**4. Discussion**

Schools in America are segregated and many are composed "almost entirely of either White, African American, or Latino students" (Goldsmith, 2011, p. 508); and, data indicate that students from schools serving communities with disproportionally more minority students have lower academic profiles than their peers in other schools (Goldsmith, 2009). Almost 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled that "equal educational opportunity" was every person's right, the evidence of persistent and consistent educational inequality refuses to go away. We believe that learning more about the connection between community capital and achievement will help schools and communities to better understand the problem and thereby direct better solutions to it. If community capital is important, then what can communities and schools do to strengthen it? What can school boards do to more evenly distribute it? How should it affect the location of new schools? How should it influence the student assignment plan? These decisions that connect diversity, community capital, and educational achievement could be at the heart of the school district's mission.

The persistent difference between the performances of groups of students (i.e., the "achievement gap") is perhaps the "most stubborn, perplexing issue confronting American schools today" (Evans, 2005, p. 582). Evaluating the impact of community capital on educational achievement is an opportunity to reframe the perspective on blame for this problem and visit and project the benefits of intentional diversity and integration on the educational advancement for all children. Community capital, as operationalized in our research, was significantly related to school-level achievement. This outcome cannot be completely overcome by simply flooding impoverished schools with financial capital or boosting human and social capital by enticing more experienced and proficient teachers.

did not directly account for aspects of the teaching situation (e.g., qualifications of the teachers or quality of the instruction) that schools aim to change as a way of boosting academic achievement. In other words, predictors that personnel at the school-level are generally unable to influence accounted for about 81% of the variability in achievement across the 80 elementary schools. Our regression results also suggested that the academic potential of the student body moderates the relationship between community capital and overall academic achievement while controlling for the total enrollment and race of the

The community capital influence was greater in schools with less academic potential and weaker in schools with more potential. Recalling that academic potential is a construct combining the percentage of student with academic gifts and those with academic disabilities, overall academic achievement of schools was *more* influenced by community capital in schools that had a *lesser* fraction of gifted children and *greater* fraction of children with disabilities than schools reflecting the reverse proportions. Although statistically significant, the impact of this moderating influence was relatively weak. Schools with the least amount of community capital and academic potential demonstrated the *greatest gains* in overall academic achievement, *yet* the schools with the least amount of community capital and relatively high academic potential demonstrated the *greatest declines* in overall academic achievement. The schools in the wealthiest communities (e.g., 1 standard deviation above the mean on the community capital variable) generally demonstrated declines, with the

Schools in America are segregated and many are composed "almost entirely of either White, African American, or Latino students" (Goldsmith, 2011, p. 508); and, data indicate that students from schools serving communities with disproportionally more minority students have lower academic profiles than their peers in other schools (Goldsmith, 2009). Almost 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled that "equal educational opportunity" was every person's right, the evidence of persistent and consistent educational inequality refuses to go away. We believe that learning more about the connection between community capital and achievement will help schools and communities to better understand the problem and thereby direct better solutions to it. If community capital is important, then what can communities and schools do to strengthen it? What can school boards do to more evenly distribute it? How should it affect the location of new schools? How should it influence the student assignment plan? These decisions that connect diversity, community capital, and

The persistent difference between the performances of groups of students (i.e., the "achievement gap") is perhaps the "most stubborn, perplexing issue confronting American schools today" (Evans, 2005, p. 582). Evaluating the impact of community capital on educational achievement is an opportunity to reframe the perspective on blame for this problem and visit and project the benefits of intentional diversity and integration on the educational advancement for all children. Community capital, as operationalized in our research, was significantly related to school-level achievement. This outcome cannot be completely overcome by simply flooding impoverished schools with financial capital or boosting human and social capital by enticing more experienced and proficient teachers.

greatest decline occurring in those schools with lower academic potential.

educational achievement could be at the heart of the school district's mission.

study body of the schools.

**4. Discussion** 

Using Coleman's (1988) concept of "public good," we believe it is important to consider all capital that is available to the school and the learning environment (i.e., community capital). As Sirin (2005) argues, the capital of a neighborhood should also be considered. This ideally captures the socioeconomic status (SES) of the neighborhood, which reflects the potential of businesses and residents to contribute resources to the school. Families, for example, can share financial capital with the school through support of the parent-teacher organization or through other opportunities to directly donate resources. Parrish, Matsumoto, and Fowler (1995) illustrate this fiscal capacity in their study that found that the higher neighborhood SES, measured by the value of owner-occupied housing and residents' educational attainment, correlated significantly with greater school expenditures per student. Another element of the neighborhood capital is the stability of the neighborhood and its capacity to create societal norms that may have an impact on the school. Coleman also includes safety as an element of social capital. A neighborhood in which parents feel that other adults will keep their children from harm's way has more social capital than one in which parents are fearful for the safety of their children.

