National Academies Press: OpenBook

Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children (2023)

Chapter: 3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3

« Previous: 2 Opportunity Gaps in Early Care and Education Experienced by Children from Birth to Pre-K
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

3

Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K–3

In this chapter, we continue our discussion of opportunity gaps in education and our analysis of outcomes for students in the context of historical structural drivers that create disparities for young children in the early grades (see Chapter 1 for a broader discussion of historical structural drivers). This chapter reviews the evidence related to these drivers and their effects on student outcomes in grades K–3. We also discuss barriers to access to high-quality education and other supports that can benefit young children and their families, and the differential experiences that children and families may experience in accessing these supports.

Similar to the discussion in Chapter 2, the focus of this chapter is on examining evidence related to gaps in access experienced by children and their families, disparities in quality experiences during the early grades, and the ways in which past and present structural drivers can perpetuate this inequity. We also highlight promising policies, practices, and programs with the potential to close the opportunity gap for children in grades K–3. The review of evidence presented in this chapter informed the committee’s recommendations, presented in Chapter 8, for increasing access to equitable and high-quality learning, as well as creating more inclusive quality frameworks.

High-quality early care and education (ECE) followed by quality, well-funded, early elementary education is associated with a host of positive outcomes for children in the early grades, including and especially those who have historically been marginalized (Johnson & Jackson, 2018). Unfortunately, systemic factors in the early elementary grades can sustain and amplify many of the same disparities in opportunities and outcomes

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

that begin earlier in children’s educational trajectories. Indeed, recent literature focused on long-term developmental outcomes for young children, in particular those growing up in contexts characterized by lack of access to resources and supportive health and educational services, reexamines classic studies, such as those of the Abecedarian and HighScope Perry Preschool Project and the Head Start Impact Study, finding some evidence of “fade-out” in the elementary school years (Puma et al., 2010; Durkin et al., 2022). By contrast, two other recent meta-analyses looking at the medium- and long-term effects of ECE found that it is beneficial in promoting child well-being and lowering longer-term education costs (McCoy et al., 2017), and that high-quality, well-implemented preschool programs can increase early learning gains that have lasting effects through later years of schooling (Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Another recent study found evidence of an association between attending high-quality ECE and continued positive outcomes in early academic skills through grade 3 (Horm et al., 2022). Horm and colleagues (2022) note the need for more research to study the mechanisms that help sustain early gains or can cause fade-out in the early grades.

The funding structure for K–12 education relies heavily on local funding, and in many cases, federal and state funding does not adequately compensate for funding gaps at the local level. Research shows that these funding gaps, in combination with policies that have disproportionate negative effects on children from racialized1 and marginalized backgrounds and interpersonal biases among adults who work with children, result in unequal experiences for young children from racialized backgrounds, those in low-income communities, those who speak a language other than English, and those with disabilities. Further, the misalignment between the ECE and early elementary systems in their definitions and expectations of quality disrupts continuity in gains experienced by young children and further perpetuates opportunity gaps.

The National Academies study Transforming the Workforce for Children from Birth through Age 8 stresses the importance of continuity across the birth to 8 spectrum—both in the systems in which the education workforce works and in positive, high-quality experiences and environments (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council [IOM & NRC], 2015). The report focuses on two dimensions of continuity: (1) vertical continuity of high-quality experiences across diverse education settings and (2) alignment of learning expectations, curricula, instructional strategies, assessments, and learning environments. The report emphasizes that these

___________________

1 Racialization is defined as the act of giving a racial character to someone or something or the process of categorizing, marginalizing, or regarding according to race (Merriam-Webster, 2022).

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

dimensions of continuity should be based on evidence on child development and be informed by evidence-based best practices. The report also notes that continuity also includes coordinated services and policies that can affect children in this age range and communication among providers, including educators, health care providers and services, mental health professionals, social services, and other community support agencies. They conclude that coordination and collaboration cannot be achieved without removing systemic barriers and improving supports to achieve better communication and interaction among providers and across settings (IOM & NRC, 2015).

CURRENT POLICY, FUNDING, AND SYSTEMS FOR EARLY ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

In the United States, state governments are obligated to provide public education to all school-aged children. Nonetheless, opportunity gaps exist within this system. Funding disparities in K–12 education affect access to well-resourced and quality programs (Lloyd & Harwin, 2021). As with ECE, these disparities impact a disproportionate number of students of color, although there is considerable variability in this regard across and within states (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019). To illustrate, neighboring suburban counties outspend Chicago by more than $10,000 per student (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019).

A key factor shaping funding inequities is the prevailing school funding model that relies on local property taxes. Thus, children who live in low-income neighborhoods are more likely to attend underresourced schools (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Funding disparities in school construction and modernization are also shaped by property wealth. Districts with high property wealth—which serve predominantly White learners—spend significantly more on school construction and modernization compared with low-income districts (Brunner, Schwegman, & Vincent, 2022). Furthermore, district size and racial makeup mediate funding patterns. For instance, small school districts serving mainly White students receive $23 billion more than districts serving minority majority districts (EdBuild, 2019). The Education Trust reports that districts educating mainly White students receive $1,800 more per student per year compared with districts serving primarily students of color (Latino, African American, Native American; Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018).

Federal funding for special populations, such as children in low-income communities, English learners, and children with disabilities, is generally insufficient to bridge state and local gaps, largely because these federal funding streams are underfunded. Research indicates that funding gaps exist nationally between White and Black, White and Latino, and higher-income and lower-income students (Shores, Lee, & Williams,

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

2021). Black students receive about $400 less than White students, while lower-income students receive about $430 less than higher-income students. The largest gap is between White and Latino students, with Latino students receiving about $1,200 less than their White peers. Shores, Lee, and Williams (2021) examined these gaps in per pupil spending at the national, state, and district levels. They found the largest gaps nationally, explained by differences in education spending across states and the distribution of students of color and lower-income students in states that invest less in education. For example, at the state level, Shores, Lee, and Williams found higher per pupil expenditures for Black, Hispanic, and lower-income students than for White and higher-income students. At the district level, more funding is generally allocated to Black, Hispanic, and lower-income students, with the gap between Hispanic and White students being largest. At the national level, however, resource distribution was found to be more regressive, with Black, Hispanic, and lower-income students receiving lower per pupil spending and lower capital expenditures (Shores, Lee, & Williams, 2021).

Probing further the disparities across states, Baker (2017) reports a national perspective on school funding inequalities. His main findings include the following:

  • School funding levels continue to be characterized by wide disparities among states, ranging from a high of $18,165 per pupil in New York to a low of $5,838 in Idaho when adjusted for regional differences.
  • Many of the lowest-funding states, such as Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas, allocate a very low percentage of their states’ economic capacity to funding for public education.
  • Twenty‐one states are regressive, providing less funding to school districts with higher concentrations of low‐income students.
  • Only a handful of states—Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—have generally high funding levels and also provide significantly more funding to districts where student poverty is highest.
  • Low rankings on school funding fairness correlate with poor state performance on key resource indicators, including less access to ECE, noncompetitive wages for teachers, and higher teacher:student ratios.

In light of such funding differences, a research question consistently raised in the literature is whether school spending matters. The available evidence offers an affirmative answer to this question. Increased school funding is associated with better academic performance, higher graduation rates, and improved income in adult life (Jackson, 2018), with the most

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

pronounced effects seen in children from low-income households (Jackson, Johnson, & Persico, 2016). Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) studied the impacts of school finance reforms on student achievement and found that the impacts of increased funding for low-income school districts were immediate, strong, and sustainable. Of significance, Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) found that a one-time $1,000 increment in per student annual spending had a relative achievement impact over a 10-year period of “between 0.12 and 0.24 standard deviations” in low-income districts (p. 6). These researchers also found that funding reforms were effective in reducing inequities across districts, although “other policy tools aimed at closing within-district achievement gaps will be needed to address overall equity concerns” (Lafortune, Rothstein, & Schanzenbach, 2018, p. 4 [emphasis in original]), including achievement gaps between students of color and White learners and between high- and low-income groups.

Jackson (2018) conducted a comprehensive review of the research on school spending and student outcomes. The review distinguished between older studies categorized largely as descriptive and recent research aiming to draw causal inferences. A consistent finding across the two kinds of studies was a positive association between increased school spending and learner outcomes. This was “true across studies that use different datasets, examine different time periods, rely on different sources of variation, and employ different statistical techniques” (Jackson, 2018, p. 13). Nevertheless, Jackson cautions about potential contextual effects not yet well understood. For instance, some research on capital construction and Title I spending does not consistently support the link between school funding and learner outcomes. Critically, however, infrastructure and facility investments may have important effects on children beyond academics—for example, in health and safety.

Jackson, Johnson, and Persico (2016) studied the effects of school reform efforts and found that “a 10% increase in per pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school leads to 0.27 more completed years of education, 7.25% higher wages, and a 3.67 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are much more pronounced for children from low-income families” (p. 1). The authors estimate that the effect of a permanent increase in per pupil spending throughout all school years of about 22.7% (about $2,800 in per pupil spending) for low-income learners would eliminate the achievement gap between high- and low-income students. Three states stand out for instituting school spending reforms that have produced noteworthy improvements in student outcomes and achievement gaps (Baker, 2017). Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota instituted reforms that included increasing funding for school districts serving a sizable number of marginalized learners; expanding enrollment in quality preschool and investing in school readiness

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

programs and Head Start; and strengthening professional capacity and development through measures that included salary increases, higher professional standards, and sustained professional development (Baker, 2017).

School spending also matters for students with disabilities. Cruz and colleagues (2020) report a positive association between greater spending on special education programs and growth in the number of students with disabilities meeting or exceeding standards for English language arts. However, this pattern was not observed in high-poverty schools, which generally had fewer certified teachers compared with low-poverty schools, suggesting that funding and qualified teachers are both critical. It is important to note that the association between increases in spending on special education programs and growth in the number of students meeting or exceeding English language arts standards also benefited learners without disabilities in both high- and low-poverty schools (Cruz et al., 2020). Taken together, these findings indicate that school spending reforms are linked to improved academic outcomes for students with and without disabilities (with some important contextual caveats).

Access to and Funding for Out-of-School Time

Access barriers extend into what is traditionally labeled as “after school” and commonly referred to in the youth development sector as out-of-school-time (OST) programming. The trajectory of OST programming is similar to that of ECE programming—born out of labor market shifts and societal needs, OST programs are often underresourced despite the clear evidence of their positive impact on child development gains (Mahoney, Parente, & Zigler, 2009). ECE and OST programs also share a common history of disinvestment and inequity—specifically across communities of color and low-income communities—which manifests in barriers to access, funding, and quality. Families can receive assistance in paying for and accessing school-age care through only two funding streams: the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative. CCDBG is the main federal funding source for helping families afford child care, including OST care and care for school-aged children. Although school-age child care is a large part of the child care subsidy system, it is often forgotten in policy and systems conversations. In fact 44% of CCDBG participants are school-aged children between the ages of 5 and 13 (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.). The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, created in 1994 by Congress, provides grant funding for the creation of community learning centers with the goal of increasing access to academic enrichment opportunities after school and during the summer months for children—in particular, those from

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

lower-performing schools or schools where there is high poverty (Department of Education, 2023).

In 2020, an all-time high of 87% of parents supported public funding for after-school programs (Fortner, Hardy, & Schmit, 2021). According to the Afterschool Alliance, the most prominent barriers families faced in accessing these programs were availability, cost, and the safety of children commuting to and from a program. After-school programs are in limited supply: for every child enrolled in such programs, three are waiting to enroll, suggesting that 24.6 million children might participate in after-school care if it were available. The access issue is even more marked for Black and Latino children in families with low incomes. A survey from the Afterschool Alliance found that, if given the opportunity, 58% of Black children and 55% of Latino children, compared with 46% of White children, would enroll in school-age after-school programs. In rural communities, more than 4.5 million children who are not in OST programming would be if a program were available to them—a 43% increase since 2014; 52% of respondents in rural communities were families with lower incomes. Note that these data were not disaggregated intersectionally by race and income (Afterschool Alliance, 2021, 2022).

As for the workforce, OST providers are paid lower wages and receive fewer benefits compared with other school-age care providers because their positions are often part-time and generally require fewer credentials. The estimated cost to reach all eligible school-age children through CCDBG ranges from $48.4 billion to $79.6 billion, taking into account such variables as increased market-rate payments to states that would go toward higher wages (Fortner, Hardy, & Schmit, 2021).

Regardless of the tremendous need, overall access to OST programming has increased over the last few decades alongside specific program offerings within OST, such as health and wellness programs; science, technology, engineering, and math programs; arts-based programs; and social-emotional learning programs. Yet despite the increase in program offerings overall, the disparity in OST participation between students from wealthy and low-income households has increased (Gardner, Roth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). Across demographics, geography, and income, access barriers are consistently increasing as families report challenges related to cost, children having safe transport from school to the program location, lack of available program offerings in the community, and inconvenient program locations. Black (59%) and Latino (56%) families living in rural, predominantly low-income communities report not having a safe way for their children to get from school to the after-school program as a primary barrier to enrollment (Afterschool Alliance, 2022).

Again, consistent with ECE programs, OST after-school programs have seen a surge in demand as the field has shown undeniable evidence of

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

opportunities for positive impacts on children (Lehrer-Small, 2021). However, limited funding, lack of access to and availability of OST programs, and an underpaid workforce continue to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the opportunity gaps children experience as they move along the developmental continuum.

Special Education

Later in childhood, compared with the early years, the percentage of children who qualify for and receive special education almost doubles. In 2019, among children aged 6–21, 6,374,498, or 9.7% of the resident population in that age range, were served in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Bureau of Indian Education schools. The most common disability categories among children in this age group served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were specific learning disability (37.1%), other health impairment (16.8%), speech or language impairment (16.3%), autism (11.0%), “other disabilities combined” (7%), intellectual disability (6.5%), and emotional disturbance (5.4%). In almost every category, children of color, including Black, Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, were overrepresented in the special education system, generally in the categories of intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, and emotional/behavioral disorder (NRC, 2002; National Academies, 2019), whereas White and Asian American children were underrepresented in these categories. As elaborated in Table 3-1, representation patterns vary by disability category and racial/ethnic/language group. Cruz and Firestone (2022) conducted a study in a large urban school district in California to trace the timing of special education identification. Their findings indicate that African American and Hispanic/Latino students tended to be identified in later grades (after K–6) and in disability categories associated with greater levels of segregation.

