**1 Achievement Gaps: Learning Disabilities, Community Capital, and School Composition\***

Bob Algozzine1, Erik Porfeli2,

Chuang Wang3, Ann McColl4 and Robert Audette5 *1Behavior and Reading Improvement Center, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, 2Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 3Department of Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, 4University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 5Department of Reading and Elementary Education, University of North Carolina, Charlotte USA* 

## **1. Introduction**

18 Learning Disabilities

Mediline Plus (2011) Learning Disabilities. National Institute of Neurological Disorders

Mont, D. (2007) Measuring Disability Prevalence, Special Protection SP Discussion Paper No

Pale, B. (2010): An Overview of Caring For People With Disabilities, TRCB .com (The Red

SENCO (2011) Characteristics of cognitive and learning difficulties. Help Sheet 2, teachingexpertise. Available from http://www.teachingexpertise.com/ Siegel, L.S. (2009): IQ is irrelevant to the definition of Learning Disabilities, Published US

Wilson, G. & Gylls, D. (2004) Know Your Child's IQ available from http://iq-

Winzer, M., (1993). The History of Special Education. From Isolation to Integration,

Yell, M.L. (2006). The Legal History of Special Education. Journal of Disability Policy

Studies. (NARIC) National Rehabilitation Information Center.

National Library of Medicine. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of

Gallauded University Press, Washington, DC. 20002, available from

0706, The World Bank available from www.worldbank.org.sp

carpet Broadcast) http://phamaly-colorado.org/

and Strock, Rockville Pike, USSA

test.learninginfo.org/ig04.htm

books.google.gr/books?isbn=1563680181

Health.

A fundamental defining characteristic of students with learning disabilities (LD) is a difference between expected and actual achievement in one or more academic areas (Cortiella, 2009). In identifying these students, professionals document that disabilities related to vision, hearing, or physical impairments, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantage are not the primary cause of the underachievement (Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1987; U. S. Office of Education, 1977). While this distinguishing feature has been widely accepted, it has not been easily implemented. For example, after 5 years of research on decision making in schools, Ysseldyke et al. (1983) concluded that "there currently is no defensible system for declaring students eligible for LD services;" and, among the problem facing professionals when identifying students in need of special education services was the consistent finding of "no reliable psychometric differences between students labeled (with LD) and those simply considered low achievers" (p. 79, 80). Of course, addressing differences and gaps in achievement across groups of students is not new in America education.

Racial diversity has been a concern in America's schools for many years. Dunn (1968) focused attention on what has become known as the disproportionality problem evident in the over-representation of children from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds in special education. Once the alarm was sounded, disparities of placement and performance were widely and continuously documented (cf. Blanchett, Mumford, & Beachum, 2005; Donovan & Cross, 2002; *Educational Researcher*, 2006; Harry & Klingner,

<sup>\*</sup> Portions of this chapter are from the authors' previously published or to be published work.

Achievement Gaps: Learning Disabilities, Community Capital, and School Composition 21

Guidance from this view suggests that if achievement gaps spring from the *structure of and practice within* schools then changing aspects of schooling (e.g., new curriculum, reducing class size, increasing student motivation, implementing response-to-intervention practices) will provide a way to reduce disparities in educational attainment. In this context, laws and legislative mandates are seen as ways to bring about change viewed as necessary and possible but, for projected and/or undefined reasons, unrealized. For example, America's No Child Left Behind (NCLB: 2002) Act is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve outcomes in education and it sanctions states for schools that fail to document adequate yearly progress for their students. In contemporary special education practice, driven in large part by reauthorizations of Public Law 94-142 now codified as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), identification of learning disabilities is now embodied in response-to-intervention (RtI) methods that have emerged as the preferred practices for improving education for the "most vulnerable, *academically* [emphasis added] unresponsive children" in schools and school districts (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 131). We take a different view of the base for differences in achievement and direct attention to community capital and school composition as powerful predictors of performance and the intractable gaps among student groups. Our view does not see children as the source of problem but more their problems are a result of where they go to school and what happens or does not happen

