Unaffected and Untouchable: A review of how labels and ...



The New Untouchables: A review of how the “at-risk” label and other social constructions discourage literacy development and affect student performance in the English classroom

Raphael Tombasco

April 2008

AED 663: Research in the Teaching of English

Dr. Kennedy

ABSTRACT

This literature review is a synthesis of ten empirical research studies that have examined the negative effects of the “at-risk” label and certain other sociological factors on student literacy development in the English Language Arts (ELA) classroom. In order to understand the long-term effects of the “at-risk” label on students who are asked to establish identities as readers throughout primary and secondary schools, the studies under review examine English learners from adolescence to young adulthood. Common factors studied in the literature include socioeconomic status (SES), gender, and ethnicity. Two corresponding literature reviews were consulted on the subject of “at-risk” students and identity formation, along with six scholarly articles and three secondary studies to emphasize the research. In general, the findings showed that the above factors influence the formation of a student’s identity as an English reader, writer, and speaker. Additionally, African American ELA students were more commonly labeled “at-risk” and were found to discount academic performance evaluations—literacy skill assessments—in contrast to their Caucasian peers. Non-native language users were also found to fall behind their native peers on all literacy tasks. The purpose of this review is to provide ELA educators with detailed information on the aspects of our students’ lives that shape their identities as readers so that we can develop new prospects in this area of research and find better ways to connect with students at risk of being left behind.

INTRODUCTION

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.”-Karl Marx

As a student, I never considered myself a victim of circumstance until I reached the college level. It was at this point, meeting a more diverse group of people, that I realized how fortunate a victim I had been. I was raised in a white upper-middle class environment, attended private school for twelve years, and never had any problems as far as reading or writing were concerned. In fact, I was an avid reader, taking many cues from my parents. With what my family offered—insofar as financial support and exposure to music, literature, film and people in general—I became an active, literate (to a certain degree) member of society. They made it very clear from the beginning that school was the most important aspect of my life, and they encouraged me to read and do my best with all of my work. I never questioned my family because I respected them and they respected me.

Looking back on the circumstances that led me to pursue a career in the teaching of English, I wonder what my life as a student would have been like without the support I received. Would I have taken school seriously? Would I have even bothered with reading or writing? If not, would I have been left behind?

Unfortunately, many children are left behind, despite the claims of recent legislation. Due to a variety of circumstances, not all students are encouraged to develop their literacy practices. Recent research shows that a majority of African American and Hispanic students in urban areas, attending inner-city high schools, read at a fifth grade level and are unable to complete their secondary education due to a variety of social and economic issues, including poverty, drug abuse, and teen parenthood (Perin, Flugman & Spiegel, 2006). Considering a large-scale study conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2000, which showed 39% of the American public school population to be students of color and 90% of the teaching force to be white, it comes as no surprise that English educators have difficulty presenting literacy activities that will connect with students who come from these diverse backgrounds (Albertinti, 2008; Ball & Ellis, 2008). Instead of addressing this diversity and forming a more cohesive picture of who our students are on an individual level, the current system of education has developed a way to bunch everyone into two manageable groups: those students who are “at-risk” and those who are not “at- risk” (Brown, 2005).

What does “at-risk” mean anyway?

There are many concerns educators face when dealing with students who are labeled “at-risk” since the term itself is problematic (Brown, 2005; O’Brien, Dillon, Wellinski, Springs & Sath, 1997; Rafferty, Klimenko & Holt-Reynolds, 1991). The common view holds that “at-risk” students are simply those who are “predisposed to failure in school” (O’Brien et al. 1997). This definition is inadequate. One researcher, Brown, indicates how current perspectives on “at-risk” students are the result “of longstanding social constructions that positioned students of color and their families, as well as those living in poverty, and those with particular kinds of special needs, as problematic, abnormal, and potentially deviant” (p.296).

The perspective related by Brown accounts for more of the gray area English educators face when trying to identify students’ individual needs in developing literacy skills such as reading and writing. Much of the research analyzed in this review revealed that the literacy development of “at-risk” students from primary and secondary schools is affected by a wide range of factors including—but not limited to—socioeconomic status (SES), gender, ethnicity, and parental nurturance (Dyson, 1995; Janus & Duku, 2007; Lutkus, Grigg & Donahue, 2007; Merlo, Bowman & Barnett, 2007; Gillborn & Youdell, 1998; Morgan & Mehta, 2004). I believe the label offers educators an easy way out of confronting issues related to race, sex and class with students. Instead of getting to know our students well enough to identify their strengths and weaknesses, we are allowed to judge them immediately based on an identifying term that has been imposed on them from the instant they entered school (Ball et al. 2008; Janus et al. 2007; O’Brien et al. 1997).

