Talk:Achievement gaps in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessica C918 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PatrickHardner, Emro12.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HK khawaja. Peer reviewers: AbiL7, Mgmari19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plan for article[edit]

This is the first in a series of articles I plan to put together about U.S. education reform. Here's where I'm going with it:

  • History of the gap
  • Evidence of the gap
    • Problems discussing the gap (e.g. inconsistent classifications of race)
  • Explanations of the gap
  • Proposed solutions
  • Political implications
  • Similar patterns in other nations

I would like to acknolwedge that some have no interest in "closing the gap," but I'm not sure how to fit that into an article about an issue where "both sides" of the mainstream debate agree that something should be done.

Feedback and assistance VERY much appreciated, as this is my very first article.

Lottelita 22:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since the title at least for now isn't yet "Achievement gap in the US"... I've found this about low achievement in british schools: Tackling low educational achievement. A collection of documents with short summaries. I hope it's going to be useful, but I didn't look at depth at all. --Extremophile (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"IQ tests have been largely banned for use in education in states such as California." -- Quote from the WE article. This sentence has no real meaning. It begs the question "what is a state that has characteristics such as California?" One state is named, but how many other states are "such as California?" Zero? One? Two? 25? 40? The answer is not even suggested, nor is their any hint at what defines the category "such as California?"

Sep. 2, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.28.202 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Achievement gap[edit]

Both articles are rather slim, so it's probably a good idea to discuss any kind of achievement gap based on race, gender, etc. on the achievement gap page. Also any disparities between the education of the subgroups too. That would make for a better article. Just an idea. Chris53516 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's slim now, but the intent is to create one for each ethnic group. Comparitive numbers will be the same, but rather than noting where every group is all the time, you would concentrate on just one group. For example, with African Americans, the concern is low grade point average and test scores. For Asian Americans, there might be an issue with admission quotas, or weak verbal scores, and for Hispanics, low high school graduation rates, etc. Issues such as desegregation and multiculturalism also differ for different groups. --Sugarcaddy 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but there's not enough content for an encyclopedic entry. I would have them on one page rather than multiple. My suggestion is write what you want on the achievement gap page, and if that gets too big, then move them to separate pages. Chris53516 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest then, but keep the redirect. I'd ask the folks over on the other page what they think too. That page isn't very good for discussing educational practices designed for addressing the gap, such as Title 1, bilingual education, multiculturalism, affirmative action, desgregation, etc. --Sugarcaddy 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effort gap[edit]

This article should examine whether there is an "effort gap" that corresponds with the "achievement gap" between the groups of people discussed in the article. People are not going to achieve unless they put in the effort to make it happen. --Jagz 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First reference[edit]

Seems like the first reference isn't a reference to anything, just an institution and a name. I think we need a more specific source before claiming that gaps exist at every income level. --JereKrischel 06:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class and economics[edit]

The big unmentionable here is class/economics, although some school districts have begun to approach it. The issue is less the problems of all African Americans and other minorities, than the problems of poor African Americans and other minorities. Some school districts have begun to address programs of extra help, etc. to districts/sections in which families meet certain economic criteria. This is more focused and may lead to more progress. I don't have the sources at hand but people interested in this area should look in that direction.--Parkwells (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change[edit]

I suggest changing the article name to "Achievement gap in the United States". Comments? --Jagz (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I think it should be "Achievement gaps in the United States." Jimlech[reply]

Standards Based Reform[edit]

The section on standards based reform needs some significant revision. The first sentence is outright silly--beliefs do not refute findings--and at least one other sentence was completely incoherent (as someone took the liberty of noting in brackets in the article text). Other parts, such as the section about IQ tests being made illegal need clarification and the part about ACT and SAT tests being condemned needs sources. More significantly, the whole section looks as though it was penned by an individual or a small group, possibly with a stilted view of education reform. Someone with some perspective needs to weed out the facts from the rhetoric and make it clear to readers which is which. 68.46.233.83 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the recent addition of the substanitally documented math-verbal achievement gap to the list.

