The achievement gap between white and non-white students: a conceptual  (Page 15/19)

Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos (2000) examined the benefits of smaller class sizes to determine whether class size had a larger positive effect for minority and disadvantaged students than for White students. They investigated kindergarten through third grade students in a Tennessee class size project called the Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) experiment. Students were randomly assigned to small classes (13-17 students) or large classes (22-26 students). An analysis of class size with math and reading, as well as ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status, was utilized to establish which independent variable had a positive effect for minority learning. Across schools, small classes were more beneficial to minority students than to White students. Kindergarten math was the one area for minority students that did not have a statistically significant effect. Nye et al. (2000) estimated that minority students in small classes experienced a larger effect (54-86%) in academic reading success than White students. For mathematics, minority students experienced a smaller effect (8-13%) in academic success than their White counterparts.

Barton (2002) reported an analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress of 36 states and the differences present between White, minority, and students who qualified or did not qualify for free and reduced lunches. Students’ scores from the NAEP in math in both 1992 and 2000 were analyzed for fourth grade and NAEP math scores in both 1990 and 2000 for eighth grade were evaluated. According to Barton, the overall analysis of mathematical data was “encouraging” (p. 1). Results for differences in fourth grade revealed 2 out of 36 states (North Carolina and Georgia) reduced the achievement gap between White students and non-White students and only one state (Connecticut) reduced the gap between students who were or were not eligible for free and reduced lunches. In contrast, in eighth grade, no changes were present in the achievement gap between ethnicity and students who qualified or did not qualify for free and reduced lunches (Barton, 2002).

Abedi and Hejri (2004) examined the difference in achievement between students who were Limited English Proficient who were accommodated and students who were non-LEP and were not accommodated. They analyzed students’ scores who were LEP from three separate samples: 1992 (inclusion without accommodations), 1996 (inclusion criteria without accommodations), and a third sample from 1996 (inclusion criteria with accommodations). The National Assessment of Educational Progress main assessment (i.e., Writing, Reading, and Civic Assessment) was used from the 1996 and 1998 school years for fourth and eighth grade. No statistically significant difference was present in the scores between students who were accommodated from students who were not accommodated in either grade level or subject assessment. Abedi and Hejri (2004) concluded that the validity of the NAEP was not altered or compromised due to the accommodations of students who were LEP.