Continued research shows that the label perpetuates a “cycle of disengagement” wherein students are given little hope for improvement throughout their time in school (O’Brien et al. 1997). Theorists believe that the label is a major issue in the English classroom since these students identify themselves as non-readers/non-writers at a very young age (Ball et al. 2008, O’Brien et al. 1997, Perin, Flugman & Spiegel, 2006; Rafferty et al. 1991). Furthermore, Ball and Ellis state that “at-risk” students—particularly, students of color—are “disproportionately relegated to classrooms using drill exercises rather than interactive, meaningful approaches that require extended writing, reflection, and critical thinking” (p. 507).

The above findings raise important questions for English teachers to consider: How can we teach literacy skills to students who have developed as non-readers throughout their academic careers? What strategies can we incorporate in our English lessons that allow for a diverse group of young people to read, write and speak to each other on the same level? How can we assist “at-risk” students in developing identities as readers/writers? And more importantly, why are the “at-risk” students receiving low-level literacy instruction when they are the ones who need the most help (Ball et al. 2008)?

Theoretical background

In order to answer these questions, I researched three theories relating to identity formation and teaching: Critical Race Theory (CRT), Self-Efficacy Theory, and Critical Pedagogy. Rogers and Mosley (2006) state that “CRT recognizes racism as an enduring and pervasive part of life in the United States and works towards eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression” (p. 465). With emphasis on the social construction of race and the labeling of students based on ethnicity and social status, a frightening pattern of racism and oppression emerges from the current system of education (Rogers & Mosley, 2006).

Moreover, with Self-Efficacy Theory—which focuses on an individual’s ability to show control over the circumstances influencing his or her life—we can see how an imposed label (the “at-risk” label) can overpower a person’s sense of self and hinder any hope for academic achievement (Lynch, 2002). The implications become even more alarming with consideration of the fact that students do not choose these identities for themselves. They just grow to accept their roles as they continue on through the system (O’Brien et al. 1997; Perin et al. 2006).

Fortunately, as Ball and Ellis (2008) state, “Identity development is a dynamic and fluid process, involving interactions across and among different social groups, and can be fostered through practices like writing [and reading]” (p. 503). With fluidity of self construction in mind, if we take the perspective of critical pedagogy and view teaching as a political act, it becomes possible for us break down these social constructions and help our students develop new identities that promote high self-efficacy in relation to reading and writing achievement, thus destroying (to a certain extent) a system of oppression that has held sway for far too long (Morrell, 2002).

As it stands, the current system of education in our country is inadequate when accounting for the diverse population. The current trend of labeling students does little to engage them in critical literacy and the discourses of power (Written Academic English) required for social mobility. In order to break the “cycle of disengagement” and provide equal opportunities for everyone, we must deconstruct the “at-risk” stereotype. Only then will we be able to relate with our students and aid them in becoming active, literate members of society.

TO THE POINT

In contrast to the simplistic definition of the “at-risk” label, much of the research I will analyze offers a more comprehensive view of how social constructs and stereotypes affect student acquisition of literacy skills. We have been given narrow definitions of “risk” and the factors that cause it. These definitions need to be expanded if we are to be effective in the field. The goal of this literature review is to deconstruct the label in regard to the social factors—SES, ethnicity, gender and family—that lead to its imposition, so that we can reach a better understanding of the young people we will guiding in the classroom. I will address research studies related to the long-term effects of stereotypes (brought about by SES, ethnicity, gender, and family) on student identity. I will also examine literature regarding pedagogical strategies implemented by English teachers to give my readers ideas of how to enrich these students’ lives as English language users.

ORGANIZATION

The synthesis is organized as follows. I begin by discussing my methodology in choosing the research examined in this review. An analysis of the research follows, wherein the different social constructs accounting for student stereotypes are elaborated upon. Since the studies vary in subject matter, the analysis begins with general information and then breaks down into sub-sections detailing the social constructs: SES, Ethnicity, Gender, and Family. An additional sub-section detailing studies on pedagogical strategies will end the analysis.

