs for transportation, infrastructure, and in many countries, on-campus residences. For example, the 1999 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report estimated that the costs for segregated school systems were 7 to 9 times higher than those for inclusive education systems ( Labon, 1999). Furthermore, ignoring the costs of establishing and maintaining segregated schools-thus denying students with disabilities the opportunity to receive an inclusive education-is ultimately a financial liability to a country.

A recent international study of the costs of exclusion compared to the gains of inclusion found that exclusion results in lower employment and potential earning, which impacts individuals with disabilities and their families and limits a country's national economic growth. That study also demonstrated that increased education of students with disabilities results in lower crime rates, improved health and family planning, and increased citizen participation ( Banks & Polack, 2014). Additionally, a World Bank study showed that the return on investment for educating a student with a disability tends to be two to three times higher than that for educating students without disabilities ( Patrinos, 2015).

Although there are initial costs associated with establishing an inclusive system, special education (regardless of setting) can have associated costs above and beyond the general education for students without disabilities and should be budgeted for accordingly. The recurring costs required to maintain an inclusive system are less than those needed to maintain two parallel systems.

Myth 3. Segregated Schools and Classrooms Are More Effective Than Inclusive Schools and Classrooms for Educating Students with Disabilities

No studies conducted since the 1970s have shown students with disabilities who are educated in separate settings ( Falvey, 2004) perform better than students in inclusive settings. In fact, the amount of time a student with a disability spends in the general education classroom is positively correlated with higher test scores in math and reading, less disruptive behavior, and increased future employment opportunities. Indeed, this positive correlation has been found in all students with disabilities, regardless of the type of disability or its severity ( Wagner et al., 2006). Inclusive education may also have other benefits, including increased community awareness and acceptance. For example, a 14-nation UNESCO study showed that in countries where there were laws requiring inclusion, teachers expressed a more favorable view of inclusion ( Bowman, 1986).

Conversely, segregated classrooms or schools perpetuate the misconception that individuals with disabilities are fundamentally different from their nondisabled peers and need to be isolated or separated. This approach can negatively impact both the classroom climate and students' attitudes about diversity and acceptance ( Fisher, Sax, Rodifer, & Pumpian, 1999).

Myth 4. When Faced with Limited Resources, Inclusive Education Can and Should Only Be Addressed Once the Education of "Normal Students" Is Achieved

Many practitioners are reluctant to include children with disabilities within their general education programs because they are concerned that doing so might distract from the educational needs of students without disabilities. Prioritizing education based on a child's disability or other factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is discriminatory and should not be supported by the international development community. Creating an education system that does not serve all of a country's children and youth is not only unethical, a social injustice, and contradictory to most countries' internal laws, international policies, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is also a financial liability for a country, as illustrated above.

Myth 5. Educating Students with Disabilities Is a "High-Income Country Luxury" and Does Not Apply to LMI Countries

Education for All goals and the new SDGs, which include learners with disabilities as part of Goal 4 ("Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning"), cannot be achieved unless the global needs of children with disabilities are considered ( UN, 2016b). As practitioners work to improve policies and systems, they should consider international best practices on inclusive education and build upon local lessons learned to strengthen policies and systems that include all individuals. In other words, all nations, not only high-income countries, must provide inclusive education to children and youth with disabilities.

Understanding Inclusive Education Policies

Inclusive education can only exist with strong support from the government and specific legislation ( UNICEF, 2014b). Fortunately, the general understanding that children with disabilities have the right to education is growing. Indeed, most countries currently have laws or regulations specifically designed to ensure that children with disabilities have equal opportunities to receive an education ( UNICEF, 2012). The quality and details of these laws, however, vary significantly. Also, even where there are laws or provisions promoting inclusive education, these commitments have not yet necessarily been harmonized with general education planning ( United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2010). In some countries, such as Egypt, laws simply state that children with disabilities have the right to education. Other countries, such as Ethiopia, are more prescriptive. In the case of Ethiopia, the National Plan of Action of Persons with Disabilities not only describes the rights of individuals with disabilities but also addresses outputs, activities, and indicators associated with those rights ( Ethiopia Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 2012).

This section of the guide provides an overview of relevant international policies related to inclusive education, describes components that should be included in national policies, and introduces the importance of national inclusive education strategies or plans.

International Policies and Frameworks for Inclusive Education

International legislation and legal frameworks, such as the CRPD, describe human rights principles and legal requirements for upholding those principles. Studies have demonstrated that countries with ratified human rights treaties are associated with better or improved human rights practices ( Hathaway, 2002). Anecdotal evidence also suggests that champions for improved education for persons with disabilities are using these legislative tools to advocate effectively for improved laws and services within their countries. For example, within the first 4 years of the CRPD, 91 percent of countries that had ratified the legislation had already adopted national laws for people with disabilities and 72 percent of those countries' laws included a definition of reasonable accommodation ( Ruh, 2012).

Here we present a summary of some of the most prominent international policies and legal frameworks that promote inclusive education for disabilities.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Adopted in 1989, Article 23 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) specifically addresses the rights of children with disabilities and states that children with disabilities should have access to and receive education in a "manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development" ( UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989). The Committee on the Rights of the Child further clarified that inclusive education, not segregated education systems, must be the goal of educating children with disabilities ( UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007).

World Declaration on Education for All

Adopted in 1990 with support from UNESCO, UNICEF, and the UN Development Program, the World Declaration on Education for All served as one of the first milestones to support inclusive education throughout the world. A total of 155 countries adopted the Declaration, which asks countries to commit to universal primary education and stresses the need to provide access to education for all children with disabilities ( UNESCO, 1990).

Salamanca Framework for Action

Adopted in 1994 at the World Conference on Special Needs Education, the Salamanca Framework for Action highlights the necessity to educate children with disabilities within the general education system. This statement urges governments and the international community to endorse inclusive education as the best approach to educating children with disabilities ( UNESCO, 1994).

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Adopted in 2006, the CRPD provides the most comprehensive international legal framework for supporting the educational rights of children with disabilities. The CRPD states that countries that have ratified the CRPD must ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and that children with disabilities have the right to free primary and secondary education and cannot be discriminated against based on their disability. Other requirements related to the education of individuals with disabilities include the following ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006):

▪

All schools must be accessible (tied to Article 9 on Accessibility), both physically and regarding information and communication.

▪

Students with disabilities should receive reasonable accommodations within the classroom.

▪

Schools should address the academic, social, and life skills needs of each student.

▪

If needed, alternative learning methods should be used, such as braille instruction or alternative communication devices.

▪

Local sign language instruction should be provided for students who are deaf to promote linguistic identity.

▪

Individuals with disabilities should have access to tertiary, vocational, and adult education.

In 2015, the Committee on the CRPD drafted the General Comments on the right to inclusive education. This document provides additional information about the systems and legal frameworks that countries should establish based upon the CRPD. Appendix A presents a checklist based on this document and the CRPD. For the full document, see https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GCRightEducation.aspx.

Sustainable Development Goals

Established in 2015, the SDGs serve as a set of aspirational goals for countries to work toward over the next 15 years. Goal 4 on education specifically addresses disability within two of the education targets ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2016):

▪

Target 4.5. "By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations."

▪

Target 4.a. "Build and upgrade education facilitates that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all."

As governments work to implement the education goal, the data that are gathered and monitored will provide valuable information that will hopefully inform and strengthen education systems in the future ( UN, 2016c).

