The achievement gap between white and non-white students: a conceptual  (Page 3/19)

The publication of the Coleman report during the 1960s justified the findings by some policy makers as a means to cut school expenditures and school reform within low performing schools (Ellinger, Wright,&Hirlinger, 1995). School finance researchers argued that Coleman’s report justified the inequalities in spending and “existing finance inequalities were harmless” because schooling made little difference between the achievement gap between Whites and minority students (Guthrie, 1983, p. 210). Barron (1971) noted that this practice was relevant in schools across Chicago during the 1960s. Barron stated that many factors influenced the differences in expenditures, yet race and status were leading factors. Many of the low performing schools in Chicago were attended by low socio-economic minorities who received less funding compared to their White counterparts. Findings from the Coleman report allowed many education agencies to substantiate the differences in spending and justify the continued inequalities in monetary distribution among districts and schools.

Adversaries of the Coleman report opposed and ridiculed the findings that denied that students’ success was not based on the amount of money that was allocated to schools and districts (Carver, 1975; Garmoran&Long, 2006; St. John, 1974; Wenglinsky, 1997). Goldberger and Cain (1982) argued that the method, assessment, and evaluation of the Coleman report were flawed and fell “below the minimum standards for social-scientific research” (p. 103). Cain and Watts (1970) concluded that the “…analytical part of the Coleman report has such serious shortcomings that it offers little guidance for policy decisions” (p. 228). Carver (1975) stated that the interpretation of the report was flawed and the test results were inaccurate because the test analysis did not measure the achievement of students, but rather student aptitude. In a reply to the criticisms of Cain and Watts, Coleman (1970) restated that inferences can be made that students’ academic accomplishments were related to their “social environment” and spending great amounts of money to balance academic achievement was “unimportant” (Coleman, 1970, p. 245).

A year before the release of the Coleman report, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was signed into law that gave money to poorly funded schools throughout the nation (Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, 2009). The ESEA was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965, providing disadvantaged children from underprivileged backgrounds with educational programs to succeed (Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, 2009). Over one billion dollars were allocated under the Title I of the ESEA for school district programs that would aid in the educational development of deprived school children (Andrews, 2006). The money was used to purchase textbooks for school libraries, buy educational materials, supplemental services for public schools, improve educational research, and support state and local agencies. In 1968, the Bilingual Education Act was added to the ESEA by Congress to address the needs of students who were limited in English proficiency. Toward the end of the 1980s, the ESEA obligated school districts to implement standardized tests to assess the needs and achievements of students (Andrews, 2006). In 1994, the ESEA was reassigned as the Improving America’s Schools Act , which evaluated the academic progression of students and identified schools that were not meeting the annual yearly progress. Soon after, the Improving Americas Schools Act was renamed the No Child Left Behind Act (Andrews, 2006).