My synthesis continues with a discussion of the research. Here I relate the findings of scholars and teachers who have worked in the field. The discussion will focus on the different contexts under which certain strategies should be used in the classroom. The conclusion follows, with implications for further research as well as personal reflection on what was uncovered in the review.

METHODOLOGY

For the purposes of determining the relationships of SES, ethnicity, gender, and family with student literacy performance over time, I reviewed ten empirical research studies, three secondary studies, six miscellaneous research articles, and two literature reviews that correspond with the subject matter. I provide a table summarizing the ten primary research studies in the Appendix.

In seeking out information for this synthesis, my intent was to present quantitative and qualitative data that provide a clear picture of what it means to be labeled “at-risk.” This information will give my readers a broader sense of the circumstances that define our nation’s students. Additionally, I have related the opinions of researchers in the fields of sociology, philosophy, psychology, and literacy education.

ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH

Research reveals that low SES, unhealthy family relationships, and imposed stereotypes have adverse effects on student literacy achievement. There is also a gap in school readiness between kindergarten students coming from households with low SES and those coming from households of higher SES (Janus et al. 2007). This gap perpetuates itself throughout primary and secondary schools (Albertinti, 2008; Ball et al. 2008; Gipe, Richards & Barnitz, 1992; O’Brien et al. 1997; Perin et al. 2006).

Socioeconomic Status and Ethnicity

I found SES and ethnicity to be the two main factors responsible for the imposition of the “at-risk” label on students. One crucial study (Denney, English, Geber, Leafstedt & Ruz, 2007) with a sample of 247 families in 13 public school districts in Southern California (85% of which were Hispanic) showed that although SES and parent education were generally low, families that were involved in literacy activities had high expectations of their children in their school work. Unfortunately, these literacy activities—largely comprised of television viewing—and aspirations didn’t improve student performance in the English classroom. While a majority of the families sampled (95%) agreed that it was essential for their children to learn to read and speak the English language, 74% stressed that comprehension of their native language (Spanish) was equally important (p. 8). The statistics presented by Denney’s study are central to our understanding of the diverse population of students in America. Considering the growing number of American households where English is a second language (Ball et al. 2008), these attitudes present an interesting dilemma for teachers. A question presents itself; how can we get students interested in developing as users of the English language if their families give it lesser or equal value in comparison to their own native languages?

In regard to ethnicity, a primary study conducted in the Netherlands (Verheoven & Vermeer, 2007) found that non-native language users did not perform as well as native speakers on literacy tasks. Many of students who are non-native speakers of English come from diverse minority backgrounds (Latino, Asian, African American) and participate in such national programs as Head Start, which are dedicated to promoting school readiness in children who have been raised in low-income households (Denney et al. 2001; Janus et al. 2007; Merlo et al. 2007). Participation in the Head Start paired with pro-active parental nurturance showed a significant improvement in reading acquisition over a span of four years.

To give a clearer picture of how SES and ethnicity affect student literacy acquisition, I consulted a large scale study performed by Lutkus, Grigg and Donahue (2007) for the National Assessment of Education Process (NAEP), a project of the National Center for Education Statistics. The researchers administered a reading comprehension test—the Reading Trial Urban District Assessment—to fourth graders and eighth graders in eleven urban districts in the U.S. for comparison with public school performances across the country. In so doing, they found that African American and Hispanic students make up 37% of fourth graders in the nation. They also found that 40% of eighth graders in the U.S. are eligible for the National School Lunch Program, a common indicator for poverty. Nine of the eleven districts—which include Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington D.C., Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Diego—had a lower percentage of students at or above basic and proficient achievement levels in reading when compared to public schools nationally (Lutkus et al. 2007). Additionally, students from lower income families were found to have average scores significantly below students from higher income families on the reading assessment.

Another primary study (Morgan et al. 2007) assessed racial differences with regard to the relationship between external performance evaluations and self-evaluations of academic ability. The African American students sampled had a weak relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement, resulting in apathetic attitudes towards school and dis-identification from their white peers (p. 95). The findings here correlate with a study conducted by Janus and Duku (2007) where a sample of 2,196 children from diverse minority backgrounds (largely African American) were found to be unprepared for primary school. A gap in school readiness was discovered, resulting from demographic and socioeconomic factors. A majority of those entering school on the high end of the gap were white children (Janus et al. 2007).