National Policies for Inclusive Education

Once a country has committed to the concept of inclusion in education, it is important to adapt national policies and laws. The education of children with disabilities and the importance of inclusive education are best integrated into the country's overall education strategic plan, with implementation strategies reflected in the national education strategic implementation plan. In this way, the commitment to inclusive education is clearly reflected in national policy and strategic planning in general, included in the education budget, and recognized in bilateral and multi-lateral partnerships with funding agencies. According to UNESCO's Policy Guidelines for Inclusion in Education, national legal frameworks should, at a minimum, achieve the following ( UNESCO, 2009):

▪

Recognize inclusive education as a right;

▪

Identify minimum standards in relation to the right to education, including physical access, communication access, social access, economic access, early identification, adaption of curriculum, and individualized student supports;

▪

Identify minimum standards regarding the right to education and ensuring that families and communities are active participants in inclusive education;

▪

Ensure a transition plan for students with disabilities;

▪

Identify stakeholders and their responsibilities;

▪

Provide resources for students with disabilities; and

▪

Establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for ensuring that education is truly inclusive.

Furthermore, many successful national inclusive education policies provide even more explicit guidance to stakeholders and implementers, such as described below.

Contextualized Definition of Disability and Inclusion

To be most useful for implementers, national disability inclusion policies and legislation should include clear definitions of disability and inclusive education and state the specific objectives a country is seeking to achieve through its national inclusive education policy and legislation. In addition, policies and legislation should clarify that the goal of inclusion is for children, regardless of type or severity of disability, to have the right to free primary and secondary education within their public neighborhood schools ( UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2015).

Reasonable Accommodations

National disability inclusion policies should include language related to reasonable accommodations, as required in the CRPD. Article 2 of the CRPD defines reasonable acommodation as "the necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden where needed in a particular case to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms" ( UN Division for Social Policy and Development: Disability, 2006). The CRPD Committee also clarifies that there is not a "one size fits all" formula for reasonable accommodations and that different students with the same type of disability may require very different accommodations based on the severity of their disability and their personal learning preferences. The type of reasonable accommodations provided should be determined by a joint consultation involving the school, parents, and student (UN, 2016a).

Adapting and Modifying National Curriculum

National disability inclusion policies should explicitly state that all students should have access to the national curriculum. Too often, students with disabilities are taught only life skills (such as a basic understanding of how to do household chores and basic hygiene) and are not allowed access to the general curriculum, which includes vital literacy and math skills. Although life skills are important, they are not sufficient. Recognizing that not all students with disabilities can equally access the national curriculum, the curriculum should be modified or adapted to promote individualized instruction. Curriculum adaptation does not mean developing a separate or alternative curriculum based on a student's diagnosis, because doing so can limit a student's potential growth, even if unintentionally. Rather, adaptation requires reviewing the national curriculum standards and determining how best to expose the student to each standard and related performance goal using accommodations. Uniquely adapting a curriculum for each student with disabilities can challenge educators; even in high-income countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, it is not done consistently for all students. Curriculum adaptation can be an even greater challenge in LMI countries, where education supports are often limited. However, a shift toward national curriculum adaptation is emerging in even the most resource-constrained countries, and as more countries begin to expand their national legislation on inclusive education, access to the curriculum should be included as a key component of new laws.

Deinstitutionalization

The practice of institutionalizing children with disabilities remains a reality in many parts of the world. Institutionalization is especially relevant for children who have intellectual or severe disabilities, as parents may feel they have no other option. Therefore, governments should establish plans to eliminate institutions, social homes, or residential care facilities for children with disabilities and develop programs to reunite and strengthen family and community living. To be effective, deinstitutionalization policies must acknowledge and address reasons for institutionalization, such as "social attitudes that shame the family that has a child with disabilities; lack of skills to provide appropriate nursing care; financial difficulties; and the belief there is very little chance a child with disabilities can be integrated into society" (UNICEF, 2004). The CRPD clearly states that children and adults with disabilities should have the right to live in the communities in which their families live, and the Committee on the CRPD states that "the introduction of inclusive education must take place alongside a strategic commitment to the ending of long-term institutions for persons with disabilities" (UN, 2016a). As national governments review their current practices related to institutionalization and residential care and develop a clear plan to eliminate these structures and systems in the future, they can draw upon principles provided in the CRPD.

Accessibility Standards

Establishing physical and communication accessibility in schools is essential for inclusive education. Many countries, such as Honduras, Costa Rica, and Brazil, are enacting laws that require all new schools to be accessible-able to be accessed and used by all students, regardless of mobility or other limitations-and all existing schools to be retrofitted over time. In addition, national standards on accessibility should require that schools implement a range of accessibility features to accommodate students with diverse disabilities. Each country has the opportunity to develop its own accessibility standards, and when doing so, it is important to review international best practices. The International Standards Organization (2017) provides general guidance to policymakers as they work to establish domestic accessibility standards.

Access to Assistive Technology

Assistive technology devices can help students to access information and be successful in the classroom. Currently, however, only 5‒15 percent of children with disabilities in low-income countries have access to assistive technologies or assistive devices ( Saebones et al., 2015). Furthermore, many countries may be using severely outdated technology-for example, teaching students to write braille using slates and stylus tablets rather than braillers. A mandate to make assistive technology devices available to students is clearly stated within the CRPD, and countries that are developing specific domestic laws should consider including a specific reference to assistive technology. To this end, it is important first to assess what, if any, assistive technologies are currently being used in classrooms and then, based on this information, develop a strategy for increasing access to assistive technologies in the classroom. In low-income countries where budgets for assistive devices are limited, funding assistance from donor agencies supporting the education sector may be an avenue for obtaining this equipment.

Access to Instruction in Sign Language

Globally, children who are deaf are often not taught sign language and have limited access to instruction given in sign language, which affects their ability to learn and reach their full potential. Partly because of the lack of teachers trained to teach in sign language, an estimated 90 percent of children who are deaf worldwide are illiterate ( Rau Barriga, 2010). As with the right to assistive technology, the CPRD clearly obligates the right to receive education in local sign language. Inclusive education policies must underscore the right to receive education in local sign language for individuals who are deaf or have very limited hearing.

Individualized Education Plans

Individualized education plans (IEPs) were established in the United States in the 1970s and have since become an integral part of special education strategies in many countries worldwide ( Mariga et al., 2014). IEPs are ideally developed through a multidisciplinary process involving parents, teachers, administrators, the student, and other relevant support staff and service providers. Through this process, the individual needs, learning goals, placement, and related services of students with disabilities and the appropriate teaching strategies and required classroom accommodations can be identified. IEPs are an important tool for helping learners with disabilities to succeed and progress in school, and because of their role in facilitating special education, IEPs are legally mandated in many countries. For example, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom all have legislation that requires the development and use of IEPs for students with disabilities ( National Council for Special Education, 2006). The use of IEPs is also increasingly prevalent in other countries, such as Costa Rica, Malawi, Turkey, South Africa, and Uganda. In Uganda, for example, at the request of the Ministry of Education and Sports, RTI developed an IEP teacher's guide, on which teachers in the USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program have been trained, with positive feedback emerging from trainers and teachers. In Ireland, where IEP usage is voluntary rather than compulsory, 85 percent of teachers reported IEPs to be useful in delivering inclusive education services ( Nugent, 2002). Given IEPs' proven success in facilitating the education of students with disabilities, they should be considered as a possible component of countries' special education legislation.

Complaint and Redress Mechanism

The CRPD Committee specifies in its General Comments on Article 24 that individuals with disabilities and the families of children with disabilities "must be provided with a safe and accessible mechanism for complaints and redress through which to challenge violations of their right to education" (UN, 2016a). Countries that have signed the CRPD Optional Protocol should develop and implement specific processes for addressing rights violations. Furthermore, it is critical that national human rights institutes fully engage in issues related to the right to inclusive education for all children. When developing domestic laws, viable structures and channels for filing complaints must be established and clearly stated so that people with disabilities or their family members are fully aware of the steps they need to take to submit a complaint when full access to education has been denied. The role of a child or disability ombudsperson to receive complaints and investigate when rights are violated should be made clear and strengthened, and individuals should be allowed to seek direct litigation if consistent with national laws and culture. For example, in the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides escalating steps to address complaints that begin with mediation between the parents and the school, allowing for state or federal complaints if issues are not resolved through mediation ( Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007).