Segregated Learning

In the K–12 system, data on segregated learning among students with disabilities are collected according to the percentage of time children spend in the general education classroom—less than 40%, 40–80%, or more than 80%. According to data from the Department of Education (2021b) for the 2019 school year, while most school-aged students served by IDEA (64.8%) spent 80% or more of their time inside a general education classroom, this figure varied by state, disability type, and racial/ethnic group. Alabama had the highest percentage of children with disabilities who spent 80% or more of the school day alongside their peers without disabilities inside the regular

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

TABLE 3-1 Risk Ratios for Students with Disabilities Aged 5–21 (served by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Part B) by Racial/Ethnic Group and Disability Category, Fall 2019

Disability American Indian or Alaska Native Asian American Black or African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races
All disabilities 1.6 0.5 1.4 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.1
Autism 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.2
Deaf-blindnessa 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.9 2.6 1.1 1.0
Developmental delayb 3.8 0.5 1.5 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.5
Emotional disturbance 1.6 0.2 1.8 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.5
Hearing impairment 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.4 2.6 0.7 0.9
Intellectual disability 1.5 0.5 2.2 1.1 1.8 0.6 0.8
Multiple disabilities 1.9 0.7 1.3 0.8 2.2 1.1 1.0
Orthopedic impairment 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.8 0.9 0.9
Other health impairment 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.2
Specific learning disability 1.8 0.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 0.7 1.0
Speech or language impairment 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Disability American Indian or Alaska Native Asian American Black or African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races
Traumatic brain injury 1.6 0.5 1.1 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.0
Visual impairment 1.7 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.0 1.0

a Interpret these data with caution. There were 19 American Indian or Alaska Native students, 79 Asian students, 177 Black or African American students, 371 Hispanic/Latino students, 8 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 817 White students, and 64 students associated with two or more races reported in the deaf-blindness category.

b A state’s use of the developmental delay category is optional for children and students aged 3–9 and is not applicable to students older than 9. NOTES: Risk ratio compares the proportion of a particular racial/ethnic group served under IDEA Part B with the proportion served among the other racial/ethnic groups combined. For example, if racial/ethnic group X has a risk ratio of 2 for receipt of special education services, then that group’s likelihood of receiving special education services is twice as great as that for all of the other racial/ethnic groups combined. Risk ratio was calculated by dividing the risk index for the racial/ethnic group by the risk index for all the other racial/ethnic groups combined. For the Part B child count and educational environments data collection, fall 2019, states had the option of reporting 5-year-olds by kindergarten status. The table includes only 5-year-olds in kindergarten from those states that chose to report 5-year-old kindergartners in school-age educational environments. It does not include 5-year-olds from those states that chose to report 5-year-old kindergartners in early childhood education environments. All of the results presented in the table should be interpreted with this in mind. Data from U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #1850-0925: IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection, 2019. These data are for 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Bureau of Indian Education schools. Data were not available for Wisconsin and Iowa. Data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for States and the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019, 2019. Data were accessed fall 2020. For actual IDEA data used, go to https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html

SOURCE: Adapted from Department of Education, 2021b.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

classroom, while New Jersey had the lowest percentage. With respect to disability type, children with intellectual disabilities or multiple disabilities were the least likely and children with speech impairments or learning disabilities were the most likely to spend time in general education settings.

There were also differences by race. White children were the most likely to spend most of the day in general education settings compared with children of all other races and ethnicities (Figure 3-1). This evidence indicates gaps in access to inclusive learning opportunities between White children and their peers from other racial/ethnic groups (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Skiba et al., 2006). Similar patterns have been documented in neighborhood and charter schools (Waitoller & Maggin, 2020).

The disproportionate representation of students of color in special education in general and in segregated settings in particular reflects the complex links between race and disability. These disparities are most noticeable in disability categories—such as learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and mild intellectual disability—considered most subjective because of the greater role played by professional judgment in diagnostic decisions. Grindal et al. (2019) used individual-level data from three states to analyze racial disparities in special education. They documented greater racial disparities in these more “subjective” disability categories relative to disabilities typically diagnosed in the health care system (e.g., deafness, visual impairment). These authors also found that African American and Latino students were placed in more segregated settings compared with their White counterparts, irrespective of income level. Another study using individual-level data from a large school district and relying on a longitudinal design covering a decade (Cooc, 2022) found that all students with disabilities experienced decreasing levels of inclusion in general education as they became older. Nonetheless, African American learners were the most affected (after controlling for disability type), while Asian American/Pacific Islander students were more included compared with their White and Latino peers. It is important to note that a key challenge in understanding the complex, often ambiguous, and even contradictory findings from studies on racial disparities in special education and disability segregation is the absence of clear theoretical frameworks underlying this knowledge base (Artiles, 2011; Ahram, Voulgarides, & Cruz, 2021).

Indeed, there is a long-standing concern regarding the disproportionate under- and overidentification of learners of color in disability categories. Two National Academies reports addressing this concern were released 20 years apart (NRC, 1982, 2002), and scholarly debates on the issue continue to unfold (Morgan et al., 2015; Skiba et al., 2016). Both patterns can be problematic and can perpetuate opportunity gaps. Underidentification is a problem if children who need services are not diagnosed so that they receive supports. In contrast, overidentification is problematic if a diagnosis

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Image
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
FIGURE 3-1 Percentage of students aged 5–21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B within racial/ethnic groups, by educational environment, fall 2019.
1Percentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the number of hours spent each day inside the regular classroom, divided by the total number of hours in the school day (including lunch, recess, and study periods), multiplied by 100.
2Students who received special education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21% of the school day were placed in the inside the regular class 80% or more of the day educational environment category.
3“Other environments” consists of separate school, residential facility, homebound/hospital, correctional facilities, and parentally placed in private schools.
NOTES: Percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students aged 5 (school age) through 21 served under IDEA Part B in the racial/ethnic group and educational environment by the total number of students aged 5 (school age) through 21 served under IDEA Part B in the racial/ethnic group and all educational environments, then multiplying the result by 100. The sum of bar percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. For the Part B child count and educational environments data collection, fall 2019, states had the option of reporting 5-year-olds by kindergarten status. The figure includes only 5-year-olds in kindergarten from those states that chose to report 5-year-old kindergartners in school-age educational environments. It does not include 5-year-olds from those states that chose to report 5-year-old kindergartners in early childhood educational environments. All of the results presented in the figure should be interpreted with this in mind. Data from U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #1850-0925: IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection, 2019. These data are for 48 states, the District of Columbia, Bureau of Indian Education schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Data for Wisconsin and Iowa were not available. Data were accessed fall 2020. For actual IDEA data used, go to https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html
SOURCE: Adapted from Department of Education, 2021b.
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

is the result of opportunity gaps, false positives, biases, or the conflation of cultural or linguistic differences with disability.

Disproportionality in identification of learners for special education is a complex phenomenon that takes different forms depending on the level of the system in question (national, state, regional, city, or district); the disability category under consideration; the age and grade level of children and youth; the racial and linguistic backgrounds of students; and the role of contextual and ideological factors, including racism and discrimination (NRC, 1982, 2002; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Skiba et al., 2008; Artiles, 2011; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011; Harry & Klingner, 2014; Cruz & Rodl, 2018; Frederick & Shifrer, 2018; Fish, 2019). Methodological and theoretical considerations shape (often conflicting) findings about disproportionality (Waitoller, Artiles, & Cheney, 2010; Cruz & Rodl, 2018). A complex debate has persisted around the role of race and social class. Some researchers argue that the overrepresentation of learners of color in special education is due to their high levels of poverty, whereas others suggest that race plays a critical role (Skiba et al., 2008; Artiles, 2019). Research findings on this issue have been mixed, and again, methodological factors could explain some of these ambiguous patterns. In a recent review of this literature, Cruz and Rodl (2018, p. 10) conclude that:

the ways in which each study conceptualized SES [socioeconomic status] varied, and, thus, results varied. When studies used aggregated measures for SES, they tended to report overrepresentation of students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds in more affluent areas. When considering SES by disaggregated free and reduced lunch measures, results were mixed. When using more specific continuous or composite indicators, much of the variability in special education identification could be attributed to SES.

Other studies with an explicit focus on contextual and cultural historical influences (e.g., history of race relations and racial segregation in the school and community, staff beliefs about race, and deficit views of communities of color) have documented the key role of race in overrepresentation at the district and school levels (Eitle & Eitle, 2002; Skiba et al., 2008; Kramarczuk Voulgarides et al., 2021; Tefera, Siegel-Hawley, & Sjogren, 2022).

The evidence suggests that children of color and those living in rural areas tend to be diagnosed with disabilities later than their White peers of similar age (Barnard-Brak et al., 2021), a problem that creates opportunity gaps in light of the importance of intervening early to provide services for these children (National Academies, 2017). At the same time, there is evidence that some groups of children (e.g., African Americans, Native Americans, English learners) tend to be overidentified in certain categories at the

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

national or sometimes at the regional or state level (Skiba et al., 2008). The issue is most stark in the kinds of more “subjectively” diagnosed disability categories noted earlier, such as intellectual disability, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance—categories that not only require greater professional (subjective) interpretation in the identification process but also tend to be characterized by overrepresentation of Black and Native American children and placement of learners in segregated settings relative to children in other disability categories. For instance, Cruz and Firestone (2022) found that African American and Latino students were identified in later grades relative to White students in the categories of emotional/behavioral disorders and intellectual disabilities, which tend to be served in more segregated settings compared with other disability categories. Table 3-2 presents the odds ratios for special education identification by grade.

Identification Rates and Placement

Cruz and Firestone (2022) also found that parent education level was positively associated with low-stigma diagnoses (e.g., speech and language impairments, autism). They frame this finding as an instance of opportunity hoarding exercised by privileged parents, given that different disability categories are associated with more or less stigma and services that require more or fewer resources. They explain that “for most disability categories, higher parent education levels were associated with decreased odds of placement; however, for the autism category, as parent education level increased, odds ratios also increased” (Cruz & Firestone, 2022, p. 108; see also Ong-Dean, 2009; Shifrer, 2013).

Disentangling disability from typical language learning for children who speak a language other than English at home has also resulted in under- or overdiagnosis among this group, depending on the context and level of analysis (Castro & Artiles, 2021). English learners tend to be underidentified at the national level in low-incidence categories such as severe autism, moderate/severe intellectual disabilities, and severe emotional/behavioral disorders (National Academies, 2017). Differences in identification rates are shaped by gaps in access related to a host of structural and technical factors, such as variability in referral rates that may be mediated by professionals’ misunderstanding of the intersections between speaking multiple languages and disabilities (including myths about second language development), linguistic and cultural barriers in accessing services and service provision, parents’ understanding and navigation of health and education service systems, and access to insurance, among other factors (National Academies, 2017). To illustrate, professionals can incorrectly associate English learners’ behaviors associated with acquiring a second language with learning disorders, but may hesitate to refer these learners to special education because

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

TABLE 3-2 Odds Ratios for Special Education Identification by Grade Level and Student Group

Special Education Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
African American 0.50c 1.48 1.24 1.03 1.25 0.98 0.98 1.31b 1.51b 1.48b 1.64a 1.27 1.17 1.26
Latino 0.66a 1.20 1.25b 1.09 1.02 0.96 0.97 1.33a 1.48a 1.50a 1.68a 1.50a 1.52a 1.33a
AAPI 0.77b 0.86 0.81 0.64a 0.54a 0.49a 0.48a 0.38a 0.39a 0.34a 0.37a 0.32a 0.36 0.32a
AI/AN 0.78 0.63 0.76 1.04 1.19 1.06 1.06 1.09 0.83 1.30 1.68 1.13 1.81 2.54a
Adjusted Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
African American 0.63b 1.30 1.12 0.95 1.16 0.94 0.83 1.13 1.32b 1.28b 1.4b 1.10 1.04 1.17
Latino 0.87 0.86 0.97 0.89 0.91 0.75c 0.65a 0.74b 0.82b 0.86 1.02 1.01 1.02 0.92
AAPI 1.03 0.69b 0.70b 0.58a 0.49a 0.44a 0.39a 0.32a 0.32a 0.29a 0.33a 0.28a 0.32a 0.28a
AI/AN 1.16 0.51 0.67 0.87 1.42 1.03 1.25 0.94 0.62 1.19 1.62 1.15 1.89b 2.68a
Male 2.80a 2.74a 3.05a 2.96a 2.47a 2.32a 2.22a 2.26a 2.18a 2.33a 2.2a 2.3a 2.14a 1.92s
FRPL 0.81b 1.25 1.34c 1.2b 1.24b 1.17 1.16 1.2b 1.17b 1.13 1.16b 1.11 1.11 1.06
EML 0.33a 1.9a 1.51a 1.36a 1.27c 1.97a 2.33a 3.56a 4.07a 3.98a 3.19a 2.75a 3.15a 3.36a
Parent Education 1.05 1 1.01 0.97 1.03 1.03 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.94c 0.94c 0.94c 0.94c

a p <.001.

b p <.05.

c p <.01.

NOTES: Highlighted regions indicate the largest two simultaneous cells for each group. Odds ratio = 1.0 indicates parity of probability of being placed in special education. AAPI = Asian American/Pacific Islander; AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native; EML = emerging multilingual learner; FRPL = free and reduced-price lunch.

SOURCE: Adapted from Cruz & FIrestone, 2022.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

of this ambiguity (Klingner et al., 2005; Artiles, Klingner, & Tate, 2006). Table 3-3 outlines similarities in behaviors associated with second language acquisition and learning disability that can potentially lead to incorrect referrals to special education for English learners.

Researchers have documented underidentification of English learners in grades K–12 in urban school districts in California compared with English-proficient and White students (Artiles et al., 2005). When the data

TABLE 3-3 Behaviors Associated with Learning Disabilities and Second Language Acquisition

Behavior Associated with Learning Disability Behavior Associated with Second Language (L2) Acquisition
Difficulty with auditory discrimination and/or phonological awareness Students may not be accustomed to hearing sounds in the L2 that are not found in their first language (L1). Unfamiliar sounds in the L2 may also be difficult for the student to produce.
Difficulty with sight words, words with multiple meanings, figurative language, or idioms Students may be confused by common words, figurative language, or idioms in the L2; however, students may understand the underlying concepts in their L1.
Difficulty understanding which letters make which sounds Students may be confused by letter sounds in the L2 when different from those in their L1 or when this literacy skill has not been developed in the L1.
Difficulty with story narration and retelling Students may have difficulty with story narration and retelling when they lack sufficient development of oral proficiency in addition to instruction in reading and writing.
Difficulty with reading fluency Students may have difficulty reading fluently and conveying expression in the L2. Students may understand more than they are able to convey.
May seem disengaged during instruction Students may appear disengaged during instruction in the L2 when explanations are provided without visual cues or other scaffolding techniques in place to make instruction more comprehensible.
May seem frustrated or unmotivated Students may appear frustrated or unmotivated. This can occur if assignments are not at the appropriate level for them or when they do not understand why the assignment is meaningful or relevant.