Gender

The common view holds that gender is another social construction that significantly influences student literacy and academic achievement (Simpson, 1996). In contrast to adolescent males, Simpson states that “female students are commonly viewed as better readers” (p.273). The research study of Verhoeven and Vermeer (2007) found this to be true in all literacy activities. Within the sample (see Table 1), girls performed better on literacy tasks than boys. Verhoeven states that girls “write more detailed and accurate picture descriptions than boys… [and] wrote longer texts using a greater variety of words and qualifiers” (p. 205).

To elaborate on the findings of Verhoeven and Vermeer, I consulted a secondary study by Lynch (2002) which found “a significant difference in boys’ and girls’ reader self-perceptions” (p. 61). Lynch states that “girls had more positive perceptions of feedback from peers about their reading than did boys… [and] felt better internally when they read than boys” (p. 62). The findings of Lynch relate boys’ self-efficacy as readers to their fathers’ perceptions of reading.

Family

When researching students’ early literacy development, family proved to be an important factor, especially in determining a child’s school readiness. Earlier in this review, I described my situation as a student. In retrospect, I feel that the outcome of my educational experience would have been much less positive without the support of my parents, particularly when considering the financial and emotional dilemmas faced by families when putting their children through school.

For the purposes of finding a relationship between literacy development and the family unit, Merlo, Bowman and Barnett (2007) examined the influence of parental nurturance on young English learners as they made the transition from preschool to elementary school. The 77 children sampled in their study had an average age of five at the beginning of the study and were recruited from Head Start programs in low-income neighborhoods. For those who are unfamiliar with Head Start, it is a government program dedicated to assisting children from families with low SES through school with the aid of education, health and parent-involvement services (Merlo et al. 2007).

Over the course of four years, the researchers examined data collected from parent interviews, video-taped interactions with the students, and laboratory observations. By the end of the study, only 52 of the 77 original children remained due to families moving out of the area or withdrawing from the study for personal reasons. These 52 children had moved on to primary school (the average age of the children at this point was 8 years). Qualitative analysis of the interviews, interactions and observations, paired with quantitative analysis of test results and teacher reports showed a positive relationship between parental nurturance and literacy development (Merlo et al. 2007). Merlo, Bowman and Barnett state that students living in a “richer social-emotional environment…were more likely to improve their reading at a faster rate than those in a less warm and supportive relationship with their primary caregiver” (p. 65).

The Label

There are many ways to define a child “at-risk,” and many of these definitions include the common factors analyzed above: low SES, diverse ethnic background, gender, and family background. O’Brien states that “at-risk” students are those with educational disadvantages, typically with poor urban or minority backgrounds, who display outward signs of distress and failure (alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, attempted suicide, delinquency, etc.) and may have genetic or psychological inadequacies (p. 2). Rafferty, Klimenko and Holt-Reynolds present an additional set of the possible definitions for students “at-risk.” They are typically students “who on the basis of certain risk factors are unlikely to graduate…students who are unlikely to leave school with an adequate level of basic skills…students unlikely to pass criterion-referenced graduation tests…and students who are presently eligible for special or compensatory education” (p. 1).

A study performed by Perin, Flugman and Spiegel (2006) attempted to define the context in which the “at-risk” students are being served (see Table 1). Urged by recent increases in the number of high-school students enrolling in Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs which are dedicated to literacy instruction in preparation for the GED, the researchers collected data from four ABE programs from four large cities in the North East of the U.S. The quantitative data they analyzed included test results and performances in the program, while the qualitative data consisted of audio-taped interviews with administrators, teachers, counselors and students. The participants within the programs were typically of African American or Hispanic descent and the predominant age group was 16 to 20 year olds.

The researchers found that the 16 to 20 year old students in the ABE program required more extensive and costly services in attaining reading comprehension skills. A majority of these students read at a 5th grade level, while a select minority read at a 3rd grade level. When asked about the reasons for their participation in the programs, interviewees cited higher state standards and adjustment difficulties (substance abuse, teen parenthood, etc.), and most admitted that they were referred by high-school personnel. In one interview, a teacher for the ABE program stated “for a lot of kids, there’s no encouragement, no parental encouragement, no guidance counselor encouragement, and no peer encouragement” (p. 7). This becomes a major problem because failure in secondary education limits access to post-secondary education (Perin et al. 2006).