Additionally, safeguards must be in place to ensure that families cannot be retaliated against after filing a complaint. As for all students, students with disabilities have the right to be heard within the school system, including through their participation in school councils and other governing bodies, such as local and national governments. Mechanisms through which individual students or student groups can appeal decisions concerning their education should also be identified and upheld by law. Parents must be made fully aware of their rights so that they will know if their rights are being violated. Therefore, all policy systems should be coupled with parent education and awareness raising related to children's educational rights.

Refining National Education Plans

Strong national policies and legislation are a critical first step toward providing children with disabilities an education within an inclusive setting. However, legislation is not an end in itself, and policy and legal frameworks must be translated into practice at the school level. Having strong national plans related to inclusive education will help reduce this gap and ensure that a transition plan-from a segregated to an inclusive education system-and programs to support this plan are established. Of course, the extent to which education plans are implemented depends on multiple factors, including funding levels, commitment and motivation of education leadership, the availability of trained staff, the availability of and guidance for adapting curricular materials, access to assistive devices, and importantly, the level of monitoring of and support given to service providers. These context-specific challenges should be addressed in the transition plan.

Developing a national plan for implementing inclusive education and policies has proved to be very useful for many countries, regardless of income, by encouraging the development of goals, targets, and budgetary requirements to support the process of inclusive education. National plans or strategies are also an effective way to incorporate the input of teachers, administrators, parents, and disability leaders. WHO's World Report on Disability (2011, pp. 217‒218) suggests that all national plans related to inclusive education should

When national policy and planning are not yet implemented in a country, initiatives started at subnational levels have been shown to lead national inclusive education reforms. Kwa-Zulu Natal Province in South Africa is a case in point. The Kwa-Zulu Natal Provincial Department of Education was instrumental in demonstrating how the national policy on inclusive education (South Africa Department of Education White Paper 6) could be translated into practice at the local level, providing a model program for other South African Provincial Departments of Education ( South Africa Department of Education, 2001). The following text box briefly describes the South African Department of Education strategic plan on inclusive education. Additional countries, including Malta and Rwanda, have developed inclusive education strategies, while others, such as Jordan, are in the process of developing them. In addition to having a dedicated plan for inclusive education, it is also beneficial to include inclusive education in the country's general disability plans. For example, countries such as Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, and the Republic of Georgia have developed National Disability Plans that address inclusive education as part of a larger strategy.

Understanding the Systems Approach to Inclusive Education

Developing an inclusive system implies a shift from seeing the child with a disability as the problem to seeing the education system as something that must be strengthened to better serve the child. It requires strong commitments from local government, ministries, administrators, teachers, parents, and citizens. A systems approach, by definition, involves the coordination and shared responsibility and commitment of a broad base of stakeholders, including national and subnational government officials, education managers and service providers, parents and other community members, and the students themselves. UNESCO (2009), which takes a broad view of the concept of inclusion, has identified four key tenets of an inclusive education system:

1.

Inclusion is a process.

2.

Inclusion is concerned with the identification and removal of barriers.

3.

Inclusion is about the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.

4.

Inclusion involves an emphasis on those groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion, or underachievement.

This section pulls together international best practices related to the development of educational systems that allow the inclusion of learners with disabilities. Although each country may approach the recommendations differently to incorporate its unique cultural context, much of the general guidance will still apply.

Engaging Stakeholders

Many different stakeholders need to be meaningfully engaged to ensure and promote effective educational practices for students with disabilities. The attitudes of these stakeholders can have a tremendous impact on the success or failure of an inclusive education system. These stakeholders include the following.

Ministries of Education

Lead policymakers in the education sector, such as the national and subnational Ministries of Education (MOEs) or the equivalent entities within a country that lead educational planning, play a pivotal role in shaping education policy and reforming curriculum and delivery systems. To advocate for inclusive education for all children, including the most vulnerable and children with disabilities, these policy bodies must include experts in the field of special education who are knowledgeable about the advantages of inclusive education ( Skrtic, 1991).

The MOE should be responsible for the education of all children, including those with disabilities. In many low-income countries, the responsibility for the education of children with disabilities is divided across separate entities: the MOE and other ministries, such as the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Health, or the Ministry of Social Protection ( WHO, 2011). When the responsibility is divided among ministries, the MOE is typically responsible for the education of children deemed able of being educated in an inclusive setting, whereas the alternative ministry is responsible for children with more severe disabilities, such as those who are too often institutionalized. Both international disability advocates and international organizations have criticized this approach because it implies that children with severe disabilities cannot learn or that they need welfare rather than education. Likewise, any policies developed outside of the MOE are often not seen as education policies and frequently do not have the same influence or impact ( Sightsavers, 2011). The World Report on Disability states that dividing this responsibility among ministries "further segregates children with disabilities, and shifts the focus from education and achieving social and economic inclusion to treatment and social isolation" ( WHO, 2011). As a result, having one Ministry be responsible for the education of all children-with and without disabilities-is recommended. In many countries, an office or subdivision within the MOE is dedicated to ensuring the education of students with disabilities. Regardless of the internal structure, the individuals who direct and manage this component of the educational system need the appropriate training and experiential background to appropriately guide policy related to education for children with disabilities and provide the oversight required to ensure the provision of inclusive education for children with disabilities.

A systems approach requires cross-disciplinary cooperation and commitment from leaders in the health, social welfare, and finance sectors. This cooperation must occur at national and subnational levels of governance. For example, referral networks for ensuring that children receive needed services, such as access to health care and child protection, should be established within the school community (UN, 2016a). Precisely how this relationship is negotiated and managed will be unique to each country's context but will likely require participation from all sectors and can be guided by CRPD guidelines.

Administrators and School Leadership

Administrators, principals, and other leaders are typically responsible for ensuring that national and local laws are being adhered to, that students with disabilities receive needed supports, that such supports are appropriately used by teachers, and that teacher training related to inclusive education is ongoing. The leadership of these individuals is pivotal for the improvement of educational opportunities for all students, especially those with disabilities or unique learning needs ( DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Many studies have found that administrators are as much, and sometimes more, of a barrier to including children with disabilities in the classroom as teachers. Some studies, including ones conducted in the United State, Egypt, and Finland, have revealed that administrators and principals may not have a good understanding of inclusive education and may have received limited training or preparation on how to run an inclusive school ( Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham, 2000; Moberg, 2000; Sadek & Sadek, 2000). Thus, training education officials and school managers on issues related to inclusive education is important. Knowledge building on the ethics, delivery, and impact of inclusive education services is not sufficient. The attitudes of administrators and support staff toward educating students with disabilities, in general, and toward inclusive education, in particular, must be addressed. Approaches that involve personal and group reflection and dialogue are often successful in shifting educators' attitudes from resistance to inclusive education to advocacy for students with disabilities.

Teachers and Support Staff

In many LMI countries, support staff and therapists-including teachers' assistants, social workers, psychologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, and physical therapists-may not be available in the classroom, and even when they are, parents may have to pay for their services. These support staff can play an important role in the education of students with disabilities, however, and should ideally be made freely available and should work together with the general education and special education teachers to help identify students who have specific learning needs, deliver national curriculum-led instruction, identify supports and/or assistive devices that could benefit the student, and engage parents in students' learning. Because special educators may have technical knowledge and expertise, they should serve as resources and supports for the general education teacher, who is ultimately responsible for educating all students within their classroom. Classrooms in low-resource areas can provide these types of critical supports in several ways.