The resources contributed by the institutions (e.g., family, school, and labor) within a community and the interactions that emerge from them reflect the context in which children learn rather than defining the potential of individual students (Bourdieu, 1986; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995). From this view, we believe that community capital and composition of the student body interact to explain academic achievement differences *at the school level*; that is, the academic potential of the student body not only serves to improve raw educational advancement, but it also shapes other aspects of the learning climate like classroom behaviors and values that bear on their educational advancement. A student body that has the capacity to successfully perform academically is more likely to engender a set of values, beliefs, self concepts, and behaviors (Bear, Minke, & Manning, 2002; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993) that promote the learning environment because on a core level humans prefer to engage in activities that are aligned with their capacities (Ford, 1994; Harker & Nash, 1996; Harker & Tymms, 2004). Impoverished schools with a more academically-capable student body should, therefore, be better able to overcome the maladaptive forces associated with diminished community resources much more effectively than schools with less academically-capable students. On the contrary, wealthy schools would exhibit less of a difference on the basis of differences in the academic capacity of their student body because the environmental benefit served by academic potential is likely to be completely

diminished by the benefit of a wealthy community.

emphasis added)

there.

"All children are created equal, but all children are not performing equally in school; the gap typically worsens as children advance through the grades; *the fault must therefore be the schools,'*so the solution must lie in the school; the necessary *knowledge and tools* are available, and schools must be pressed to apply them." (Evans, 2005, p. 583,

2006; Krezmien, Leone, Achilles, 2006; Lewis, 2005; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010; Vincent, Swain-Bradway, Tobin & May, 2011) and issues and corrective instructional activities related to diversity and schooling were widely discussed (Algozzine, Campbell, & Wang, 2009a,b; Algozzine, Daunic, & Smith, 2010; Algozzine, Marr, McClanahan, & Barnes, 2008; Algozzine, O'Shea, & Obiakor, 2009; Campbell, Wang, & Algozzine, 2010; Castro-Olivo, Preciado, Sanford, & Perry, 2011; Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966; Coleman, 1969; Coleman, 1988; Henley, Ramsay, & Algozzine, 2009; Lo, Mustian, Brophy, & White, 2011; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005).

Historically, concern related to differences in achievement across groups of students arose when the U. S. Supreme Court made it clear in the decision of *Brown v. Board of Education* that equal educational opportunity for all was expected when states, in providing education, must make it "available to all on equal terms."1 The reasoning was that "educating all children together would increase the availability of high quality schools to all students" (Southworth, 2010, p. 3) but educators have struggled to achieve this goal (Aud, Hussar, Kena, Bianco, Frohlich, Kemp, & Tahan, 2011; Coleman, 1969; Evans, 2005; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2011; Goldsmith, 2011; Leithwood, 2010; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Rather than a systematic and productive effort resulting in reduced inequities associated with racially-segregated schools, "equal educational opportunity" has been a cobbled together plan that continues to fail in achieving promised and desired benefits (Ball, 2006; Boger & Orfield, 2005; Lyons & Chelsey, 2004; Mickelson & Bottia, 2010; Smith & Kozleski, 2005; Southworth, 2010).

Interest in equal opportunities is given renewed life by continuing analyses and documentation of academic performance and efforts to bring about change in intractable schools (Aud et al., 2011; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010). Once again, despite some changes in policy and approaches, there have been persistent and pervasive gaps in educational achievement across and within America's schools and communities (Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010; Aud et al., 2011; Ball, 2006; Borman et al., 2004; Cartledge, 2011; Evans, 2005; Ferguson & Mehta, 2004; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2011; Hess, 2005; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Mathis, 2005; Morris & Monroe, 2009; Smith & Kozleski, 2005; Wraga, 2006). The modern-day *Brown* issues are in play when schools can choose to consider race in efforts to achieve equity for important purposes, including improved academic outcomes for all (Bourdieu, 1986; Hong & Youngs, 2008; Olneck, 2000).