The study performed by Rafferty, Klimenko and Holt-Reynolds (1991) attempts to account for the lackluster performance of English teachers in preparing comprehensive reading/writing curricula to help “at-risk” students get ready for state tests and other academic assessments. Over the course of one school year, they observed a class of 18 “at-risk” students (15 boys and 3 girls) who failed ninth grade English and based their findings on observation field notes and audio recorded debriefings/interviews with the students. They found that the numerous definitions of the “at-risk” label correlate with numerous reasons for failure in ninth grade English: inability to hand in work on time, completing work but not doing well, and deliberately not completing work. It was concluded that the numerous reasons for failure stemmed from the inability of the teacher to handle the diverse set of problems presented by each individual student (p. 16).

DISCUSSION

Through an analysis of the research, we can see how the factors of SES, ethnicity, gender, family and the “at-risk” label result in O’Brien’s “cycle of disengagement.” The student performances from the urban districts sampled by Lutkus, Grigg and Donahue, paired with the evaluations examined by Morgan and Mehta and the school-entry gap discovered by Janus and Duku, lend considerable weight to a discussion of how the label shapes student attitudes toward reading and writing from primary to secondary school. We have seen how, at the time of school entry, young students are judged based on social position, ethnic background and other such “risk factors” and placed in Head Start programs, which turn into ABE programs later on after these students fail to perform well at the high-school level (Perin et al. 2006; Rafferty et al. 1991). This correlates with a statement by O’Brien who states that “schools assign categorical classifications and put students in special programs that fail to help them” (p. 2).

It is my belief that such labels and programs have longstanding negative effects on student identity. When taking the perspective of CRT as related by Rogers and Mosley, we see how people from diverse ethnic and social backgrounds have “restricted access to…educational structures necessary to gain equitable outcomes in society” (p. 462). If we are to engage in a critical pedagogy with our students, particularly those who are “at-risk,” we must provide them with access to Academic English—the discourse of power in our society—so that they are able to break out of the stereotype and create their own identities.

Implications for English Teachers

As ELA educators, we are in a unique position to open up a dialog with our students about the issues discussed in this review. For many “at-risk” students, access to the English language is limited to meaningless drill-and-skill instruction (Ball et al. 2008). In our English classes, we should be exploring issues of identity, gender, race and class that affect “at-risk” students in their every day lives. In so doing, we can build their interest in language skills that allow for self-expression, skills that they do not practice because of the imposition of stereotypes.

Much of the literature consulted for this review reveals a wide range of strategies for English teachers to employ with students “at-risk.” A few sources suggest that we incorporate into our lessons media projects where students create iMovies, Wikis, and Blogs (Byrne, 2004; O’Brien et al. 1997; Rafferty et al. 1991). Others suggest the use of student selected texts, young adult literature, and multiethnic texts, or texts from marginalized groups, like LGBTQ literature in a variety of genres (Albertinti, 2008; Gipe et al. 1992; O’Brien et al. 1997; Rafferty et al. 1991). A study by Brooks (2006), in a Pennsylvania school with the lowest standardized achievement scores in the district, found that use of ethnic texts in an eighth grade class, where a majority of the students were African Americans from low-income families, allowed for the students to engage in critical discourse through discussions of pertinent issues (race) and literary elements (such as theme and points-of-view).

Teachers can take many actions to help students who are classified as “at-risk.” If the above methods fail, we can always make suggestions for alternative education, where the students would receive the individual attention they might need (Byrne, 2004). Or we can become more involved in faculty collaboration by speaking with fellow teachers and designing units of study that correspond to what the students are learning in other classes. Collaboration can go even farther. We have the ability to help “at-risk” students develop the academic literacy skills they need for success by working with college instructors to help students meet the rigorous demands of entering post-secondary education (Carson, Chase & Gibson, 1993). The research shows many options, but the most important thing we can do as English teachers is to become involved and learn about the circumstances that have shaped our students’ lives.

