Kids arrive at school with large achievement gaps between rich and poor, and the achievement gaps grow over the summer. Now two new studies show that the summer learning gap between the lower and middle classes may be narrowing while the rich surge ahead of everyone.
A May 22, 2018, report from the National Center for Education Statistics tracked more than 18,000 kids who attended kindergarten in 2010-11 and followed up with their parents in the fall of 2011 to see how they spent their summer. It’s a nationally representative group, expressly selected to mimic the actual racial, ethnic, income and geographic diversity in the country.
By many measures, poor kids participated in fewer educationally enriching activities over the summer than middle class and wealthy kids. Only 7 percent of poor kids and 13 percent of “near” poor kids (families of four living on an income of $22,000 to $44,000 a year) went to summer camp. Roughly 40 percent of non-poor kids — middle-class and wealthy — attended summer camp. The poor were less likely to go on cultural outings. For example, only 32 percent of poor kids and 44 percent of “near” poor kids went to an art gallery, a museum or a historical site over the summer. Almost two-thirds, or 63 percent, of non-poor kids, did. Only 15 percent of poor kids attended a concert or a play. One third of non-poor kids did.
More than half of rich and middle-class parents said they read to their children every day during the summer. Fewer than 40 percent of poor kids’ parents did so.
But there were surprises too. A larger subset of poor families than non-poor families said they had their children work on math and writing activities every day. For example, one fourth of poor families said they engaged in writing activities with their kids each day. Only 12 percent of non-poor families did this.
A couple pieces of egalitarian news: three-quarters of kids played outside every day, regardless of household income. And one-third of kindergarten graduates of all income levels looked at or read books every day.
Disparities in how low, middle and high income parents invest in their children during the summer are nothing new. But it’s interesting to see how they have changed over time. The last time NCES studied how kindergarteners spent their summer, in the summer of 1999, the questions were slightly different. But it seems that low-income families were even less likely to participate in activities with their children back then. For example, only 20 percent of children from low-income families with less educated parents went to art, science or discovery museums over the summer — roughly 12 percentage points lower than in 2011. Forty-five percent of low-income children went to a zoo, aquarium or petting farm back in 1999 — roughly 9 percentage points lower than in 2011.
At first glance, it seems that low-income families are now more involved with their children and investing in them more. Perhaps the summer experience gap between low- and high-income children is narrowing. But the 2011 NCES report focused on children living in poverty and not in wealth. All the non-poor children are lumped together, be they middle, upper-middle or upper class, and their summer experiences are all averaged into one number. It doesn’t detect or highlight growing disparities among these income groups.
Sociologists, however, are finding that parental investment in their children has diverged sharply over the last 40 years with growing gaps between the middle and the upper classes. In a May 2018 paper published in the American Sociological Review, researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and Colorado State University found that the most affluent Americans are driving this difference, spending ever higher amounts of money on their children’s education and enrichment, from after-school lessons to summer camps.
They also found that this increase in parental investment in children was directly related to growing income inequality. That is, in states where income inequality grew a lot, so did disparities in parental investments. The higher the income inequality, the larger share of their income rich people spent on their children.
“Affluent parents might see rising income inequality as really making a winner-take-all economy and feel a strong push to give their kids every advantage they can,” said Daniel Schneider, professor of sociology at Berkeley, in a press release.
In other words, rising income inequality not only leaves the rich with more money to spend but also reshapes parents’ desires to invest larger portions of their money in their own children. High-income parents are not simply spending more in general but are targeting their spending toward their children.
Money doesn’t seem to be a replacement for time. Despite time-pressured lives, the sociologists found that high-income parents did not reduce the amount of time they spent together with their children.
Today’s income inequality is not only leading to unequal investment in children, but also laying a foundation for even more unequal adult lives in the future.
This story about kindergarten summerwas written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
New federal data on bullying, discipline, and school safety should prompt tough questions about why certain groups of students are unfairly singled out. Could it also prevent Education Secretary Betsy DeVos from rescinding Obama-era guidance on school discipline? Today’s Federal Flash addresses that question, highlights new people taking over top positions at the U.S. Department of Education, and covers interesting comments on education coming from top Republicans on Capitol Hill.
On Tuesday the U.S. Department of Education released the 2015-2016 Civil Right Data Collection or CRDC, a biennial snap shot of data on bullying, discipline, and school safety among other items.
The data shows that black students and students with disabilities are suspended and arrested far more often than their peers. Given the information, many are hoping this will prevent the department from rescinding Obama-era guidance on school discipline that was designed to address those problems.
The data also confirms racial disparities across students when it comes to success in science, technology, engineering and math courses. For example, 85 percent of white eighth graders who were enrolled in Algebra I passed the course, compared to only 72 percent of Latino students and 65 percent of black students. Among Native American students and students of two or more races, fewer than 50 percent passed the course.