Our research supports a hypothesized interactive impact of community capital and academic potential on achievement. The academic potential of the student body reduced the "power rating" of community capital (Coladarci, 2006). Moreover, the overall achievement gap between schools is slightly narrowing, but is being largely offset by the declines in the impoverished, higher potential schools. Academic achievement change at the school level may, therefore, hinge on the issue of consistency when comparing configurations of higher or lower community capital and higher or lower academic potential. If a school with higher potential is situated in a neighborhood with more capital or a school with lower potential is in neighborhood with less capital, then the schools exhibit changes not exceeding ±1.3%. If a school with higher potential is situated in a lower capital neighborhood or a school with lower potential is in a higher capital neighborhood, then the achievement change across time is consistently a negative number (in the range of -1.7 and -4.3%). Where you go to school matters when summative and formative comparisons of performance are used to drive policy and decision making.

The large urban district school examined in our study, therefore, appears to be making good progress in impoverished schools with high concentrations of students with disabilities, but they may be leaving their schools with higher concentrations of gifted students in impoverished neighborhoods behind. On the contrary, the district school is having greater success maintaining their achievement levels in wealthier schools with higher concentrations of gifted students, but the district may be struggling to meet the needs of wealthier schools with higher concentrations of students with disabilities. The interactive influences of community characteristics and school composition represent a clear area for further investigation.

#### **4.1 Implications for the use of community capital**

In addition to considerations related to student assignment, concepts of community capital could be incorporated into many kinds of decisions made by local boards such as location of schools, approaches to financing schools, and community and parental involvement approaches to more equitably distribute these resources. By choosing to pay attention to community capital, the board can refine its decision making in these areas.

Achievement Gaps: Learning Disabilities, Community Capital, and School Composition 27

Algozzine, B., Campbell, P., & Wang, A. (2009a). *63 tactics for teaching diverse learners: K-6*.

Algozzine, B., Campbell, P., & Wang, A. (2009b). *63 tactics for teaching diverse learners: Grades* 

Algozzine, B., Daunic, A. P., & Smith, S. W. (2010). *Preventing problem behavior*s (2nd ed.).

Algozzine, B., Marr, M. B., McClanahan, T., & Barnes, E. (2008). *Strategies and lessons for* 

Algozzine, B., O'Shea, D. J., & Obiakor, F. E. (2009). *Culturally responsive literacy instruction*.

Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools:

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). *The* 

Ball, A. F. (Ed.). (2006). *With more deliberate speed: Achieving equity and excellence in education—*

Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., & Manning, M. A. (2002). Self-concept of student with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. *School Psychology Review, 31*(3), 405-427. Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban school failure and

Boger, J. & Orfield, G. (2005). *School resegregation: Must the South turn back?* Chapel Hill, NC:

Borman, K. M., McNulty Eitle, T., Michael, D., Eitle, D. J., Lee, R., . . . Shircliffe, B.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In John Richardson (Ed.), *Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education* (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Retrieved from

Campbell, P., Wang, A., & Algozzine, B. (2010). *55 tactics for implementing RTI in inclusive* 

Cartledge, G. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Cultural diversity and special

Cartledge, G., Yurick, A., Singh, A. H., Keyes, S. E., & Kourea, L. (2011). Follow-up study of

Castro-Olivo, S. M., Preciado, J. A., Sanford, A. K., & Perry, V. (2011). The academic and

risk of urban primary learners. *Exceptionality*, *19*, 140-159.

the effects of a supplemental early reading intervention on the reading/disability

social-emotional needs of secondary Latino English learners: Implications for screening, identification, and instructional planning. *Exceptionality*, *19*, 160-174.

of students of color. *Remedial and Special Educatio*n, *26* (2), 70-81.

Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. *Leadership* 

*Condition of Education 2011* (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

*realizing the full potential of Brown v. Board of Education*. Chicago, IL: National Society

disproportionality in a post-Brown era: Benign neglect of the constitutional rights

(2004). Accountability in a postdesgregation era: The continuing significance of racial segregation in Florida's schools. *American Education Research Journal, 41*,

*improving basic early literacy skills*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

**5. References** 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

*and Policy in Schools*, *9*, 292-327.

for the Study of Education.

University of North Carolina Press.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

*settings*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

education. *Exceptionality*, *19*, 137-139.

Printing Office.

605-624.

*6-12*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The location of schools and funding strategies are interconnected. Typically, local boards have control over the selection of sites for schools. There are important exceptions to this. For example, a publicly-passed bond referendum may set criteria for the school location or even specify the location. Or the local government responsible for collecting local property taxes or other funds used for school construction may set conditions on funding. Or if the state has stepped in to take a larger role in funding school construction, it also may exercise some oversight over the school location (Dewees & Hammer, 2000; McColl & Malhoit, 2004; MGT of America, 2001; Parrish, Matsumoto, & Fowler, 1995). Whoever is setting the conditions, the tendency is to focus on population density and travel patterns. Advocates for strong rural schools have urged a broader focus on site location, including the importance of school buildings to the overall vibrancy of a community (Dewees & Hammer, 2000; McColl & Malhoit, 2004). Similarly, local boards, or these other governing entities can consider the type of community capital that would exist for a particular school given the surrounding community and likely student assignment patterns. School boards sometimes consider various funding strategies in order to meet needs. If community capital becomes a priority, it also might help drive the strategies for funding schools based on the options that most likely would best allow consideration of community capital.

"Policymakers need to find ways to desegregate schools" (Goldsmith, 2011, p. 531). By better understanding the impact of community capital and the inequities in school composition potentially created by it, local boards can take steps to change. If it must maintain a school location in a neighborhood that is relatively poor, unstable, and high in crime, then members must recognize the significant challenges that this school will face and must make greater efforts to involve the broader community or nearby business community in the school (e.g., schools located in poor neighborhoods could reap the benefits of localized business leadership and the board could be part of a larger effort to give support to that neighborhood in order to help). In this context, community capital is a tool for helping a board assess its priorities and making its decisions align with them. Or, put another way, it helps a board and its community better understand factors contributing to gaps in achievement across schools to more fully impact policies and outcomes for students.

#### **4.2 Caveats and limitations**

We need to underscore that our information was from publicly available datasets. Our aim was to use our conceptual model of community capital and student composition of schools to model extant data. The student potential variable is one variable that could benefit from refinement given that some schools may have higher identification rates not only because more of such students attend the schools but also because their educational practices may lead to over identification. Therefore, one cannot attribute these special education identification rates solely to student characteristics. Fortunately, the statistical model that we used controls for this problem to the extent that these rates correlated with race, school size, and the community capital of the school. This statistical control does not however, completely resolve the measurement limitations of this variable. Future research should, therefore, employ the presented conceptual models to design a measurement protocol that more effectively assesses the conceptual space defined by our conceptions of community capital and potential.

#### **5. References**

26 Learning Disabilities

The location of schools and funding strategies are interconnected. Typically, local boards have control over the selection of sites for schools. There are important exceptions to this. For example, a publicly-passed bond referendum may set criteria for the school location or even specify the location. Or the local government responsible for collecting local property taxes or other funds used for school construction may set conditions on funding. Or if the state has stepped in to take a larger role in funding school construction, it also may exercise some oversight over the school location (Dewees & Hammer, 2000; McColl & Malhoit, 2004; MGT of America, 2001; Parrish, Matsumoto, & Fowler, 1995). Whoever is setting the conditions, the tendency is to focus on population density and travel patterns. Advocates for strong rural schools have urged a broader focus on site location, including the importance of school buildings to the overall vibrancy of a community (Dewees & Hammer, 2000; McColl & Malhoit, 2004). Similarly, local boards, or these other governing entities can consider the type of community capital that would exist for a particular school given the surrounding community and likely student assignment patterns. School boards sometimes consider various funding strategies in order to meet needs. If community capital becomes a priority, it also might help drive the strategies for funding schools based on the options that most

"Policymakers need to find ways to desegregate schools" (Goldsmith, 2011, p. 531). By better understanding the impact of community capital and the inequities in school composition potentially created by it, local boards can take steps to change. If it must maintain a school location in a neighborhood that is relatively poor, unstable, and high in crime, then members must recognize the significant challenges that this school will face and must make greater efforts to involve the broader community or nearby business community in the school (e.g., schools located in poor neighborhoods could reap the benefits of localized business leadership and the board could be part of a larger effort to give support to that neighborhood in order to help). In this context, community capital is a tool for helping a board assess its priorities and making its decisions align with them. Or, put another way, it helps a board and its community better understand factors contributing to gaps in achievement across schools to more fully impact policies and outcomes for students.