CONCLUSION

Considering the vast body of research concerning each of the sociological factors discussed in this synthesis, it becomes clear that defining students as “at-risk” is problematic since there is no clear-cut example of what the term means. If we hold to the general point of view which presupposes that “at-risk” students pose problems that make the task of the teacher, the school and school district, more difficult (Brown, 2005), then wouldn’t that put every student at risk?

Every student presents a different situation for an English teacher. Some students love to read, many others don’t read at all, some read occasionally, and still others read only certain types of texts. What the research has shown is that there is much for us to take into account when proceeding with literacy instruction in a society as mixed as the United States. Our classrooms will come to represent this mix—depending on where we teach—but nevertheless, everything is subjective. English teachers, and to a further extent, school districts and communities, must display empathy when introducing curricula to such a diverse audience. There is no set plan that will engage every single student.

Table 1. Primary Studies & Results

|Studies |Date |Purpose |Method |Participants |Findings |

|Brooks |2006 |To show how teachers can|Implemented the use of |A purposive sample of 28|African American |

| | |make explicit an |cultural texts by |8th grade English |literature, as well as |

| | |author’s depiction of |African American |students (16 girls and |all multicultural books,|

| | |traditions, products, |authors. Qualitative |12 boys) at John |contain various entry |

| | |conventions, and |analysis of 18 |Erickson Middle School |points for students from|

| | |discourses of culture |audio-taped literature |in PA. 95% African |all ethnicities. |

| | |and show how that |discussions, 270 written|American, 5% were | |

| | |students are able to |artifacts, and extensive|Latino. | |

| | |draw from a set of |field notes. | | |

| | |experiences accessible | | | |

| | |to members of a | | | |

| | |particular cultural | | | |

| | |community while | | | |

| | |interpreting literature | | | |

|Denney, English, Geber, |2001 |To determine the family |Family survey sent home |Sample of 247 families |Showed high paternal |

|Leafstedt & Ruz | |and home literacy |with students addressing|of kindergarten students|aspirations for their |

| | |factors |items such as family |(average age of 5 years)|children’s reading and |

| | |that may influence the |composition, family |from 13 kindergarten |academic achievement in |

| | |development of |exposure and knowledge |classrooms in 3 public |English and although |

| | |phonological awareness |of print media, family |school districts in |socioeconomic status |

| | |for preliterate English |home literacy practices,|Southern California. 85%|(SES) and parent |

| | |learners during the |and parental aspirations|Latino, 5% Caucasian, 4%|education levels were |

| | |acquisition phase of |for their child’s |Asian, 0.4% African |generally low, families |

| | |reading development. |reading and academic |American. |were involved in |

| | | |development. | |literacy activities at |

| | | | | |home. Also, Spanish was |

| | | | | |the predominant language|

| | | | | |across family and home |

| | | | | |contexts. |

|Gipe, Richards & Barnitz|1992 |To describe the language|Quantitative analysis of|2 university students, 2|Students who received |

| | |and literacy abilities |data on academic |university instructors, |special attention had |

| | |of “at-risk” students by|achievement, and |entire student |increasing positive |

| | |comparing at-risk |qualitative analysis of |population of an urban |attitudes towards |

| | |students who receive |observations and |elementary school in SE |reading and writing over|

| | |special attention and |interviews. Over the |state (300 students: 80%|the course of 3 years. |

| | |those who don’t.. |course of 3 years. |African American, 16% |Majority of students |

| | | | |white, 3% Spanish, 1% |were found to be reading|

| | | | |Asian). 273 of these |below their grade level.|

| | | | |students eligible for | |

| | | | |free lunch. | |

|Janus & Duku |2007 |To investigate the |Quantitative analysis of|An enriched sample of |Qualitative and |

| | |outcomes of early |data from the Community |2,196 children (50.4% |quantitative analysis |

| | |childhood development at|Component of the |girls, average age of 6 |showed that there is a |

| | |school and explore the |National Longitudinal |years) in kindergarten |gap in school readiness |

| | |factors contributing to |Survey of Children and |and a community sample |among kindergarten |

| | |a gap in school |Youth |of 8,467 children from 6|students and that a |

| | |readiness at school |Survey/Questionnaire and|participating |combination of health, |