SOURCE: Adapted from National Academies, 2017.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

were disaggregated by grade, however, overrepresentation patterns were noticeable; specifically, this was the case in middle and high school, with particularly large gaps in 12th grade, when English learners were more than three times as likely to be placed in special education compared with their English-proficient counterparts. These districts categorized English learners in two subgroups—those with limited proficiency in English only and those with limited proficiency in both the primary language and English. The latter group represents a theoretically controversial category since it implies that these students are not proficient in any language; the group is described as semilingual or theorized as being languageless in the literature (Rosa, 2016). Of note, this latter group had a substantially higher probability of being identified in the learning disability, language impairment, and intellectual disability categories relative to the other three groups (English learners with limited English proficiency, English-proficient learners, and White learners; Artiles et al., 2005).

IDEA includes provisions on monitoring disproportionality. States have been required to report on disproportionate patterns since 1997, and since 2004 have been expected to create and implement policies and procedures to prevent or remedy inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation of learners of color. States cited for disproportionality can use up to 15% of IDEA funds to revise their procedures and eliminate this problem in general education. Unfortunately, because of the lack of clear federal guidance, “a sizable number of states have been able to meet the IDEA mandate by increasing their risk ratio and N criterion without addressing the problem of disproportionality” (Cavendish, Artiles, & Harry, 2014, p. 36; see also Albrecht et al., 2012).

Policies and Practices That Can Create Opportunity Gaps

A number of policy and practice issues create disparities in opportunity for children with disabilities, disproportionately affecting those of color and those in low-income households. Among others, these issues include less or later access to services, a lack of cultural and linguistically responsive services, and greater segregation in learning settings. These issues are in turn undergirded, in large part, by chronic underfunding of IDEA services. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the federal government has never fully funded its share of IDEA, leaving an outsized burden on state and local governments and families. This underfunding has influenced how many children are served by the program and has resulted in long waits for each step of the process, including screening, evaluation, eligibility determination, and service receipt; dosages of services that are often far less than what children need; variations in the quality of services children receive; and lack of coordination with other systems, such as child care.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Absenteeism

Children’s learning opportunities may be truncated by everyday experiences that may impact their attendance, whether in ECE programs or in grades K–3. Chronic absenteeism is commonly defined as missing 10% or more of days in the school year (Chang, Bauer, & Byrnes, 2018) or more than 15 days (Department of Education, 2019). Research has shown the negative effects of absenteeism on school performance, achievement, and behavior in the early years and the pattern of absenteeism that continues into the elementary and later grades, as well as higher odds of retention, drop-out, and lifelong behaviors (Rhodes, Thomas, & Liles, 2018). In addition, chronic absenteeism has negative spillover effects on peers (Gottfried, 2009). National-level estimates of chronic absenteeism, most typically reported in the K–12 system, put it at about 10–16% (Chang & Romero, 2008; Department of Education, 2019). But these estimates mask significant geographic variation, with rates of preschool chronic absenteeism being higher in large cities (Gottfried, 2009)—for example, 50% in Newark (Chen & Rice, 2017), 36–45% in Chicago, 20–27% in Baltimore, and 35–37% in the District of Columbia (Connolly & Olson, 2012; Katz, Adams, & Johnson, 2015; Dubay & Holla, 2016; Ehrlich, Gwynne, & Allensworth, 2018). Note also that systematic reporting on attendance and chronic absenteeism has increased as a result of requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (Katz, Adams, & Johnson, 2015).

Critical to understanding children’s early learning opportunities is understanding the roots of absenteeism to the extent that they have been researched and the barriers that may impede high levels of participation. These include considerations related to transportation, hours of operation and program schedule, suspension, chronic illness or disability, housing instability, and community violence or insecurity, as well as misconceptions about the importance of attendance in the early years, among others (Dahlin & Squires, 2016; Chang, Bauer, & Byrnes, 2018; Humm Patnode, Gibbons, & Edmunds, 2018; Ramey & Ramey, 2019).

As a result of these barriers, differences in the incidence of absenteeism emerge across groups. A study conducted by the National Center for Children in Poverty (Romero & Lee, 2007) showed that children from families with income levels below 300% of the federal poverty threshold were four times more likely to have chronic absenteeism relative to children from families with incomes above that level. Findings have been similar for children in households receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Dubay & Holla, 2015). That study also found a higher incidence of chronic absenteeism in children from minoritized backgrounds and from households led by a single mother, with a high number of children, or with parents with lower educational attainment. Some research has found an

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

association between feelings of discrimination and school absence, pointing to the potential role of racism and school climate in this problem (Bittencourt et al., 2009; Benner & Graham, 2011; Yang & Ham, 2017). Research has shown that maternal depression, substance abuse, homelessness, and mental illnesses of parents may also influence attendance (Gottfried, 2009; Dubay & Holla, 2015; Katz, Adams, & Johnson, 2015). Neighborhood and school factors, including neighborhood safety and the contribution of any tensions with the police and/or with social groups to a lack of safety for specific subgroups (Childs & Lofton, 2021) contribute to higher absenteeism as well (Fuhs, Nesbitt, & Jackson, 2018; Ansari & Pianta, 2019; Singer et al., 2021). Therefore, school infrastructure to support violence prevention, conflict resolution, and related measures is considered important to reducing chronic absenteeism (Kearney & Childs, 2021).

More generally, chronic absenteeism is a multifaceted issue strongly connected to community and poverty conditions, needing further study as well as multifaceted approaches (Childs & Lofton, 2021). Attending ECE programs has been shown to reduce later absenteeism (Gottfried, 2015; Ansari & Purtell, 2018), while initiatives to strengthen parent engagement (Smythe-Leistico & Page, 2018), to have nurses follow up with the families of chronically absent children (Kerr et al., 2011), and to serve breakfast after the start of the school day (Kirksey & Gottfried, 2021) have been found to be associated with increased attendance. A meta-analytical summary of behavioral, family, and academic interventions found small effects, with the authors suggesting that practices to improve attendance may be understudied (Eklund et al., 2022).

DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY ELEMENTARY LEARNING SETTINGS

As in ECE systems, the quality and funding levels of the early elementary system profoundly impact children’s experiences and outcomes. Although the term “quality” is used more commonly in discussing ECE, the concepts of structural quality2 and process quality3 (as discussed in Chapter 2) continue to be relevant in the early elementary grades, and deficits in both structural and process quality create gaps in opportunity for early elementary learners. Both structural and process quality and the interplay between them are influenced by systemic drivers, such as funding and policies. In communities with fewer resources, for example, larger

___________________

2 Structural quality includes such factors as teacher:student ratios, class size, and teacher competencies and credentials.

3 Process quality includes such factors as teacher–child interactions and closeness of relationships between students and teachers.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

class sizes, an element of structural quality, may result in fewer interactions between teachers and children—an element of process quality (Chaudry & Sandstrom, 2020).

As with the ECE system, there is no single or widely agreed-upon framework for quality in elementary school. Nonetheless, several common features have been studied over the years (Lowenstein et al., 2015; Ansari & Pianta, 2019). These include a combination of structural factors (poverty, racial and socioeconomic segregation); school-, district-, or state-level factors (e.g., funding, discipline policies, access to the curricula, ratios/class sizes, use of ability grouping in classrooms, organizational culture, community/family engagement); teacher-level factors (e.g., teacher turnover, teacher absences, distribution of well-qualified educators, educator bias); and child-level factors (e.g., academic outcomes, behavioral infractions; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2005; Paro et al., 2009; Buttaro & Catsambis, 2019; Darling-Hammond, 2019; Papachristou et al., 2021). Research has examined a variety of teacher factors, for example, including licensure, stress and burnout, compensation, and efficacy, as well as domain-specific (e.g., literacy, math) instructional approaches.

While there is evidence for some factors and some locations (e.g., Montgomery County, Maryland), more work is needed on identifying equitable, holistic frameworks for high-quality elementary experiences that align with and promote continuity with high-quality ECE experiences (Brooks-Gunn, Markman-Pithers, & Rouse, 2016). Research has shown that quality transitions and alignment between ECE and elementary school are important for sustaining learning gains from the early years (Phillips, Austin, & Whitebook, 2016; Johnson & Jackson, 2018; Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Reynolds & Temple, 2019; Schweinhart, 2019). If quality is high in an ECE program but not in the early grades, it stands to reason that sustainment of ECE achievement gains will likely be low. Evidence also shows that exposure to high-quality processes across the early elementary years results in higher cognitive scores for learners (Vernon-Feagans et al., 2019).

Physical Infrastructure

The health and safety features of the physical buildings and spaces where children learn are perhaps the most foundational dimension of quality, yet research has uncovered profound inequities in this regard. Two Government Accountability Office reports on school infrastructure, separated by more than 20 years, document inequities by race and income (Government Accountability Office, 1996, 2020). Schools with higher proportions of children of color were more likely to cite concerns related to poor physical infrastructure; a recent finding was that low-poverty districts

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

expended about $1 billion more on elementary school construction relative to high-poverty districts. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights identified additional differences in facility quality by race, stating that schools with higher proportions of students of color were more likely to report poorer facility conditions and more temporary buildings (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2018).

Ratios and Class Sizes

Low teacher:student ratios and smaller class sizes are associated with both developmental and academic gains; they are an important factor in ensuring that students are learning in a healthy and safe environment in which teachers are more likely to meet individual needs, including social-emotional needs. The literature shows that in classrooms with lower teacher:student ratios and smaller class sizes, less time is spent on behavior management, and students have less conflict in their interactions with peers. In addition, these classrooms are associated with higher-quality programming; positive student outcomes, such as greater receptive language and verbal initiative; richer teacher–child interactions; and higher rates of individualized attention (Ruopp, 1979; Barnett, Schulman, & Shore, 2004; Achilles, 2012). One study found that the quality of kindergarten classrooms was related to teacher:student ratios, as well as length of the school day (Paro et al., 2009). An experimental study found that elementary school students in small classes (13–17 students) outperformed their peers in large classes (22–26 students) on all tests, across every subject, in every grade (Finn, Pannozzo, & Achilles, 2003). And studies examining the relationship between elementary school class size and child outcomes in Wisconsin and California also yielded positive findings on academic outcomes, particularly for children from minoritized backgrounds (Molnar et al., 2000; Stecher & Bohrnstedt, 2000). It is important to note, however, that the effects of class size may be affected by other school factors such as high-quality classroom practices, administrative support, school infrastructure, and available space (Graue et al., 2007; Graue, Raucher, & Sherfinski, 2009).

More research is needed to examine the effects of teacher:student ratios and class size on children from various subgroups (e.g., children of color, English learners, children from low-income households) to better understand how these factors may affect opportunity gaps and perpetuate disparate outcomes. It is important to note that many factors come into play in examining ratios and class sizes, including the differences in ratios and class sizes being examined (e.g., 30 vs. 28 vs. 15 students); the availability of teachers and physical space to make it possible to decrease ratios and class sizes; and, critically, teacher quality.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Language of Instruction

Another important dimension of quality is the language of instruction. More than 11 million children, or about a third of all children under the age of 9, have a parent who speaks a language other than English at home (Migration Policy Institute, 2021). With appropriate supports, these children have the potential to become bilingual and biliterate. Bilingualism and biliteracy have been linked to a host of positive cognitive outcomes in the short term (Bialystok, 2017), academic and social outcomes in the medium term (e.g., National Academies, 2017; Steele et al., 2017), and economic and health outcomes in the long term (Callahan & Gándara, 2014; National Academies, 2017). In addition, research has found that a strong first language foundation facilitates language acquisition in subsequent languages. Indeed, children’s academic skills and language proficiency in their second language is predicted by skills in their first language (Genesee et al., 2006; Sparks et al., 2008, 2009a, 2009b; August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009). The strengths of bilingualism identified by research stand in stark contrast to the widely held perception that coming from a home where a language other than English is spoken is a deficit that must be remedied, as opposed to a strength to be fostered (Castro & Meek, 2022).

Studies have found that dual language immersion and similar bilingual learning approaches are associated with positive gains for children across a variety of academic and social-emotional domains (Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; National Academies, 2017). One review of data from 7.5 million student records in 36 school districts in 16 states found that high-quality, long-term bilingual programs closed the achievement gap between English learners and their peers after 5 to 6 years, while English-only and short-term transitional bilingual programs closed only about half of the gap (Collier & Thomas, 2017). Research from one large school district with a robust dual language program found that children—both English learners and those who spoke English at home—randomly assigned to dual language programs outperformed their peers in reading in fifth and eighth grades (Steele et al., 2017); no differences were noted in math and science. This study also found that English learners in dual language programs achieved English proficiency more rapidly relative to their peers in programs in which only English was used for instruction.

Harsh and Exclusionary Discipline Policies

Another structural dimension of quality that influences opportunity gaps is discipline policies and practices. In the 1990s and early 2000s, a zero tolerance approach to discipline took hold across the country, initially as a response to school safety concerns. These policies included mandatory

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

suspensions or expulsions for students for specific infractions. Initially, those infractions included bringing weapons to school or making safety threats, but not long after, they expanded to include infractions unrelated to safety, including dress code violations, truancy, and developmentally appropriate tantrums in younger students. These policies were undergirded by the view that both minor and major disciplinary infractions should be punished harshly (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Black children were disproportionately impacted by these policies in the form of higher rates of expulsion and suspension, resulting in an array of negative outcomes despite no credible evidence of worse behavior on the part of these children (Meek et al., 2020). Although such practices accelerated during this era, racial disparities in disciplinary practices have existed since schools began integrating after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision (Mills, 2016). In fact, data from the early 1970s indicate that the rate of suspension was at least twice as high for Black as for White children across the country (Kaeser, 1979).

Two decades later, these trends remain consistent. An analysis of Civil Rights Data Collection data (2015–2016 school year) for children in pre-K through elementary school found that Black children were disproportionately suspended and expelled in every state in the nation (Meek at al., 2020). The most recent wave of these data, from the 2017–2018 school year, revealed stubbornly consistent racial disparities in this regard between Black children and their peers. In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native children were 1.5 times as likely as their White peers to be suspended, while children with disabilities served under IDEA were 2.5 times as likely as their peers without disabilities to be expelled (Ryberg et al., 2021).

Federal data from the 2017–2018 school year revealed modest declines in exclusionary discipline in the elementary grades, especially compared with the more significant declines in rates for children in pre-K. In sum, exclusionary discipline in the elementary grades declined by 2% between the two most recent data collection periods; however, school-related arrests, expulsions with educational services, and referrals to law enforcement increased by 5%, 7%, and 12%, respectively (Department of Education, 2021a). Black children and boys in all racial/ethnic groups were consistently disciplined disproportionately across all discipline categories. Black girls in particular experienced substantial disproportionality in exclusionary discipline (Losen, 2017). One analysis found that Black girls were suspended at a rate four times greater than that of White girls. Black girls were disciplined disproportionately across every discipline category, including suspension, expulsion, referrals, school transfers due to behavior, and restraint (Epstein et al., 2020). Children with disabilities were disproportionately suspended and expelled compared with their peers without disabilities; these disparities were especially stark for Black children with disabilities, who experienced rates more than four times their share of enrollment. Although discipline

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

TABLE 3-4 Racial Disparities for Students with Disabilities (SWD) in Days of Lost Instruction per 100 Students Enrolled Due to Disciplinary Removal: Top 10 States (including the District of Columbia)

State Black SWD Days Lost per 100 White SWD Days Lost per 100 Black–White Racial Gap in Days Lost
Connecticut 128.7 38.9 89.9
District Of Columbia 132.4 18.5 113.9
Missouri 190.1 74.6 115.5
Nebraska 201.2 45.7 155.5
Nevada 182.8 54.5 128.3
North Carolina 158.3 64.1 94.3
Ohio 151.5 47.7 103.8
Tennessee 163.6 59.1 104.5
Texas 181.6 84.0 97.6
Wisconsin 126.4 30.1 96.3
National Average 119 43 76

Source: Data from U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW): “IDEA Part B Discipline,” 2014-15. Data extracted as of June 6, 2016 from file specifications 005, 006, 007, 088, 143, and 144.

