Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Creating Barriers to Accessing Higher Education: National Educational Policy and Ethnicity

189 views

Published on

Research presentation by Kamden Strunk on barriers to accessing higher education on the basis of race. Originally presented to the Oklahoma Educational Studies Association in 2012

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Creating Barriers to Accessing Higher Education: National Educational Policy and Ethnicity

  1. 1. CREATING BARRIERS TO ACCESSING HIGHER EDUCATION: NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND ETHNICITY Kamden K. Strunk Oklahoma State University
  2. 2. BACKGROUND  The current educational policy climate, particularly those policies associated with ‘No Child Left Behind’ have been subject to much criticism (Hursh, 2007).  Others have specifically pointed to the effects that NCLB may have on the grounds of ethnic boundaries (Alsthuler & Schmautz, 2006).
  3. 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS  But – what is the extent of such inequalities, and what effect might they have on access to higher education?  If NCLB is creating inequalities in education, what effect might these have on students of color in accessing higher education?  Specifically, how can we understand these policies as either removing or creating barriers in accessing higher education?
  4. 4. NATIONAL DATA  To answer these questions, national data collected by the Department of Education were analyzed.  Specifically of interest were the way that gaps in reading and math (both of which have long-term data) have changed since the passage of NCLB.  Of further interest were specific markers of college admission on HS transcripts, such as ACT and SAT scores, GPA, and other such markers.
  5. 5. FURTHER QUESTIONS  State data are also used, collected from state Departments of Education, in supplemental analyses.  These data are used in follow-up analyses to answer critical questions about the intersection between space and identity.
  6. 6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  In the present study, I mobilize large-scale data, quantitative analyses, and the general linear model, all of which are typically associated with Positivism.  However, in the present study, the theoretical framework is critical.  U.S. D.O.E. data is used to critique U.S. D.O.E. practices.  The quantitative practices that are being called into question as means of educating students are, in fact, turned to critique that system itself.  Further, the nature of the research question calls for understanding the phenomenon on the national level, for which quantitative analyses of large-scale data are ideally suited.
  7. 7. METHOD  Two government databases are analyzed in the present study. In all cases, the data include seniors in high school from cases randomly selected by the Department of Education to create a representative sample.  The databases used are:  The Long Term Trend database with reading and math scores from 1970 to 2008 (n = 108,900).  The High School Transcript database with data from 1987 to 2009 (n = 181,200).
  8. 8. RESULTS  There have been no statistically significant improvements in the gap between white students and students of color over the past 40 years in reading or math.  However, it is worth noting that in the past ten years under NCLB, ‘white’ students have made statistically significant gains in achievement scores, widening the achievement gap.  The differences can be examined in markers of achievement, as well as in markers of access to higher education.
  9. 9. READING GAP 20 25 30 35 40 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Gap White vs. Black 20 25 30 35 40 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Gap White vs. Hispanic
  10. 10. MATH GAP 18 23 28 33 38 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Gap White vs. Black 18 23 28 33 38 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Gap White vs. Hispanic
  11. 11. MARKERS OF ACCESS  There are several key markers of access to higher education that were also analyzed:  Graduating GPA  ACT and SAT scores  AP and Pre-AP credits (these do not provide access to higher education, but say something about the future read onto students, and may tell us something about tracking)
  12. 12. HIGH SCHOOL GPA 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1990 2000 2005 2009 White Black Hispanic
  13. 13. PRE-AP AND AP COURSES 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1990 2000 2005 2009 White Black Hispanic
  14. 14. COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMS: ACT 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1990 2000 2005 2009 White Black Hispanic
  15. 15. COLLEGE EXAMS: PSAT 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 1990 2000 2005 2009 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 1990 2000 2005 2009 White Black Hispanic Math Verbal
  16. 16. RACIALIZED SPACES  The preceding data are the result of nationalized averages from representative samples.  However, researchers have argued that the effects of NCLB are differentiated by the status of a school.  That is, the distribution of resources may be different for schools with a high representation of students of color, an effect exacerbated by the way that standardized tests function.
  17. 17. RACIALIZED SPACES  To test this hypothesis, data were gathered from state departments of education that included aggregated yearly test scores for seniors in high school by individual school.  Many states have provided this data, others have it publically available, and other (such as Oklahoma) require legal process to release their data (the release of these data is required by law).
  18. 18. INEQUALITY BY SCHOOL  So what is the difference between schools that are a majority of students of color, those that are a mixture of students, and those that are a majority of white students?  From these data clearly emerges a picture of how the racialized landscape of secondary education under current national education policy has served to create barriers to accessing higher education.
  19. 19. STATE-LEVEL NCLB TEST SCORES BY SCHOOL BY ETHNIC DIVERSITY 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 Low Moderate High
  20. 20. CREATING BARRIERS TO ACCESSING HIGHER EDUCATION  Who is being ‘left behind’ by current educational policy discourses?  How are school spaces involved in creating these gaps in achievement?  Further – how are these gaps, then, related to differences in markers of access to college access?  Finally, what might the actual barriers created to accessing higher education be?
  21. 21.  For a copy of this presentation, or questions, or a copy of references, contact: kamden.strunk@okstate.edu

×