Teachers' attitudes toward inclusion and disability can have a substantial impact on the success of including students with disabilities into the general education classroom ( Cochran, 1998). For example, teachers are often more open to including students with physical or sensory disabilities than those with intellectual, learning, and behavioral disabilities ( Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). This is typically because of the misconception that children with moderate to severe learning, cognitive, or intellectual disabilities are not able to learn while children with physical or sensory disabilities are. These attitudes should be addressed directly through reflection and dialogue. Research has also shown that the more opportunities teachers have to engage with individuals with disabilities, the more likely they are to support the concept of inclusive education ( Avramidis & Norwich, 2002)

For example, a study in Egypt revealed that teachers who had social relationships with individuals with disabilities were more supportive of inclusive education ( El-Ashry, 2009). Teachers' sense of their ability to teach students with disabilities should also be addressed. As teachers become more confident in their teaching skills, they become more comfortable accepting children with disabilities in their classroom and adapting their teaching methods to include a variety of learning styles ( Vaz et al., 2015). Thus, pre-service education programs should be required to provide opportunities for student teachers to engage directly and teach students with disabilities, and training on the principles and benefits of inclusive education should be included throughout preservice programs. Another positive way to promote inclusive education is to actively recruit and hire individuals with disabilities as school staff. To make this feasible, teacher training colleges should not discriminate against students with disabilities and should, if possible, actively recruit students with disabilities so they can become effective teachers and mentors. This strategy allows students with disabilities to engage with role models and provides all teaching staff an opportunity to learn from their unique insight related to teaching students with disabilities and their skills in the classroom (UN, 2016a).

Parents

Engaging parents with and without children with disabilities is another key component in the establishment of successful inclusive schools. It is not uncommon for parents of children with disabilities to resist school reforms that promote inclusive education because they fear that their children might not receive needed services in an inclusive setting ( Daniel & King, 1997). These parents may also harbor concerns regarding their children's safety; the attitudes of other students, staff and program quality; and transportation ( Hanline & Halvorsen, 1989). However, parent engagement and partnership can lead to increased acceptance of disability, improved learning, and better classroom behaviors ( Edutopia, 2000), and research has shown that, as inclusive education systems become more established, parents adopt a decisively positive view of inclusive education ( Miller & Phillips, 1992). Additionally, evidence suggests that increased parent engagement and partnership in the special education process leads to improved learning outcomes for students with disabilities ( Stoner et al., 2005).

Teachers should engage parents in their child's learning as much as possible and find ways to share classroom achievements and challenges with parents. Teachers should also partner with parents to determine how to best support a student with a disability outside of the classroom and how to advocate jointly for support to address the student's needs. Including parents of children with disabilities in community programs is important to ensure that their children benefit from community support. Additionally, the attitudes of parents of children without disabilities toward inclusive education have been clearly demonstrated to become more positive over time ( Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010), and teachers should help to build sensitivity among the parents of children without disabilities. For effective inclusive education to become a reality, inclusive education reform must raise community awareness of benefits and basic concepts of inclusive education. Such awareness-building activities should not be limited to information sharing or sensitization but should include opportunities for personal reflection and dialogue.

Community

In addition to school and parent partnership, community engagement is especially important during times of transition or education reform. For example, research conducted within the United States found that parent-community ties constituted one of the five essential supports needed for schools to be effective ( Sebring & Montgomery, 2014). This support develops when school staff reach out to parents and the community and encourage them to participate in strengthening student learning ( Epstein, 2001). As WHO (2011) states, "Approaches involving the whole community reflect the fact that the child is an integral member of the community and make it more likely that sustainable, inclusive education for the child can be obtained."

To support community participation, USAID (2011) has developed five steps to engage communities in education programs; these also apply to engaging the community in inclusive education programs:

Step 1. Conduct a participatory assessment of the current situation, attitudes, concerns, opportunities, and aspirations related to education.

Step 2. Strengthen or form formalized structures for engagement.

Step 3. Assist school management committees, parent teacher associations, or other coordinating bodies in setting goals and developing plans.

Step 4. Build capacity to strengthen community-level human resources.

Step 5. Conduct continuous monitoring and follow-up.

Communities also benefit from having inclusive schools. For example, an inclusive education project in Vietnam showed that communities with inclusive education programs "become more open minded, creating a more favorable environment for people with disabilities in the future" ( Catholic Relief Services/Vietnam, 2008).

DPOs and Parent Associations

In most countries, DPOs and associations for parents of children with disabilities serve as helpful resources to build awareness and acceptance of children with disabilities and to promote inclusive education. These groups are also well positioned to educate parents on their children's rights and advocate for improved education policies and legislation. Engaging these groups is critical in establishing inclusive education systems, because they use their national network of members to support educational reforms and improved policies and also have unique and important insight gained through their lived experience. One study conducted in both high- and low-income countries showed that disability advocates and DPOs participating in and advocating for improved education services have led to distinct improvements in special education ( Eleweke, 2001). Examples of international DPOs working in the field of education and rights of children with disabilities include the following:

▪

International Disability Alliance: http://www​.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/

▪

Disabled Persons International: http://www​.dpi.org/

▪

Inclusion International: https:​//inclusion-international.org/

Models of Moving From a Segregated System to an Inclusive One

Many countries are moving away from segregated systems and toward a more inclusive model that allows for students with disabilities to be taught alongside their nondisabled peers. The incentives for this shift vary by country, although compliance with the CRPD has played a significant role in this change. No standardized approach for how to shift from a segregated system to an inclusive one is available. Issues such as a country's current education system, cultural views on disability, political will, and socioeconomic stability can impact how a country may choose to approach its inclusive educational reform. However, several models have been helpful for different countries as they work toward developing an inclusive education system.

Developing Resource Centers

Many countries-including Armenia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States, and South Africa-have worked to transition segregated schools to national or regional resource centers. For example, in this model, teachers who used to teach students who are blind now serve as on-site supports, trainers, and mentors for general education teachers who may have students who are blind in their classroom. This model, in which previously designated specialized, segregated schools and inclusive schools collaborate and work together, has resulted in positive gains, especially relating to student outcomes ( Paulsen, 2008). Examples of collaboration include co-teaching, support to modify curriculum, and provision of behavioral supports ( Forlin & Rose, 2010). This model typically facilitates a smoother transition toward inclusion and allows special educators to continue to use and share their practical hands-on experience and knowledge to provide positive support for students.

Using Itinerant Teachers/Specialist Teachers

In many countries where the number of trained special education teachers is limited, itinerant or visiting teachers or, in some cases, health professionals can provide support to general education teachers. Under this model, special educators or experts who are trained in a specific type of disability travel to different inclusive schools to offer advice and mentorship and to provide technical assistance to general education teachers and schools. In this way, even schools with limited funding (i.e., where special educators cannot be present in each school) can benefit from special education expertise and knowledge. Countries that have implemented the itinerant teacher model include Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda ( Lynch & McCall, 2007).

Engaging Teacher Assistants

Using teacher assistants, sometimes also referred to as "paraprofessionals," to support teachers in inclusive classrooms is an effective approach in many countries. Although teacher assistants' roles within the classroom may vary significantly by context, research has demonstrated that teaching assistants are most successful when assigned to support a classroom rather than assigned to an individual student, because the latter may inadvertently increase the stigma associated with disability, isolate the student with a disability, and increase the student's dependency and/or reduce her/his interactions with the teacher or peers ( Giangreco et al., 2001). In some exceptions, assigning a teaching assistant to a student who, for example, needs support to communicate or who is medically fragile may be needed. Even in such cases, however, it is important that teacher assistants supplement and support teachers but not replace them as the primary source of instruction ( Giangreco & Doyle, 2007).