Gender Gap in Mathematics[edit]

This subject was added in order to address one of the more prominent gender gaps that we see in the US. The subject is also of interest because of gender stereotypes and could be tied into females in the STEM fields.

--141.152.124.42 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Gap in Physics[edit]

I have added this subject into this article as it has the largest disparity achievement and representation wise. I realize the article is on achievement so the representation section may be out of place however I could not find another article in which I thought it fit better. This indicates that there is a need for a whole article on female representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Once such an article is in place then it would be appropriate to move the section on representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.9.169 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change[edit]

The article deals with several different gaps, so its name should be Achievement gaps in the United States, no?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. So moved. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for additions/reorganization[edit]

First off, this is my first time editing, so please be kind! I attempted to edit the first half of this article (before the "Gender gap" section) as part of a Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative project. My goal was to add some information about the origins of the (black-white and Hispanic-white) achievement gap in early childhood. While I was at it, I took the liberty to reorganize some of the existing information into subheadings to try to lend more structure to the article - however, I did not delete anything major. I did combine one section on "Standards-based reform" with another on NCLB, since both sections talked about NCLB and somewhat overlapped but appeared in different parts of the article. Other edits were mostly minor for grammar, readability, etc. Please let me know if you have any concerns/issues. My major remaining issue is with the shifting definition of the gap throughout this article. Should the "Gender gap" section somehow be even more separated from the rest (separate article??), and can it be more clear how the gap is being defined in the first half of the article (e.g. be more explicit about racial vs. income groups)? MPM12 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De-tracking[edit]

I only fixed the grammar of this sentence. As the sentence stood, it suggested that “all students” might de-track students. I’m not sure how long a specific claim like this, clearly open to dispute, should be allowed to stand without citation, so I will leave its citation or removal to those who know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenwarlocks (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too large of a focus?[edit]

I think that this entry as it stands now tries to cover too much material. By explaining both the racial and gender achievement gaps (which have different causes and implications), it doesn't allow for a thorough examination of either of the gaps, especially in terms of the strategies that have been used in attempts to close the gap. I think it would make more organizational sense to have a specific article that focuses on the racial achievement gap. Much of the information here could be moved to that article and better expanded on. For example, we could better explain the different and very complex causes of the racial achievement gap, the social and economic implications of the gap, and the strategies and programs that have been tried to close the gap (for example, KIPP schools). Kebarnes91 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Racial achievement gap in the United States for offloading details. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improving upon Gender Section[edit]

As it stands now, the gender sections of this article could be much better organized in order to be easier to understand and to educate a larger audience about this educational achievement gap. I will make four main improvements to the gender education gap section:

1. Create a subsection that focuses on possible causes of the gender achievement gap, including cultural, economic, and biological factors. The gender education gap is a complicated topic, and it is important for people to understand the theories about why this gap exists. Existing research on the gender achievement gap in education proposes several possible causes, and I will try to include as many valid theories as possible.

2. Create a subsection that focuses on evidence of the gender achievement gap in education in a variety of subjects and fields. Extensive research has proven that there are differences in gender achievement in a variety of measures of educational achievement, including test scores, graduation rates, and representation in different fields. Right now, there are subsections on gaps in literacy, mathematics, and physics. I will create a subsection that provides evidence of the gender achievement gap in these fields but also in the social sciences, and include information about gaps in standardized test scores and high school and college graduation rates. Finally, I will include graphs that will provide visual evidence of these gaps.

3. Create a subsection that focuses on the potential implications of the gender achievement gap. The gender achievement gap can have a variety of negative impacts on a country; for example, whichever gender is better-educated has a better chance of securing well-paying jobs, which can lead to a wage gap between men and women. Because a well-educated citizenry increases the stability and success of a country's economy, it is important that both men and women are well-educated and that one gender is not performing significantly better than the other.