## **2. Factors affecting student achievement**

Conventional wisdom holds that differences in achievement across groups of students are a school problem, often defined as "disabilities" requiring special education, and the belief has fueled historical and current efforts to bring about reform in the American educational system (Evans, 2005; Southworth, 2010). Placing the blame by blaming the place has at its core the logic of equity and equality of opportunity:

<sup>1 374</sup> U.S. 483, 493 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954).

2006; Krezmien, Leone, Achilles, 2006; Lewis, 2005; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010; Vincent, Swain-Bradway, Tobin & May, 2011) and issues and corrective instructional activities related to diversity and schooling were widely discussed (Algozzine, Campbell, & Wang, 2009a,b; Algozzine, Daunic, & Smith, 2010; Algozzine, Marr, McClanahan, & Barnes, 2008; Algozzine, O'Shea, & Obiakor, 2009; Campbell, Wang, & Algozzine, 2010; Castro-Olivo, Preciado, Sanford, & Perry, 2011; Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966; Coleman, 1969; Coleman, 1988; Henley, Ramsay, & Algozzine, 2009; Lo, Mustian, Brophy, & White, 2011; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, &

Historically, concern related to differences in achievement across groups of students arose when the U. S. Supreme Court made it clear in the decision of *Brown v. Board of Education* that equal educational opportunity for all was expected when states, in providing education, must make it "available to all on equal terms."1 The reasoning was that "educating all children together would increase the availability of high quality schools to all students" (Southworth, 2010, p. 3) but educators have struggled to achieve this goal (Aud, Hussar, Kena, Bianco, Frohlich, Kemp, & Tahan, 2011; Coleman, 1969; Evans, 2005; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2011; Goldsmith, 2011; Leithwood, 2010; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Rather than a systematic and productive effort resulting in reduced inequities associated with racially-segregated schools, "equal educational opportunity" has been a cobbled together plan that continues to fail in achieving promised and desired benefits (Ball, 2006; Boger & Orfield, 2005; Lyons & Chelsey, 2004; Mickelson & Bottia, 2010; Smith &

Interest in equal opportunities is given renewed life by continuing analyses and documentation of academic performance and efforts to bring about change in intractable schools (Aud et al., 2011; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010). Once again, despite some changes in policy and approaches, there have been persistent and pervasive gaps in educational achievement across and within America's schools and communities (Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010; Aud et al., 2011; Ball, 2006; Borman et al., 2004; Cartledge, 2011; Evans, 2005; Ferguson & Mehta, 2004; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2011; Hess, 2005; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Mathis, 2005; Morris & Monroe, 2009; Smith & Kozleski, 2005; Wraga, 2006). The modern-day *Brown* issues are in play when schools can choose to consider race in efforts to achieve equity for important purposes, including improved academic outcomes for all (Bourdieu, 1986; Hong & Youngs, 2008; Olneck,

Conventional wisdom holds that differences in achievement across groups of students are a school problem, often defined as "disabilities" requiring special education, and the belief has fueled historical and current efforts to bring about reform in the American educational system (Evans, 2005; Southworth, 2010). Placing the blame by blaming the place has at its

Chung, 2005).

2000).

Kozleski, 2005; Southworth, 2010).

**2. Factors affecting student achievement** 

core the logic of equity and equality of opportunity:

1 374 U.S. 483, 493 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954).

"All children are created equal, but all children are not performing equally in school; the gap typically worsens as children advance through the grades; *the fault must therefore be the schools,'*so the solution must lie in the school; the necessary *knowledge and tools* are available, and schools must be pressed to apply them." (Evans, 2005, p. 583, emphasis added)

Guidance from this view suggests that if achievement gaps spring from the *structure of and practice within* schools then changing aspects of schooling (e.g., new curriculum, reducing class size, increasing student motivation, implementing response-to-intervention practices) will provide a way to reduce disparities in educational attainment. In this context, laws and legislative mandates are seen as ways to bring about change viewed as necessary and possible but, for projected and/or undefined reasons, unrealized. For example, America's No Child Left Behind (NCLB: 2002) Act is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve outcomes in education and it sanctions states for schools that fail to document adequate yearly progress for their students. In contemporary special education practice, driven in large part by reauthorizations of Public Law 94-142 now codified as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), identification of learning disabilities is now embodied in response-to-intervention (RtI) methods that have emerged as the preferred practices for improving education for the "most vulnerable, *academically* [emphasis added] unresponsive children" in schools and school districts (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 131). We take a different view of the base for differences in achievement and direct attention to community capital and school composition as powerful predictors of performance and the intractable gaps among student groups. Our view does not see children as the source of problem but more their problems are a result of where they go to school and what happens or does not happen there.