Moving From a Diagnosis-Based Approach to an Individualized One

In some countries-such as Gabon, India, Macedonia, and Morocco-before children can enter school, even an inclusive school, they must receive a certificate from a doctor diagnosing their disability. This approach can limit educational opportunities for low-income families who may not be able to afford medical appointments to receive the required certificate. Furthermore, as discussed previously, a diagnosis does not inform a teacher about a specific student's educational needs. Instead, countries should allow all children to access school, regardless of disability, and implement a screening and classroom evaluation process to determine eligibility for special education services and assess what type of supports or services might be beneficial for each student. An evaluation process can also inform IEPs that can serve as additional support for both teachers and countries as they move toward a more individualized approach.

Identification of Children With Disabilities

Children with disabilities can be identified as needing special education in various ways. Typically, initial suspicions that a child has special learning needs come through school referrals, concerns raised by the child's parents, or the health care system (i.e., identification by a pediatrician or health care professional). However, reliably identifying a child as having a disability can be extremely challenging in countries that struggle with community misperceptions of disabilities, limited resources for conducting screenings and evaluation, and the limited availability of skilled professionals who are trained to conduct a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation.

Even within high-income countries, too often only children with relatively severe disabilities are identified prior to reaching school age, and children with less-noticeable disabilities (e.g., low vision, hard of hearing, learning disabilities, and mild-to-moderate autism spectrum disorders) are generally identified after they enter preprimary or primary school ( Wirz, Edwards, Flower, & Yousafzai, 2005). In fact, even in the United States, fewer than one in five children are properly screened and identified as having possible special needs before school ( Data Resource Center for Child & Adolescent Health, 2009). Identifying a disability as early as possible is important, because interventions introduced early are much more likely to lead to long-term gains than those that are implemented later in life ( Fernald, Kariger, Engle, & Raikes, 2009). Furthermore, early intervention is linked to several positive life outcomes, such as higher academic performance, increased likelihood of graduating secondary school, and decreased likelihood of committing crimes ( Heckman & Masterov, 2005).

Most early and primary education programs in LMI countries do not have systems in place to systematically identify students with disabilities. As a result, many students, especially those with less severe disabilities, are never identified and, thus, never receive special education services or other aids. Furthermore, these countries rarely administer vision and hearing screenings, and if they do, these tests typically do not take place at school. Simple screenings should be administered within the classroom to assess learning, vision, and hearing challenges. Countries should establish referral systems to ensure that these students, once identified, can receive services or aids, such as glasses. In addition, Response to Intervention strategies can be used to assess whether a student will benefit from additional academic support and can also inform teachers if a more comprehensive evaluation should be conducted. Evaluations within the school setting should follow international best practices, which include having a trained multidisciplinary team conduct the evaluation, using multiple tools that have been translated into the local language and adapted to the cultural context, actively engaging parents, and summarizing findings in a comprehensive report that outlines additional supports or services that might benefit the student.

In many countries, including the United States, a diagnosis is not needed for a child to enroll and access education, including inclusive education. Instead an evaluation is used to determine access to special education services and inform the types of supports or accommodations a student may need that are ultimately selected using a very individualized approach. Because of the wide range of abilities that exist within a diagnosis, giving a child a specific diagnosis, such as Down syndrome or autism spectrum disorder, does not provide accurate information on that child's ability to function and succeed within the classroom. Instead, each child will have her strengths and weaknesses that should be fostered and supported, respectively. Access and functional needs should be identified for each student on a case-by-case/individual basis through an interactive process involving the student, family, and others knowledgeable about the student.

Challenges of Labeling

In many countries with developed special education systems, labeling students with disabilities is linked to additional funding or classroom supports and is, therefore, needed in some way ( Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007). Identifying students who require additional educational supports and collecting data on disability are essential to ensuring that students receive appropriate services. However, in other contexts, this process of identification can lead to increased stigmatization, peer rejection, lower self-esteem, lower expectations, and limited opportunities ( Florian et al., 2006). Moreover, once a student is categorized as requiring special education, he or she can be stigmatized by teachers who may have lower expectations for the student ( Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2010). To mitigate potential prejudicial labeling, all identification systems should be coupled with disability awareness programs to help administrators, teachers, students, and parents better understand and fully accept diversity and disability. For example, in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi, RTI is piloting teacher training and guidance intended, in part, to sensitize teachers about the dangers of disability stigma and to provide specific instructional techniques to support the learning of students with disabilities. Additional low-cost resources and training for teachers must be made available in LMI countries if teachers are to be able to effectively meet the needs of their students with disabilities.

Adaptable Learning Environments and UDL

Promoting adaptable learning environments, and building awareness of the importance of differentiated learning, are important in establishing an inclusive education system. One relatively successful way of promoting an adaptable learning environment is using UDL. This approach recognizes that all students, with and without disabilities, learn in different ways. When the curriculum is designed to meet the needs of "average" students, it fails to address the natural diversity and backgrounds that exist in all classrooms. Although the goal of UDL is to meet the diverse learning needs of students with disabilities, it can also enhance the education of all students in the classroom. Research has revealed that teachers find UDL to be an effective instructional approach and that it enables teachers to better engage diverse groups of students ( Kurtts, 2006). UDL may also be an effective technique in countries that may not yet have a disabilities identification system in place, by helping teachers to support diverse learning needs even without knowing which students may have disabilities. Of course, particularly in resource-constrained contexts, the demands on teachers are great, and achieving adaptable learning environments can be only aspirational at first. Even in these contexts, however, simple shifts in how teaching and learning materials are developed, how classrooms are set up, and how teachers are trained can go far in meeting UDL goals.

Strategies on how teachers can use UDL include the following ( Rose & Meyer, 2002):

▪

Use multiple strategies to present the content. Use a variety of techniques, including case studies, music, role play, cooperative learning, hands-on activities, and field trips, and a variety of learning contexts, including individual, pair, and group work; peer learning; and field work.

▪

Use a variety of materials. To present, illustrate, and reinforce new content, use different materials, such as online resources, manipulatives, and existing textbooks and supplemental reading books.

▪

Provide cogitative supports. Present background information for new concepts using pictures, objects, and other materials that are not lecture based. Scaffold student learning by providing a course syllabus, outlines, summaries, and study guides.

▪

Teach to a variety of learning styles. Build movement into learning and give both oral and written instructions for students who learn auditory or visually.

▪

Provide flexible opportunities for assessment. Enable students to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways, including visual and oral presentations, as well as written assignments.

Inclusive Teaching and Learning Materials

Addressing inclusive education and portraying people with disabilities in positive and empowering ways can facilitate reducing stigma and discrimination. Unfortunately, students with disabilities are rarely included in teaching and learning materials, and when they are included, they are often underrepresented or presented in demeaning ways. For example, a recent study reviewed the visibility of persons with disabilities in illustrations of seven Iranian English as a foreign language textbooks used in US secondary schools. The study demonstrated that people with disabilities were underrepresented and that images of students with disabilities were typically shown in disadvantageous positions that perpetuated the invisibility of the students and promoted negative stereotypes ( Cheng & Beigi, 2011). Teaching and learning materials should address inclusive education and include positive and empowering images and stories of students with disabilities. To promote this, USAID has developed A Guide to Promote Gender Equality and Inclusiveness in Teaching and Learning Materials ( USAID, 2015), which recommends that images and stories in teaching and learning materials reflect the diversity of social characteristics within a country. As children with disabilities represent approximately 15 percent of the population, USAID recommends that 15 percent of images and stories should include students with disabilities. In addition, it is important that these images show girls and boys with all types of disabilities as productive members of society. This guide also provides a checklist for what to look for when developing new teaching and learning materials. In summary, teaching and learning materials should:

Teacher Training

Teachers represent the most powerful resource in all educational systems, and the importance of continuously building their knowledge and skills cannot be overstated. Teachers in LMI countries may not have a formal training on explicit instructional techniques, and national standards for teacher training can vary significantly from country to country. In some countries, a 1-month training course can qualify as training, whereas other countries require a 3-year education degree ( Global Campaign for Education, 2012). Where training does exist, the curriculum often does not include training related to the nature of disabilities and approaches for working with students who have disabilities. As a result, there is a severe shortage of teachers and teacher assistants capable of effectively supporting the individual needs of students with disabilities ( WHO, 2011). Without building these skills and ensuring the positive attitudes of teachers toward disability, true inclusive education will be difficult to achieve. Recommendations for successful approaches to preparing teachers include the following.