The data also show that high schools with high percentages of black and Latino students are less likely to offer advanced math and science courses like calculus, physics, chemistry and advanced math.
In other news from the Education Department, several empty positions have been filled. On April 18, the Senate confirmed Carlos Muñiz to serve as the Education Department’s top lawyer.
In his role as General Counsel, Muñiz will be charged with tackling some of the stickiest legal issues confronting the Department including determining whether states are complying with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), deciding whether to rescind the school discipline guidance mentioned earlier, and laying out new rules for colleges handling allegations of sexual assault on campuses under Title IX.
The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, reaffirmed the status of arts classes as “core academic subjects” alongside English, math, social studies, science, and other content areas.
Over the past decade, the body of research surrounding the power of the arts to foster social-emotional learning, combat absenteeism, and generate an engaged, positive school community has continued to grow. For instance, a study spearheaded by the Kennedy Center’s Changing Education Through the Arts (CETA) Program, analyzed a decade of research based on sixteen participating schools, more than 400 teachers, and more than 3,000 students. Data collected from interviews, surveys, grades, test scores, and attendance records indicates that integrating the arts had a profound impact on closing achievement gaps, particularly for students from low-income families and English language learners. Moreover, when compared to their peers who were not regularly receiving arts instruction, teachers participating in CETA reported a “more positive and cohesive” learning environment, citing increased peer collaboration and improved social skills in the classroom.
Likewise, in 2012, a study conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts analyzed four K–12 longitudinal datasets provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The research, which focused on youth at risk of dropping out of school, finds that high school students partaking in arts courses tended to have higher grade point averages and were at least five times more likely to graduate as compared to their peers who did not earn arts credits. While causation between arts instruction and this data cannot be proven explicitly, the study highlights a strong correlation between arts involvement and high school graduation rates.
However, despite these promising developments, some districts still make cuts to their arts programs when faced with budget constraints and other challenges. While a recent report by the National Center for Education Statistics showed that the vast majority of schools nationwide offer some type of arts programming (94 percent), the quality of programming provided varies widely. This has given way to an economic and racial opportunity gap in the field. For instance, a 2009 study about arts education conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office finds that in the years studied, the schools that cut time for arts instruction were more likely to serve high percentages of students of color, students from low-income families, and students labeled as “in need of academic improvement.”
So why should schools prioritize an arts curriculum when students are struggling to make academic gains in content areas like math and reading?
Elizabeth Whitford, the executive director of Arts Corps, an organization dedicated to closing the arts opportunity gap in Seattle, Washington, strives to answer this question. “What we learn through the arts is that—because it’s so centered in self-expression and student voice—it’s a very motivating modality through which young people can learn,” Whitford explains. “And because there’s often no right answer in the arts, it really promotes creative, critical- and process-oriented thinking—the types of transferable twenty-first-century skills that young people need to have stepping forward.”
Two years ago, Art Corps launched a program known as the Creative Schools Initiative, which predominantly serves students of color and students from low-income families. This multi-year initiative, funded in part by ED’s Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant, imbeds teaching artists into four of Seattle’s economically disadvantaged middle schools to assist classroom teachers in integrating the arts into other core content areas. According to Whitford, the results of the initiative are promising, including improved attendance rates and higher levels of engagement in their academics.
When implemented well, the arts bring a sense of community into the classroom, foster decision-making skills, and promote cultural awareness that transcends the walls of the school. Furthermore, for some students arts education helps them get through the day, which sheds light on the improved attendance records seen in schools served by Art Corps and CETA. As Whitford explains, “This is the modality through which some students learn best, and yet they don’t have access. So in taking away the arts, you’re taking away the joy in learning for those young people, the thing that would make them get up and go to school.”
As ESSA moves through the implementation process, states should be aware of opportunities to promote arts education and reaffirm its status as a core academic subject, particularly through the Title IV, Part A Student Success and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) Grants program.
This grant program, originally authorized by the U.S. Congress for $1.65 billion, encompasses several older grant programs (like the Advanced Placement Test Fee Program) in addition to funding several new areas of student learning. Schools can use SSAE grants to fund programs that ensure a well-rounded curriculum, promote a healthy school climate, or integrate technology in the classroom.
Unfortunately, SSAEG—which could support arts education and other school climate initiatives—is currently at-risk for being drastically underfunded by Congress, with both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives proposing just $300 million and $1 billion, respectively. Failure to fund SSAEG at the full amount could reduce critical funding for arts education nationwide.
In helping students establish a sense of identity, arts education simultaneously helps schools establish a sense of community—a vital component in the quest for positive school climate. If fully funded, SSAEG could allow more schools to launch and prioritize these initiatives across the country, providing millions of underserved districts with the opportunity to transform their school environments and assist their students in cultivating twenty-first–century skills.
https://youtu.be/YF3zO2shiQc