4. Create a subsection that addresses both successful and unsuccessful efforts at reducing the gender achievement gap in education. A variety of endeavors have been created to address this gap, such as initiatives to increase girls' interest in STEM fields. I will include examples of these programs and provide evidence about whether or not the programs had an impact on reducing the gap. It is important to include this information so that people are aware of the action that has been taken to address the gender gap in educational achievement.

Kebarnes91 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion on gender! Overall, this article is very informative and well-written. I do have a few points of change or ellaboration, though. In "Gender gap in literacy," the scale for the 2002 National Writing Assessment should be added to create more significance in the gaps between the points. Under "Teacher interactions and evaluations," I think expanding on the second view of how teachers can indirectly impact their students would be beneficial to exploring both possible views. Also, is history really considered a "feminine" subject? I, personally, have always imagined it as a "masculine" field, but maybe others don't. The "Implications of the gap" paragraph needs more citations - there are many separate ideas that are presented, and I am unsure if they all come from the same source or different. Personally, I would love it if you expanded on the "Values affirmation" subtopic because I'm intrigued: Why does this intervention work? How does it work? Thank you for bringing more information on the gender gap in achievement to Wikipedia! Rachelpop- (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kaitlin! Just a few things to possibly add to this already wonderful and comprehensive addition. First, it might be beneficial to clarify that when discussing point differences that this all occurs on a hundred-point scale. I absolutely love the way you divvy up your article, however, I feel like there is a bit of room for even more divisions. For example, in the section on Gender gap in math and science you may want to add a subsection title for the area detailing Hyde’s counter-argument. Another knit-picky suggestion is to possibly include a greater variation of transitions, such as exchanging however for although, while, etc. Also, it may be important to cite certain statements, like the assertion that “Males and females also have vastly different labor market histories based on type of job and time spent in each job” at the end of the Gender gap in graduation rates section. I noticed that this talk page is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, so it is important to remain cognizant of that with regards to maintaining a neutral viewpoint and carefully citing sources. I especially enjoyed the section on Teacher interactions and evaluations, but just out of curiosity are these findings asserting that teachers carry out acts of gendered favoritism implicitly or intentionally? If it is implicit, it might be important to specify. Lastly, it may also be beneficial to link the stereotype threat page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) to the section on stereotyping and parent socialization, because the impact of stereotype threat is lesser known. Overall, great work! I look forward to the finished product! Avo92 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input guys! Rachel, I will look into expanding the "Values affirmation" subsection. I know a similar practice has been used in other subjects and grade levels, so I will find citations and insert that information. Both of you mentioned specifying the scale that the evaluations were done on, which is something that I didn't even think about but is definitely important information. Ashlin, I will also go back and specify whether the teacher favoritism is implicit or explicit. Kebarnes91 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin, you've done a great job so far comprehensively covering the topic of the gender achievement gap. I would like to reiterate a bit of what Ashlin said in that I think it might be beneficial for your to further split some of your sections. This is mostly for readability, in case someone wants to scan the article for some specific information. Another point that I think you should be careful about that Dr. S mentioned in class is stating very clearly that your information comes from specific sources rather than stating it as fact and merely citing the source. I'd be especially careful about this in the sections that are most likely to be challenged, such as the sections on causes and implications. In addition, I would avoid saying "researchers think" and instead just name the people who've conducted a specific study, although that might just be a personal preference thing. Especially because this article is being arbitrated, I would air on the side of over-citing rather than citing sparsely throughout the paragraphs. If any given section only has one citation, perhaps you can look for another one to further back up what you're saying (if it is something that might be controversial).
For the article on "Occupational segregation" that I have been working on, I've added it to some categories (which are kind of like WikiProjects), so I'm just going to go ahead and add your article to the "Inequality" category. In addition, I added a link to the "Occupational segregation" page to your article.
You've done a great job so far! K Gagalis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I will look at the sections again and figure out where it would be appropriate to create more specific subsections. I will also go back through the article and be sure to reference specific sources within my writing, and add more citations where appropriate. Kebarnes91 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asians[edit]