Embed Disability in All Preservice and In-Service Trainings

The curriculum for preservice and in-service trainings designed to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to support students with disabilities in an inclusive setting should be integrated and mutually supportive. These curricula should not address disability as a stand-alone subject, but should embed explicit training in teaching students with disabilities as an integral part of core teacher competencies. Stand-alone courses on disability have been shown to be ineffective, because this approach perpetuates the misunderstanding that disability is a separate training initiative and not a core competency required of all teachers. Whenever feasible, enormous value added can be achieved when teacher training related to students with disabilities includes local stakeholders, such as disability leaders or parents of children with disabilities, who can provide a lived experience of disability and ground-truth theory into reality ( International Disability and Development Consortium, 2013).

Include All Teachers, Regardless of Specialization, in Teacher Training

Too often, in-service trainings for special education teachers and general education teachers take place separate from each other. As a result, special education teachers do not receive the new skills related to literacy, math, and other topics that are offered to general education teachers, whereas general education teachers fail to receive continuing education related to disability. As emphasized previously, teacher training related to students with disabilities must be inclusive. That is, all teachers, regardless of their area of specialization, should have access to training and international best practices that can be adapted or modified as needed to the specific reality of their classrooms.

Promote the Diversification of Skill Sets

UNESCO recommends a hierarchy of teacher training opportunities in an inclusive education system:

All teachers should be trained on inclusive practices as they will undoubtedly have a child with a disability in their classroom at some point in time.

Many teachers (ideally, at least one per school) should develop more comprehensive expertise on disability related to more common learning challenges and disabilities. These individuals can serve as an on-sight resource and advisor to their peers.

A few teachers should develop higher levels of expertise in the diverse challenges that mainstream teachers may encounter and serve as a consultant to those schools and teachers as needed. ( UNESCO, 2003)

Address Potential Attitudinal Barriers

Attitudes have a sizeable impact on the performance of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Prejudicial beliefs may result in lower expectations of students with disabilities and lead to these students focusing less on academic achievement. Thus, as for any stakeholder dialogue on disability, it is important to address attitudes, beliefs, and practices in pre-service and in-service trainings on inclusive education. In this process, rather than telling teachers what their attitudes and beliefs should be, training should allow for personal reflection on these attitudes and practices, and opportunities should be provided for open discussion among teachers related to these attitudes and fears about including students with disabilities in their classrooms. Training should also help teachers reflect on how to dispel myths and fears associated with inclusive education among education officials, school managers, parents and other community members, and other service providers.

Provide Follow-Up and Hands-On Experience

It is vital to follow up on the trainings with ongoing support and mentoring, to the extent possible within the country or context. Having ongoing support for teachers in the classroom can strengthen their skills and their confidence in establishing an inclusive education setting in the classroom. In some countries, designated support supervision staff can be trained in providing this kind of support to teachers. Special education teachers who have previously worked within segregated settings might also serve as coaches and resources to general education teachers; such special education teachers should receive training and guidance in how to effectively serve in this new role as a resource, coach, and mentor. Communities of practice and distance learning may also serve as viable options for teachers in many countries.

Data Collection, Prevalence Rates, and Enrollment

Poor data collection is one of the many reasons why children with disabilities are left out of education plans, because a lack of data impedes education planning and implementation. Poor data are not surprising given the challenges of identifying students with disabilities. Moreover, even when prevalence data on children with disabilities are collected, data on participation restrictions and environmental factors are generally lacking (e.g., data regarding barriers to full participation, whether schools are physically accessible, and whether students with disabilities can participate equitably in all areas of the school, including sports and recreation). This type of information is needed in developing better program and policy interventions ( UNICEF, 2013). For example, Education Management Information Systems (EMISs), which most countries use to monitor and guide education sectors, even when used systematically typically do not include indicators on disability ( UNICEF, 2014e). Additionally, even a well-functioning EMIS only captures information on the number of students attending school who may have a disability; it cannot determine how many children with disabilities are eligible to attend school and are not enrolled.

Three primary approaches for generating disability data through censuses or surveys exist: (1) the respondent self-identifies as having a disability (e.g., "Do you have a disability and, if so, what disability?"); (2) the respondent selects from a list of disability categories (e.g., "From this list of disabilities, select those that apply"); and (3) the respondent answers questions regarding her level of functionality, or questions related to what she can and cannot do without help (e.g., "Do you need help feeding yourself?"). Due to concerns related to stigmas or prejudice, or perhaps a lack of a common understanding of disability, typically fewer than 10 percent of people will respond honestly to the first two types of questions, especially in LMI countries; this results in artificially low percentages of individuals indicating that they have disabilities. When functionality questions are used, however, the number of individuals with disabilities increases to approximately 10-20 percent of the population ( Mont, 2007). To support countries in developing more accurate data, the Washington Group developed a simple set of six functionality questions that can be used in censuses and household surveys throughout the world to determine prevalence of disabilities. Countries such as Timor-Leste and Bangladesh have begun to use these functionality questions in their respective EMIS systems to track students with disabilities ( UNICEF, 2014c). More recently, the Washington Group on Disability Statistics & UNICEF (2016) developed an additional set of functionality questions specifically designed for children.

Although the exact numbers are typically unknown, strong evidence suggests that many children with disabilities in LMI countries have never attended school. A 2004 study in Malawi showed that children with disabilities were twice as likely to have never attended school compared to their peers without disabilities ( UNICEF, 2014c). Additionally, a recent study in Rwanda demonstrated that of those surveyed, 57.4 percent of children with disabilities had never attended school and that the rest (42.6 percent) dropped out after attending school for just a few years ( Baptiste, Malachie, & Struthers, 2013). There are a wide range of reasons why parents do not enroll their children in school. These reasons include inaccessible facilities, a lack of transportation, a lack of programs that accept children with disabilities, negative attitudes and unkindness toward children with disabilities, and the bullying and stigmatization often experienced by children with even mild disabilities ( WHO, 2011). A robust situational analysis is a critical first step toward reforming school programs to promote the equality and inclusion of children with disabilities. Such studies should provide data that are aggregated at both the national and subnational levels of government and public service. The information collected should include household surveys to define the population, attitudes related to the inclusive education of students with disabilities, and the accessibility of school programs and referral networks, such as special education support and health, psychosocial, and child protection services that can provide important outpatient services for children with disabilities and their parents or guardians. Through a comprehensive study of the opportunities and barriers to education for children with disabilities, curricular and system reforms can be developed to inform forward movement toward inclusive education for children with disabilities.

Budgeting for Inclusion

Funding for inclusive education, as for all education initiatives, is a substantial concern for governments. In fact, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have cited the lack of financial resources as a primary reason for delaying the implementation of an inclusive education system ( Chireshe, 2013; Sukhraj, 2008). Other countries, such as Morocco, Senegal, and Mozambique, have limited budgets allocated for special education or inclusive education and rely heavily on nongovernmental organizations and civil society to educate children with disabilities. The challenge of relying solely on nongovernmental organizations to educate children with disabilities is that, in these cases, large discrepancies often arise in the quality of the services provided, there is a tendency to not follow the national curriculum for instruction, and because of tuition costs, only affluent families often receive services. The provision of financial support by the government to implement an inclusive education system is a critical factor in its success. It is also important to recognize that although an initial investment will be needed, especially during times of reform and transition, the inclusive education model will be a more cost-effective model in the long term ( UNICEF, 2012)

The costs initially allocated to segregated systems should be transitioned to budgets for inclusive education systems. However, in countries with emerging or limited special education systems, additional funding may be needed. Typically, higher-income countries spend 12‒20 percent of their education budgets on special education ( Sharma, Forlin, & Furlonger, 2015). Several models for financing inclusive education exist, and the predominant models include the following models.