We need to underscore that our information was from publicly available datasets. Our aim was to use our conceptual model of community capital and student composition of schools to model extant data. The student potential variable is one variable that could benefit from refinement given that some schools may have higher identification rates not only because more of such students attend the schools but also because their educational practices may lead to over identification. Therefore, one cannot attribute these special education identification rates solely to student characteristics. Fortunately, the statistical model that we used controls for this problem to the extent that these rates correlated with race, school size, and the community capital of the school. This statistical control does not however, completely resolve the measurement limitations of this variable. Future research should, therefore, employ the presented conceptual models to design a measurement protocol that more effectively assesses the conceptual space defined by our conceptions of community

likely would best allow consideration of community capital.

**4.2 Caveats and limitations** 

capital and potential.


Achievement Gaps: Learning Disabilities, Community Capital, and School Composition 29

Hess, D. E. (2005). Moving beyond celebration: Challenging curriculum orthodoxy in the teaching of "Brown" and its legacies. *Teachers College Record*, *107*, 2004-2067. Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept.

Hong, W.-P., & Youngs, P. (2008). Does high-stakes testing increase cultural capital among

Ilon, L., & Normore, A. H. (2006). Relative cost-effectiveness of school resources in

Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). *Learning disabilities: A report to the* 

Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and disability:

Leithwood, K. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. *Leadership and Policy in Schools*, *9*, 245-291. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. *Educational Administration Quarterly*, *46*, 671-706. Lewis, A. C. (2005). States feel the crunch of No Child Left Behind *Phi Delta Kappan*, *86*, 339-

Lo, Y., Mustian, A. L., Brophy, A., & White, R. B. (2011). Peer-mediated social skill

Lyons, J. E. and Chelsey, J. (2004). Fifty years after Brown: The benefits and tradeoffs for

Mathis, W. J. (2005). Bridging the achievement gap: A bridge too far. *Phi Delta Kappan*, *86*,

McColl, A. & Malhoit, G. (2004). *Rural School Facilities: State Policies that Provide Students with* 

http://www.ruraledu.org/docs/rural\_school\_facilities\_policies.pdf or

Wyoming State Legislature. Retrieved November 30, 2006 from

http://www.ruraledu.org/site/apps/s/link.asp?c=beJMIZOCIrH&b=1000953 MGT of America (2001). Update of School Construction Assistance Programs Survey for

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content\_storage\_01/0000000

place in investigating black student achievement. Educational Researcher, *38*(1),

Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf

Mickelson, R. A. & Bottia, M. (2010). Integrated education and mathematics outcomes: A synthesis of social science research. *North Carolina Law Review, 88*, 993-1090. Morris, J. E., & Monroe, C. R. (2009). Why study the U.S. South? The nexus of race and

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). The National Assessment of Educational

instruction for African American males with or at risk for mild disabilities.

African-American educators and students. *The Journal of Negro Education*. Vol. 73,

*an Environment to Promote Learning.* (Rural Trust Policy Brief Series on Rural Education). Washington, D.C.: Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved

Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n6/

improving achievement. *Journal of Education Finance*, *31*, 238-254.

*U.S. Congress*. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

low-income and racial minority students? *Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16*(6).

Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. *Journal of Emotional and Behavioral* 

*Review of Educational Research, 63*, 449-465.

*Disorders*, *14*, 217-226.

*Exceptionality*, *19*, 191-209.

November 30, 2006 from

b/80/22/cb/23.pdf

No. 3, pp. 298-313.

590-593.

21-36.

340.


Coladarci, T. (2006). School size, student achievement, and the "power rating" of poverty:

Coleman, J. (1969). *Equality of educational opportunity.* Washington, DC: U. S. Government

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. *American Journal of* 

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R.

Cortiella, C. (2009, March 4). Study support improved ways to identify learning disabilities.