Why is there no talk of Asians in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixarnation (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in prose and statistics has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Seeing no opposition to merging, the articles have been combined. WTF? (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications has been proposed to be merged with this one, since May 2009. I'm copying below some of the previous discussion on this matter. Personally I am neutral at this point.--KarlB (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copied from Talk:Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications[edit]

Both articles are rather slim, so it's probably a good idea to discuss any kind of achievement gap based on race, gender, etc. on the achievement gap page. Also any disparities between the education of the subgroups too. That would make for a better article. Just an idea. Chris53516 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's slim now, but the intent is to create one for each ethnic group. Comparitive numbers will be the same, but rather than noting where every group is all the time, you would concentrate on just one group. For example, with African Americans, the concern is low grade point average and test scores. For Asian Americans, there might be an issue with admission quotas, or weak verbal scores, and for Hispanics, low high school graduation rates, etc. Issues such as desegregation and multiculturalism also differ for different groups. --Sugarcaddy 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but there's not enough content for an encyclopedic entry. I would have them on one page rather than multiple. My suggestion is write what you want on the achievement gap page, and if that gets too big, then move them to separate pages. Chris53516 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest then, but keep the redirect. I'd ask the folks over on the other page what they think too. That page isn't very good for discussing educational practices designed for addressing the gap, such as Title 1, bilingual education, multiculturalism, affirmative action, desgregation, etc. --Sugarcaddy 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge proposal discussion[edit]

Both of these articles are very long and merging them is certainly going to be a monumental task. However, both articles appear to be covering very similar information, and there is likely a content fork issue by having both of them separately. Both articles seem to rely quite a bit on graphs and charts, especially the educational outcomes one. I'm not sure if it's the best use of the wiki to simply repeat graph and chart data that's published elsewhere without discussing the impact. So, I think the first step is to work on cleaning up both articles, and once that's done, if a merge is applicable, then it can be done. WTF? (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PC much?[edit]

Why isn't genetically lower innate intelligence being discussed as a potential causative factor? Is Wikipedia conforming to political correctness?

It's unclear those are significant drivers, but we do have entire articles on those topics, and since people keep bringing it up I've added cross-references for gender. It was already discussed for race; I've added a subsection header to make that easier to find. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newly updated source list for this and related articles[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization and addition of LGBT section[edit]

I am currently working on a Wikipedia project for my college coursework in Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities. I want to add a section to this page on the LGBT achievement gap, but first I think we should address some organization issues.

First, I would like to delete the stub on the math-verbal achievement gap. As this article deals with cross-identity achievement gaps, not cross-subject achievement gaps, this section does not particularly belong here. Furthermore, it links to an article that is not very well written.

Next I propose that every achievement gap (racial, gender, and LGBT soon) be uniformly organized into the following subsections: 1. (Identity here) achievement gap, which will include evidence; 2. Causes of the (identity here) achievement gap; 3. Implications of the (identity here) achievement gap; 4. Efforts to reduce the (identity here) achievement gap.

By organizing the article this way, it will be easier to navigate, and will cover everything currently in the article. This will also mean either eliminating or consolidating the extraneous "Racial achievement gap" section (currently number 7) further down in the article. Parts of this section are not well cited, and those that are could easily be rewritten into the other racial section. Naturally, due to available research and literature, every section of this article cannot be arranged perfectly the same way, and there will be different subsections depending on the information available. However, making the skeleton of the article consistent could improve readability.

I also propose reducing the section on the racial achievement gap to an introduction and providing a link to the parent article Racial achievement gap in the United States, rather than trying to keep this section extensive.

Finally, I will be adding a section on the LGBT achievement gap. LGBT issues are big in the U.S. right now, and while adult issues are well-represented (marriage laws, violence, etc.), issues regarding youth are not really found on Wikipedia.

As a side note, I also like the idea of renaming this article "Achievement gaps in the United States," and as no one has given a counterargument to this idea, I will likely do so.