Per Capita or Cost-Based Models

In these models, a formula is developed and applied to the number of children with disabilities in the country to determine the amount of total spending. For example, certain amounts of money are allocated for students without disabilities, those who are socially disadvantaged, those who speak a minority language, and those who have a disability. A student with a disability is frequently estimated to require 2‒2.5 times more financial support than a student who does not have a disability, is not socially disadvantaged, or does not speak a minority language ( UNICEF, 2014d). Countries that use this model to determine their budgets include the United States, Canada, and Serbia.

Resource- or School-Based Models

In these models, funding is based upon the services needed within a country versus the number of children who require services. For example, using this model, a country determines the number of special education specialists and the equipment needed to implement inclusive education and then allows municipalities and schools to decide on how the money is specifically spent. Countries that use this model to determine their budget allocations include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Norway ( UNICEF, 2014d).

Output-Based Models

In these models, school funding is tied to student achievement scores, and sanctions are imposed on low-performing schools. In the context of special education, this form of funding has been highly criticized by the disability community, because it may encourage segregated settings and penalize schools for circumstances outside of their control (such as a lack of trained teachers or access to adapted materials). Parts of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have used this model to finance inclusive education ( UNICEF, 2014d).

Each of these funding models has advantages and disadvantages. For example, the per-capita model can be challenging for countries that do not have reliable identifications systems within the school ( Sharma et al., 2015). Governments should carefully review their options and select the model that is best aligned with their country's context and the current budgeting systems used for the general education system.

Monitoring Systems for Improvement

Routine monitoring systems are critical for continuous learning and adaptation of an inclusive education program. To implement a robust monitoring system, a set of performance indicators must be developed that can be used to gauge the quality of programming and the outcomes for all students, including but not limited to students with disabilities. This may mean that assessment instruments are modified to measure learning outcomes among children with disabilities.

Information related to participation, accessibility, and the availability of supports for students with disabilities should be collected within an EMIS. This information is helpful in informing the planning, budgeting, and programming for students with disabilities. However, national education statistics systems are generally limited in their ability to access certain information needed to inform allocations to schools based on relative need. For example, EMISs rarely include information from households, and thus, access to an emerging inclusive education program may be unknown. Furthermore, national education statistics rarely provide information on the quality of teacher instruction or learning outcomes. Building avenues for collecting such information is critical to ensure that inclusive programs are aligned with the government's national policy and curriculum requirements. Regularly evaluating the access to education, quality of the instruction, needed support structures, and learning outcomes is critical. Having this information allows the education system to become a learning system and, through learning, to adapt to ensure that all students with disabilities receive an education in the least-restrictive environment possible and that schools are positive and supportive.

Conclusion

Countries are increasingly moving toward adopting inclusive education systems that are supported by policy and best-practice legislative frameworks. Although there is an increasing number of success stories in this area, substantial challenges related to implementation persist. For example, even in situations where quality inclusive education legislation exists, a large gap between policy and practice often remains. In some cases, this gap results from a lack of budget for general education can serve as a barrier to implementing inclusive education policy. Additionally, persistent prejudicial views or questions regarding the value of inclusive education can impede progress and result in gaps between in policy and practice.

UNESCO states that the "concept and practice of inclusive education have gained importance in recent years. Internationally, the term is increasingly understood more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners" ( UNESCO, 2009, p. 4). For educational reform to be successful within a country, political will must be combined with support from teachers, administrators, parents, and the community. Additionally, the false belief that some children have more value than others and, thus, deserve more opportunities to succeed must be eliminated. All children and youths have the right to receive a quality education and reach their full potential. For students with disabilities to receive the best possible education, governments must commit to providing education in inclusive settings. As stated by the CRPD Committee, "only inclusive education can provide both quality education and social development for persons with disabilities...[and] it is the most appropriate modality for States to guarantee universality and non-discrimination in the right to education" ( United Nations, 2016a). Although challenges in implementing inclusive education reform exist, they are not insurmountable, and changes made through such reform will only strengthen the educational system by addressing the needs of all students.

References

1. Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.

2. Baptiste, S. J., Malachie, T., & Struthers, P. (2013). Physical environmental barriers to school attendance among children with disabilities in two community based rehabilitation centers in Rwanda. Rwanda Journal of Health Sciences, 2(1), 10-15.

3. Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165-181.

4. Bowman, I. (1986). Teacher-training and the integration of handicapped pupils: Some findings from a fourteen nation UNESCO study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1(1), 29-38.

5. Bulat, J., Hayes, A., Macon, W., Ticha, R., & Abery, B. (2015). School and classroom disabilities inclusion guide for low- and middle-income countries. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. 10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0031.1701 [ CrossRef]

6. Cheng, K. K. Y., & Beigi, A. B. (2011). Addressing students with disabilities in school textbooks. Disability & Society, 26(2), 139-242.

7. Chireshe, R. (2013). The state of inclusive education in Zimbabwe: Bachelor of education (special needs education) students' perceptions. Journal of Social Science, 34(3), 223-228.

8. Cochran, H. K. (1998, October 14-16). Differences in teachers' attitudes toward inclusive education as measured by the scale of teachers' attitudes toward inclusive classrooms (STATIC). Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

9. Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136-144. [ PubMed: 15008642 ]

10. Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2013). Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323-332.

11. Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, A., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators and teachers' perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331-338.

12. Daniel, L. G., & King, D. A. (1997). Impact of inclusion education on academic achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 67-80.

13. Eleweke, C. J. (2001). Physician heal thyself: The role of disability organisations in countries of the south towards improvements in special needs provision. African Journal of Special Needs Education, 6(2), 107-113.

14. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnership: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

15. Falvey, M. A. (2004). Toward realizing the influence of "Toward realization of the least restrictive educational environments for severely handicapped students.". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 9-10.

16. Fernald, L. C. H., Kariger, P., Engle, P., & Raikes, A. (2009). Examining early childhood development in low-income countries: A toolkit for the assessment of children in the first five years of life. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

17. Fisher, D., Sax, C., Rodifer, K., & Pumpian, I. (1999). Teachers' perspectives of curriculum and climate changes. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(3), 256-268.

18. Florian, L., Hollenweger, J., Simeonsson, R. J., Wedell, K., Riddell, S., Terzi, L., & Holland, A. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities: Part 1 Issues in the classification of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 36-45.

19. Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships for enabling inclusive education in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 13-22.

20. Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26(2), 75-86.

21. Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2007). Teacher assistants in inclusive schools. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 429-439). London, UK: Sage.

22. Hanline, M. F., & Halvorsen, A. (1989). Parent perceptions of the integration transition process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Children, 55(6), 487-492. [ PubMed: 2522877 ]

23. Hathaway, O. A. (2002). Do human rights treaties make a difference? The Yale Law Journal, 111(8), 1935-2042.

24. Heckman, J., & Masterov, D. V. (2005). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

25. Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., & Dyson, A. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365-382.

26. Kurtts, S. A. (2006). Universal design for learning in inclusive classrooms. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1(10).

27. Labon, D. (1999). Inclusion education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Washington, DC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

28. Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful? Support for Learning, 22(1), 36-42.10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00443.x [ CrossRef]

29. Lee, S. H., Amos, B. A., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y., Shogren, K. A., Theoharis, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3), 199-212.