| | |entry. |EDI (Early Development |communities in Canada |demographic and |

| | | |Instrument), and |(focusing on |socioeconomic factors |

| | | |qualitative analysis of |English-language |increased a child’s |

| | | |parent-household |instruction). |likelihood to be at the |

| | | |interviews. | |bottom side of the gap |

| | | | | |more so than others. |

|Lutkus, Grigg & Donahue |2007 |To assess the reading |Quantitative analysis of|37,000 4th and 8th grade|9 of the 11 districts |

| | |ability of 4th and 8th |student reading scores |students from 11 urban |had a lower percentage |

| | |grade students in large |on the Trial Urban |districts. |of students at or above |

| | |urban school districts |District Assessment. | |basic and proficient |

| | |across America. | | |reading levels in |

| | | | | |comparison to national |

| | | | | |public schools. Students|

| | | | | |from low income families|

| | | | | |had average scores below|

| | | | | |students from higher |

| | | | | |income families. |

|Merlo, Bowman & Barnett |2007 |To examine the |Qualitative methods for |Sample comprised of 77 |Qualitative and |

| | |additional contribution |data collection included|children (41 girls), |quantitative analysis |

| | |of parental nurturance |parent interviews, |with an average age of 5|showed nurturing |

| | |to literacy development |videotaped interactions |years, recruited from |parenting during child’s|

| | |during the transition |with children, home |Head Start programs in |preschool years was |

| | |from preschool to |observations, and |low-income neighborhoods|associated with reading |

| | |elementary school. |laboratory observations.|in a large Mid-Western |achievement at age 8 and|

| | | |Quantitative methods |city (unspecified), |was found to contribute |

| | | |included standardized |their primary |significantly to growth |

| | | |tests and teacher |caregivers, and their |in reading from ages 4 |

| | | |reports. |preschool and elementary|to 8, but nurturance was|

| | | | |school teachers. 52 of |not associated with |

| | | | |the 77 families |children’s reading |

| | | | |participated in the |ability at age 4. |

| | | | |follow-up study. | |

|Morgan & Mehta |2004 |To examine the mechanism|Quantitative analysis of|Random sample of 9,954 |Quantitative analysis |

| | |that links poor |standardized tests and |African American and |shows that there is |

| | |performance on tests to |Likert scales testing |Caucasian students from |support for a limited |

| | |dis-identification with |self-esteem and academic|NELS schools (National |form of |

| | |schooling and assess |self-evaluations. |Education Longitudinal |dis-identification |

| | |racial differences with | |Study) from 1988 to |across African American |

| | |regard to the | |1994. |students and a weaker |

| | |relationship between | | |relationship between |

| | |external performance | | |academic self-concept |

| | |evaluations and | | |and academic achievement|

| | |self-evaluations of | | |signaling that African |

| | |academic ability. | | |American students |

| | | | | |discount performance |

| | | | | |evaluations more so than|

| | | | | |their Caucasian peers. |

|Perin, Flugman & Spiegel|2006 |To explore the context |Quantitative and |Random sample of 11 |16-20 year old African |

| | |in which “at-risk” |Qualitative analysis of |administrators, 26 |Americans and Latinos |

| | |students are being |ABE program data and |teachers, 3 counselors, |were predominant group |

| | |served and measure the |audiotaped interviews |and 9 typical students |in programs and required|

| | |extent of highschool |with students and staff |from 4 ABE programs in 4|more extensive and |

| | |aged participants in |from ABE programs. |large NE American |costly services. A |

| | |Adult Basic Education | |cities. |minority of students |

| | |(ABE) programs. | | |reading at 3rd grade |

| | | | | |level while majority |

| | | | | |read at 5th grade level.|

|Rafferty, Klimenko & |1991 |To account for lack of |Qualitative analysis of |A purposive sample of 18|Numerous definitions of |

|Holt-Reynolds | |qualitative analysis of |observer field notes, |at-risk students (3 |“at-risk” correlate with|

| | |teacher and student |audio recorded |girls and 15 boys) who |numerous reasons for |

| | |perceptions of lit. |debriefings and |failed English 9. Due to|failure in English 9: |

| | |based reading/writing |interviews with at-risk |attrition, sample was at|inability to get work in|

| | |instruction for at-risk |students in English 9 |14 students by |on time, completing work|

| | |highschool students. |and 10. Quantitative |mid-semester |but not doing well, |