If anyone has any input, please let me know.

Santatijay (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're looking for input, it would help to have more information on what an LGBT section would entail. Gaps between cis and queer students? Make sure you have good sources before you add text. This article's kind of a mess, and I haven't read through it, but a section (within "gender"?) to that effect would make sense. The article is 47 kB when articles are usually 30–50 kB max, so it could use some paring down. That's hard for a first assignment, but go for it if you feel comfortable. I recommend bringing sections and sources here for discussion before deleting them outright, at least while you're getting started. I don't think the article needs to be renamed since it describes "achievement gap" as a phenomenon and is just localized to the US. The article really needs a history section more than anything, describing how it came to be a buzzword, how these issues were discussed before the term, then the article can go into specific achievement gaps but the point of the article isn't their comparison or listing (i.e., it's the "achievement gap" as studied in the US, with examples by race and gender). Summary style would make this article the parent to the racial achievement gap article (which should most likely be "Race-based achievement gap" or something else similar, but that's a different topic). I added a link to make that relationship more clear. Everything in this article could use more summarization, not just that section. I'd focus on paring everything down before totally rewriting into new sections—that way you can salvage the most content. Let me know how I can help. czar ♔ 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Czar! I've been focusing on the addition of the LGBT achievement gap, but I hope to add a history section in the future, and start trimming down the racial achievement gap section. The main Wiki article, Racial achievement gap in the United States, is getting better, so we can probably make this article a lot easier to read. 128.42.75.238 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for final Contribution[edit]

Overall, good article. However, try incorporating more examples in your article. Try to find more studies to back up the points that you make in the article. However, I don't think any new content/ideas should be added into the article, just more detail on what is already written. The article is already quite long, and if more sections would be added it would just bog down the readers with too much information. Additionally, make sure you cite frequently. The amount of citations is ok, but it wouldn't hurt to cite more frequently.

Popekp740 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)popekp740[reply]

Good article. Just added a citation [63]. HK khawaja (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Suggestion on expanding your contribution[edit]

I think your contribution really helped add some substance to the existing article with regards to providing information about the LGBT achievement gap in secondary schools and colleges, the causes of such disparities, and potential solutions to this issue. My main recommendation would be to consider adding a section covering how the existing achievement gap for LGBT individuals influence their employment and other opportunities in the future. Also, explaining concepts such as "gender-conforming" can help enhance reader comprehension.

Dmillar23 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TA comments[edit]

Hi Santatijay! Great job on the article, you've added a lot of important information. I would suggest that you do more to emphasize the gap between LGBT and gender-normative students, since that's the gap you say you're emphasizing at the beginning on that section. For example, the paragraphs about verbal and physical harassment under "LGBT performance in secondary schools" and about schools with safety policies vs without under "Possible solutions" both compare LGBT students to other LGBT students, which is not exactly the achievement gap. Also, are there any studies comparing bullied LGBT youth to bullied non-LGBT youth? That's not necessary since you clearly established that LGBT youth are more likely to be bullied, but it would add more depth to the article.

Best of luck with the article! Let me know if you have any questions! Nadhika99 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nadhika99. I can probably do better with emphasizing the difference between LGBT and gender-normative students in the first section, but any research on solution only compares LGBT students in schools with implemented solutions to LGBT students in schools without such solutions. I'll do better to emphasize the main point here! 128.42.75.238 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some great writing here! I copyedited your recent edits and edited for other Wikipedia policies (e.g., some of the phrases were not completely neutral). I spotchecked some of the sources for verifiability and copyvio. Forgetting what else I wanted to add now... The latter parts might be better in a different article, to keep this section concise and on the achievement gap itself. czar ♔ 21:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Science[edit]

Socio-cultural, income, student-teacher relations - bla, bla, bla. - Genetic differences - between races and also between genders are not even taken into consideration, let alone talked about. It is as if people are talking about climate and day and night and do not even consider that the earth may turn around the sun and also around itself. Or as if searching in a pitch dark room for a needle in a haystack while there is no needle in the haystack nor even a haystack in that room. - ROTFOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.103.126 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has subsections that discuss possible biological influences, though these hypotheses are not well supported by scientific studies. -- Beland (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