30. Mariga, L., McConkey, R., & Myezwa, H. (2014). Inclusive education in low-income countries: A resource for teacher educators, parent trainers and community development workers. Oslo, Norway: Atlas Alliance.

31. McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and research foundations. A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

32. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2000). Examining beliefs, attitudes and understandings as inclusive schools are developed. In Inclusive Schools in Action (pp. 48-59). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

33. Miller, L. J., & Phillips, S. (1992). Parental attitudes toward integration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 230-246.

34. Moberg, G. (2000). Development of teacher perceptions of inclusive education in Finland. Paper presented at the 11th International Association for Scientific Study of Intellectual Deficiency, World Congress, Seattle, WA.

35. Mont, D. (2007). Measuring disability prevalence. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

36. Nugent, M. (2002). Teachers' views of working with Individual Education Plans in an Irish special school. REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland, 15(2), 98-112.

37. Paulsen, K. J. (2008). School-based collaboration: An introduction to the collaboration column. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 313-316.

38. Peters, S. (2003). Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special needs. Washington, DC: World Bank Disability Group.

39. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

40. Sadek, F. M., & Sadek, R. C. (2000). Attitudes toward inclusive education in Egypt and implications for teachers' preparation and training. Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress 2000, Manchester, UK.

41. Sebring, P. B., & Montgomery, N. (2014). The five essential supports for school improvement: Mobilizing the findings. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 51(1), 63-85.

42. Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-207.

43. Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 39-51.

44. Stough, L. M. (2003). Special education and severe disabilities in Costa Rica: Developing inclusion in a developing country. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(1), 7-15.

45. Turnbull, H. R., Stowe, M., & Huerta, N. (2007). Appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Company.

46. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2007). Committee on the rights of the child, general comment No. 9: The rights of children with disabilities, CRC/C/GC/9, Feb 2007. In Report of the committee on the rights of the child (pp. 30‒52). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from

47. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2015). Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities: Draft general comment on the right to inclusive education. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from

48. Vaz, S., Wilson, N., Falkmer, M., Sim, A., Scott, M., Corider, R., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Factors associated with primary school teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. PLoS One, 10(8), e0137002. [ PMC free article: PMC4552744 ] [ PubMed: 26317862 ]

49. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Garza, N. (2006). An overview of findings from wave 2 of the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

50. Wirz, S., Edwards, K., Flower, J., & Yousafzai, A. (2005). Field testing of the ACCESS materials: A portfolio of materials to assist health workers to identify children with disabilities and offer simple advice to mothers. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28(4), 293-302. [ PubMed: 16319554 ]

Appendix A. Inclusive Education Systems and Policy Checklist

This checklist is based upon the various articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the CRPD Committee's draft General Comments on the right to inclusive education.

Government Education Systems Should:

◻

Include all children with disabilities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

◻

Establish an intersectoral commitment to inclusive education across government ministries, including:

◻

Require inclusive education as a component of preservice teacher training.

◻

Require inclusive education as a component of in-service teacher training.

◻

Actively recruit teachers with disabilities.

◻

Provide accommodations to teachers with disabilities.

◻

Ensure that general education sector plans and/or strategic plans address the needs of children with disabilities and inclusive education.

◻

Develop an Education Sector Plan to support disability-specific legislation that details the process for implementing an inclusive education system, including the allocation of sufficient, committed financial and human resources for both rural and urban areas.

◻

Ensure that teaching and learning materials are inclusive of individuals with disabilities and present disability in a positive and empowering manner that reduces stigmatization and supports inclusive education.

◻

Consult with parents of children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities on proposed laws and educational plans.

◻

Establish an outreach mechanism to build awareness of parents and the community on issues related to disability and inclusive education.

◻

Collect data on children with disabilities using the Washington Group functionality questions ( http://www​.washingtongroup-disability​.com​/washington-group-question-sets) to inform policies and programs.

◻

Capture disability data within the Education Management and Information System (EMIS).

◻

Develop monitoring frameworks with structural, process and outcome indicators.

Specific Inclusive Education Legal Framework Should:

◻

Prohibit discrimination on the grounds of disability.

◻

Provide a clear definition of inclusion and the specific objectives the law is seeking to achieve at all educational levels.

◻

Ensure that all legislation that potentially impacts inclusive education within a country clearly states inclusion as a goal.

◻

Reinforce that all children with disabilities, regardless of diagnosis or severity, have the right to free primary and access to secondary education within their public neighborhood schools.

◻

Guarantee that students with and without disabilities have the same access to inclusive learning opportunities.

◻

Provide reasonable accommodations to all children with disabilities.

◻

Reaffirm that children with disabilities have the right to live in their communities and to not be not placed in long-term institutional care. If children with disabilities are currently institutionalized, develop and establish, with a plan for sustainability and monitoring, a strong deinstitutionalization plan.

◻

Require all new schools to be designed and built to an acceptable standard of accessibility.

◻

Provide a time frame for the adaptation of existing schools to ensure they meet an acceptable standard of accessibility, along with a monitoring plan for ensuring that the work is completed in a timely manner.

◻

Develop a consistent framework for the identification, assessment, and support of individuals with disabilities.

◻

Ensure that all children, including children with disabilities, have the right to be heard within the school system, including through school councils, governing bodies, and local and national government, and establish mechanisms through which decisions concerning education can be appealed.

◻

Require that the national curriculum be available to all students and support a system to adapt curricula as needed for students with disabilities.

◻

Give students the opportunity to access assistive technology, including materials in braille, alternative script, augmentative and alternative modes, means, and formats of communication, and orientation and mobility skills, if needed.

◻

Give students who are deaf or hard of hearing the opportunity to learn and be taught in the local sign language.

◻

Develop an effective, accessible, safe, and enforceable complaints mechanism to challenge any violations of the right to education.

Appendix B. Glossary of Disability Inclusive Education Terminology

1

Country ratification status as of May 2017.

2

Note that inclusive education does not mandate that students must spend 100 percent of time with their peers. Specialized intensive instruction in alternative settings-such as pulling a child out of a general education classroom for intensive literacy or language support-may also be helpful for some students in some areas of instruction. However, it is important to ensure that removing a student from the classroom does not become the default practice and that this practice is used sparingly and only in cases where such intensive and specialized instruction is not feasible in the general education class and is clearly beneficial for that student.

3

Disability is mentioned throughout the World Declaration on Education for All. For example, disability is mentioned within the goals and target section, Article 3.3 (d), and as part of the overall commitment.

4

The Salamanca Conference, which developed the Framework of Action, was attended by more than 300 participants representing 92 governments.

5

Students with disabilities may require different transition plans throughout their academic career. Most notable is the development of a transition plan that supports students with disabilities as they move from school to the workforce. Other transition plans may include transitioning from an early childhood program to kindergarten and transitioning from primary to secondary school.

Anne M. Hayes, MA, is an international disability and development consultant.

Jennae Bulat, PhD, directs the Teaching and Learning team in the International Development Group at RTI International.

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research organization dedicated to improving the human condition. The RTI Press mission is to disseminate information about RTI research, analytic tools, and technical expertise to a national and international audience. RTI Press publications are peer-reviewed by at least two independent substantive experts and one or more Press editors.

RTI Press Associate Editor

Assoc. editor's name

Suggested Citation

Hayes, A. M., and Bulat, J. (2017). Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries. RTI Press Publication No. XX-0043-1707. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0043.1707

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving the human condition. We combine scientific rigor and technical expertise in social and laboratory sciences, engineering, and international development to deliver solutions to the critical needs of clients worldwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disabilities Inclusive Education Systems and Policies Guide for Low- and Middle-Income Countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Having a disability can be one of the most marginalizing factors in a child's life. In education, finding ways to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities can be challenging, especially in schools, districts, regions, and countries with severely limited resources.