| | | |analysis of test scores | |deliberately not |

| | | |(performance). Over the | |completing work. |

| | | |course of one school | |Majority of students |

| | | |year. | |thought assignments to |

| | | | | |be dumb. |

|Verhoeven & Vermeer |2006 |To describe variations |Quantitative analysis of|Sample of 2,424 students|Quantitative analysis |

| | |in literacy achievement |oral and written |(grades 3 to 6) from 41 |showed that non-native |

| | |among native and |literacy tasks focusing |schools in the |children lag behind |

| | |non-native upper primary|on domains of word |Netherlands. |their native peers on |

| | |school children, grades |decoding, reading | |all of the tasks, and |

| | |3 to 6. |literacy, and writing. | |that SES and gender |

| | | | | |clearly influence the |

| | | | | |development of literacy.|

References

Albertinti, J. (2008). Teaching of Writing and Diversity: Access, Identity, and Achievement. In Charles Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Writing. (pp. 387-397). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

Ball, A. & Ellis, P. (2008). Identity and the Writing of Culturally and linguistically Diverse Students. In Charles Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Writing. (pp. 499-513). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

Brooks, W. (2006). Reading representations of themselves: Urban youth use culture and African American textual features to develop literary understandings. Reading Research Quarterly. 41, 372-392.

Brown, K.D. (2005). Academic Risk, Schools, and U.S. Society. In Farenga, S.J. & Ness, D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Education and Human Development (pp. 292-296). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Byrne, J. (2004). Alternative Education: The Cutting Edge? Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.). 5, 49-50.

Carson, J., Chase, N. D. & Gibson, S. U. (1993). A Model for Faculty Collaboration: Focus on Academic Literacy. Atlanta, GA: Center for the Study of Adult Literacy, Georgia State University.

Denney, M.K., English, J.P., Geber, M.M., Leafstedt, J. & Ruz, M.L. (2001). Family and Home Literacy Practices: Mediating Factors for Preliterate English Learners At Risk. American Educational Research Association Seattle, WA: University of California, Santa Barbara.

Dyson, A.H. (1995).What difference does difference make? Teacher perspectives on literacy. English Education. 27, 77-137.

Gillborn, D. & Youdell, D. (1998). Raising Standards and Deepening Inequality: Selection, League Tables and Reform in Multiethnic Secondary Schools. Racism and Reform in the United Kingdom: The Market, Selection, and Inequality San Diego, CA: American Educational Research Association.

Gipe, J., Richards, J. C. & Barnitz, J. G. (1992). Literacy Development of Urban At-Risk Children through Literature Based Reading/Language Arts Instruction. National Reading Conference. San Antonio, TX.

Janus, M. & Duku, E. (2007). The School Entry Gap: Socioeconomic, Family, and Health Factors Associated with Children's School Readiness to Learn. Early Education and Development. 18, 375-403.

Lutkus, A., Grigg, W. & Donahue, P. (2007) The Nation’s Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment Reading 2007 (NCES 2008-455).

Lynch, J. (2002). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender, children’s reader self-perceptions, reading achievement and gender. Journal of Research in Reading. 25, 54-67.

Merlo, L.J., Bowman, M. & Barnett, D. (2007). Parental Nurturance Promotes Reading Acquisition in Low Socioeconomic Status Children. Early Education and Development. 18, 51-69.

Morgan, S.L. & Mehta, J.D. (2004). Beyond the Laboratory: Evaluating the Survey Evidence for the Disidentification Explanation of Black-White Differences in Achievement . Sociology of Education. 77, 82-101.

Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Literacy development among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 46, 72-77.

O’Brien, D. G., Dillon, D. R., Wellinski, S. A., Springs, R. & Suth, D. (1997). Engaging “At-Risk” Highschool Students. Perspectives in Reading Research. 12, 1-18.

Perin, D., Flugman, B. & Spiegel, S. (2006). Last Chance Gulch: Youth Participation in Urban Adult Basic Education Programs. Adult Basic Education. 16, 171-188.

Rafferty, C. D., Klimenko, P. S. & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Developing a Reading and Writing Curriculum for At-Risk Highschool Students. National Reading Conference. Palm Springs, CA.

Rogers, R. & Mosley, M. (2006). Racial literacy in a second grade classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly. 41, 462-495.

Verhoeven, L. & Vermeer, A. (2006). Sociocultural Variation in Literacy Achievement. British Journal of Educational Studies. 54, 189-211.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download