At least one paragraph is copied without attribution from Closing the Achievement Gap from an International Perspective, edited by Julia V Clark. I have tagged the artcile accordingly. See https://books.google.co.il/books?id=pHfGBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=These+schools+do+not+offer+simple+answers+or+easy+solutions,+but+several+common+strategies+emerge+from+their+practices.&source=bl&ots=K2sj9jGB_N&sig=T5OgTnen9MDyVeHLMiFXqqBmhlU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTrbvitY3KAhWFiRoKHVY7AqkQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=These%20schools%20do%20not%20offer%20simple%20answers%20or%20easy%20solutions%2C%20but%20several%20common%20strategies%20emerge%20from%20their%20practices.&f=false Mikedelsol (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikedelsol, I think this goes a little deeper. The paragraph in question was modified to the language in question in 2011 and the book was apparently published in 2013. That alone would indicate that the copyvio is the other way around. Both sources cite https://edtrust.org/resource/success-stories/ but the language appears to be specific to WP. czar 17:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible causes of the gender achievement gap in the United States[edit]

The absence of IQ and aptitude differences being a possible explanation is very notably missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a summary of and link to Sex differences in intelligence. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new section[edit]

Hello all I will be adding a new section within the next two days. This section will talk about how parental involvement helps the child succeed in school, which then helps close the achievement gap. Look for the addition and please let me know how i can change it if needed. Thank you! Snashashibi (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Snashahsibi 11:51 13 August 2017[reply]

Annotated Bibliogrpahy[edit]

Carr, M., Gray, N., & Holley, M. (2007). Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An Analysis of Intra-District Spending Patterns in Ohio. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 7(1), 36-53.

Eichelberger, Brenda, Mattioli, Heather, & Foxhoven, Rachel. (2017). Uncovering Barriers to Financial Capability: Underrepresented Students' Access to Financial Resources. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(3), Journal of Student Financial Aid, 2017, Vol.47(3)

Henry, Gary T., Fortner, C. Kevin, & Thompson, Charles L. (2010). Targeted Funding for Educationally Disadvantaged Students: A Regression Discontinuity Estimate of the Impact on High School Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 183-204.

Lee, J. (2012). Educational Equity and Adequacy for Disadvantaged Minority Students: School and Teacher Resource Gaps Toward National Mathematics Proficiency Standard. The Journal of Educational Research,105(1), 64-75.

Lowry, R. (2018). The Effects of State Higher Education Policies and Institutions on Access by Economically Disadvantaged Students. Research in Higher Education, 1-20.

Monks, James. (2018). Institutional Variation in Enrollment of Low-Income Students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 48(1), Journal of Student Financial Aid, 2018, Vol.48(1).

Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Yang, H. (2010). Nonprofits Partnering With Postsecondary Institutions to Increase Low-Income Student Access. Educational Policy, 24(3), 500-533.

Zelinski, N. (2015, May 20). "Path Not Found": Report Says Low-income Students Lack Computer Access. Oakland Post, p. 3,8.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg511570 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cg511570: These should probably be turned into footnotes in the article if they are documenting something specific. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed on students with disabilities[edit]

I managed to find some data on the achievement gap for deaf vs. hearing students. It would be interesting to see similar charts on students with physical disabilities. After a brief search, I only saw data that included students with lots of different types of disabilities. There are somewhat different policy discussions around say, why students who use wheelchairs don't reach proficiency at the same rate as the general population, vs. the same question for students with severe cognitive disabilities. -- Beland (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is too large: better split into several articles[edit]

For example, the racial archievement gaps can be in one article. And the gender archievement gaps can be another. The original article can still be preserved but with added links to the new separated articles. Liao 05:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman Report is online[edit]