NOTE: To enable comparisons despite enrollment differences for population subgroups, days lost were divided by enrollment and multiplied by 100 to yield days lost per 100 students enrolled.

SOURCE: Losen, 2017.

rates have been inconsistent among Latino students, two recent studies using various methodological approaches identified higher rates of exclusionary discipline for these children compared with their White peers but lower rates compared with their Black peers (Morris & Perry, 2016; Owens & McLanahan, 2020; Gage et al., 2021).

Overall, it has been reported that statewide racial disparities in discipline mask deeper disparities across school districts and schools (Losen, 2017). Although IDEA requires monitoring and intervention on racial disparities in discipline for children with disabilities, only 20 states identified at least one school district with this problem; of the 10 states with the greatest racial disparities in discipline for this population, only four—Wisconsin, Connecticut, Texas, and North Carolina—reported a district with disproportionality patterns (Losen, 2017). See Table 3-4.

Suspensions and expulsions and disparities in these practices are fueled by a number of factors (Meek & Gilliam, 2016), including discipline policies (Skiba & Peterson, 2000), racial bias (Skiba et al., 2002, 2011; Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015; Gilliam et al., 2016; Carter et al., 2017),

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

lack of teacher preparation and support and poor working conditions (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006), unaddressed childhood trauma resulting from adverse experiences (Zeng et al., 2019), and school climate (McIntosh et al., 2021), among others. A recent study examining the Black–White discipline gap found that nearly half of this gap could be attributed to differential treatment and/or differential support offered to students, the largest single driver of the disparity (Owens & McLanahan, 2020). These authors also found that some of the gap could be attributed to the sorting of children into schools by race and ethnicity (21%), while differences in children’s behavior accounted for the smallest amount of variance (Owens & McLanahan, 2020).

Virtually all studies examining differences in child behavior by race have relied on teacher or administrator ratings. Given the breadth of research on the influences of bias on perceptions of Black people, including young children, it is important to apply a critical lens to findings that rely on subjective perceptions of behavior. Indeed, research has found that racial disparities between Black and White students are driven largely by behaviors (e.g., disrespect, defiance) whose perception is subjective in nature, rather than those (e.g., vandalism, smoking) whose perception is objective in nature (Skiba et al., 2014). In addition, Losen (2017) found that school districts with high rates of suspension tended to apply disciplinary sanctions to students of color for minor infractions and nonviolent or nonthreatening behaviors, such as tardiness, loitering in the hall, dress code violations, truancy, profanity, carrying a cell phone, and smoking cigarettes. Research has provided evidence of racial bias in the perceptions of children’s behavior and the discipline decisions made by adults in learning systems (see Marcelo & Yates, 2014; Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015; Gilliam et al., 2016; Meek et al., 2020). A broader evidence base points to negative biases against Black individuals outside the classroom, including misperceiving Black boys as older than they are and less childlike than White boys, and more often mischaracterizing them as angry (Goff et al., 2014; Halberstadt et al., 2020). Likewise, Black girls are rated as more mature and needing less support, comforting, nurturing, and protection than White girls (Epstein et al., 2020). These biases also include empathy bias, whereby people as young as 7 years of age rate Black children as feeling less pain than White children (Goff et al., 2014). They include as well biases unveiled through automatic association tests in which respondents across racial groups more often associate Black versus White individuals with anger and aggression (Duncan, 1976; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003; Miller, Maner, & Becker, 2010). Collectively, these dimensions of bias influence how adults perceive behavior, whose behavior is scrutinized, and what decisions are made with respect to those perceptions, all of which can lead to disproportionality in exclusionary discipline.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

These biases likely mediate responses to student behaviors, resulting in responses that have a negative impact on various outcomes. For instance, although harsher disciplinary sanctions for minor infractions may lead to a reduction in such behaviors, there is evidence that tough discipline models are associated with reduced high school graduation rates and increases in juvenile justice complaints (Sorensen et al., 2022). Principals with a tough discipline stance create conditions associated with lower academic achievement, wider Black–White achievement gaps, and reductions in student attendance (Sorensen et al., 2022). Indeed, research has shown a robust association between the Black–White discipline and achievement gaps after controlling for numerous factors (Pearman et al., 2019). Teacher behavior management approaches also have differential impacts on young children’s perceived identities (e.g., “good,” “troublemaker”) and social relations (Gansen, 2021). Moreover, issues germane to race relations in broader societal contexts are linked to racial disparities in school discipline. For instance, Chin (2021) found that as schools decreased levels of racial segregation, racial disparities in discipline and special education identification increased. Similarly, racial disparities in school discipline were found to be associated with county-level indicators of racial bias (Riddle & Sinclair, 2019). And Perera (2021) documents how school districts with significant equity challenges (e.g., higher levels of racial segregation, substantial racial achievement gaps, larger proportion of racialized students) had a greater probability of receiving civil rights complaints.

Suspension and expulsion result in about 11 million days of missed school in one school year alone, breaking down disproportionately along gender and racial lines. Relative to other groups, Black children and boys in all racial/ethnic groups in one study missed more than twice as many days because of suspensions. Black boys missed the greatest number of days, and Black girls missed about twice as many days as their White female counterparts (Fabes et al., 2021). Losen (2017) reports that, at the national level, Black versus White children lost 76 more days of instruction. Another study found that exclusionary discipline accounted for one-fifth of academic disparities between Black and White children (Morris & Perry, 2016).

Unsurprisingly, suspension and expulsion are positively associated with grade retention, lower achievement, and dropping out of high school, and negatively associated with taking advanced math courses and attending college (Wald & Losen, 2003; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Fabelo et al., 2011; Morris & Perry, 2016; Losen, 2017; Wolf & Kupchik, 2017; Mittleman, 2018; Pearman et al., 2019; Jabbari & Johnson, 2020)—all of which are outcomes in themselves, but also serve to further perpetuate opportunity gaps going forward. Research has found as well that exclusionary discipline does not reduce challenging behavior; rather, it is associated with increased “delinquent behavior,” and these increases are not moderated by

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

race, indicating that these practices have similarly negative influences across groups (Gerlinger et al., 2021).

Since 2014, following the first federal publication of pre-K suspension and expulsion data, policies at the federal level have guided efforts to reduce exclusionary discipline in K–12 settings (Department of Justice & Department of Education, 2014). State and local legislative efforts to limit exclusionary discipline in the early grades, as well as executive branch efforts of state governors and agencies, have followed. These efforts include improving data collection, fostering family engagement, and providing professional development. Despite the number of new policies, however, these policies vary in both quality and content. During the Trump administration, the Obama-era K–12 federal discipline guidance was rolled back, but the effects on state and local policy are currently unclear. Under the Biden administration, federal officials are undertaking a review of the original policy and its subsequent repeal.

Data indicate that efforts aimed at simply reducing rates of exclusionary discipline have proven insufficient in addressing persistent disparities, pointing to the need to develop effective policies targeted specifically at closing the gaps among groups. Addressing this need has proven difficult, however, as researchers have examined statewide efforts to this end and found them to be ineffective at bridging the gaps (Linick, Garcia, & Grandpre, 2021; see also Cruz, Kulkarni, & Firestone, 2021, for a review of efforts to reduce disproportionality in exclusionary discipline; see Losen et al., 2015, for successful interventions to reduce discipline disparities).

Corporal punishment, defined as paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a child, is another form of harsh discipline that is used as a disciplinary practice in both pre-K and K–12 settings. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United States has signed but not ratified, states that no child should be subjected to “physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation” at school or by a parent or legal guardian (United Nations, 1989); however, there is no federal law prohibiting corporal punishment, and it remains legal in public school settings in 19 states across the nation and in private school settings in all but 2 states. According to federal data, roughly 70,000 children across age groups, including more than 800 preschool-aged children, were subjected to corporal punishment during a given year (Department of Education, 2021c). As with exclusionary discipline, Black children, boys, and children with disabilities are disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment. Although only 11% of the nation’s school districts practiced corporal punishment in 2013–2014, 10 Southern states accounted for 75% of corporal punishment, with Mississippi, Texas, Alaska, and Alabama accounting for

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

more than 70% (Johnson, 2019)—38% of those suspended at least once and 37% of those corporally punished.

Restraint and seclusion are two additional practices used for disciplinary purposes, despite the fact that they were not intended for that purpose but to address emergencies in case of imminent harm to the child or others. The latest federal data show that 74,000 children in public K–12 settings were physically restrained over the course of a year, and 27,500 were subjected to seclusion—the practice of locking children in a room alone without the ability to get out. As with other forms of harsh discipline, restraint and seclusion are applied disproportionately to Black children and children with disabilities in particular. In K–12 settings, Black children make up 15% of total enrollment but 29% of those restrained and 23% of those secluded; children with disabilities represent 13% of total K–12 enrollment but 78% of those restrained and 77% of those secluded. As with exclusionary discipline and corporal punishment, there is no federal law prohibiting these practices, while a patchwork of state laws limit or place parameters around their use (Meek et al., 2020).

Research suggests that each of these discipline policies and practices is associated with adverse outcomes—academic, social, and psychological—as well as engagement with the criminal justice system later in life. Children who are excluded through suspension and expulsion are stigmatized and isolated (Rosenbaum, 2020) in addition to missing days of school and learning opportunities (Losen & Whitaker, 2018; Fabes et al., 2021). Related to these issues are findings indicating that children who are suspended or expelled have lower school engagement, are more likely to repeat a grade, and are less likely to graduate from high school (Browne, Losen, & Wald, 2001; Karega Rausch & Skiba, 2004; Arcia, 2006; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014).

THE EDUCATION WORKFORCE IN GRADES K–3

The education workforce in grades K–3 has a profound effect on young children’s experiences and outcomes. Three aspects of the workforce—the provision of supportive, enriching, and warm teacher–child relationships and interactions; teacher expectations and perceptions of behavior; and pedagogy, instruction, and access to enrichment—are discussed here.

Supportive, Enriching, and Warm Teacher–Child Relationships and Interactions

Children learn optimally in the context of warm and secure relationships with adults. Indeed, decades of research have revealed that adult–child attachment is predictive of a range of outcomes in children, including

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

advanced cognitive and language development, academic achievement, and a range of social and emotional skills (Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Iruka, Burchinal, & Cai, 2010; IOM & NRC, 2015; Lee & Bierman, 2015; McCormick & O’Connor, 2015; Varghese, Vernon-Feagans, & Bratsch-Hines, 2019). Children typically form these attachments with their parents or primary caregivers, but can also form them with other adults in their lives, including ECE educators and teachers. Researchers have pointed to a number of processes that mediate the association between warm and secure attachments and child outcomes, including early confidence and competence at exploration, effective instruction and guidance, social competence with adults and peers, self-regulatory competence, and stress management (IOM & NRC, 2015).

Studies indicate that teacher–child relationships are associated with children’s engagement and ability to optimize their learning experiences in the classroom. When children feel safe and secure in their relationships, they are more confident and better able to explore and engage actively in learning across all domains (Ladd & Burgess, 1999). These relationships form the foundation for the daily interactions that occur inside classroom or home learning environments, both positive and negative, and are associated with an array of factors that influence children’s learning experiences. Positive critical teacher–child relationships, and all of their associated processes, are related to third-grade achievement and to children’s perceptions of school, including feeling more positive about school and more excited about learning (Birch & Ladd, 1997; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2002; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007). In turn, negative or conflictual teacher–child relationships have been found to predict challenges with peers (Palermo et al., 2007), as well as internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Roorda et al., 2011; Zatto & Hoglund, 2019). Importantly, research indicates that close and warm teacher–child relationships can play a protective role against discrimination faced by children of color (Redding, 2019). Some research has found that such teacher–child relationships may have a particularly large impact on the outcomes of children from lower-income households (Driscoll & Pianta, 2010).

Research has found that the quality of teacher–child relationships is associated with a number of child demographic characteristics, including gender, race/ethnicity, disability, and socioeconomic status, as well as teacher demographic characteristics. It is important to understand these findings in the context of the systems, policies, and funding decisions that undergird them. That is, it is not the child or teacher demographics per se that are driving these differences, but systemic factors associated with these demographic variables. These systemic factors include differential access to resources and funding, segregation patterns, and other factors previously discussed that influence bias at all levels, from organizational

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

policies to interpersonal interactions (Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Frawley, 2005; Campbell, 2015). Together, these factors drive gaps in the quality of teacher–child relationships and daily interactions, which can contribute to opportunity gaps.

Girls compared with boys are typically rated as having more positive relationships with teachers (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Palermo et al., 2007; Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Collins et al., 2017). Studies also indicate that girls versus boys may have more to gain from these positive relationships and face more significant consequences when their relationships with teachers are poor (Baker, 2006; Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Ly et al., 2012). One study found that girls having more conflictual relationships with their teachers showed lower levels of math achievement and math growth relative to boys with comparable relationships (McCormick & O’Connor, 2015).

In general, research has found that teachers report having less close and more conflictual relationships with Black and Latino children relative to White children (Hughes, 2005; Garner & Mahatmya, 2015; Goldberg & Iruka, 2022). Research also has found that teachers tend to have more negative perceptions of Black and Latino children (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007; Zimmermann, 2018). One study found that those children perceived by kindergarten teachers as visibly being from a racial/ethnic minority group in Canada were 50% less likely to report positive relationships with their teachers in fourth grade (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015). These findings accord with research showing that children’s race/ethnicity is associated with various dimensions of adult–child interactions in learning settings (Dobbs & Arnold, 2009); for example, children of color generally receive less praise and positive attention compared with their White peers (see Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007).