Dewees, S. & Hammer, P.C. (2000), *Improving rural school facilities: Design, construction, finance, and public support.* Charleston, WV: Appalacia Educational Laboratory. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). *Minority students in special and gifted education*.

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable?

*Educational Researcher*. (2006). Representation of minority students in special education: Complicating traditional explanations. *Educational Researcher*, *35*(6), Theme Issue.

Ferguson, R. F., & Mehta, J. (2004). An unfinished journey: The legacy of Brown and the

Ford, D. H. (1994). *Humans as self-constructing living systems: A developmental perspective on behavior and personality* (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Hughes, M. E. (1995). Social capital and successful development

Goldsmith, P. (2011). Coleman revisited: School segregation, peers, and frog ponds.

Goldsmith, P. R. (2009). Schools, neighborhoods, or both? Race and ethnic segregation and

Harker, R., & Nash, R. (1996). Academic outcomes and school effectiveness: Type "A" and type "B" effects. *New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies*, *32*, 143-170. Harker, R., & Tymms, P. (2004). The effects of student composition on school outcomes.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). *Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools*. New York: Teachers College Press. Henley, M., Ramsey, R. R., & Algozzine, B. (2009). *Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities* (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

among at-risk youth. *Journal of Marriage and the Family*, *57*, 580-592.

segregation. *Educational Policy Analysis Archives*, *19*(1). Retrieved from

intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). *Learning Disabilities Research &* 

supports-improved-ways-to-identify-learning-disabilities

Evans, R. (2005). Reframing the achievement gap. *Phi Delta Kappan*, *86*, 582-589.

narrowing of the achievement gap. *Phi Delta Kappan*, *85*, 656-669.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/779

*American Educational Research Journal*, 48, 508-535.

educational attainment. *Social Forces*, 87, 1913–1943.

*School Effectiveness and School Improvement*, *15*, 177-199.

1-23.

Printing Office.

*Sociology*, *94*(Suppl. 95), S95-S120.

Education and Welfare.

*Exceptional Children*, *35*, 5-22.

*Practice, 22,* 129–136.

Substantive finding or statistical artifact? *Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14*(28),

(1966). *Equality of educational opportunity*. Washington, DC, US: Department Health,

Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/ld-basics/ld-explained/basic-facts/study-


http://www.ruraledu.org/docs/rural\_school\_facilities\_policies.pdf or

http://www.ruraledu.org/site/apps/s/link.asp?c=beJMIZOCIrH&b=1000953


**3** 

*China* 

**Dyslexia in Hong Kong:** 

 **Challenges and Opportunities** 

Chi-man Tsui, Cecilia W. P. Li-Tsang and Pui Yee Grace Lung *Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University* 

This chapter aims to give a full picture of the development of the services for pupils with dyslexia in Hong Kong from the perspectives of the major stakeholders. The successes and challenges of developing dyslexic services in Hong Kong would inspire various stakeholders and in turn shed light on the formulation of the related policies and services

There are four main sections in this chapter which describe the past, current and future

There has been a growing awareness of the issues of children with dyslexia in Hong Kong

As dyslexia is often termed as "hidden disability" due to the discrepancy between the intellectual abilities and actual reading and writing performance, under-diagnosis and hence deprivation of early identification and early interventions such as appropriate educational and social support from teachers and parents usually exist (Department of

Currently, there is no reliable prevalence rate of dyslexia. As the knowledge on dyslexia of the major stakeholders is limited, the report rate of dyslexia remains low in Hong Kong. However, over 80% of primary and secondary school teachers come into contact with dyslexic students in their classes. Although primary and secondary school teachers have adequate basic knowledge on dyslexia, the majority desired more in-depth training on its nature and management (Hong Kong Christian Service, 2005). This reflects that there has been a lack of training on dyslexia for personnel working with children which may have

A study showed that 62.5% of parents suspected that their children were suffering dyslexia, with only 21.6% being identified by their teachers. About 70% and 25% of students were assessed in Child Assessment Centers and in schools (either by Education Bureau, EDB, or school-based educational psychologists) respectively. The long waiting time for assessment services was also an issue. About one-third of students waited for 3 to 6 months; nearly 40%

made early identification and subsequent interventions of dyslexia less possible.

**1. Introduction** 

development of the services on dyslexia.

**2. Awareness of dyslexia in Hong Kong** 

Social Work and Social Administration, 2005).

elsewhere.

since the 1990s.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425.