Maybe I missed a reference or direct link to the Coleman Report. The full text is here: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf Charles Juvon (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving race section[edit]

I think this page could benefit from more details about the impact of institutional racism on the achievement gap. It needs information on the link between school to prison pipeline, discipline gaps, and racial segregation in connection to the achievement gap. Additionally, I would like to add more details on the role of teachers and community education. It would also be helpful to bring up ideas to consider in making solutions (from a racial achievement gap perspective). My references are also linked on my User page. Thank you! Heatherkong (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the tag about the race section needing cleanup, and per Wikipedia:Summary style, I have started moving content to the main article - Racial achievement gap in the United States. I just wanted to make sure others are ok with this before I go ahead with moving more of the content over? Stonkaments (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've completed the migration, leaving just a short summary of the main article. Unless there are any objections, I plan to remove the template message about the section requiring cleanup. Stonkaments (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Educational inequality in the United States into Achievement gaps in the United States, as it appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. Both articles cover the same topic, but the Educational inequality in the United States article is significantly newer, has fewer edits, and in my view has a lot of issues with WP:POV and WP:V. Stonkaments (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why you thinking moving the whole article "Educational inequality in the United States" to "Achievement gaps" makes sense? I understand moving information from the section on Achievement gap, but I feel the rest of the article has information that wouldn't be relevant in this one.Vanchu22 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about merging in the other direction? It seems to me that Educational inequality in the United States is a more neutral title because it avoids implying that the gap/inequality is due to students' failure to "achieve". Generalrelative (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that I don't see the WP:POV and WP:V issues at Educational inequality in the United States. Indeed, it seems to me like a much better written and more coherent article than Achievement gaps in the United States at this point. It also seems to me that it accurately reflects the mainstream academic understanding on the topic, and is for the most part decently well sourced. Stonkaments, can you point to specific places where you see these issues cropping up? If you'd like to continue this conversation at that article's Talk page that would be fine with me. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Educational inequality in the United States" seems to be a more neutral title, but the "Achievement gaps in the United States" article is more established, so I thought the merger made more sense in this direction. But I could be convinced that it makes more sense to go in the other direction instead.
In terms of WP:POV and WP:V issues:
Great, thanks. Let's see if we can work through these issues to improve the article. It looks like a number of other editors are already on the task! The one place I disagree is that I don't think "cognitive" factors belong in Educational inequality in the United States, since that article is about unequal access and the unequal outcomes that result. We can leave aside methodological quibbles for the time being (i.e. that educational and related environmental inequalities account for group-level disparities in IQ test performance –– including g-loaded tests –– so the two are in no way independent variables; see [[2]] and [[3]]). Generalrelative (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the merge, one article focuses on inequalities in education access (and the differences in outcomes they may lead to), while the other article focuses on the differences in outcomes (and the inequalities they may stem from). Isn't that a clear case of a WP:CONTENTFORK/WP:POVFORK—two articles with different slants on the same topic? Stonkaments (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Educational Inequalities is a broader topic than achievement gaps, as it is possible to have inequalities that have adverse affects not related to achievements, and historical inequalities can have cumulative affects in dimensions that go beyond achievement gaps. If there were to be a merger, it would be much better to incorporate achievement gaps into the Educational Inequalities page. However, as both pages currently have a lot of material, I recommend instead that that the Inequalities page simply provide a link to the Achievement gap page and that excessive overlap be minimized. DStrassmann (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DStrassmann here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to add that I wrote the initial material in Educational Inequality that needs some tweaking, and I plan on fixing the issues brought up by Stonkaments this afternoon. Hopefully I will be able to address all the concerns. MBJAnderson (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In response to the issues with sourcing in the Colonial Era, Integreation and Early intervention sections, I have now added appropiate citations to the claims that were verifiable. Some work in the article was done by previous wikipedians, so it may be unsourced. I am currently working through editing and citing these claims. Thanks! Melired (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yarayaya1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yarayaya1 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Achievement_gaps_in_the_United_States&oldid=1215500330"