It is critical to interpret these findings in light of data indicating that Black and Latino children are much less likely than their White peers to have teachers who match their race/ethnicity and language background. Research findings with respect to teacher–child racial/ethnic match have been mixed, with some showing positive effects of the match on the learning experiences and academic outcomes of young children of color and others showing minimal measurable effects (Ho, Gol-Guven, & Bagnato, 2012; Garner, Shadur, & Toney, 2021). The issue of teacher–child racial/ethnic match may have particular importance for children with disabilities. One study found that for those children identified as most at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders, racial/ethnic match with their teacher appeared to matter more. That is, greater mismatch predicted teachers’ perceived conflict with children, mediated by teachers’ classroom management and self-efficacy (Kunemund et al., 2020). Another study found that the teacher–child relationship served as a protective factor for children with developmental delays or disabilities and provided significant advantages for their

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

development compared with their peers with similar delays or disabilities who had less close relationships with their teachers (Baker, 2006). Overall, it is important to consider a number of complex variables, including the structural factors discussed above, language, culture, class, and the interrelationships among all those factors in examining the effects of teacher–child match and interpreting the mixed research findings on this issue to date.

Teacher Expectations and Perceptions of Behavior

Dimensions of the teacher–child relationship that may be less explicit or tangible in nature, such as teacher expectations and perceptions of behavior, can play a significant role in shaping children’s experiences in learning systems. Research has identified a positive association between teacher–child relationships and teacher expectations (Trang & Hansen, 2021), and a large and robust research base indicates that teacher expectations are associated with an array of child outcomes, in some cases over and above children’s previous performance (McKown & Weinstein, 2008; Harlin, Sirota, & Bailey, 2009; Hinnant et al., 2009; Sorhagen, 2013).

Research also shows, however, that teacher expectations are not always reflective of children’s abilities. Black children are rated more negatively by White teachers than by Black teachers across an array of domains, including language, literacy, and behavior (Downer et al., 2016). White compared with Black teachers also have been found to have lower expectations for Black children (Saft & Pianta, 2001; Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007; Murray, Murray, & Waas, 2008; Bates & Glick, 2013). Studies have shown as well that White compared with Black teachers are more likely to recommend exclusionary discipline and special education placement for Black children (Achilles, McLaughlin, & Croninger, 2007; Skiba et al., 2011; Wiley et al., 2013; Sullivan et al., 2014). Other research has found that teachers are more likely to think their classes are too difficult for Black and Latino students than for White students, even after controlling for test scores and homework completion (Cherng, 2017). One study examined teachers’ expectations of Latino students’ long-term trajectories, and found that most teachers predicted that these students would not go to college but instead would work in the service sector, with many attributing those outcomes to family-related rather than structural factors (Dabach et al., 2018). Research also has revealed differential expectations based on English learner status. One nationally representative study found that teachers had lower expectations for English learners than for learners with English as their first language, expectations that began in kindergarten and grew over time. Importantly, these differential expectations were not observed in bilingual or dual language schools (Umansky & Dumont, 2021). These findings may suggest that teachers’ perceptions of children’s behavior

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

and abilities and the decisions they make on the basis of those perceptions are influenced by racial, language, and gender-based bias.

The findings of several studies support the role of child race in teachers’ assumptions, perceptions, and discipline decisions. One study showed ECE professionals a video of four young children playing in a classroom setting—one Black girl, one Black boy, one White girl, and one White boy. The researchers used eye-tracking technology to examine where on the screen the ECE teachers were looking when asked to predict a challenging behavior. Results indicated that they spent significantly more time looking at the Black boy when anticipating challenging behavior, even though no challenging behavior was ever exhibited in the video (Gilliam et al., 2016). Boonstra (2021) used ethnographic methods to document how racialized and ableist school and classroom discourses constructed pathological identities for Black students and how those identities were in turn associated with surveillance practices that mediated behavioral escalations and physical restraint. This heightened level of scrutiny helps explain racial disparities in exclusionary discipline.

Other research has found similar patterns. One study gave K–12 teachers the behavior reports of two fictitious children and asked a series of questions about the teachers’ perceptions of the children and their discipline recommendations. The behavior reports were identical, but researchers manipulated the race of the fictitious children by using stereotypical White (i.e., Greg and Jake) and Black (i.e., Darnell and DeShawn) names. Okonofua, Paunesku, and Walton (2016) found that after the second infraction, teachers were more likely to label Black relative to White children as “troublemakers,” which may imply attribution of the behaviors in the report to factors internal to the children and the belief that there was a higher likelihood that the behaviors would continue. Teachers were also more likely to recommend exclusionary discipline for Black children compared with their White peers after the second infraction (Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015).

These education-specific studies build on a broader base of literature focused on implicit racial bias and its effects on behavior. Studies examining implicit racial bias have found that both White and Black subjects more readily describe White faces with positive words and Black faces with negative words (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005), and that Black men are rated as more angry and aggressive (Duncan, 1976; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003; Miller, Maner, & Becker, 2010). Research has even found that raising the subject of crime causes participants to think of Black men (Eberhardt et al., 2004). As discussed previously, children are often the subjects of these biases and perceptions.

Empathy has also been found to be an important dimension of teacher–child relationships and has been linked to the quality of those relationships as well as to discipline decisions. Research on empathy interventions

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

demonstrates effects on reducing implicit racial bias of White teachers toward Black individuals (Whitford & Emerson, 2019), increasing empathetic mindsets about challenging behavior, and decreasing suspensions (Okonofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016).

Each of these biases and dynamics contributes to classroom climate overall and to teacher–child interactions and relationships. Overall, this body of work indicates that Black children, and in many cases Latino, Indigenous, immigrant, and dual language learner children, are subject to bias across an array of domains, including perceptions of behavior, expectations, and empathy. This bias contributes not only to the quality of teacher–child relationships and interactions but also more generally to reduced opportunities in learning settings that can shape children’s learning experiences.

Pedagogy, Instruction, and Access to Enrichment

Schools serving predominantly low-income students of color tend to rely on narrow pedagogies and reductive instructional approaches that stress training in basic skills and reflect low expectations (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007). Certain school accountability frameworks, for instance, have negatively impacted educational opportunities for learners of color, as was evident most recently in the No Child Left Behind era. The emphasis on the use of test scores to track educational achievement across subgroups of students shaped the curricula and instruction students experienced. Researchers found, for example, that schools serving marginalized communities devoted an inordinate amount of time to teaching to the test and practicing test-taking skills; cheating practices were also documented (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). Students who were on the cusp of attaining proficiency scores received greater attention and resources relative to their lower-scoring peers, and teacher–student relationships were affected by the daily shuffling experienced by these students in rotating across remedial programs and interventions (Valli & Buese, 2007). Teacher morale declined as outcomes were reduced to test scores, and professional knowledge and judgment were devalued. Because school funding was linked to adequate yearly progress, schools and districts serving predominantly low-income populations of color were more susceptible to funding cuts, which in turn led to the imposition of a “failing school” label and increased the likelihood of teacher attrition (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2007; Artiles, 2011). These developments substantially altered educational opportunities, including the quality of education and the nature of the curricula and pedagogy available to students of color. There is also evidence that test-based accountability led to lower-quality teachers being assigned to early grades, where students do not yet take standardized tests (Fuller & Ladd, 2013; Henry, McNeill, & Harbatkin, 2022).

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

As discussed in Chapter 2, a strong theoretical and empirical foundation supports learning through play, play-based pedagogy, and play-based instruction (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Zosh et al., 2017, 2018; Parker & Stjerne Thomsen, 2019). Research indicates, however, that play is differentially allowed for children of color and those in low-income schools, and also is differentially perceived by adults depending on the demographics of the children engaging in play. Play has been described as a spectrum and defined according to various types, such as sociodramatic or free play, as well as its core features, including joy, active engagement, and meaningfulness (Burghardt, 2011; Zosh et al., 2017, 2018). Play-based learning can unfold through a variety of teacher- or child-led approaches (cooperative learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning; Parker & Stjerne Thomsen, 2019). Guided play, a concept that blends teacher- and child-directed learning, allows children to have autonomy and choice in play while ensuring that an adult provides opportunities for direct learning during play by, for example, asking open-ended or inquiry-based questions or exposing children to new concepts or vocabulary (Fisher et al., 2011; Skene et al., 2022). Research has found that this approach to learning engages children in activities that are meaningful to them, and thus intrinsically motivating. According to both research and several theoretical frameworks, learning that is meaningful to children is associated with increased attention, memory, and motivation (Piaget, 1972; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Dang et al., 2012; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Zosh et al., 2017; Bodrova & Leong, 2019).

There is growing evidence that “community schools” produce positive student and school outcomes, particularly for marginalized learners (Maier et al., 2017). Community schools offer an “integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development, and community engagement” (Coalition for Community Schools, 2020, p. 1). The design of these schools is flexible and ambitious, offering extended-day and year-round schedules for children and adults. For obvious reasons, community schools offer invaluable resources and opportunities to students and families that face major structural barriers associated with racial and economic inequities. The design of these schools generally rests on four programmatic pillars: integrated student support, expanded learning time and opportunities, family and community engagement, and collaborative leadership and practice. Maier and colleagues (2017) reviewed more than 140 studies as well as various evaluations on the features of community schools. They identified areas that merit additional research, although their overall conclusion is that community schools “offer a promising foundation for progress” (Maier et al., 2017, p. 113).

High-quality and culturally responsive pedagogy and instruction are important factors in children’s learning experiences. Access to enrichment programs, such as gifted and talented education, can also have positive

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

effects on children’s experiences and trajectories. Yet some research points to inequities in this area as well. For example, there is a long-standing debate about the underidentification of students of color in gifted and talented programs (Ford, 2021), characterized by deficit discourses focused on the ability levels and potential of these students and normative views of gifts and talent (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Ford, 2021). Data indicate that Black and Latino students combined make up 41% of school enrollment but only 21% of students enrolled in gifted and talented programs (Patrick, Socol, & Morgan, 2020). A systematic review of referrals to these programs found that across all studies, teachers underreferred Black children (Ford, Grantham, and Whiting, 2008). Other research has found that even when researchers control for children’s academic profiles, test scores, and socioeconomic backgrounds, Black children are still underreferred (Grissom & Redding, 2016), pointing to the role of bias in perceptions and expectations of children.

Research and theoretical development have also focused on culturally grounded pedagogy and learning. Several interrelated literatures use the notion of “culture”—in its dynamic and historical meanings—as the cornerstone of learning environments and interventions, encompassing culturally relevant, culturally responsive, and culturally sustaining approaches (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Gay, 2010; Paris, 2012).

Culturally relevant pedagogy, first introduced by Ladson-Billings (1995), centers on the experiences of children, including Black children and other children of color, who historically have been left out of education models. It focuses on changing mindsets and dispositions and ensuring high expectations and long-term academic success while promoting positive cultural and racial identity and enabling critical analysis of social inequalities within and outside of the classroom.

Culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) builds on this theory but places greater emphasis on practice and competencies. It describes the ways teachers can realize culturally grounded learning by building on children’s strengths and embracing families’ cultural assets, knowledge, and prior experiences to make learning more relevant and engaging. The approach applies a social justice lens and focuses on achieving systemic and interpersonal change to promote success for learners of color. Most recently, scholars have introduced culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012). This approach shifts the emphasis from drawing on children’s culture for learning to sustaining and strengthening their connections to their culture and language through learning.

The above models for culturally grounded learning share a strengths-based perspective on children and families, with the goal of academic success, development of positive racial and cultural identity, and active engagement with inequality in the broader community. Research has found

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

that many of these dimensions are associated with increased student engagement, persistence, attendance, and academic success (Hammond, 2015; Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Muñiz, 2020). Yet despite these positive outcomes, recent reviews of the literature on culturally relevant education show decreasing attention to this work (Aronson & Laughter, 2016), particularly for Native American students (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008).

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19

The closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic had a pronounced impact on families (Weiland et al., 2021). Parents reported high stress levels due to the shift to working from home and managing remote learning, and essential workers who needed to work in person struggled with providing care for their children. Research has shown that parents felt nervous, anxious, or apprehensive about the pandemic (Gonzalez et al., 2020). In addition, parents/guardians described the ways in which the pandemic caused major changes in their families’ activities and routines (Gonzalez et al., 2020) and were more concerned about their children’s social and emotional development and well-being than they had been prior to the pandemic (Jung & Barnett, 2021). The effects of interruptions in schooling were exacerbated by the disproportionate incidence of COVID-19 among some racial and minoritized groups: illness, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19 have been higher among Hispanic or Latino, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander populations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). As a result, children of color have been disproportionately affected by sickness and death among parents and other family members.

The shift to remote schooling during the pandemic introduced changes that were not conducive to social and academic learning (Weiland et al., 2021), and had a significant impact on children’s learning opportunities and academic outcomes (EmpowerK12, 2020). Research has shown that many teachers were unable to teach/interact with children effectively online at the onset of the pandemic (Bassok et al., 2021). Reductions in instructional time and quality of instruction have also been documented (Rickles et al., 2020; Weiland et al., 2021). In line with those findings, parents nationally reported high levels of conduct problems, peer problems, and prosocial behavior problems among their children (Jung and Barnett, 2021), and children experienced slower learning growth or unrealized learning opportunities (Dorn et al., 2020; Huff, 2020; Renaissance Learning, 2020; Amplify, 2021; Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; McGinty et al., 2021; Ohio Department of Education, 2021; Storey & Zhang, 2021; Texas Education Agency, 2021; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022). A special administration of the National Assessment of Educational

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Progress in 2022 found disproportionately large declines in test scores in reading and math overall and inequitable outcomes among different groups of children as a result of the pandemic (NCES, 2022).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed parents of children aged 5–12 between October and November 2020 and found that, compared with parents of children attending school in person, parents of children receiving remote instruction were more likely to report higher levels of emotional distress, conflict between working and providing child care, and difficulty sleeping (Verlenden et al., 2021). Families adapted to the new circumstances with significant changes in their labor market participation (National Academies, 2023).

In addition to these effects, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected school enrollment, which may in turn lead to disparities in school funding. Progressive school funding allocations have been shown to have both short- and long-term effects on student outcomes, especially for students from families with low incomes. In fall 2020, many large school districts reported substantial declines in enrollment—especially in kindergarten, where enrollment decreased by an average of 16%. Schools also saw decreases in attendance during the switch to virtual learning in spring 2020. These declines can negatively affect school funding that is based on enrollment numbers, as well as funding for schools that use attendance measures to allocate funding, and are more likely to affect high-poverty compared with better-resourced districts (Blagg, Gutierrex, & Lee, 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the early elementary system is universally accessible to children and families, gaps in access to quality remain pervasive. As with ECE, differences in quality and funding create disparities in children’s experiences and outcomes. This unequal access to both structural and process quality can be influenced by such factors as geography, district size, school infrastructure, funding inequities, teacher and administrator bias, disciplinary policies, and other manifestations of marginalization based on disability status, race, gender, and socioeconomic status. These social and systemic drivers also affect the ways in which structural and process quality interact, leading to a broad spectrum of variation in access to resources and quality educational experiences for young children.