The resources contributed by the institutions (e.g., family, school, and labor) within a community and the interactions that emerge from them reflect the context in which children learn rather than defining the potential of individual students (Bourdieu, 1986; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995). From this view, we believe that community capital and composition of the student body interact to explain academic achievement differences *at the school level*; that is, the academic potential of the student body not only serves to improve raw educational advancement, but it also shapes other aspects of the learning climate like classroom behaviors and values that bear on their educational advancement. A student body that has the capacity to successfully perform academically is more likely to engender a set of values, beliefs, self concepts, and behaviors (Bear, Minke, & Manning, 2002; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993) that promote the learning environment because on a core level humans prefer to engage in activities that are aligned with their capacities (Ford, 1994; Harker & Nash, 1996; Harker & Tymms, 2004). Impoverished schools with a more academically-capable student body should, therefore, be better able to overcome the maladaptive forces associated with diminished community resources much more effectively than schools with less academically-capable students. On the contrary, wealthy schools would exhibit less of a difference on the basis of differences in the academic capacity of their student body because the environmental benefit served by academic potential is likely to be completely diminished by the benefit of a wealthy community.

Achievement Gaps: Learning Disabilities, Community Capital, and School Composition 23

percent of children with a "gifted" classification and the percent of children with a recognized disability that could interfere with academic development (e.g., learning and other disabilities). We added the percent of African American children in each school and the total enrollment of each school to the regression models to represent the potential confounding impact of race and school size on the prediction model (see below). Others have used information on these variables similarly in research on predictors of academic

We were interested in the characteristics of schools rather than the characteristics of students in them as predictors of overall achievement. The percent of students at the school who passed state-mandated end-of-grade reading and mathematics tests was available for these analyses. We calculated the difference between current and previous pass rates and used it

The end-of-grade reading test assessed components of the state's Standard Course of Study. The test consisted of eight reading selections with three to nine associated questions for each selection. Each student was asked to read five literary selections (two fiction, one nonfiction, one drama, one poem) and three informational selections (two content and one consumer). The variety of selections on each form allowed for the assessment of reading for various

The end-of grade mathematics test assessed the goals and objectives in the state's Standard Course of Study. On the test, students demonstrated knowledge of important principles and concepts, and related mathematical information to everyday situations. In order to align with the mathematics curriculum's addressing inquiry instruction and higher-order thinking, the test had an increased focus on processing information and higher-order

For the purposes of our research, we averaged the math and reading achievement to yield an overall indicator of the academic achievement of each school, because the correlation between reading and math pass rates for the elementary schools was 0.92. Our achievement variable reflected the average passing rate for each school on the mathematics and reading

We employed a correlation design to test a theoretical model suggesting that community and school characteristics influence academic outcomes. Since we were interested in identifying the magnitude of the relationship between academic outcomes and other characteristics such as the community capital and academic potential, a multiple regression technique was used to investigate these relationships and to identify the relative impact of the characteristics on school-level academic outcomes independent of two control variables believed to influence achievement. Given that we were also interested in assessing the moderating impact of academic potential on the relationship between community capital and academic achievement, an interaction term (community capital by academic potential)

Community capital was the strongest independent predictor of school-level academic achievement, with profound predictive power (*R*2 = .81) particularly given that the model

achievement (Coladarci, 2006; Ilon & Normore, 2006; Olneck, 2000; Sirin, 2005).

to estimate the progress that schools made across a single academic year.

purposes: for literary experience, to gain information, and to perform a task.

test and was used as an estimate of the "performance" of the school.

was also included in the regression model.

thinking.

**3.2 Findings** 