In some cases, federal funding for programs to address the needs of certain populations is insufficient to bridge gaps in state and local funding, resulting in underfunded programs. For students living in states that already have relatively low student spending, this funding gap results in more students at risk—especially students from families with lower incomes and students of color. In 2015, in states with higher levels of poverty,

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

underfunding of Title I, which is meant to ensure that all children receive a quality and equitable education regardless of income, was just over one-eighth the amount required to fully fund the Basic Grants portion. As a result, students from states with higher levels of poverty have received less funding per low-income child relative to states with lower levels of poverty. In the case of IDEA, underfunding has left a large burden for state and local governments and families, affecting the quality, timing, and dosage of services children receive and the quality of coordination with other services.

Children from marginalized populations experience a variety of biases in the early grades related to their race/ethnicity, language status, and disability status that can manifest in differential teacher expectations, perceptions of behavior, and perception of age/maturity. These biases influence experiences in the classroom, relationships with teachers, exposure to harsh and exclusionary disciplinary practices, and other experiences in school that can lead to opportunity gaps and influence both short- and long-term outcomes. These biases can also lead to the misperception that some children do not need environments that help support their learning and development. For children with disabilities, biases can contribute to both under- and overidentification of disabilities, which can prevent children from receiving services to which they are entitled legally or result in children being diagnosed with conditions they do not have. In both cases, the result can be gaps in access to inclusive learning opportunities that adequately support student needs.

Well-funded, high-quality experiences in the early grades that follow well-funded and aligned ECE experiences can improve students’ academic performance and in the longer term can lead to more positive outcomes, such as higher graduation rates and reduced adult poverty. It is important to ensure that these early elementary experiences are aligned with the latest science and are specifically designed to close opportunity gaps and ensure that all students succeed, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. These experiences include high-quality instruction and asset-driven pedagogies, assessments, and curricula; social-emotional and mental health supports and policies to explicitly reduce exclusionary and harsh discipline and eliminate disparities in such practices; full inclusion of children with disabilities in general education settings, with high-quality and individualized services and supports; bilingual learning opportunities for children who are English learners and dual language learners; structurally sound, safe, healthy, and engaging learning environments; a well-qualified, fairly compensated, and supported teacher workforce; data-driven, continuous quality improvement efforts targeted at identifying and addressing opportunity and outcome gaps; authentic and meaningful family engagement and partnerships; community partnerships and engagement to promote

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

child and holistic family wellness; and strong partnerships with ECE systems that promote seamless transitions from ECE to the early grades.

REFERENCES

Achilles, C.M. (2012). Class-size policy: The STAR experiment and related class-size studies. Policy Brief Volume, 1(2). National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540485.pdf

Achilles, G.M., McLaughlin, M.J., & Croninger, R.G. (2007). Sociocultural correlates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266070150010401

Afterschool Alliance. (n.d.). Issue: School-age child care: Afterschool programs are a critical resource for working families. Available: http://afterschoolalliance.org/Issue-School-Age-Child-Care.cfm

Afterschool Alliance & America After 3PM Health & Wellness. (2022). Promoting healthy futures: Afterschool provides the supports parents want for children’s well-being. Available: https://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM/AA3PM-Healthy-Futures-Report-2022.pdf

Ahram, R., Voulgarides, C.K., & Cruz, R.A. (2021). Understanding disability: High-quality evidence in research on special education disproportionality. Review of Research in Education, 45, 311–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985069

Albrecht, S., Skiba, R., Losen, D., Chung, C.G., & Middelberg, L. (2012). Federal policy on disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311407917

Amplify. (2021). COVID-19 means more students not learning to read. Amplify Education. Available: https://go.info.amplify.com/download-whitepaper-fy21_general_moydata_national_readingresearch

Ansari, A., & Pianta, R.C. (2019). School absenteeism in the first decade of education and outcomes in adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.010

Ansari, A., & Purtell, K.M. (2018). School absenteeism through the transition to kindergarten. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(1–2), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1438202

Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 359–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124506286947

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J.C. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education. Review of Educational Research, 86, 163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Artiles, A.J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11429391

———. (2019). Fourteenth annual brown lecture in education research: Reenvisioning equity research: Disability identification disparities as a case in point. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 325–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19871949

Artiles, A.J., & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 410–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699402700404

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100305

Artiles, A.J., Klingner, J.K., & Tate, W.F. (2006). Representation of minority students in special education: Complicating traditional explanations: Editors’ introduction. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006003

August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903340165

Baker, B.D. (2017). How money matters for schools. Learning Policy Institute. Available: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/how-money-matters-report

Baker, J.A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44(3), 211–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002

Barnard-Brak, L., Morales-Alemán, M.M., Tomeny, K., & McWilliam, R.A. (2021). Rural and racial/ethnic differences in children receiving early intervention services. Family and Community Health, 44(1), 52–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000285

Barnett, W.S., Schulman, K., & Shore, R. (2004). Class size: What’s the best fit? Preschool Policy Matters, 9. National Institute for Early Education Research. Available: https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/9.pdf

Bassok, D., Weisner, K., Markowitz, A.J., & Hall, T. (2021). Teaching young children during COVID-19: Lessons from early educators in Virginia. Virginia PDG B-5 Evaluation: SEE Partnerships Report and The Study of Early Education Through Partnerships. EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia. Available: https://www.see-partnerships.com/reports--policy-briefs.html

Bates, L.A., & Glick, J.E. (2013). Does it matter if teachers and schools match the student? Racial and ethnic disparities in problem behaviors. Social Science Research, 42(5), 1180–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.005

Benner, A.D., & Graham, S. (2011). Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on educational outcomes. Child Development, 82(2), 508–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29782849

Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099

Birch, S.H., & Ladd, G.W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5

Bittencourt, A., Aerts, D., Alves, G., Palazzo, L., Monteiro, L., Vieira, P., & Freddo, S. (2009). Feelings of discrimination among students: Prevalence and associated factors. Revista de Saúde Pública, 43, 236–45. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-89102009005000008

Blagg, K., Gutierrez, E., & Lee, V. (2021). How COVID-19-induced changes to K-12 enrollment and poverty might affect school funding. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J. (2019). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian-Based early childhood program. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(3), 223–37. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.17.3.223

Boonstra, K. (2021). Constructing “behavior problems”: Race, disability, and everyday discipline practices in the figured world of kindergarten. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 52(4), 373–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12374

Brooks-Gunn, J., Markman-Pithers, L., & Rouse, C.E. (2016). Starting early: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 26(2), 3–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43940578

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Browne, J.A., Losen, D.J., & Wald, J. (2001). Zero tolerance: Unfair, with little recourse. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.23320019206

Brunner, E.J., Schwegman, D., & Vincent, J.M. (2022). How much does public school facility funding depend on property wealth? Education Finance and Policy, 18(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00346

Burghardt, G.M. (2011). Defining and recognizing play. The Oxford handbook of the development of play, 9–18. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Buttaro, A. Jr., & Catsambis, S. (2019). Ability grouping in the early grades: Long-term consequences for educational equity in the United States. Teachers College Record, 121(2), 1–50.

Callahan, R., & Gándara, P. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Multilingual Matters. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

Campbell, T. (2015). Stereotyped at seven? Biases in teacher judgement of pupils’ ability and attainment. Journal of Social Policy, 44(3), 517–47.

Carter, P.L., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M.I., & Pollock, M. (2017). You can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial discipline disparities. Urban Education, 52(2), 207–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350

Castagno, A.E., & Brayboy, B.M.J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Education Research, 78(4), 941–93. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308323036

Castro, D., & Artiles, A.F. (2021). Language, learning, and disability in the education of young bilingual children. Multilingual Matters. Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2022.2136487

Castro, D.C., & Meek, S. (2022). Beyond Castañeda and the “language barrier” ideology: Young children and their right to bilingualism. Language Policy, 21, 407–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-021-09608-x

Cavendish, W., Artiles, A., & Harry, B. (2014). Tracking inequality 60 years after Brown: Does policy legitimize the racialization of disability? Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 14, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.5555/2158-396X.14.2.30

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Introduction to COVID-19 racial and ethnic health disparities. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/racial-ethnic-disparities/index.html#print

Chang, H., & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. Available: https://www.nccp.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/text_837.pdf

Chang, H.N., Bauer, L., & Byrnes, V. (2018). Data matters: Using chronic absence to accelerate action for student success. Attendance Works and Everyone Graduates Center. Available: https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Data-Matters_EXEC-Summary_121418-4.pdf

Chaudry, A., & Sandstrom. (2020). Child care and early education for infants and toddlers. Future of Children, 30(2), 165–90. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1293558.pdf

Chen, P., & Rice, C. (2017). Showing up matters: Newark chronic absenteeism in the early years. Advocates for Children of New Jersey. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563781.pdf

Cherng, H.-Y.S. (2017). If they think I can: Teacher bias and youth of color expectations and achievement. Social Science Research, 66, 170–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.04.001

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Childs, J., & Lofton, R. (2021). Masking attendance: How education policy distracts from the wicked problem(s) of chronic absenteeism. Educational Policy, 35(2), 213–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820986771

Chin, M.J. (2021). JUE insight: Desegregated but still separated? The impact of school integration on student suspensions and special education classification. Journal of Urban Economics, 103389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2021.103389

Coalition for Community Schools.(2020).Thecoalitionforcommunityschools. Institute for Educational Leadership. Available: https://www.communityschools.org/about/#:~:text=A%20Community%20School%20is%20a,that%20strengthens%20families%20and%20community

Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty-two years of large-scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000034

Collins, B.A., O’Connor, E., Supplee, L., & Shaw, D.S. (2017). Behavior problems in elementary school among low-income boys: The role of teacher–child relationships. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1039113

Commission on Civil Rights. (2018). Public education funding inequity in an era of increasing concentration of poverty and resegregation. Available: https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-Inequity.pdf

Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early elementary performance and attendance in Baltimore City Schools’ pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research Consortium. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535768

Cooc, N. (2022). Disparities in general education inclusion for students of color with disabilities: Understanding when and why. Journal of School Psychology, 90, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.10.002

Cruz, R.A., & Firestone, A.R. (2022). Understanding the empty backpack: The role of timing in disproportionate special education identification. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 8(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492211034890

Cruz, R.A., & Rodl, J. (2018). An integrative synthesis of literature on disproportionality in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 52(1), 002246691875870. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918758707

Cruz, R.A., Lee, J.H., Aylward, A.G., & Voulgarides, C.K. (2020). The effect of school funding on opportunity gaps for students with disabilities: Policy and context in a diverse urban district. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207320970545

Cruz, R.A., Kulkarni, S.S., & Firestone, A.R. (2021). A QuantCrit analysis of context, discipline, special education, and disproportionality. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584211041354#con3

Dabach, D.B., Suárez-Orozco, C., Hernandez, S.J., & Brooks, M.D. (2018). Future perfect?: Teachers’ expectations and explanations of their Latino immigrant students’ postsecondary futures. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1281809

Dahlin, M.S., & Squires, J.H. (2016). Pre-K attendance: Why it’s important and how to support it. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. Available: http://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ceelo_fastfact_state_ece_attendance_2016_02_01_final_for_web.pdf

Dang, L.C., Donde, A., Madison, C., O’Neil, J.P., & Jagust, W.J. (2012). Striatal dopamine influences the default mode network to affect shifting between object features. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1960–70. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00252

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Investing for student success: Lessons from state school finance reforms. Learning Policy Institute. Available: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/investing-student-success-school-finance-reforms-report

Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds). (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–32. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ750647.pdf

Department of Education. (2019). Chronic absenteeism in the nation’s schools: A hidden educational crisis. Available: https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/chronicabsenteeism.html

———. (2021a). 2017-2018 State and national estimations. Office for Civil Rights. Available: https://ocrdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018

———. (2021b). 43rd annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2021. Alexandria, VA: Education Publications Center.

———. (2021c). 2017-18 Civil rights data collection, released October 2020, updated May 2021. Office for Civil Rights. Available: https://ocrdata.ed.gov. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/Corporal_Punishment_Part4_Updated.pdf

———. (2023). Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Office for Civil Rights. Available: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grantsschool-support-and-accountability/21st-century-community-learning-centers/

Department of Justice & Department of Education. (2014). Joint “dear colleague” letter. Office for Civil Rights. Available: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.html

Dobbs, J., & Arnold, D.H. (2009). Relationship between preschool teachers’ reports of children’s behavior and their behavior toward those children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016157

Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020). COVID-19 and learning loss: Disparities grow and students need help. McKinsey & Company. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-learning-loss-disparities-grow-and-students-need-help

Downer, J., Goble, P., Myers, S., & Pianta, R. (2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match within pre-kindergarten classrooms and children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.007

Downey, D., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters: Teachers’ evaluations of students’ classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700401

Driscoll, K.C., & Pianta, R.C. (2010). Banking time in Head Start: Early efficacy of an intervention designed to promote supportive teacher-child relationships. Early Education and Development, 21(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802657449

Dubay, L., & Holla, N. (2015). Absenteeism in DC public schools early education program: An update for school year 2013-14. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

———. (2016). Does attendance in early education predict attendance in elementary school? An analysis of DCPS’s early education program. Urban Institute. Available: https://greaterdc.urban.org/publication/does-attendance-early-education-predict-attendance-elementary-school-analysis-dcpss

Duncan, B.L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of Blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 590–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.590

Durkin, K., Lipsey, M.W., Farran, D.C., & Wiesen, S.E. (2022). Effects of a statewide prekindergarten program on children’s achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology, 58(3), 470–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001301

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Eberhardt, J.L., Goff, P.A., Purdie, V.J., & Davies, P.G. (2004). Seeing Black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 876–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876

EdBuild. (2019). 23 billion. Available: https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion

Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., & Allensworth, E.M. (2018). Pre-kindergarten attendance matters: Early chronic absence patterns and relationships to learning outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 136–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.012

Eitle, T.M., & Eitle, D.J. (2002). Race, cultural capital, and the educational effects of participation in sports. Sociology of Education, 75(2), 123–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090288

Eklund, K., Burns, M.K., Oyen, K., DeMarchena, S., & McCollom, E.M. (2022). Addressing chronic absenteeism in schools: A meta-analysis of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Review, 51(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1789436

EmpowerK12. (2020). How COVID-19 regular school closures could impact DC student proficiency in 2020-21. Available: https://www.empowerk12.org/research-source/covid-school-closures

Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M.D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(17), e2022376118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118

Epstein, R., Godfrey, E., Gonzalez, T., & Javdani, S. (2020). Data snapshot: 2017-2018 national data on school discipline by race and gender. Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality. Available: https://genderjusticeandopportunity.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/National-Data-on-School-Discipline-by-Race-and-Gender.pdf

Ewing, A.R., & Taylor, A.R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher–child relationship quality and children’s behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.09.002

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M.D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M.P., & Booth, E.A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. (NCJ No. 244572). Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/breaking-schools-rules-statewide-study-how-school-discipline-0

Fabes, R.A., Catherine, E., Quick, M., Blevins, D., & Musgrave, A. (2021). The price of punishment: Days missed due to suspension in U.S. K-12 public schools. Psychology in the Schools, 58, 1980–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22565

Fierros E.G., & Conroy, J.W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education. Racial inequity in special education, 39–70. Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Finn, J., Pannozzo, G., & Achilles, C. (2003). The “why’s” of class size: Student behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73, 321–68. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073003321

Fish, R.E. (2019). Teacher race and racial disparities in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 213–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518810434

Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., Singer, D.G., & Berk, L. (2011). Playing around in school: Implications for learning and educational policy. The Oxford handbook of the development of play, 341–60. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195393002.001.0001

Fitzpatrick, C., Côté-Lussier, C., Pagani, L.S., & Blair, C. (2015). I don’t think you like me very much: Child minority status and disadvantage predict relationship quality with teachers. Youth & Society, 47(5), 727–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X13508962

Ford, D. (2021). Recruiting & retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237655

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Ford, D.Y., Grantham, T.C., & Whiting, G.W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302

Fortner, A., Hardy, A., & Schmit, S. (2021). School-age child care: Overlooked and under-resourced. The Center for Law and Social Policy. Available: https://www.clasp.org/publications/fact-sheet/school-age-child-care-overlooked-and-under-resourced

Frawley, T. (2005). Gender bias in the classroom: Current controversies and implications for teachers. Childhood Education, 81(4), 221.

Frederick, A., & Shifrer, D. (2018). Race and disability: From analogy to intersectionality. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 5(2), 200–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649218783480

Fuhs, M.W., Nesbitt, K.T., & Jackson, H. (2018). Chronic absenteeism and preschool children’s executive functioning skills development. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(1–2), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1438201

Fuller, S.C., & Ladd, H.F. (2013). School-based accountability and the distribution of teacher quality across grades in elementary school. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 528–59. Available: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532767.pdf

Gage, N.A., Katsiyannis, A., Carrero, K.M., Miller, R., & Pico, D. (2021). Exploring disproportionate discipline for Latinx students with and without disabilities: A national analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 47(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920961356

Gansen, H.M. (2021). Disciplining difference(s): Reproducing inequalities through disciplinary interactions in preschool. Social Problems, 68(3), 740–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa011

Gardner, M., Roth, J.L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Can after-school programs help level the academic playing field for disadvantaged youth? Equity matters. Research Review No. 4. Campaign for Educational Equity. Teachers College, Columbia University. Available: https://bgcutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Gardner-Roth-and-Brooks-Gunn-Disadvantaged-Youth.pdf

Garner, P.W., & Mahatmya, D. (2015). Affective social competence and teacher–child relationship quality: Race/ethnicity and family income level as moderators. Social Development, 24, 678–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12114

Garner, P.W., Shadur, J.M., & Toney, T. (2021). The effects of teacher–child racial congruence, child race, and emotion situation knowledge on teacher–child relationships and school readiness. Psychology in Schools, 58, 1995–2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22567

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.02gen

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.M., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499913

Gerlinger, J., Viano, S., Gardella, J.H., Fisher, B.W., Chris Curran, F., & Higgins, E.M. (2021). Exclusionary school discipline and delinquent outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(8), 1493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01459-3

Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children, 19(3), 228–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200607000-00007

Gilliam, W.S., Maupin, A.N., Reyes, C.R., Accavitti, M.R., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions? New Haven, CT: Yale University, Child Study Center. Available: https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/zigler/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379_v1.pdf

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Goff, P.A., Jackson, M.C., Di Leone, B.A.L., Culotta, C.M., & DiTomasso, N.A. (2014). The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035663

Goldberg, M., & Iruka, I. (2022). The role of teacher–child relationship quality in black and Latino boys’ positive development. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10643-021-01300-3

Gonzalez, T., de la Rubia, M.A., Hincz, K.P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G.M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLoS One, 15(10), e0239490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

Gottfried, M.A. (2009). Excused versus unexcused: How student absences in elementary school affect academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 392–415.

———. (2015). Can center-based childcare reduce the odds of early chronic absenteeism? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.002

Government Accountability Office. (1996). School facilities. America’s schools report differing conditions. (HEHS-96-103). Available: https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-96-103

———. (2020). K-12 education: School districts frequently identified multiple building systems needing updates or replacement. (GAO-20-494). Available: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-494

Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 670–700. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312073067

Graue, E., Rauscher, E., & Sherfinski, M. (2009). The synergy of class size reduction and classroom quality. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/648334

Gregory, A., Skiba, R., & Noguera, P. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621

Grindal, T., Schifter, L.A., Schwartz, G., & Hehir, T. (2019). Racial differences in special education identification and placement: Evidence across three states. Harvard Education Review, 89(4), 525–53. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.4.525

Grissom, J., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the under-representation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

Halberstadt, A., Cooke, A., Garner, P., Hughes, S., Oertwig, D., & Neupert, S. (2020). Racialized emotion recognition accuracy and anger bias of children’s faces. Emotion, 22(3), 403–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000756

Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage.

Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301

Harlin, R., Sirota, E., & Bailey, L. (2009). Review of research: The impact of teachers’ expectations on diverse learners’ academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85(4), 253–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2009.10523092

Harry, B., & Klingner, J.K. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race & disability in schools. (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Henry, G.T., McNeill, S.M., & Harbatkin, E. (2022). Accountability-driven school reform: Are there unintended effects on younger children in untested grades? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 61, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.005

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Hinnant, J.B., O’Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S.R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014306

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Berk, L.E., & Singer, D. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382716.001.0001

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L.B., Bakeman, R., Owen, M.T., Golinkoff, R.M., Pace, A., Yust, P. K., & Suma, K. (2015). The contribution of early communication quality to low-income children’s language success. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1071–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615581493

Ho, H., Gol-Guven, M., & Bagnato, S.J. (2012). Classroom observations of teacher–child relationships among racially symmetrical and racially asymmetrical teacher–child dyads. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(3), 329–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2012.704759

Horm, D.M., Jeon, S., Clavijo, M.V., & Acton, M. (2022). Kindergarten through grade 3 outcomes associated with participation in high-quality early care and education: A RCT follow-up study. Education Sciences, 12(12), 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120908

Huff, K. (2020). Quantifying COVID learning loss: At-home testing raises questions. Curriculum Associates. Available: https://www.curriculumassociates.com/research-and-efficacy/learning-loss-covid-impact-fall-2020

Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14(6), 640–43. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x

Hughes, J.E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 277–302.

Humm Patnode, A., Gibbons, K., & Edmunds, R.R. (2018). Attendance and chronic absenteeism: Literature review. University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Available: http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/resources/format/pdf/Chronic%20Absenteeism%20Lit%20Review%202018.pdf

Institute of Medicine (IOM) & National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Iruka, I., Burchinal, M., & Cai, K. (2010). Long-term effect of early relationships for African American children’s academic and social development: An examination from kindergarten to fifth grade. Journal of Black Psychology, 36, 144–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798409353760

Jabbari, J., & Johnson, O. Jr. (2020). The collateral damage of in-school suspensions: A counterfactual analysis of high-suspension schools, math achievement and college attendance. Urban Education, 58(5), 801–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920902256

Jackson, C.K. (2018). Does school spending matter? The new literature on an old question. (Working Paper No. 25368). National Bureau of Economic Research. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w25368

Jackson, C.K., Johnson, R.C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20847

Johnson, D. (2019). The striking outlier. The persistent, painful and problematic practice of corporal punishment in schools. Southern Poverty Law Center and The Center for Civil Rights Remedies. Available: https://www.splcenter.org/20190611/striking-outlier-persistent-painful-and-problematic-practice-corporal-punishment-schools

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Johnson, R.C., & Jackson, C.K. (2018). Reducing inequality through dynamic complementarity: Evidence Head Start and public school spending. (Working Paper No. 23489). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23489

Jung, K., & Barnett, W.S. (2021). Impacts of the pandemic on young children and their parents: Initial findings from NIEER’s May-June 2021 preschool learning activities survey. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.

Kaeser, S.C. (1979). Suspensions in school discipline. Education and Urban Society, 11(4), 465–84.

Karega Rausch, M., & Skiba, R. (2004). Unplanned outcomes: Suspensions and expulsions in Indiana. Education Policy Briefs, 2(2). Indiana Youth Services Association and the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED488917

Katz, M., Adams, G., & Johnson, M.C. (2015). Insights into absenteeism in DCPS early childhood program: Contributing factors and promising strategies. Urban Institute. Available: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/insights-absenteeism-dcps-early-childhood-program

Kearney, C.A., & Childs, J. (2021). A multi-tiered systems of support blueprint for re-opening schools following Covid-19 shutdown. Children and Youth Services Review, 122, 105919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105919

Kerr, J., Price, M., Kotch, J., Willis, S., Fisher, M., & Silva, S. (2011). Does contact by a family nurse practitioner decrease early school absence? The Journal of School Nursing, 28(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840511422818

Kirksey, J.J., & Gottfried, M.A. (2021). The effect of serving “breakfast after-the-bell” meals on school absenteeism: Comparing results from regression discontinuity designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(2), 305–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721991572

Klingner, J., Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Zamora Durán, G., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n38.2005

Kramarczuk Voulgarides, C., Aylward, A., Tefera, A., Artiles, A.J., Alvarado, S.L., & Noguera, P. (2021). Unpacking the logic of compliance in special education: Contextual influences on discipline racial disparities in suburban schools. Sociology of Education, 94, 208–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407211013322

Kunemund, R., McCullough, S, Williams, C., Miller, C., Sutherland, K., Conroy, M., & Granger, K. (2020). The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy in the relation between teacher-child race mismatch and conflict. Psychology in the Schools, 57(11), 1757–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22419

Ladd, G.W., & Burgess, K.B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child Development, 70(4), 910–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00066

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

———. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160567

Lee, P., & Bierman, K.L. (2015). Classroom and teacher support in kindergarten: Associations with the behavioral and academic adjustment of low-income students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(3), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.3.0383

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Lehrer-Small, A. (2021, September 22). “We left those students behind”: 1.9 million low-income youth boxed out of afterschool programs, despite surging parent interest in stem offerings. The74. Available: https://www.the74million.org/we-left-those-students-behind-1-9-million-low-income-youth-boxed-out-of-afterschool-programs-despite-surging-parent-interest-in-stem-offerings

Lewis, K., Kuhfeld, M., Ruzek, E., & McEachin, A. (2021). Learning during COVID-19: Reading and math achievement in the 2020-21 school year. Center for School and Student Progress. [Brief]. NWEA Research. Available: https://content.acsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Learning-During-COVID-19-Reading-and-Math-NWEA-Brief.pdf

Linick, M.A., Garcia, A.N, & Grandpre, H.D. (2021). The effect of discipline reform plans on exclusionary discipline outcomes in Minnesota. Regional Educational Laboratory Program, Institute of Education Sciences. Available: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Publication/40022

Lloyd, S., & Harwin, A. (2021). Nation earns a “C” on school finance, reflecting inconsistency in K-12 funding and equity. EducationWeek. Available: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/nation-earns-a-c-on-school-finance-reflecting-inconsistency-in-k-12-funding-and-equity/2021/06#:~:text=First%2C%20the%20big%20picture%3A%20The,0.3%20points%20over%20last%20year

Losen, D. (2017). The school-to-prison pipeline: The intersections of students of color with disabilities. December 8. United States Commission on Civil Rights. Available: https://www.childtrends.org/publications/school-prison-pipeline-intersections-students-color-disabilities

Losen, D.J., & Whitaker, A. (2018). 11 million days lost: Race, discipline, and safety at U.S. public schools (Part 1). Center for Civil Rights Remedies, American Civil Liberties Union. Available: https://www.aclu.org/report/11-million-days-lost-race-discipline-and-safety-us-public-schools-part-1

Losen, D.J., Hodson, C.L., Keith, M.A. II, Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap? The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Available: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2t36g571

Lowenstein, A.E., Wolf, S., Gershoff, E.T., Sexton, H.R., Raver, C.C., & Aber, J.L. (2015). The stability of elementary school contexts from kindergarten to third grade. Journal of School Psychology, 53(4), 323–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.05.002

Ly, J., Zhou, Q., Chu, K., & Chen, S.H. (2012). Teacher–child relationship quality and academic achievement of Chinese American children in immigrant families. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 535–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.03.003

Mahoney, J.L., Parente, M.E., & Zigler, E.F. (2009). Afterschool programs in America: Origins, growth, popularity, and politics. Journal of Youth Development, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2009.250

Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. (2017). Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Learning Policy Institute. Available: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/community-schools-effective-school-improvement-report

Marcelo, A.K., & Yates, T.M. (2014). Prospective relations among preschoolers’ play, coping, and adjustment as moderated by stressful events. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 223–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.01.001

McCormick, M.P., & O’Connor, E.E. (2015). Teacher–child relationship quality and academic achievement in elementary school: Does gender matter? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 502–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037457

McCoy, D.C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K.M., Duncan, G.J., Schindler, H.S., Magnuson, K., Yang, R., Koepp, A., & Shonkoff, J.P. (2017). Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17737739

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

McGinty, A., Gray, A., Partee, A., Herring, W., & Soland J. (2021). Examining early literacy skills in the wake of COVID-19 spring 2020 school disruptions. University of Virginia. Available: https://pals.virginia.edu/public/pdfs/login/PALS_Fall_2020_Data_Report_5_18_final.pdf

McIntosh, K., Girvan, E.J., McDaniel, S.C., Santiago-Rosario, M.R., St. Joseph, S., Fairbanks Falcon, S., Izzard, S., & Bastable, E. (2021). Effects of an equity-focused PBIS approach to school improvement on exclusionary discipline and school climate, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(4), 354–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1937027

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R.S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001

Meek, S., Smith, L., Allen, R., Catherine, E., Edyburn, K., Williams, C., Fabes, R., McIntosh, K., Garcia, E., Takanishi, R., Gordon, L., Jimenez-Castellanos, O., Hemmeter, M.L., Gilliam, W., & Pontier, R. (2020). Start with equity: From the early years to the early grades. Data, research, and an actionable child equity policy agenda. Washington, DC: Children’s Equity Project, Bipartisan Policy Center.

Meek, S.E., & Gilliam, W.S. (2016). Expulsion and suspension in early education as matters of social justice and health equity. National Academy of Medicine. Available: https://nam.edu/expulsion-and-suspension-in-early-education-as-matters-of-social-justice-and-health-equity

Meloy, B., Gardner, M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Untangling the evidence on preschool effectiveness: Insights for policymakers. Learning Policy Institute. Available https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/untangling-evidence-preschool-effectiveness-report

Merriam-Webster. (2022). Racialization. In Merriam-Webster. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racialization

Migration Policy Institute. (2021). Young dual language learners in the United States and by state. Available: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-state-profiles-young-dlls

Miller, S.L., Maner, J.K., & Becker, D.V. (2010). Self-protective biases in group categorization: Threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018086

Mills, J.M. (2016). From the principal’s office to prison: How America’s school discipline system defies Brown. University of San Francisco Law Review, 50(31), 529.

Mittleman, J. (2018). A downward spiral? Childhood suspension and the path to juvenile arrest. Sociology of Education, 91(3), 183–204. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48588580

Molnar, A.S., Zahorik, P., Palmer, J., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (2000). Wisconsin’s student achievement guarantee in education (SAGE) class-size reduction program: Achievement effects, teaching and classroom implications. The CEIC Review, 9(2). Available: http://www.classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Wang-Small-class-size.pdf

Morgan, I., & Amerikaner, A. (2018). Funding gaps 2018. Too many students do not get their fair share of education funding. The Education Trust. Available: https://edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018

Morgan, P.L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M.M., Mattison, R., Maczuga, S., Li, H., & Cook, M. (2015). Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 278–92. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15591157

Morris, E.W., & Perry, B.L. (2016). The punishment gap: School suspension and racial disparities in achievement. Social Problems, 63(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spv026

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Muñiz, J. (2020). Culturally responsive teaching: A reflection guide. New America. Available: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/culturally-responsive-teaching-competencies

Murray, C., Murray, K.M., & Waas, G.A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacher-student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.006

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24677

———. (2019). Vibrant and healthy kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25466

———. (2023). Addressing the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26809

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2022). Reading and mathematics scores decline during COVID-19 pandemic. Department of Education. Available: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/

National Research Council (NRC). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

———. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10128

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 133–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202474

Nichols, S.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Nosek, B.A., Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 166–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271418

O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 340–69. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302172

Ohio Department of Education. (2021). Data insights: How the pandemic is affecting the 2020-2021 school year. Available: https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Reset-and-Restart/Data-Insights-on-the-2020-2021-School-Year

Okonofua, J.A., & Eberhardt, J.L. (2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students. Psychological Science, 26(5), 617–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615570365

Okonofua, J.A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G.M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(19), 5221–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113

Ong-Dean, C. (2009). Distinguishing disability: Parents, privilege, and special education. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226630021.001.0001

Owens, J., & McLanahan, S.S. (2020). Unpacking the drivers of racial disparities in school suspension and expulsion. Social Forces, 98(4), 1548–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz095

Palermo, F., Hanish, L., Martin, C., Fabes, R., & Reiser, M. (2007). Preschoolers’ academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.002

Papachristou, E., Flouri, E., Joshi, H., Midouhas, E., & Lewis, G. (2022). Ability‐grouping and problem behavior trajectories in childhood and adolescence: Results from a UK population‐based sample. Child Development, 93(2), 341–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13674

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–7. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244

Parker, R., & Stjerne Thomsen, B. (2019). Learning through play at school: A study of playful integrated pedagogies that foster children’s holistic skills development in the primary school classroom. The LEGO Foundation. Available: https://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/22

Paro, K.M.L., Hamre, B.K., Locasale-Crouch, J., Pianta, R.C., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., Barbarin, O., Howes, C., & Burchinal, M. (2009). Quality in kindergarten classrooms: Observational evidence for the need to increase children’s learning opportunities in early education classrooms. Early Education and Development, 20(4), 657–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802541965

Patrick, K., Socol, A., & Morgan, I. (2020). Inequities in advanced coursework: What’s driving them and what leaders can do. Education Trust. Available: https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Inequities-in-Advanced-Coursework-Whats-Driving-Them-and-What-Leaders-Can-Do-January-2019.pdf

Pearman, F.A., Curran, F.C., Fisher, B., & Gardella, J. (2019). Are achievement gaps related to discipline gaps? Evidence from national data. AERA Open, 5(4), 2332858419875440. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419875440

Perera, R.M. (2021). A promise unfulfilled? How modern federal civil rights enforcement is used to address racial discrimination in school discipline. (Ed Working Paper No. 21-413). Annenberg Insitute at Brown University. Available: https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-413

Phillips, D.A., Austin, L.J., & Whitebook, M. (2016). The early care and education workforce. The Future of Children, 26, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0016

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15(1), 1–12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26763966

Pianta, R.C., & Stuhlman, M.W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086261

Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Shapiro, G., Broene, P., Jenkins, F., Fletcher, P., Quinn, L., Friedman, J., & Ciarico, J. (2010). Head Start impact study: Final report. Administration for Children and Families (HHS), Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED507845

Raikes, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Why our education funding systems are derailing the American dream. Learning Policy Institute. Available: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-our-education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream

Ramey, C.T., & Ramey, S.L. (2019). Reframing policy and practice deliberations: Twelve hallmarks of strategies to attain and sustain early childhood gains. Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences, 314–49. Cambridge University Press. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/sustaining-early-childhood-learning-gains/reframing-policy-and-practice-deliberations/37B2B7A346D7ED31A99DE2FBEBFD1ACF

Redding, C. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student-teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545

Renaissance Learning. (2022). How kids are performing: A snapshot of K-12 academic performance and growth, 2021-2022 school year. Renaissance Learning, Inc. Available: https://www.renaissance.com/how-kids-are-performing/

Reynolds, A., & Temple, J. (Eds.). (2019). Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108349352

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Rhodes, J., Thomas, J.M., & Liles, A.R. (2018). Predictors of grade retention among children in an elementary school truancy intervention. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 21(1), 1–10. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1187205

Rickles, J., Garet, M., Neiman, S., & Hodgman, S. (2020). Approaches to remote instruction: How district responses to the pandemic differed across contexts. [Research Brief]. American Institute for Research. Available: https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/COVID-Survey-Approaches-to-Remote-Instruction-FINAL-Oct-2020.pdf

Riddle, T., & Sinclair, S. (2019). Racial disparities in school-based disciplinary actions are associated with county-level rates of racial bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(17), 8255–60. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808307116

Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., La Paro, K.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. (2005). The contribution of classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/429948

Romero, M., & Lee, Y.S. (2007). A national portrait of chronic absenteeism in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.7916/D89C7650

Roorda, D.L., Koomen, H.M.Y., Spilt, J.L., & Oort, F.J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

Rosa, J.D. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26, 162–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12116

Rosenbaum, J.E. (2020). Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after school suspension. Youth & Society, 52(4), 515–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X17752208

Ruopp R. (1979). Children at the center: Summary findings and their implications. Abt Books.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryberg, R., Her, S., Temkin, D., & Harper, K. (2021). Despite reductions since 2011-12, Black students and students with disabilities remain more likely to experience suspension. Child Trends. Available: https://www.childtrends.org/publications/despite-reductions-black-students-and-students-with-disabilities-remain-more-likely-to-experience-suspension

Saft, E.W., & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125–41. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.16.2.125.18698

Schweinhart, L.J. (2019). Lessons on sustaining early gains from the life-course study of perry preschool. Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences, 254–67. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4), 462–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513503346

Shores, K., Lee, H., & Williams, N. (2021). Increasing Title I funds should target largest sources of school spending inequalities—across states. Brookings Institution. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/08/06/increasing-title-i-funds-should-target-largest-sources-of-school-spending-inequalities-across-states/

Singer, J., Pogodzinski, B., Lenhoff, S.W., & Cook, W. (2021). Advancing an ecological approach to chronic absenteeism: Evidence from Detroit. Teachers College Record, 123(4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300406

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C., Byrne, E., Kirby, N., Stevens, E., & Ramchandani, P. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Child Development, 93(4), 1162–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730

Skiba, R., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.23320019204

Skiba, R.J. & Peterson, R.L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335–47. Available: http://www.rpforschools.net/articles/School%20Programs/Skiba%20&%20Peterson%202000%20School%20discipline%20at%20a%20crossroads%20-%20From%20Zero%20Tolerance%20to%20Early%20Response.pdf

Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372

Skiba, R.J., Poloni-Staudinger L., Gallini S., Simmons A.B., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72, 411–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200402

Skiba, R.J., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Gibb, A., Rausch, M., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301

Skiba, R.J., Horner R.H., Chung C.G., Rausch M.K., May S.L., & Tobin T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087730

Skiba, R.J., Arredondo, M.I., & Williams, N.T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.958965

Skiba, R.J., Chung, C.G., Trachok, M., Baker, T.L., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R.L. (2014). Parsing disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 640–70. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214541670

Skiba, R.J., Artiles, A.A., Kozleski, E.B., Losen, D.J., & Harry, E.G. (2016). Risks and consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et al. (2015). Educational Researcher, 45(3), 221–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16644606

Smythe-Leistico, K., & Page, L. (2018). Connect-text: Leveraging text-message communication to mitigate chronic absenteeism and improve parental engagement in the earliest years of schooling. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(1–2), 139–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1434658

Sorensen, L.C., Bushway, S.D., & Gifford, S.J. (2022). Getting tough? The effects of discretionary principal discipline on student outcomes. Education Finance and Policy, 17(2), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00341

Sorhagen, N.S. (2013). Early teacher expectations disproportionately affect poor children’s high school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 465–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031754

Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.162

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009a). Long-term relationships among early first language skills, second language aptitude, second language affect, and later second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 725–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990099

———. (2009b). Long-term crosslinguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00504.x

Stecher, B., & Bohrnstedt, G. (2000). Class size reduction in California: Summary of the 1998-99 evaluation findings. RAND Corporation. Available: https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP903z1.html

Steele, J., Slater, R., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 282S–306S. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577026.pdf

Storey, N., & Zhang, Q. (2021). A meta-analysis of COVID learning loss. School of Education, Johns Hopkins University. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/qekw2

Sullivan, A., & Artiles, A.J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46, 1526–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416014

Sullivan, A., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6

Tefera, A.A., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Sjogren, A.L. (2022). The (in)visibility of race in school discipline across urban, suburban, and exurban contexts. Teachers College Record, 124, 151–79. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01614681221093282#con2

Tenenbaum, H.R., & Ruck, M.D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253

Texas Education Agency. (2021). Overview of 2021 STAAR results. Texas Education Agency. Avaiable: https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/testing/staar/staar-statewide-summary-reports

Trang, K.T., & Hansen, D.M. (2021). The roles of teacher expectations and school composition on teacher–child relationship quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120902404

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text

Umansky, I.M., & Dumont, H. (2021). English learner labeling: How English learner classification in kindergarten shapes teacher perceptions of student skills and the moderating role of bilingual instructional settings. American Educational Research Journal, 58(5), 993–1031. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831221997571

Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859

Varghese, C., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Bratsch-Hines, M. (2019). Associations between teacher–child relationships, children’s literacy achievement, and social competencies for struggling and non-struggling readers in early elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 124–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.09.005

Verlenden, J.V., Pampati, S., Rasberry, C.N., Liddon, N., Hertz, M., Kilmer, G., Viox, M., Lee, S., Cramer, N.K., Barrios, L.C., & Ethier, K.A. (2021). Association of children’s mode of school instruction with child and parent experiences and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic—COVID experiences survey, United States, October 8–November 13, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(11), 369–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7011a1

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

Vernon-Feagans, L., Mokrova, I.L., Carr, R.C., Garrett-Peters, P.T., & Burchinal, M.R. (2019). Cumulative years of classroom quality from kindergarten to third grade: Prediction to children’s third grade literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 531–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.06.005

Waitoller, F.R., & Maggin, D.M. (2020). Can charter schools address racial inequities evidenced in access to the general education classroom? A longitudinal study in Chicago public schools. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 127–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518800392

Waitoller, F.R., Artiles, A.J., & Cheney, D.A. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of overrepresentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908329226

Wald, J., & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.51

Weiland, C., Greenberg, E., Bassok, D., Markowitz, A.J., Guerrero-Rosada, P., Luetmer, G., Abenavoli, R., Gomez, C.J., Johnson, A.D., Harden, B.J., Maier, M.F., McCormick, M.P., Morris, P.A., Nores, M., Phillips, D.A., & Snow, C. (2021). Historic crisis, historic opportunity: Using evidence to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on young children and early care and education programs. Urban Institute. Available: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/center-education-data-and-policy/projects/historic-crisis-historic-opportunity-using-evidence-mitigate-effects-covid-19-crisis-young-children-and-early-care-and-education-programs

Whitford, D.K., & Emerson, A.M. (2019). Empathy intervention to reduce implicit bias in pre-service teachers. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 670–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118767435

Wiley, A.L., Brigham, F.J., Kauffman, J.M., & Bogan, J.E. (2013). Disproportionate poverty, conservatism, and the disproportionate identification of minority students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0033

Wolf, K.C., & Kupchik, A. (2017). School suspensions and adverse experiences in adulthood. Justice Quarterly, 34(3), 407–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2016.1168475

Yang, K.E., & Ham, S.H. (2017). Truancy as systemic discrimination: Anti-discrimination legislation and its effect on school attendance among immigrant children. The Social Science Journal 54, 216–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.02.001

Zatto, B.R.L., & Hoglund, W.L.G. (2019). Children’s internalizing problems and teacher–child relationship quality across preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.05.007

Zeng, S., Corr, C.P., O’Grady, C., & Guan, Y. (2019). Adverse childhood experiences and preschool suspension expulsion: A population study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 97, 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104149

Zimmermann, C.R. (2018). The penalty of being a young black girl: Kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of children’s problem behaviors and student–teacher conflict by the intersection of race and gender. Journal of Negro Education, 87, 154–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7709/jnegroeducation.87.2.0154

Zosh, J., Hopkins, E., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, L., & Whitebread, D. (2017). Learning through play: A review of the evidence. [White paper]. The LEGO Foundation. Available: https://cms.learningthroughplay.com/media/wmtlmbe0/learningthrough-play_web.pdf

Zosh, J.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E.J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Solis, S.L., & Whitebread, D. (2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"3 Opportunity Gaps in the Education Experienced by Children in Grades K3." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26743.
×
Page 204
Next: 4 Opportunity Gaps in the Physical Health and Health Care Experienced by Young Children and Their Parents »
Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $40.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Many young children in the United States are thriving and have access to the conditions and resources they need to grow up healthy. However, a substantial number of young children face more challenging conditions such as: poverty; food insecurity; exposure to violence; and inadequate access to health care, well-funded quality schools, and mental health care. In many cases, the historical origins of unequal access to crucial supports for children's physical, emotional, and cognitive development are rooted in policies that intentionally segregated and limited various populations' access to resources and create opportunity gaps that intertwine and compound to affect academic, health, and economic outcomes over an individual's life course and across generations.

Closing the Opportunity Gap for Young Children, identifies and describes the causes, costs, and effects of the opportunity gap in young children and explores how disparities in access to quality educational experiences, health care, and positive developmental experiences from birth through age eight intersect with key academic, health, and economic outcomes. The report identifies drivers of these gaps in three key domains—education, mental health, and physical health—and offers recommendations for policy makers for addressing these gaps so that all children in the United States have the opportunity to thrive. In addition, the report offers a detailed set of recommendations for policy makers, practitioners, community organizations, and philanthropic organizations to reduce opportunity gaps in education, health, and social-emotional development.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!